Ex Libris 
 C. K. OGDEN
 
 A THEORY ABOUT SIN.
 
 The Right of Translation and Reproduction is Reserved.
 
 IN RELATION TO 
 
 SOME FACTS OF DAILY LIFE 
 
 LENT LECTURES 
 ON THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS 
 
 BY 
 
 REV. ORBY SHIPLEY, M.A. 
 
 
 
 
 MACMILLAN AND CO. 
 
 1875
 
 SOLD BY OuOZ 
 
 OF JHJ- -, . .ITTEE
 
 TO SOME 
 
 AMONGST THE FAITHFUL, 
 
 BOTH PRIESTS AND PEOPLE, 
 
 OF 
 
 s. MARY MAGDALENE'S, PADDINGTON, 
 
 s. ALBAN'S, HOLBORN, 
 CHRIST'S CHURCH, CLAPHAM, 
 
 S. PAUL'S, BRIGHTON, 
 
 WHO HEARD THESE LECTURES 
 
 AND ASKED TO READ THEM, 
 
 THEY ARE DEDICATED 
 
 A. M. D. G. 
 
 "> r.r* 
 
 ... v W .i 
 
 f^t
 
 " Every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his 
 own lust, and enticed, T/ien, when lust hath conceived, it 
 bringeth forth sin" S. JAMES i. 14, 15. 
 
 "All the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: 
 Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." GALATIANS 
 V. 14.
 
 " A THEORY about Sin " owes its completion to two 
 causes. 
 
 It had long been entertained by the writer, that the 
 various developments of sin might all be referred for their 
 existence to different forms of selfishness. Many efforts were 
 made by him to reduce to a system the thoughts which either 
 suggested or arose from this conception. These efforts, 
 however, proved unsatisfactory when sufficiently elaborated 
 to become capable of systematic arrangement. Some element 
 in the mental problem was wanting. 
 
 A winter spent in Florence in 1871-72 gave further op- 
 portunity for considering the subject of sin in relation to 
 self. This consideration was assisted by the timely gift 
 from the publisher of a book then lately issued from the 
 press entitled, " A Shadow of Dante." l This book supplied 
 a clue simple enough in principle and self-evident when 
 stated to the theory sought after, in order to systematise 
 
 1 "A Shadow of Dante : Being an Essay towards studying Himself, his 
 World, and his Pilgrimage." By Maria Francesca Rossetti. Rivingtons. 
 3rd Ed. 1874.
 
 viii Preface. 
 
 previous thought. It was afforded by the accomplished 
 author's commentary on the poet's " Pilgrimage through 
 Purgatory." Her annotations on the Vision recalled the 
 truth, till then carelessly overlooked in this connection, that 
 though human selfishness may be the immediate cause of 
 human sin, yet that selfishness itself springs from an earlier 
 source. " In every creature," writes the author of the 
 "Shadow," "the fundamental principle of action is Love." 
 This, therefore, may be taken to be the wanting element oi 
 the problem in which self and sin were the terms earlier 
 ascertained. Love is the origin of selfishness ; and self is 
 the source of sin. On these two axioms of the spiritual life 
 have been founded " a theory about sin " which is illustrated 
 in the following lectures. 
 
 It is needless to indicate the steps that led from these 
 premises to the conclusions which form the subject matter 
 of the lectures. It had been needless even to refer to the 
 passage which suggested their line of thought, were it not 
 that it is a pleasure to avow the amount of brain-help one 
 has received from another, as well as a duty to prevent that 
 other from being made responsible for results for which one- 
 self only is answerable. To acknowledge my indebtedness 
 to the talented student of Dante, who since the publication 
 of her valuable "Essay towards studying himself and his 
 pilgrimage " may be claimed as a fellow-worker in the re- 
 ligious life, is a gratification. But the poet's words, as 
 explained by one of his latest commentators, must not be 
 held accountable for the use which is made of them as here- 
 after developed. Their position in the " theory about sin "
 
 Preface. ix 
 
 practically treated in the present volume may be seen by 
 referring to the "Analysis of the seven deadly sins," and 
 the " Summary of the relations between love and self and 
 sin," which follow the preface. 
 
 "A Theory about Sin" lays claim to no originality in the 
 conception and treatment of either of the two elementary 
 truths of which it is composed. The task which I proposed 
 to fulfil was, to combine these two elements in a single theory, 
 and to illustrate it from the sins and temptations of every- 
 day life. It is to the latter part of the attempt that I in- 
 vite criticism how we, men and women of the present day, 
 may be forewarned by the examples given or cases suggested 
 to escape the attacks of the sevenfold enemy of our soul. 
 The theory itself is almost beyond criticism. When once 
 stated, its chief value consists in the foundation laid for 
 further practical considerations. These I have endeavoured 
 to make as plain as I had power to make them, and as full 
 as was consistent with the time or space placed at my dis- 
 posal. Here, not less than in discussing the theory, I pre- 
 tend to no originality. Where it has been possible, I have 
 freely availed myself of the labours of earlier writers, masters 
 of the spiritual life : and the main object of the lectures is 
 to adapt their wisdom to the common-place events of our 
 own every-day existence. 
 
 Since the lectures were first delivered, I have become con- 
 scious that one factor of the mental product in regard to 
 self has been discussed by writers of the present day. Of 
 course, one factor also in regard to love has been con-
 
 x Preface. 
 
 sidered in former times. But I have not yet discovered 
 both the factors treate 1 together as a whole. It may prove 
 to be of interest, and will be of value, to compare the 
 line of thought in the following pages with the words of 
 two authors of widely different sympathies, which touch 
 upon each division of the theory respectively. The relation 
 of self to sin may be read in the eloquent and true words 
 of a late Bampton Lecturer. The relation between love 
 and self is stated by a mystic writer of the fifteenth 
 century. 
 
 I. In reply to the question, What is it which makes the ex- 
 ercise of volition good or evil morally ? Mr. I. Gregory Smith 
 answers thus : " The whole universe, real or phenomenal, if 
 considered from the standpoint at which we have arrived, of 
 each man's personality, resolves itself for him into self and 
 non-self ; and the faculties, mental and moral, already spoken 
 of are, through the instrumentality of sense, the media of 
 attraction or repulsion between the world without and the 
 smaller world of each individual existence. Here, then, we 
 have a principle, wide as the range of our conceptions, simple 
 as all first principles are, determining the moral character of 
 all that we do, say, or feel. When the individual, using his 
 faculties as a prehensile instrument, draws the outer world 
 to himself, there in one shape or another, in a greater or 
 less degree, disguise it, deny it as we may there is selfish- 
 ness. When the individual, by the same media of com- 
 munication, lets himself be transported out of himself, and 
 drawn to the world without, there is the opposite of selfish-
 
 Preface. xi 
 
 ness, call it what you please, self-devotion, self-renunciation, 
 unselfish love, charity. . . . Things and persons. In these 
 words there is a practical touchstone for us and our motives. 
 The ideally vicious man recognises no personality but his 
 own. Outside himself all is impersonal. Others exist only 
 as things for his pleasure or convenience. On the other hand, 
 the unselfish see everywhere in the world around them the 
 claims, not to be slighted, of beings like themselves. Self 
 seems as nothing in presence of all these manifold demands 
 on their sympathy. Far from regarding their fellows as im- 
 material chattels, the world to them teems with the sacred- 
 ness of life. . . . They feel" (he adds, quoting Mr. Mill's 
 " Address at S. Andrews "), " ' the miserable smallness of self, 
 the poorness and insignificance of human life, if it is all to be 
 spent in making things comfortable for ourselves and our 
 kin, in raising ourselves and them one step higher on the 
 social ladder.' " 
 
 This is no mere theory, continues Mr. I. Gregory Smith : 
 " Take any statute book, from the Sinaitic Decalogue to the 
 latest codification of modern legislators. The things forbidden 
 murder, theft, adultery, and their cognates spring from 
 self disregarding the rights of other personalities, and into 
 this are resoluble. Pass from overt acts to the virtues and 
 vices of moralists cruelty, lust, deceit ; what are these but 
 self caring only for self, and closing its eyes to the existence 
 of others as persons. Or take those two widely-divergent, 
 mutually-abhorrent affections, which we ... class together 
 under the homonym of love (love) desecrating the highest 
 attribute of humanity, the love which is indeed hatred . . .
 
 xii Preface. 
 
 and the self-immolating love . . . which ' holds its life but as 
 a pawn ' for others . . . Are we not justified in saying, that 
 selfishness and unselfishness, the bane and the antidote, grow 
 side by side at the very root of all within us which we term 
 good and evil ? " 
 
 But, it must be kept in mind, says the lecturer in noble 
 words which conclude this part of his subject, " this self- 
 abnegation for the sake of others is no suicidal frenzy, no self- 
 annihilation, no absorption of self into the soul of the universe. 
 For what in that case would be left for love to live for, to 
 energise upon ? Obviously, unless the result is to be an utter 
 vacuity of inanition, each one is bound to observe the law of 
 self-preservation for this very reason, that he may live for 
 others ; is bound to look to his own interests, that he may 
 live for others more effectively. Nor is this limitation incom- 
 patible with the purest disinterestedness. The motive makes 
 all the difference. If a man saves, that he may have to give 
 to those who need ; or economises health and strength, that 
 he may work longer for others ; or studies self-culture, that he 
 may better play his part in life's drama ... he will do more 
 good to others in the end, than by reckless almsgiving, or by 
 defiance of hygienic laws, or by shuffling through his part on 
 life's stage, because it is his own. . . . Moralists have spoken 
 of inordinacy as that which vitiates affections innocent other- 
 wise, or even laudable. But it is not the amount of energy 
 bestowed which makes them wrong, it is the motive which 
 lurks at their core. The highest ideal which we can imagine 
 of goodness and greatness is surely this, entire self-devotion 
 for the good of others as the motive power, with wise regard
 
 Preface. xiii 
 
 to every consideration which can in any way be made to 
 subserve this end." l 
 
 II. The will is the power, says his biographer, " which 
 Goch regards as chiefly determining the bent of man's spiritual 
 life, whether towards Divine things, or to evil, which is their 
 contrary. . . . The will, however, is based upon another power, 
 which influences its motions. It has its root in the affections, 
 and the heart. Love is the primal and ultimate power in man, 
 and if the tendency of his being outwardly is determined by 
 the will, so, inwardly, in its centre, the will receives in turn its 
 bent and force from love. This idea is expressed by Goch in 
 many ways, and in connection with a great variety of subjects. 
 What wings are to a bird, he says in his Dialogues, ' love is 
 to us. They seem to add to the weight of the body : in 
 reality, however, they elevate it into the air. In like manner 
 the yoke of love, when imposed upon our sensuous nature, 
 not only does not weigh it down, but lifts the spirit with the 
 senses to heavenly things. . . . Take from them their wings, 
 and you take from birds the power of flying. Even so, 
 separate love from the will, and the will is made incapable of 
 every act that transcends nature. . . . Love and the will are 
 no doubt said to be the two factors which together constitute 
 the impelling cause to a mode of action above nature. Love, 
 however, is by far the greater of the two, partly because it 
 inclines the will to act above nature, and partly because, with- 
 
 1 " Bampton Lectures : Characteristics of Christian Morality." By 
 the Rev. I. Gregory Smith. Parker. 1873. (II. Vice is selfishness : Virtue 
 is unselfishness, pp. 22-26. )
 
 xiv Preface. 
 
 out love, the will is incompetent . . . [but] the will, when 
 imbued with love, co-operates with it as a free cause, and in 
 place of being constrained by it, is rather exalted to a higher 
 degree of liberty and power. ... As the Gospel law is the 
 law of love, and the law of love is the law of liberty, it follows 
 that whosoever binds himself to the observance of the Gospel, 
 devotes himself to the exercise of Divine love. . . . This 
 exercise of Divine love does not diminish the freedom of the 
 human will, but perfects it ; because whatsoever is done from 
 love is most of all considered free." l 
 
 " A Theory about Sin " is concerned with only a small range 
 in a wide field of theological inquiry. Into the interesting 
 and suggestive questions of the nature, characteristics, and 
 results of sin it has not entered. What is sin ? Why is sin 
 sinful ? When do we commit sin ? Whence have we the 
 power to sin ? Against whom do we sin ? How is sin 
 punished ? How is sin forgiven ? and the foundation of all, 
 Is sin an objective reality, or is it a vague, subjective con- 
 sciousness of a past fact ? these questions have not been 
 entertained in the present volume. They have been assumed 
 in the sense in which I understand the Church to have 
 answered them. They would make suitable topics for inquiry 
 in connection with the remedies for the suppression and cure 
 
 1 " Life of John [Pupper] of Goch," by C. Ullmann. Clark's Foreign 
 Theological Library, N. S. Vol. vi. Goch was born in the little town in 
 the Duchy of Cleves from which he takes his title, about the beginning of 
 the fifteenth century, and was probably head of one of the houses of the 
 Brethren of the Common Lot He died in 1475
 
 Preface. xv 
 
 of the seven deadly sins; but they are too large for dis- 
 cussion in this book. 
 
 It appears only necessary to say that in the following 
 lectures certain first principles with reference to sin are ac- 
 cepted as axiomatic in the spiritual life of Catholics : that 
 sin is an objective reality in the soul, apart from all sub- 
 jective sensation in regard to it, apart from all we feel about 
 it, or think about it, or care about it : that sin once com- 
 mitted remains in the soul, until it is definitely and authori- 
 tatively removed, whether or not it be remembered, whether 
 or not it be repented : that sin in the soul is not removed 
 simply because we are sorry for it, or because we have for- 
 gotten it, willingly or otherwise, or because we have ceased to 
 commit it, or because since its commission we have tried to 
 undo it or have done good works either of reparation or of 
 amendment : that the covenanted method of forgiveness in 
 the Christian Church, for post-baptismal, deadly sin is 
 through the Sacrament of Penance a method to which, 
 of course, GOD'S infinite mercy is not confined, but to which 
 pardon is absolutely pledged, and through which alone man 
 can be positively assured that his sin is absolved. 
 
 ORBY SHIPLEY. 
 
 20, DENMARK TERRACE, BRIGHTON. 
 Michaelmas, A.D. 1874.
 
 of tftt 
 
 i. 
 
 ii. 
 
 The 
 Defaulter 
 
 in 
 Love 
 
 The 
 
 Exceed er 
 III. in 
 Love 
 
 Loves evil or ill 
 to those whom 
 he should love as 
 himself, that is 
 his Neighbour: 
 
 Loves less than 
 j he might love the 
 Highest Good, 
 that is GOD : 
 
 Loves more than 
 he ought to love 
 some Lower 
 Good, that is 
 created things : 
 
 VI. 
 
 I. SINS OF 
 
 i. If, for his own exaltation," 
 he desires another's de- 
 pression 
 
 ii. If, esteeming his own 
 power to be lessened, he 
 desires another's destitu- 
 tion 
 
 iii. If, because of evil done 
 to himself, he desires ano- 
 ther's injury 
 
 II. SIN OF 
 
 iv. And striving after it all) 
 too slackly ( 
 
 III. SINS OF 
 
 ' v. If this be money or mo- 
 ney's worth 
 
 If this be food or drink 
 
 vn. If this be sensual grati- 
 fication or enjoyment
 
 ISeatrlg 
 
 LOVE DISTORTED. 
 
 
 'a. Pride ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' Deadly 
 
 A 
 
 
 b. Envy ; 
 
 
 Sins 
 
 man 
 
 
 
 
 which 
 
 sins 
 
 1 
 
 
 ( 
 
 maybe 
 
 by 
 
 
 
 
 defined 
 
 
 c. Anger ; 
 
 
 as 
 
 
 
 
 An inordinate belief in, desire 
 of, and love for self- excellence, 
 for the love only of self. 
 An inordinate and selfish un- 
 easiness of mind at another's 
 good, and action which ensues 
 from such want of peace. 
 An inordinate and selfish love 
 of and desire for revenge. 
 
 LOVE DEFICIENT. 
 
 A 
 
 man 
 sins 
 by 
 
 ( Deadly "\ /% The sin of omission, which 
 
 Sin which selfishly feels inordinate indis- 
 
 d. Sloth ; I may be K position of soul towards the 
 
 denned love of GOD, and all that flows 
 
 i, as ) { from it. 
 
 LOVE EXCESSIVE. 
 
 
 ' e. Avarice ; ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 Deadly j 
 
 A ] 
 
 / Gluttony ; 
 
 
 Sins 
 
 man ( 
 
 
 
 which ( 
 
 sins ( ( 
 
 
 ; < 
 
 may be ( 
 
 by J 
 
 
 
 defined 
 
 
 g. Lust ; 
 
 
 as 
 
 V* -/ 
 
 '5, An inordinate and selfish love 
 of money which we actually 
 possess, or of which we are not 
 actually in possession. 
 
 6. An inordinate and selfish de- 
 sire for the sensual pleasure 
 which arises from eating and 
 drinking. 
 
 7. An inordinate love for and de- 
 sire of that form of personal 
 gratification which is termed 
 sensuality/
 
 of fte relations! 
 fcettoeen Hobe anft ^rtf anti 
 
 I. LOVE is THE MOTIVE PRINCIPLE OF ALL HUMAN ACTION. 
 
 Love is divisible into 
 
 I. Perfect or divine love, which includes the 
 
 1. Love of GOD, as GOD; 
 
 2. Love of GOD'S image, for GOD'S sake ; 
 
 3. Love of created things, in relation to GOD. 
 II. Imperfect or human love, which centres in the 
 
 4. Love of self. 
 
 II. SELF is THE SOURCE AND ORIGIN OF ALL HUMAN SIN. 
 
 Love of self, or imperfect love, may take three forms : 
 I. Of loving evil or ill, in love distorted ; 
 II. Of loving too little, in love deficient ; 
 III. Of loving over-much, in love excessive. 
 
 III. DEADLY SIN is THE DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN 
 SELFISHNESS. 
 
 Human selfishness may be developed into 
 
 I. Love distorted, which is evidenced by i. Pride ; 
 
 2. Envy ; 3. Anger : 
 
 II. Love deficient, which is evidenced by 4. Sloth : 
 III. Love excessive, which is evidenced by 5. Avarice ; 
 
 6. Gluttony; 7. Lust. 
 
 IV. DIVINE LOVE is THE ANTIDOTE TO HUMAN SELFISHNESS. 
 
 Human selfishness may be conquered, in the form 
 
 I. Of Love distorted, by i. Humility; 2. Brotherly 
 
 Love ; 3. Meekness : 
 II. Of Love deficient, by 4. Charity : 
 III. Of Love excessive, by 5. Liberality; 6. Temperance; 
 
 7. Purity.
 
 ana tfwr 
 
 PART I. SINS OF LOVE DISTORTED. 
 
 LECTURE ONE. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 iOME PRIMARY RELATIONS BETWEEN LOVE AND SELF 
 ND SIN 
 
 LECTURE TWO. 
 OF THE DEADLY SIN OF PRIDE .......... 30 
 
 LECTURE THREE. 
 OF THE DEADLY SIN OF ENVY ........... 6l 
 
 1 
 
 LECTURE FOUR. 
 OF THE DEADLY SIN OF ANGER .... .H M . . 94 
 
 PART II. THE SIN OF LOVE DEFECTIVE. 
 
 LECTURE FIVE. 
 
 FURTHER PRIMARY RELATIONS BETWEEN LOVE AND SELF 
 
 AND SIN ................. 127
 
 xx Contents. 
 
 LECTURE SIX. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 OF THE DEADLY SIN OF SLOTH 154 
 
 PART III. SINS OF LOVE EXCESSIVE. 
 
 LECTURE SEVEN. 
 
 SOME SECONDARY QUESTIONS IN THE RELATIONS BETWEEN 
 
 LOVE AND 'SELF AND SIN 187 
 
 LECTURE EIGHT. 
 OF THE DEADLY SIN OF AVARICE 215 
 
 LECTURE NINE. 
 OF THE DEADLY SIN OF GLUTTONY 249 
 
 LECTURE TEN. 
 OF THE DEADLY SIN OF LUST 280 
 
 LECTURE ELEVEN. 
 
 FINAL QUESTIONS IN THE RELATIONS BETWEEN LOVE AND 
 
 SELF AND SIN 315 
 
 ERRATUM. 
 
 Page 36, line 6 : for " feelings " read " failings."
 
 LECTURES ON THE DEADLY SINS. 
 
 PART I. 
 SINS OF LOVE DISTORTED.
 
 PART I. 
 SINS OF LOVE DISTORTED. 
 
 LECTURE ONE. 
 
 SOME PRIMARY RELATIONS BETWEEN LOVE AND SELF' 
 
 AND SIN. 
 
 LECTURE? TWO, THREE, AND FOUR. 
 OF THE DEADLY SINS OF PRIDE, ENVY, AND ANGER.
 
 about 
 
 PART I. 
 
 SINS OF LOVE DISTORTED 
 
 LECTURE ONE. 
 
 SOME PRIMARY RELATIONS BETWEEN LOVE AND SELF 
 AND SIN: 
 
 I. LOVE THE PRINCIPLE OF HUMAN ACTION ; II. SELF THE 
 SOURCE OF HUMAN SIN. 
 
 " GOD is Love : and he that dwelleth in love dzvelleth in 
 GOD, and GOD in fam." I S. JOHN iv. 16. 
 
 I. 
 
 T OVE is the principle of all human action love 
 * ' perfect or wanting in perfection. Whether it be the 
 love of GOD, or the love of man, or the love of created 
 things, or the love of self love is the motive principle 
 of all human action. The love of GOD, as GOD ; the 
 love of GOD'S image, for His sake ; the love of His 
 creation, in regard to GOD these are three several and 
 distinct efforts of love. They are developments of love 
 perfect and divine. The last of this fourfold and 
 
 B 2
 
 4 A Theory about Sin. [i. 
 
 exhaustive division of the mainspring of active life, 
 is the love of self. The love of self for one's own 
 self chiefly, and the love of the creature for the crea- 
 ture's sake alone, or in relation only to self this is 
 the personation of love imperfect and human. Thus, 
 selfishness and love divine are antagonistic forces which 
 divide between them the cause of human action, are op- 
 posite poles towards which human motives point. 
 
 But, perfect love, we are told by the Apostle, is the 
 fulfilling of the law ; and the transgression of the law, 
 the result of imperfect love, is sin. If then self-sacrifice 
 may be considered to be the foundation of holiness of 
 life, selfishness, or the love of self, so far as the will of 
 man is concerned, may be treated as the source and 
 origin of sin. These, my Brethren, are truths which I 
 desire to enforce upon you at the outset of our lectures 
 on the relations between love and self and sin. 
 
 But, there are other truths to which I would also be- 
 speak your attention. They are almost a consequence 
 of the former. Since love is the motive principle of 
 human action, and self is the origin and source of human 
 ^in, the capital sins, which we are about to consider, are 
 developments only of selfishness, are the results of im- 
 perfect love. Again, as self is the poison which destroys 
 the virtue of human action, so, in all questions of motive, 
 the antidote which counteracts the poison, is love. And
 
 i.] Some Primary Relations. 5 
 
 imperfect love, or the love of self, may take at least 
 three forms. It may take the form of loving ill or evil, 
 in love distorted. It may take the form of loving too 
 little, in love defective. It may take the form of loving 
 over much, in love excessive. In each of these forms 
 selfishness, or imperfect love, can only be counteracted 
 by love which is abandonment of self, by love which 
 is self-sacrifice. And to such forms in action are given 
 the name of the capital or root, of mortal or deadly 
 sins. Perfect love, on the other hand, in union with 
 our Divine Head, is the gift or grace, by which, at its 
 source, the guilty principle of sin may be cleansed ; 
 by which, in its result, the guilty issue of sin may be 
 atoned ; by which, at any intermediate stage, the guilty 
 development of sin may be prevented. For self-love 
 can only be subdued by self-abnegation ; imperfect and 
 human love can only be cancelled by love which is 
 divine and perfect. In other words, selfishness, in the 
 heart of a Catholic aiming at holiness of life, must be 
 kept in check by self-forgetfulness ; the love of the 
 creature must give place to the love of GOD. 
 
 These mutually dependent truths 
 L That love is the motive principle of all human 
 
 action : 
 II. That self is the source and origin of all human 
 
 sin :
 
 A Theory about Sin. [i. 
 
 III. That the seven deadly sins are the development 
 of selfishness, and the result of imperfect love : and 
 
 IV. That love perfect and divine is the antidote to 
 the poison of self-love : 
 
 these truths, in the relation between love and self and 
 sin, are, to a Christian man, elementary. They are 
 elementary to the extent of being often forgotten or 
 overlooked, of being often denied or ignored. They 
 are forgotten, in learning our duty towards GOD. They 
 are overlooked, in ordering our dealings with man. 
 They are denied, in diminishing our dependence upon 
 outward things. They are ignored, in opposing the 
 supremacy of our inner self. Yet, they tend to explain 
 many difficulties when cause and effect become con- 
 fused ; between the motive instigating, the agent acting, 
 the being influenced, and the result attained, in the 
 battle of Christian life. Their existence, however, will 
 be assumed, even if not declared, in all that I am able, 
 GOD helping me, to place before you on the subject 
 of the deadly sins. We will shortly consider them one 
 by one : and will turn at once to the examination of 
 the first of these four propositions, namely 
 
 That love is the motive principle of all human 
 action.
 
 i.] Some Primary Relations. 
 
 II. 
 
 If we examine the various results of human action, 
 and trace the expression of it backward to its earliest 
 physical cause, we shall perceive, that the efforts of man 
 in the domain of action may be assigned to a single- 
 source. The simplest of all bodily acts the raising of 
 one's arm and letting it fall is productive only of 
 motion. The most complicated of all mechanical in- 
 ventions is the consequence only of the one result 
 which man can accomplish, the production of force. 
 Of course, the mental faculty which enables a human 
 being, for any given purpose, to will the lifting of his 
 hand, or to invent and use the microscope, is the same 
 in kind, though different in degree, in both cases. We 
 are equally near to and equally far from the discovery 
 in either case, of the connection between mind and 
 matter, and the point of contact between both. But 
 this, at least, is certain, that motion or force is the one 
 and only act approaching that of creation, and affecting 
 the material world, of which man is capable. And the 
 same law is observable in every department of human 
 action, even to the subtle results of chemical analysis, 
 or combination, or experiment. Man's power is confined 
 to the union or separation of matter with mutual affinity 
 or repulsion, to its extension or change of form, and
 
 A Theory about Sin. [i. 
 
 to its division and multiplication of parts in other 
 words, to the creation of force or motion. 
 
 For instance : The steam-engine which carries us over 
 the land, and across the sea, or which obeys the will 
 of man above the ground or under our feet, is only the 
 result, though doubtless a complicated result, of a single 
 cause, motion or force, created and applied by human 
 agency. Examine its construction. Look at its frame- 
 work, its boiler, its shafts and cylinders, its cranks and 
 pipes and pistons. Examine the details. Look at a 
 wheel, at the nave, the spokes, the tire ; or at the 
 screw, the cap, the axle. Take each part separately. 
 Call to mind its history, if it be wood, from seed to saw 
 mill, and thence to the carpenter's bench ; if it be metal, 
 from mine to furnace, and thence to the anvil of the 
 smith. Consider the endless pairs of hands which the 
 various parts passed through, the almost endless trades 
 by which they were manipulated, each one of which sup- 
 plied fresh force or motion to that which already had 
 been influenced by given force or motion. Suppose the 
 various parts to be placed in combination, and one of 
 the huge locomotive, or stationary engines with which 
 we are familiar to be the result. Even then, motion and 
 force are still needed to carry the coal and pump the 
 water ; and a handle must .be turned hither and thither 
 to produce further force and further motion. In every
 
 I.] Some Primary Relations. 9 
 
 part, then, of the engine and in all the parts combined, 
 from the raw material to the polished object, one only 
 cause in almost countless combinations has been at 
 work upon man's side the creation of force or motion. 
 
 Now, nature and grace, in the wide use of both terms, 
 being only two sides of the result of GOD'S will, in two 
 spheres of Divine action, are marked by common peculi- 
 arities and features, the issue of a common parentage. 
 Though cognisable by different faculties, governed by 
 different laws, and appealing to different sanctions of 
 authority, they are so far in harmony, that the common 
 or the anomalous in the one may generally be paralleled 
 by uniformity or disorder in the other. The present 
 seems a fair example of the similitude between the natural 
 and supernatural. The single material cause of action 
 on one side may be compared to the single motive 
 principle of action on the other. Motion or force in the 
 order of nature is comparable in the domain of grace 
 to love. As man can produce force or motion only, 
 though under countless combinations, in the physical 
 world ; so in the world of morals, and with endless 
 variety of circumstance, man is moved and human force 
 is generated, either naturally or supernaturally, only by 
 the principle of love. This fact is evident by an appeal 
 to everyday life. We will begin with the lowest 
 stratum of human action, and ascend to the highest ;
 
 io A Theory about Sin. [i. 
 
 and the same law of motive principle will meet with 
 us in each succeeding case. 
 
 For instance : Take the commonest and strongest at 
 once of all natural human sentiments, and determine 
 in what consists its power. - Why do we seek for bread 
 to eat, or water to drink, or covering to shelter us ? 
 Why do we collect into villages, cities, and states ? 
 Why do we consult our doctor, our lawyer, our priest ? 
 Why do we organise government, enact laws, pay the 
 police, keep up an army and navy ? Why do we culti- 
 vate civilization and apply science to common things ? 
 Why do we hold preservation to be the first law of the 
 natural man ? It is love a purely natural instinct 
 doubtless in this case, but still love the love of self. 
 
 Again : Take created things apart so immediately 
 from self on the one hand, and from human beings on 
 the other. Why does a man rise early, and late take 
 rest, and eat the bread of carefulness, in the work-room, 
 or the shop, or the counting-house, or the office, or the 
 exchange, in his search after a livelihood ? It is love 
 no doubt under a form of the capital sin of cove- 
 tousness, but still love the love of money and of 
 money's worth. Why does a man buy books he never 
 reads, or pictures he seldom looks at ? why does he 
 collect curiosities which he puts into a cabinet, or 
 valuables which he locks away in a place of safety ?
 
 i.J Some Primary Relations. 1 1 
 
 It is the love of possession, that excess of love which 
 we know, again, as a form of the capital sin of cove- 
 tousness. Why does a man sacrifice everything of 
 value in life, and jeopardize his eternal welfare, to the 
 infatuation of revenge, or of. intemperance, or of im- 
 purity ? Why does he shatter his health, endanger his 
 business, disgrace his family, beggar his children, and 
 lose his friends ? It is love, again ; love indeed, under 
 various forms of imperfection, the love of lawless passion 
 and of uncontrolled excess, but still, love. 
 
 Again : Why does a man use every effort to " get 
 on in the world," as it is called, to float upward to the 
 surface of society, to rise to the top of the school, to 
 the head of a firm, to the direction of a parish, to the 
 government of a state ? Why does he seek to become 
 agreeable to his fellows, of mark among his seniors, of 
 authority to his juniors, of consequence amongst all ? 
 Why does he care to have his opinion quoted, his taste 
 admired, his advice sought, his judgment accepted ? It 
 is love the love of influence, of position, of patronage, 
 or of power, forms of that distortion of love which we 
 
 at 
 
 call the capital sin of pride: Or, why does a man fail 
 "to get on in life," fail to secure friends, fail to take 
 advantage of opportunities, fail to make his fortune, 
 fail in the end even to obtain that which he lost all in 
 attempting to gain, self-satisfaction ? It is the love of
 
 12 A Theory about Sin. [i. 
 
 present enjoyment beyond the love of future benefit, 
 that form of deficiency in divine love which we know as 
 the capital sin of sloth yet still love. 
 
 Again : Ascend higher in the scale of creation. Leave 
 the case of the mere natural instinct of self-preservation ; 
 leave the case of love imperfect as it appears under the 
 influence of the capital sins : and take the case of man 
 made in GOD'S image, after His likeness. Why does one 
 human being devote himself to another human being, 
 so that the most difficult problem of life is solved, and 
 two independent, if not antagonistic, wills become one ? 
 Why does he toil, or save, or deny himself for some 
 other ? Why does he bear with some other, watch for 
 some other, pray for some other, defend some other, 
 wait for, or sacrifice nearly everything to, some other? 
 Again, it is love ; love in yet a higher, holier, and purer 
 sphere of existence. It is the love of husband or wife : 
 it is the love of parent or child : it is the love of brother 
 or of friend. 
 
 Once more and yet higher : Why does a man exer- 
 cise the most hateful of all things to human nature, 
 
 V- 
 
 self-restraint, self-contradiction, self-sacrifice ? Why does 
 he become humble in the midst of a proud world, or 
 charitable under temptation to envy, or meek when 
 provoked to anger ? Why does he preserve chastity in 
 contact with impure society, become abstemious under
 
 i.] Some Primary Relations. 13 
 
 provocation to intemperance, act generously when 
 tempted to parsimony ? Why does he prefer future 
 gain and present loss, future pleasure and present 
 pain, future joy and present sadness, future ease and 
 present labour, in virtue of spiritualised diligence, and 
 in opposition to the sin of sloth ? Why does he spend 
 hours in prayer at dawn, before others are awake ; at 
 mid-day, when others repose ; at night, after others are 
 asleep ? Why does he undertake work or labour for 
 GOD which is naturally uncongenial, naturally distasteful, 
 naturally wearisome ? Why does he embrace the re- 
 ligious life, at the cost of much that man holds dear ; 
 or enter the order of the priesthood, with its ceaseless 
 round of labour for souls ; or become a missionary in 
 the certainty of death, by disease or martyrdom ; or 
 give up all for the sake of ONE Who gave up all for 
 him ? Once more, it is love. It is the highest, the 
 holiest, the loftiest, the deepest, the most complete form 
 of love. It is the chiefest motive principle of all human 
 action. It is the love of GOD. 
 
 Thus have we seen, that in every department of 
 man's complicated life, under one development or 
 another, there exists but a single motive principle of 
 all human action. This law holds good from the most 
 selfish expression of man's will to the most self-sacri- 
 ficing ; from the love of self only to the love of GOD
 
 14 A Theory about Sin. [i. 
 
 chiefly. It is evident from the cases which we have 
 shortly considered. For though the divisions were not 
 definitely marked, yet the instances above given sys- 
 tematically fall under the fourfold form of the motive 
 principle described at the outset, (i) the love of GOD, 
 (2) the love of man, (3) the love of created things, and 
 (4) the love of self. Hence, it may be assumed, whether 
 it be perfect and divine, or whether it be imperfect and 
 human ; whether it be for GOD Himself, or for the sake 
 of GOD'S image, or in regard to created thjngs, or. in 
 relation to self the one motive principle of action in 
 man is love. 
 
 III. 
 
 Pride, Envy, Anger, Sloth, Covetousness, Glutton}-, 
 Lust such is the ghastly catalogue of sins which we 
 have to consider, and to consider in this order, in the 
 following lectures. These are the sins to which we 
 have to apply the first of the truths already enunciated, 
 that love is the principle of human' action. These arc 
 the sins which, coming from within, as our Blessed 
 LORD says, out of the heart of man, are suggestive of 
 the second truth, that self lies at the foundation of 
 human sin. These are the sins which afford evidence 
 to the third truth, that the deadly sins are the outcome 
 of love imperfect, and the development of selfishness.
 
 I.] Some Primary Relations. 15 
 
 These are the sins by which we have to test our belief 
 in the last of the truths above named, that divine 
 love is the antidote of the poison of man's selfishness. 
 And to the second of these propositions we will now 
 turn. 
 
 The second of the four fundamental propositions, in 
 the relation between love and self and sin, is this 
 Selfishness in man is the source and origin of man's 
 deadly sin. 
 
 Human selfishness is the parent of human sin. Con- 
 sider this position, first of all, in general terms, and it 
 will, I think, commend itself to your judgment. Take, 
 for instance, a single class of sins, sins either of omission 
 or commission towards our neighbour in the simplest 
 form. Suppose we witness or hear of any act of un- 
 kindness to another in word or deed ; any act which 
 it might be wrong to call positively sinful, but which 
 if indulged would become such. Or suppose, we fail to 
 witness or fail to hear of some act of kindness towards 
 another which might reasonably have been expected, 
 and ought to have been done. What is our mental judg- 
 ment, if not our spoken verdict, upon the act or word, 
 and the sayer or doer of it, in the one case ; or upon 
 the sin of omission and the sinner, in the other ? Do we 
 not think, do we not say What selfishness is displayed ! 
 How selfish is the man !
 
 1 6 A Theory about Sin. . [i. 
 
 Again : Suppose we become conscious of a false 
 report of some friend, or of one which is not false but 
 only too true ; of an ill-natured speech which may be 
 
 either true or false ; or even of an opportunity lost of 
 i 
 saying a kind word for a friend, of doing justice to an 
 
 enemy, of defending an absent person, of suggesting a 
 good motive for a deed of which we cannot approve. 
 Suppose we are told of an unfriendly action ; or of 
 an action, not positively unkind ; or of an action 
 indeed, done with a charitable intent, yet done in a 
 harsh, unloving, inconsiderate manner, with no thought 
 for the feelings of others : or of an action omitted which 
 clearly ought to. have been performed. Suppose, again 
 in both these cases, the statement to be made, and the 
 deed to be done, wantonly or hastily ; or the kind word 
 and act to have been heedlessly omitted, with no evil 
 design indeed, but equally without good purpose. And 
 suppose, further, that injury comes to the victim of the 
 speech, or annoyance to the object of the deed, or loss 
 ensues to our neighbour from omission ; perhaps at the 
 hands, or by the tongue, or from the negligence of some 
 otherwise religiously minded person, who possesses no 
 control over the unruly member, or has failed to master 
 an undisciplined will. Suppose any of these cases to 
 come before us, my Brethren, as domestic judges of our 
 neighbour's conduct; and what do we say of such a
 
 I.] Some Primary Relations. 1 7 
 
 word, what do we say of such a deed ? How do we 
 stigmatise such neglect, but that the deed or its omission 
 is an act of selfishness ; that the man who spoke or 
 who failed to speak is a selfish man ! 
 
 Of course, if the act done, or the word spoken, if the 
 act left undone, or the word left unspoken, be the result 
 of pride wounded, of envy excited, or of anger roused ; 
 be the effect of the sin of sloth ; be connected with cove- 
 tousness, gluttony or lust, the offence would be the 
 heavier, and our verdict would be more decided and 
 delivered in more emphatic language How wickedly 
 selfish is the man who hath done this thing ! And we 
 should be justified in such an expression of opinion. 
 The false rumour, or the report that is not false but is 
 harmful ; the unkind act, or the act of necessary duty 
 performed in a needlessly unkind way ; the deed with- 
 held, or the word unspoken, as an act against charity to 
 our neighbour any of these forms of omission or com- 
 mission, which take their source from the capital sins, 
 are not only chargeable with selfishness ; they are 
 actually sinful. 
 
 Will any person venture to deny, in the presence of 
 the deadly sins, when viewed in general terms only, that 
 human selfishness is the parent of human sin ? Show 
 me one whose heart is inflamed with the pride of per- 
 sonal importance ; whose nerves contract with the envy 
 
 r
 
 1 8 A Theory about Sin. [i. 
 
 of diminished power; whose pulse quickens with the 
 anger of accepted insult and I will show you a selfish 
 man. I will show you one who loves evil to, or fails to 
 love, those whom he should love as himself, that is his 
 neighbour. Show me one who is all too slack in doing 
 everything to which he sets his hand or turns his mind ; 
 who in each relation of life, be it temporal or eternal, is 
 careless, dilatory, or unpunctual, who in a word is sloth- 
 ful and again, I will show you a selfish man. I will 
 show you one who loves less than he might love the 
 Highest Good, that is GOD ; who loves more than he 
 ought to love a lower good, that is himself. Show me 
 one who loves more than he ought to love some lower 
 good of Gop's creation or bestowal, for its own sake 
 and so far only as it ministers to his own personal 
 gratification : show me one who wishes for that which 
 is not his, covetously ; who exceeds the bounds of mode- 
 ration in food or drink, gluttonously ; who falls into the 
 debasing slavery of sensuality, lustfully and once more, 
 I will show you a selfish man. I will show you one who 
 falls into the last three of the seven capital sins res- 
 pectively. It is true that such characteristics do not 
 amount to positive evidence, that self is the source, that 
 self lies at the foundation of the deadly sins. But they 
 go far to suggest such to be the case : and they prove, 
 at the least, that considered even in general terms, the
 
 i.] Some Primary Relations. 19 
 
 character of the man who is guilty of pride, envy or 
 anger, of sloth, or of covetousness, gluttony or lust, is to 
 an extent chargeable with an element of active selfish- 
 ness, is certainly embued with the abstract love of self. 
 
 If we pass from a general view of the mortal sins, and 
 take a more definite estimate of some of them, we shall 
 find evidence to confirm our earlier suggestion ; we shall 
 find evidence which hardly falls short of demonstration 
 as to the origin of human sin, that it is the product of 
 man's selfishness. Indeed, it is no hard task to trace 
 the parentage of selfishness through the hideous features 
 of each one of the seven capital sins. Consider the first 
 three of the sins in order. 
 
 I. Take, for example, the sin of pride, high priest 
 as it is in the hierarchy of evil. The proud man, as we 
 shall see when we consider the first of the capital sins, 
 ventures upon the deification of self. He places self 
 above all other. He, the creature of GOD'S hand, denies 
 to GOD the gifts of which he is proud, and claims their 
 merit for himself. He, the steward at most of GOD'S 
 bounty, thinks himself the owner of what he does not 
 even possess ; and over-measures the value of what he 
 really enjoys. His selfishness makes him desire the 
 depression of all others below his own level, in order to 
 secure the supremacy which he has conceived of self 
 and to impose upon all others the idolatry of self, of 
 
 C 2
 
 2O A Theory about Sin. [i. 
 
 whom he is at once the chief, if not the only worshipper, 
 of whom he is the one and only prophet. My Brethren, 
 can a more complete picture be drawn, in a few words, 
 of one whose sin owes its origin to self? It is a picture 
 of the selfish man who is a victim of the deadly sin of 
 pride. Can a more convincing proof be afforded, in the 
 case at least of a proud man, that human selfishness is 
 the parent of human sin ? 
 
 2. One of the daughters of pride is envy. The 
 envious man is the self-acknowledged foe of all others. 
 For every person excels his neighbour in some one par- 
 ticular, if not in more. None, in everything is last, and 
 least, and lowest of all. But another's superiority is the 
 nourishment on which the selfishness of the envious man 
 feeds. He holds it to be an evil to himself, and fears 
 that his own importance may be impaired by compe- 
 tition with another. The envious man, as we shall see 
 when discussing the second of the capital sins, enter- 
 tains a feeling against three classes of persons, on be- 
 half of self. He encourages a selfish feeling against 
 his inferiors, lest they should become equal with him- 
 self: against his equals, because they may become 
 superior to himself: against his superiors, since they can- 
 not be placed in subordination to himself. His selfish- 
 ness causes him to desire, in theological language, the 
 destitution of all others, in order to anticipate his selfish
 
 I.] Some Primary Relations. 21 
 
 fears for the future, in order to calm his selfish passions 
 in the past, in order to indulge his selfish equanimity, 
 if it can be enjoyed, at the present. Here, again, is a 
 portrait, sufficiently near to nature to be recognised, of 
 one whose sin owes its origin to self. It is almost a 
 photograph of the selfish man who has abandoned him- 
 self to the deadly sin of envy. And this example tends 
 also to prove, in the case of the second mortal sin, that 
 human selfishness is the parent of human sin. 
 
 3. The sin of anger naturally and almost inevitably 
 flows from pride disappointed and from envy unsatisfied. 
 Pride and envy then, from one point of view, are the 
 joint ancestors of the sin of anger; and what is true 
 of that which begot is true also of that which is be- 
 gotten. The angry man, as we shall call to mind 
 when we estimate the third capital sin, places himself 
 in antagonism with all other, and places all other in 
 opposition to himself. He is possessed by a tendency 
 to think, and at last he acts upon the mental convic- 
 tion, that all the world is in league against him, and 
 that his vocation is to withstand all the world. In 
 thought, in word, in deed, he takes his own judgment 
 as the standard, his own feeling as the measure, his 
 own experience as the expression of right and wrong ; 
 and he moulds his conduct, or lets his conduct mould 
 him, in accordance with such selfish guidance. His be-
 
 22 A Theory about Sin. [i. 
 
 setting sin influences him to desire ill or evil to his 
 neighbour for some supposed or actual affront or 
 injury done to himself. And the motive of such desire 
 is selfish, the manner of such desire is selfish, the matter 
 of such desire is selfish, when desire develops into action. 
 This only amounts to the assertion, that human selfish- 
 ness lies at the foundation, that selfishness is the parent 
 of sin, in the man whom we have attempted to describe. 
 And the man, my Brethren, whom we have shortly 
 sketched is guilty of the third of the capital sins, the 
 sin of anger. 
 
 So might we pass in review, and in relation to selfish- 
 ness the remainder of the deadly sins. It would not be 
 difficult to trace how the love of self is the source and 
 origin, as well as the motive principle and energising force, 
 of the sin of sloth, of covetousness, of gluttony, and of 
 lust. Indeed, the hateful parentage of self, the aggra- 
 vating influence of selfishness, is more apparent in the 
 case of some of the later sins, than in certain aspects of 
 the former. The slothful, the glutton and the impure 
 can claim more immediate selfish descent, can obtain 
 more actual selfish gratification, respectively, from con- 
 sent to their deadly sin, than the proud, the envious, or 
 the angry man. Anger and envy almost always bring 
 with them, at the moment of self-indulgence, their 
 own punishment as the result of selfishness and a
 
 T.] Some Primary Relations. 23 
 
 chronic state of either of these two sins can hardly be 
 considered a state of enjoyment. And the atmosphere 
 of pride or envy, with self as an originating cause, is 
 not an atmosphere which even the sinner inhales with 
 perfect satisfaction or content. But it is otherwise with 
 the sensualist, in whatever form deadly sin may be in- 
 dulged. The act of sinful commission, and the result of 
 sinful delectation, are contemporaneous whether it be 
 impurity, or excess, or sloth. And in sins of these three 
 classes, it is not so true to say that selfishness is the origin 
 of the sin, or that the sin is the offspring of selfishness, 
 as to affirm that the wickedness and the self-pleasing are 
 identical, and that their names are convertible terms. 
 
 Time prevents our following the course of the stream 
 of selfishness under whatever conditions of parentage 
 and development, from fount to mouth, in the case of 
 the last four of the mortal sins. Yet such course may 
 be shortly indicated. Some present, some certain, some 
 direct good, though even to the sluggard a lower personal 
 good, is preferred to some future, possible, indirect, yet 
 higher personal good and a capital sin ensues. Loving 
 less than he might love the Highest Good, and striving 
 after it all too slackly, the selfish origin brings forth the 
 selfish offspring of sloth. From the nature of the case, 
 and from loving more than they ought to love, for its 
 own sake, some lower good of created things, the covet-
 
 24 A Theory about Sin. [i. 
 
 ous, the gluttonous, and the impure, are all and each 
 actuated by the instinct of selfishness. The covetous 
 man indiscriminately desires things bestowed upon 
 others, for himself alone. The glutton desires things 
 common to all, for his personal and selfish gratification. 
 The lustful man desires things confined to some, or 
 allowed only to others, for his individual enjoyment. 
 In all these cases, self lies at the foundation of the 
 sinful desire, self forms the energising principle of the 
 sinful act. In common, therefore, with the deadly sins 
 of pride, envy and anger, it may also be affirmed of 
 the sins of sloth, of covetousness, of gluttony and of 
 lust, that human selfishness is the source and origin 
 of human sin. 
 
 IV. 
 
 Here we will pause. In our theory of the deadly sins 
 we have advanced by two stages. We have seen to- 
 day 
 
 I. That love is the principle of human action : and 
 
 II. That self is the parent of human sin. 
 
 We will endeavour on another occasion to realise 
 
 III. That the deadly sins are the development of 
 selfishness : and lastly 
 
 IV. That perfect love is the antidote to self-love. 
 This will complete the statement of our theory about
 
 I.] Some Primary Relations. 25 
 
 sin, and will enable us both to consider systematically 
 one by one, and also to grasp as a whole, the seven 
 mortal or root sins. Our theory about sin, however, 
 though theologically complete, will not be logical in form 
 apart from adhesion to the order of treatment above 
 indicated. The order in which the capital sins are to be 
 discussed will bear repetition. It is this : first, pride ; 
 then, envy ; next, anger : these are the first three of 
 the sins. Then we shall consider, in the fourth place, 
 the sin of sloth. Lastly, as the fifth of the deadly sins, 
 avarice or covetousness ; then, gluttony ; and last of 
 all, the sin of impurity, luxury, or lust 
 
 On the present occasion, I shall not speak definitely 
 of the three divisions into which the seven sins thus 
 symmetrically arrange themselves, suggested by the 
 terms above used, love distorted, love defective, love 
 excessive. I will only point out that the ancient 
 Catholic arrangement is symmetrical ; and possesses 
 the advantage of being 1 as true to the law of nature, 
 as it is exact in the science of theology. It is an 
 arrangement, also, which it would be well if modern 
 books of devotion more closely followed than they are 
 wont to do. The mortal sins, in the Roman or Anglican 
 manuals, with which I happen to be acquainted, are cata- 
 logued in an order which simply defies analysis. Sins 
 of a spiritual character are placed side by side with sins
 
 26 A Theory about Sin. [i. 
 
 of a sensual kind ; and the sin of sloth which occupies 
 logically a middle position between the two different 
 sorts of sin, as distinct from and yet involved with both, 
 is placed in any but the central position. The order 
 that we shall follow represents, through the poet, divine 
 and philosopher, Dante, the teaching of the Church in 
 the thirteenth century. And such teaching in brief 
 amounts to this, that, so far as man is concerned, all 
 sin issues from, or may be led back to, seven capital 
 or root sins, sins which, under certain conditions being 
 incompatible with Divine Grace, are called deadly or 
 mortal sins. These seven sins are in part spiritual, in 
 part sensual, in part a combination of both. The first 
 three, pride, envy and anger, are more spiritual in 
 character and less sensual. The last three, covetous- 
 ness, gluttony and lust, are more sensual in their 
 results, and less spiritual. And the middle sin, the sin 
 of sloth, combines elements from both divisions. Of 
 course, this arrangement of the seven deadly sins is 
 open to criticism. But to say this, is to affirm only 
 what is true of every plan for their orderly division. It 
 were needless to indicate the confusion which exists in 
 other systems. I content myself with claiming fewer 
 inconsistencies in Dante's scheme than in that of any 
 other : and I thankfully shelter myself under the 
 authority of his great name, if such be required, when
 
 I.] Some Primary Relations. 27 
 
 I decide upon treating the seven enemies of our soul 
 in the following logical sequence pride, envy and 
 anger ; sloth ; avarice or covetousness, gluttony and 
 impurity or lust. 
 
 V. 
 
 Before concluding I ask leave to draw attention to 
 one further subject which I beg you to bear in mind. 
 I desire that these conferences on the deadly sins may 
 be considered in the light of lectures, and not in the 
 light of sermons. Whatever may be the real distinction 
 between various sorts of addresses delivered from this 
 place in GOD'S holy Name, the differentia in the present 
 case is this : I would wish to appeal more to your under- 
 standing than to your affections, to speak more to the 
 head than the heart. I would attempt, GOD helping 
 me, to teach you something not many but a few things 
 about the capital or mortal sins, rather than urge you 
 to avoid them, or to cultivate their opposites. It is true, 
 that to depict sin in its real colours, to describe wicked- 
 ness in its true proportions, even if an indirect, is a 
 powerful argument for its avoidance. But, however 
 essential may be the avoidance of sin, the knowledge 
 of what to avoid is also essential : and my present 
 purpose is to impart such knowledge, not to persuade 
 to such avoidance ; is to teach, not to exhort. Hence
 
 28 A Theory about Sin. [i. 
 
 the plan which I shall adopt on two points will be as 
 follows : 
 
 1. The sins, as I shall hereafter explain, naturally and 
 theologically divide themselves into three clearly marked 
 divisions, according to the cause which respectively pro- 
 duces them, i. love distorted, 2. love deficient, 3. love 
 excessive. Each of these three divisions will be con- 
 sidered separately, each member of it sin by sin. And 
 each division will be introduced by a lecture which will 
 discuss, more or less fully either certain general principles 
 connected with the deadly sins, or certain other inde- 
 pendent questions, which are conveniently considered by 
 themselves. The present lecture will thus be introduc- 
 tory to the first division of the deadly sins, caused by 
 distorted love, a division which includes the sins of pride, 
 of envy and of anger. And the sin of pride will form 
 the subject of our thoughts in the following lecture. 
 
 2. As the sins severally are too vast for discussion as 
 a whole within the limits of a single lecture however 
 long, after taking a general survey of the enemy of our 
 soul under examination, I purpose to select a few features 
 in each case for more particular and minute treatment ; 
 to analyse them as fully as my power and your patience 
 permit ; to view them in the light of the four elementary 
 truths above named ; and. having, so to say, indi- 
 vidualised each of the seven sins, and presented them
 
 I.] Some Primary Relations. 29 
 
 to you in their own proper persons, to leave them in 
 your hands for further mental examination and inquiry. 
 In order that we may devote as much time as possible 
 to the analyses, I shall begin without formal preface, I 
 shall end without formal conclusion. And I will only 
 add, that I earnestly beg your prayers for my guidance, 
 that what I shall be allowed to say may tend to the 
 good of souls, and to the greater glory of GOD the 
 FATHER. 
 
 A. M. D. G.
 
 3O A Theory about Sin. [u. 
 
 LECTURE TWO. 
 
 OF THE DEADLY SIN OF PRIDE : 
 
 THE FIRST SIN OF LOVE DISTORTED. 
 
 " The ^mgodly is so proud, that he careth not for GOD : 
 neither is GOD in all his thoughts" PSALM X. 4. 
 
 I. 
 
 PRIDE, the chief of the deadly sins, and the first 
 of the sins caused by distorted love, pride is 
 divided by spiritual writers into four distinct heads. 
 In each of these four divisions of the sin we may 
 trace, with more or less clearness, the influence of the 
 theory which we endeavour to work out. In each 
 we may discover the respective relation of, and inter- 
 dependence between, love and self and sin which has 
 been already stated. In. each we may see that self is 
 the origin of sin, that love is the antidote to the poison 
 of self. We will consider these four divisions in order, 
 marking their characteristic features, and noting their 
 characteristic failings.
 
 IL] Of the Deadly Sin of Pride. 31 
 
 II. 
 
 I. We may be guilty -of pride, in the first place, by 
 imputing to ourselves and not to GOD, the gifts which 
 we have received of Him, whether of nature or of 
 grace. This is the highest type, the completest form 
 of pride. It is the pride of the creature against the 
 Creator, rebellious and idolatrous. It is emphatically 
 pride, pride absolute and of itself, pride pure and 
 simple, as distinguished from all other sorts of pride, 
 notably from three: I. ambitious pride; 2. presump- 
 tuous pride ; and 3. conceited pride, which is mere 
 vanity. It is the chiefest factor in the proud man's 
 composition, and engulphs all other and less sinful 
 characteristics again, specially three : I. self-esteem ; 
 2. self-deceit ; 3. self-consciousness. It may be termed 
 that form of idolatry which is world-wide in extent, 
 and which is limited only in time by man's creation, 
 human worship, the worship of self. Self with the 
 proud man is the final cause of all that he is, of 
 all that he believes himself to be. And the form 
 which imperfect love takes with the proud self- 
 worshipper is that of love distorted. ' It is, however, 
 love distorted from the Creator, not towards the 
 creature. Hence, this form of imperfect love occupies 
 a position of its own, of which it may be said, that in
 
 32 A Theory about Sin. [n. 
 
 proportion as the Creator excels the creature in the 
 infinity of His perfections, so does the faintest sin of 
 love distorted from GOD exceed in intensity the most 
 decided act of distorted love towards man, infinitely. 
 And one main failing which characterises this kind of 
 pride is ingratitude. For S. Paul charges the selfish 
 proud man with a want of thankfulness. 
 
 II. We may fall into the sin of pride, secondly, by 
 ascribing to our own merit the gifts and graces which 
 are ours only by the uncovenanted mercy and free 
 bounty of GOD. This form of pride occupies a lower 
 platform than the idolater of self stands upon ; yet, a 
 platform almost insensibly lower. For, although the 
 proud man, in this case, admits that the gifts which 
 he enjoys are not of himself, he holds to the plea, that 
 such graces are his by reason of his own intrinsic merit. 
 He looks upon himself as the meritorious cause of his 
 natural or supernatural possessions : if inherited, by 
 anticipation ; if acquired, as a reward. The vice which 
 chiefly marks this form of pride, is ambition ; a vice 
 which sometimes its cause, and sometimes its conse- 
 quence, always is connected with self-esteem. And 
 here, in the development of ambitious pride, we pass 
 from the pride of man against GOD, to the pride of 
 one creature against another. Ambition, from our 
 standpoint, requires an object for its exercise : and
 
 ii.] Of the Deadly Sin of Pride. 33 
 
 in a strife for the mastery, the interests of our fellow- 
 creatures are and must be sacrificed to those of self, 
 by one guilty of this form of pride. The ambitious 
 man, therefore, as well as the idolater of self, is essen- 
 tially a selfish man ; a believer in self, as the cause of 
 his ambition ; an agent in behalf of self, when ambition 
 is at work ; a well satisfied recipient of self-esteem, 
 when ambition finds its reward. And the love he 
 bears in his heart is the love of self, not the love of 
 GOD. It is imperfect love, or love distorted. It is 
 a love which loves ill, a love which loves evil to 
 those whom he should love as himself, namely, his 
 neighbour. 
 
 III. By believing ourselves to have talents and 
 perfections which we have not, we sin by pride in a 
 third fashion. This is, again, another instance of pride 
 which sins, not so much against GOD as against our 
 fellow-man. For the result of our mistaken belief 
 in our own powers leads to presumption; and pre- 
 sumption in act, from our point of view, necessitates a 
 person against whom the sin may be committed. This 
 kind of pride is altogether of a lower and more debased 
 character, both intellectually and morally, than pride 
 caused by ambition, or than pride of which ingratitude 
 is a feature. Ingratitude, indeed, is of a black, immoral 
 hue. But a sinner who is thankless to GOD, may yet 
 
 D
 
 34 A Theory about Sin. [n. 
 
 in his conduct towards man be upright, and may also 
 be honest in his convictions. Ambition, too, may 
 lead both to dishonesty of intention, and to conduct the 
 opposite of upright : yet not of necessity does it lead 
 thither. But the man who is the victim of self-deceit 
 is below the level of both : and self-deceit is the parent 
 of that form of pride which we call presumption. The 
 man who believes in himself and acts up to his belief, 
 and the man who fulfils his ambitious plans by means 
 which he knows to be at his disposal, moves in a 
 different plane to one who aims at that which he is 
 incapable to accomplish, who fancies himself possessor 
 of that of which he is deficient. Such intellectual 
 obtuseness, such moral blindness, is self-deception. 
 Action founded upon self-deception becomes presump- 
 tion. And in acts of presumption, self is considered 
 the efficient cause by the proud man. Whilst the love 
 which fills the heart of the presumptuous-proud is imper- 
 fect love. A false estimate of his own powers, involves 
 a false estimate of the powers of others. And distorted 
 love causes him to love evil to his neighbour, when pre- 
 sumption makes him desire their depression, in order to 
 secure his own exaltation. 
 
 IV. Lastly, by valuing ourselves for qualities which 
 we may fairly lay claim to, or actually possess, we 
 sin, in the matter of pride, through the fault of self-
 
 ii.] Of the Deadly Sin of Pride. 35 
 
 consciousness, vanity, vain-glory, or conceit. This is, 
 perhaps, the lowest depth to which pride can fall. It 
 combines features of the first two forms of pride, caused 
 by self-worship and self-esteem ; and .only escapes com- 
 parison with the third, caused by self-deceit, by reason 
 of GOD'S gift of certain qualities. Vanity, however, 
 exaggerates the other three forms of pride. It increases 
 presumption ; it stimulates ambition ; it makes self- 
 worship almost a reality. Indeed, the earlier develop- 
 ments of pride are rarely unaffected by the later. For 
 the tendency of all sin is to degenerate with intensity ; 
 and pride absolute, pride presumptuous, and pride 
 deceptive, naturally descend in the scale of sin to 
 pride that, by reason of self-conceit, becomes contemp- 
 tuous. This feature in self-consciousness places the 
 last development of pride in a class by itself. We 
 have discussed the pride of man against GOD, under 
 the aspect of self-idolatry. We have also considered, 
 under features of ambitious and presumptuous pride, 
 the pride of the creature against his fellow. But, in 
 the present form of pride, we discover the pride of man 
 against himself, consequent upon self- valuation : for 
 self, to the vain man, is the justifying cause of self- 
 estimation. And though the self-conscious man, equally 
 with the self-worshipper, does not necessarily take 
 
 action, in regard to his neighbour, upon the strength 
 
 D 2
 
 36 A Theory about Sin. [n. 
 
 of self-valuation ; yet, undoubtedly, his temptation lies 
 in that direction, and the love by which he is instigated 
 is a form of imperfect love, or love distorted. 
 
 Thus have we seen that there are at least four dif- 
 ferent kinds of pride, all of which possess their several 
 characteristic features and feelings : 
 
 There is I. pride absolute, a form of boundless 
 ingratitude towards GOD, of which self-worship is the 
 exponent, and in which self is believed to be of 
 existence the final cause. This kind of pride sins by 
 ascribing to self and not to GOD, the gifts we have 
 received from His almighty hand. 
 
 There is 2. ambitious pride, at once both issue and 
 origin, under various contingences, of self-esteem, in 
 which self is considered by the proud man to be 
 the meritorious cause of his perfection. Sin is here 
 produced by attributing to our own merit the gifts 
 which are due to GOD'S free mercy. 
 
 There is 3. presumptuous pride, the result of self- 
 deceit, the victim of which acts upon the prrnciple that 
 self is the efficient cause of all he presumes to effect. 
 Here the proud man sins by believing himself to 
 be endued with powers which he possesses not, and 
 by acting on such false belief through self-deceit. 
 
 There is 4. pride contemptuous, vain-glorious pride, 
 pride caused by self-consciousness and self-conceit,
 
 ii.] Of the Deadly Sin of Pride. 37 
 
 in which self plays the part of justifying cause to the 
 sinner in the deadly sin of pride. And his sin consists 
 in this, that the proud man values himself for qualities 
 which he certainly commands. 
 
 Of these four developments of pride, the first has 
 reference to the Creator chiefly ; the last, chiefly to the 
 creature. Between these extremes, man's fellow-man 
 is the object of human pride. The second form has 
 regard to action within the power of the agent ; the 
 third, to action which the agent is powerless to perform. 
 From the terms of their description, self evidently lies 
 at the foundation of this fourfold development. From 
 the effects of their agency, love, imperfect love, or love 
 distorted is clearly the motive principle of its action. 
 It may be, therefore, easily allowed, that each division 
 of the sin of pride in turn is only a form of developed 
 selfishness. It will not be contested that the cure for 
 loving ill or evil to the Creator or the creature, can 
 only be found in the perfection of love, the love of 
 GOD as GOD, and the love of man for GOD'S sake. 
 
 Having thus considered some of the fourfold charac- 
 teristics of this deadly sin, we are now in a position to 
 attempt a more formal definition of pride. Pride, then, 
 may be said to be an inordinate belief in, desire of, or 
 love for self-excellence, not for the greater glory of GOD-
 
 38 A Theory about Sin. [n. 
 
 not for the good of souls, not for the benefit of created 
 things, but for the love of self. Pride creates self-satis- 
 faction and feels self-complacency by reason of actual 
 or imagined excellence, which we either have or pretend 
 to have, in gifts and qualities, whether of grace or 
 nature, whether external or internal, whether inherited 
 or acquired. Pride justifies self- worship, flatters self- 
 esteem, encourages self-deceit, magnifies self-conscious- 
 ness, as a means to an end self-exaltation, and by 
 consequence depreciation of others. Self-excellence, 
 in relation to pride, is subject to no limits, human or 
 divine. In whatever manner one of GOD'S creatures can 
 excel, or can try to excel, another, there is an opening 
 for pride. In whatever way man may worship self, 
 or value self, there pride can find admittance. No prize 
 is too high for .pride to aim at even equality with the 
 Almighty. No advantage is too small to be secured 
 even the worthless praise of men. Pride influences our 
 relations with GOD, with our soul, with man, at least in 
 three ways : in thought and word and deed. i. In 
 thought if we may personate the sin it ventures on 
 comparison with the All-perfect ; it magnifies self- 
 importance ; it despises our neighbour. 2. In word, it 
 excuses or defends itself against GOD ; justifies self- 
 estimation ; boasts of success over others. 3. In deed, 
 it denies homage to the Creator; compasses its own
 
 ii.] Of the Deadly Sin of Pride. 39 
 
 advantage ; plots against the efforts of its neighbour. 
 It revolves in an endless chain of cause and effect. 
 For, pride is powerless to believe in self and not to 
 wish for self-exaltation. It is unable to wish for self- 
 advancement, and not to take steps to fulfil its heart's 
 desire. And it is the result of obtaining its heart's 
 desire, that pride is confirmed in the belief of self. 
 
 Fride, as has been well said, is the mother of all vices, 
 especially of the four already mentioned, I. self- wor- 
 ship, 2. ambition, 3. presumption, 4. vain-glory. Let us 
 endeavour yet more clearly to distinguish between these 
 four forms of pride. 
 
 First of all : Self-worship, or pride considered in the 
 abstract, in undeveloped simplicity, contemplates self 
 alone. It sets up self as the object of its own and the 
 world's idolatry ; self, as the one object of belief, desire, 
 and love ; self, as the one object above all other of 
 thought and care, to whose gratification all else must 
 be sacrificed ; self, as the beginning, middle, end of 
 everything. This form of pride contains in solution 
 all other forms, because it attributes to self and not 
 to GOD all that it has received at His beneficent 
 hands. 
 
 Secondly : Ambition aims at self-excellence in the 
 way of honour, dignity, power, and position ; in the way 
 of genius, talent, and knowledge ; in the way of wealth,
 
 4O A Theory about Sin. [n. 
 
 of personal influence, personal affection, and even of 
 virtue and holiness of life. It aims at self-exaltation, 
 in being set above all other as the due reward of self- 
 desert. 
 
 Thirdly : Presumption seeks to excel in the way of 
 great achievements, undertaken at the instance of self- 
 deceit ; or of small achievements attempted under the 
 influence of self-delusion. The motive being unworthy, 
 the work is marred in principle. The estimate of self 
 being false, the effort fails, deservedly, ignominiously 
 fails, from its own want of capacity, or intelligence, or 
 energy, or perseverance. 
 
 Lastly : Vain-glory pretends to excellence in the way 
 of glory ; in the way, that is, of desire of and satis- 
 faction in being known, or noticed, or talked about ; in 
 being praised, or esteemed, or valued by others. It 
 matters not whether such esteem or publicity be, or 
 be not, deserved. The sin lies not in the fact, but in 
 the sentiment : not in the action or thought of others, 
 but in the delectation which ensues from overvaluing 
 ourselves. 
 
 Time, my Brethren, would fail us to consider the 
 influence upon our daily life of each of the four sorts 
 of pride which have been above named ; or to discuss 
 in detail their developments, which have been sketched 
 in outline. I purpose, therefore, to disregard entirely
 
 ii.J Of the Deadly Sin of Pride. 41 
 
 two of the forms the two middle forms ; and to confine 
 our attention to the other two the first and the last. 
 Ambitious pride and pride presumptuous are so obviously 
 the outcome of selfishness, are so clearly counteracted 
 by the principle of love, that they need not be further 
 analysed. It is different v/ith the two remaining forms 
 of pride. Pride absolute, pride which credits self and 
 not GOD with the gifts of His hands ; and vain-glorious 
 pride, which overvalues self for gifts which it admits 
 come from GOD these two developments of pride are 
 not so generally allowed to be affected by our theory 
 of the capital sins. We will therefore consider firstly, 
 self-worship, and secondly, self-conceit, in a few practical 
 examples taken from every-day life. We will consider 
 them with a view to ascertain whether or not they are 
 caused by human selfishness, whether or not they may 
 be cured by divine love. 
 
 III. 
 
 Before we proceed to consider pride under the aspect 
 of self-worship and self-conceit, it may be well, by way 
 of contrast, to set before you, my Brethren, two or three 
 instances of the effect of the opposite of the sin, namely 
 the virtue of humility. But it is difficult at once to make 
 a selection from the many cases on record in the lives 
 of the saints, and to escape the repetition of those
 
 42 A Theory about Sin. [u. 
 
 which must be familiar to you. Take, however, a few 
 commonplace examples of virtue which is not at all 
 commonplace. 
 
 It is related in the life of S. Pachomius, that on pay- 
 ing a visit to a certain monastery, he set himself, after 
 prayer in common, to work with the community in 
 making baskets. As he was engaged in this manual 
 toil, a young lad chanced to pass by who, stopping 
 curiously to observe the saint, boldly said to him, 
 " Father Abbot, that is not the way to make baskets." 
 At these words the man of GOD arose, as if a rebuke 
 had come from the superior of his order, and humbly 
 replied : " Pray, my child, be so good as to show me 
 how they are to be made." The lad, unabashed, 
 showed the aged man " how Abbot Theodore was wont 
 to make them ; " and S. Pachomius resuming his task 
 without change of expression, or even without being 
 mentally annoyed, complied with the directions of his 
 youthful instructor. My Brethren, do we receive with 
 equal humility the correction even of our superiors ? 
 
 One day as S. Anthony was praying, he heard an 
 inward voice saying to him : " Anthony, thou hast not 
 gained that point of perfection to which a certain 
 leather - dresser of Alexandria has attained." The 
 saint immediately set out in search of the leather- 
 dresser, and having found him, demanded of him in
 
 ii.] Of the Deadly Sin of Pride. 43 
 
 the name of our LORD, his manner of life. " Sir," 
 said the devout man, " I do not know that I have ever 
 performed a good action in my life. So that the 
 moment I awake in the morning, I say to myself, 
 ' Every one else in this city will save his soul, and I 
 alone, on account of sins, seem destined to lose mine.' 
 The same I say when I go to bed : and such I really 
 feel to be my state." "No, no," answered the saint, 
 " by your pious device you have gained heaven, whilst 
 I, by a want of such humility, have not attained to your 
 measure of perfection." 
 
 Take another story as a parable. It was once per- 
 mitted to S. Macarius to behold Satan in a visible form 
 endeavouring to injure him. But the great enemy of 
 souls was unable to do so ; for as soon as he approached 
 the saint the devil's power forsook him. At this he 
 became enraged ; and power was given to the holy 
 man to hear his complaint. " I suffer much from thee, 
 Macarius," said Satan, " because though I greatly desire to 
 hurt thee, I am not able." " How may that be ? " re- 
 turned Macarius. " I do all that thou doest," said the 
 enemy, " and even more. You fast often ; but I never 
 eat. You sleep, but little indeed ; yet I never close my 
 eyes. You observe your vow of chastity ; but I am 
 not a victim of impurity. You are almost always about 
 your Father's business; but I am never absent from
 
 44 -^ Theory about Sin. [n. 
 
 mine. In one respect only you surpass me." "And 
 what is that ?" asked the man of GOD. The devil 
 answered, as he disappeared from sight: "It is your 
 great humility." 
 
 S. Frangois de Sales was so fulfilled with the spirit of 
 humility, that on one occasion he is reported to have 
 used these remarkable words: "I wish it were the will 
 of GOD that my innocence should never be known, not 
 even in the awful day of judgment ; but that it might 
 be always hidden and concealed for all eternity in the 
 abyss of the divine wisdom." At another time he said : 
 " If GOD has ever allowed me to do a good work, my 
 chief joy and contentment would be that at the day of 
 judgment, when the secrets of all hearts shall be made 
 manifest, GOD alone should know my good works ; but 
 that my evil deeds, on the contrary, should be displayed 
 to all created beings." And the same spirit animated 
 S. Vincent de Paul, who would never justify himself to 
 man against false accusations, but was wont to say : 
 " How many calumnies were uttered against the LORD 
 JESUS ; and yet He never justified Himself against 
 them : " or " Let such an one say what he pleases ; I 
 will never justify myself except by my works." My 
 Brethren, do we sympathise with the feelings of these 
 great saints of GOD ? Can we honestly make their 
 words our own ?
 
 ii. ] Of the Deadly Sin of Pride. 45 
 
 We will now turn to the consideration of the two forms 
 of pride which await examination. 
 
 IV. 
 
 I. In the first place, pride attributes to self and not 
 to GOD the natural or supernatural gifts which we have 
 received from Him. This kind of pride has been termed, 
 idolatry of self. One would suppose, indeed, that this 
 was almost the last form which pride would take in the 
 heart of a reasonable being, not to say of a religiously- 
 minded man. Experience shows that it is amongst one 
 of the first. Yet, our absolute nothingness in the sight 
 of GOD ; the fact, that we came from nothing at His 
 word, and are kept from a return to nothing by His 
 will ; the truth, that we have nothing but from Him 
 that we know nothing but of Him, that we can do 
 nothing but with Him, should make us grateful for 
 what we have received, should prevent us from denying 
 that we have received it. Neither is the testimony of 
 mankind without weight. For, the universal belief of 
 every human being, that every other human being has 
 nothing of which to boast before GOD, should not be 
 ignored. Consider for a moment a few items in our 
 debtor's account with the Giver of All. Creation and 
 the hope of heaven ; a measure of prosperity and 
 worldly success ; the gift of reason and intellect ; the
 
 46 A Theory about Sin. [n. 
 
 blessings of civilisation and peaceful times ; more or 
 less preservation from accident, grief, failure, or care ; a 
 body capable of enjoyment through the senses, and a 
 soul enriched by the sacraments these are but some of 
 the manifold bounties which we owe to GOD'S free 
 mercy alone. To lay claim, then, to self-excellence on 
 behalf of these gifts, to invest ourselves with importance 
 for their possession, to assert our origination of them, 
 and to boast ourselves because of them, is to attack 
 the attributes of GOD Himself in His works. It is 
 to diminish His glory, which He will not share with 
 another. It is to place man on GOD'S throne, and to 
 limit the GODHEAD to the proportions of humanity. 
 
 Now, how does this kind of pride bear outward 
 evidence of its existence in the heart ? In answering 
 this question, a remarkable inconsistency appears. It 
 will be found, as a rule which almost amounts to a law, 
 that persons pride themselves more on what is inde- 
 pendent of them, than on what to a certain extent they 
 are the cause of, or are meritorious for. For example : 
 The man who is a worshipper of self is proud, we will 
 suppose, of his birth ; of many forms of pride one of the 
 most foolish to be proud of ; for of many things which 
 happen to us, one as to which we were least consulted. 
 Gentle blood and long descent, like all of GOD'S gifts, 
 possess their own value, which it is unwise in those who
 
 ii.] Of the Deadly Sin of Pride. 47 
 
 have them not, and ungrateful in those that have them, 
 to deny. But, it not infrequently happens, that pride 
 of birth to an idolater of self, if his feelings be carefully 
 analysed and plainly expressed, means this that his 
 ancestors have cause to be proud of the man, rather 
 than that the man has cause to be proud of his 
 ancestors. This is one form of pride in the worshipper 
 of self, the pride of birth. 
 
 Again : Is the self-idolater a man of fortune or pro- 
 perty ? And, my Brethren, each one of us is wealthy 
 in comparison with those who lack what we possess : 
 each one of us is wealthy absolutely, in regard to GOD'S 
 common gifts to a common humanity. But take the 
 case only of worldly goods. We all enjoy a certain 
 amount of property. There was a time when we were 
 possessed of none. Whence did riches come ? Did we 
 inherit them ? Of whose will, think you, came it to 
 pass, that we were born of well-to-do parentage, that we 
 were, as a fact, our own father's child ? Was it of our 
 own will ; or was it of GOD'S will ? Did we create our 
 wealth, as we say, by capital or labour, by industry or 
 speculation ? But, of what sort, I ask, is that effort of 
 creation, which one step removed from self ceases in any 
 sense to be creation ? If any one will assure me that 
 his possessions were self-created without the aid even of 
 secondary agents, I shall be content to admit that he
 
 48 A Theory about Sin. [n. 
 
 owes no debt of gratitude to the First Great Cause of 
 all wealth. The pride of wealth, then, specially in cases 
 where we have benefited by the labour or success of 
 others ; not less than the pride of birth, where no choice 
 was offered us of parentage both chargeable with in- 
 gratitude towards GOD is another evidence of that 
 sort of pride which exults in the worship of self. 
 
 Again : Take the case of any moral or religious 
 quality. Take the case of patience. Suppose we have 
 a character for patience, more or less deserved, at the 
 present moment. We know, as a fact, that the last 
 time we felt provoked we exercised the virtue of 
 patience. But how was it with us the time before, or 
 the time before that ? How was it on the first oc- 
 casion on which our patience was tested ? Of course, 
 memory fails us. But the intellect may make answer. 
 How, then, did we act? There are two contingences. 
 If our patience failed us, nothing further can be said. If 
 our patience failed us not, we exercised the virtue in 
 question. It is clear that we could not have formed 
 the habit of patience ; Tor it was the first time that the 
 grace had been exerted : and a habit is formed only by 
 repetition. If, then, we remained patient under the trial, 
 our virtue on that occasion could owe its origin alone to 
 one of two causes. It was either self-created ; or it was 
 iven us by another. It matters not at all whether we
 
 ii.] Of the Deadly Sin of Pride. 49 
 
 inherited a sweet disposition ; whether the grace had 
 been bestowed in Baptism ; whether it was one of 
 the sevenfold gifts of Confirmation ; whether it was 
 a reward of Confession; whether it was given us at 
 the Altar; whether it was imparted at the moment 
 of temptation, immediately inspired by GOD'S HOLY 
 SPIRIT. The act of patience was not self-created. 
 That is the point to be observed. For its bestowal, 
 therefore, gratitude is due to GOD from man. For 
 its possession, we have no claim upon the worship 
 of self. 
 
 Once more : Consider the gift of knowledge. Does 
 knowledge arise from intuition or experience, from 
 instinct or intellect, from talent or genius, from exer- 
 tion or study ? It matters little for our argument. 
 The important question is this Whence comes the 
 capacity for knowledge ? Is the capacity self-ori- 
 ginated, or was it bestowed of GOD ? Men may say : 
 Knowledge has become mine at a large expense in 
 time, money, labour, thought. Knowledge with me 
 is a composition of many integral parts, of many 
 variable proportions. Application in childhood, per- 
 severance in youth, contemplation in adult age these 
 are elements in my hold upon knowledge. I have 
 been taught by clever persons, have talked with able 
 men, have read learned books, and have made my 
 
 E
 
 5O A Theory about Sin. [n. 
 
 own, by mental digestion, all the knowledge I have 
 acquired. All this, and more than all this, may be 
 allowed, my Brethren. But we can only return to the 
 simple question Who gave us the capacity for gain- 
 ing knowledge ? in order to see that the means of 
 acquiring knowledge, in common with the virtue of 
 patience, in common with the gift of wealth, and in 
 common with the accident of birth, comes to us from 
 the hand of GOD. It was not self-created. Whilst, 
 then, GOD has many claims upon the gratitude of His 
 creature for the faculty of obtaining knowledge, man 
 has no just cause for self- worship in the possession of 
 the gift. 
 
 These four cases of birth, of wealth, of patience, of 
 knowledge, are but typical cases. They are typical 
 of the many forms which the first and deadliest de- 
 velopment of pride may assume in the ordinary details 
 of daily life. They are typical, also, of the divisions 
 of man's complicated organization which self-worship 
 may influence. They represent the bounty of GOD to 
 man, in relation both to the world without and to 
 himself within. They are connected with gifts of 
 nature and gifts of grace, with intellectual and moral 
 qualities. They are commonplace enough; but they 
 are sufficiently wide to support a theory. Three of 
 the cases, indeed, admit of a retort, that the bene-
 
 IL ] Of the Deadly Sin of Pride. 51 
 
 factions of GOD are partially dependent upon man's 
 free-will for their use, upon man's co-operation for their 
 perfection. But half-truths may well be disregarded 
 in the presence of complete statements of truth. And 
 the complete statement is the theory of which the 
 above cases are examples ; is the truth, that every- 
 thing we have and everything we are, that both germ 
 and seed of all we enjoy outwardly and of all we culti- 
 vate within, is due, not to ourselves, but to Another. 
 It is simply pride which makes us attribute to 
 ourselves and not to GOD, the gifts and qualities we 
 have received from Him, whether natural or super- 
 human. It is pride absolute; pride of the creature 
 against the Creator ; pride caused by ingratitude ; 
 the pride of idolatry of self. 
 
 Need anything be added, in order to show that the 
 worshipper of self, who is proud towards GOD, lives 
 under the influence of human selfishness ? Need any- 
 thing be said to prove, that such evidence of ingratitude 
 for GOD'S bounties is to be counteracted only by love 
 which is perfect and divine ? My Brethren, I think that 
 in either case there is no need. 
 
 V. 
 
 II. Secondly : Pride causes us to overvalue ourselves 
 for qualities which we actually possess : and this is the 
 
 E 2
 
 52 A Theory about Sin. [n. 
 
 other form of the deadly sin of which we have to seek 
 for a practical example. The mere conceited man 
 furnishes an instance. And the conceited man, as we 
 shall consider him, occupies a different position in the 
 development of pride to either the ambitious or the 
 presumptuous, whose cases, you remember, we shall not 
 discuss. He is less a man of action, than a man of 
 purpose; less a man of effort, than one of intention. 
 He suggests more than he does ; he plans even more 
 than he begins. Vanity, perhaps, is the most harmless 
 form of pride in regard to others : it is one of the most 
 vexatious in relation to ourselves. The mere conceited 
 man is a lamentable spectacle when his character is 
 analysed and the result is tabulated : and although he 
 is more his own enemy than his neighbour's, conceit is 
 a form of pride which, from its frequency and pointed- 
 ness, needs a large amount of Christian charity to 
 tolerate in another. He is a proud man, observe, to 
 begin with ; otherwise he would not now be under moral 
 vivisection. But he cannot command the sympathy 
 which the ambitious man extorts, by largeness of mind, 
 power over others, and success. He cannot claim the 
 pity which falls to the share of the presumptuous man, 
 from his efforts, his struggles, and his failure. From a 
 worldly point of view, he is simply contemptible, as his 
 form of the sin of pride causes him to be contemptuous.
 
 ii.] Of the Deadly Sin of Pride. 53 
 
 From a religious aspect, he supplies a warning lacking 
 talent to attain success, lacking energy to avoid disaster. 
 Yet there is nothing, he flatters himself, that he cannot 
 do, if he wills only to do it ; there is nothing he is not 
 equal to secure, if only he puts his mind into the matter. 
 Indeed, on his own valuation, he can do many things 
 better than most persons; and there are few he is 
 unable to surpass, if only he is allowed the oppor- 
 tunity. 
 
 Remember, the conceited man possesses the gifts and 
 qualities which the ambitious man employs, and of 
 which the presumptuous man is destitute. But the 
 self-conscious being begins and ends in vanity. He is 
 too much occupied in the alone possession of natural 
 gifts or super-human graces to employ them. He is 
 too well satisfied with the supposed perfection of such 
 qualities to improve them. He is spared failure, cer- 
 tainly, but only because he makes no effort to succeed. 
 But he is equally far from success, because he dares not 
 hazard a failure. He always thinks himself capable of 
 doing what others do, yet he never does ; but he is 
 always equal to offer advice, which himself seldom 
 follows. In short, he lives within himself. He is ab- 
 sorbed in self- contemplation. He is enabled to estimate 
 his own excellence, without the danger of practical com- 
 parison with others, without the chance of dispelling
 
 54 A Theory about Sin. [n. 
 
 the delusion, by acting on the strength of his own 
 self-estimate. 
 
 Such, my Brethren, is a sketch of a mere conceited 
 man viewed from within. Of such a one, is it too much 
 to affirm, that his besetting form of pride is the out- 
 come of one side of human selfishness ? Let us next 
 inquire how the self-conscious man, outwardly, comes 
 in contact with his neighbour. Perhaps this consider- 
 ation will suggest that his sin may be counteracted by 
 divine love. 
 
 Now, how does the vain man manage to impinge 
 upon others from without ? It is hard to say in what 
 matter, or on what occasions the self-sufficient mortal 
 does not force himself on any person who comes within 
 his sphere "of influence. No question is too large, no 
 question is too small, for his cognizance. No subject is 
 too vast, no subject is too insignificant, for his mastery. 
 The conceited man is equal to all occasions, is baffled 
 by none. Are you placed in a difficult or dangerous 
 position ? He can at once deliver you. Do you suffer 
 from pain, distress, or sorrow ? He can relieve you. 
 Does he see you engaged on ordinary work ? He 
 knows a method of action more speedy and effective. 
 Are you employed in discovery or invention ? He 
 has long thought-out a means to an end which anti- 
 cipates and eclipses your own. Have you to consult
 
 IL] Of the Deadly Sin of Pride. 55 
 
 and act on behalf of a third person ? The vain man 
 is certainly better acquainted with the third person's 
 mind than you can be ; and probably knows your own 
 mind better than yourself. 
 
 Is it, again, an adventure you have met with, a story 
 you have heard, a fact you call to mind ? The con- 
 ceited man can remember a more apposite fact, will 
 repeat a better story, has met with a more startling 
 adventure. Is it a public or political question ? He 
 has sources of information more reliable than your own. 
 Is it a matter of private information, or of a confidential 
 character ? He possesses knowledge more secret than 
 the most involved. It is the same with business. His 
 mode of meeting demand by supply will bring in a 
 larger per-centage than your method. It is the same 
 with art. His late school of painting is more worthy 
 of admiration or imitation than your early masters, 
 It is the same in science, or in history, or in philosophy. 
 The books he advises, the lectures he attends,, the 
 authorities he follows, are incomparably better than 
 those you believe in, listen to, or read. It is the same 
 with every other subject of human interest, upon which 
 a difference of opinion may be held by different persons, 
 or in regard to which the same thing may take various 
 forms, not even excepting religion and the mysteries of 
 the faith. Nothing in heaven or earth comes amiss to a
 
 56 A Theory about Sin. [n. 
 
 conceited man on which to exercise his office. And 
 his office, you will not forget, is this to minister to an 
 inordinate belief in, desire for, or love of, self-excellence, 
 not for the glory of GOD, not for the good of souls, 
 not for the benefit of the Creator, but for the love of 
 self, under the influence of the sin of pride. 
 
 To this unlovely picture of a most unlovable and 
 unloving being, I will only add, that it is not all who 
 act thus of whom I speak. It is not all who act as 
 the vain man acts, who are guilty pf self-consciousness, 
 but only some. The sympathetic, the charitable, the 
 kind, the humble, may, on occasions, think and say 
 and do, rightfully, things which would be chargeable 
 on the conceited man as sin. Persons, also, may be 
 placed in a position of authority, or of trust, or of 
 responsibility, when duty may demand at their hands 
 action or advice such as the vain, proud man, whom 
 duty calls not, would sinfully offer or sinfully perform. 
 Or one friend, of his own free-will, may submit himself 
 to another friend to an extent that necessitates media- 
 tion with a third, which, apart from such subjection, 
 might be called the result of self-sufficiency. But these 
 cases influence our argument not at all. It is not of 
 the kind and sympathetic that I speak, but of the 
 vain ; not of those in authority, but of those without 
 authority; not of friendly, brotherly counsel, but of
 
 ii.] Of the Deadly Sin of Pride. 57 
 
 conceited interference. I speak of those who are in- 
 fluenced by imperfect and human love, not by love 
 which is divine and perfect ; of those who are guilty 
 of that form of pride in regard to self which develops 
 self-consciousness, and which may only be counteracted 
 by the love of GOD as GOD, and the love of GOD'S 
 image for GOD'S sake: 
 
 VI. 
 
 Take one more, and that the last, estimate of the 
 deadly sin of pride. Take a practical estimate of its 
 various forms with a view to its suppression. If we 
 will remember the point of observation from whence 
 we view this sin, and the relation which we find it 
 to bear upon ourselves, we shall obtain so definite an 
 idea of its suppression generally, that it may, with 
 little difficulty, be made particular to our own individual 
 case. We have viewed pride, then, as the first of those 
 influences which prove that self is the origin and 
 source of human sin, and that divine love is the anti- 
 dote to the poison of selfishness. And as we have seen 
 that there are at least four different forms of the sin 
 so we may also perceive that there are four different 
 ways of counteracting its malign influence. 
 
 i. In the first place, pride may succumb to self-
 
 58 A Theory about Sin. [n. 
 
 sacrifice and love energised, by diminishing the justi- 
 fying cause of sin to the proud man, which we have 
 seen to be self-conceit. How is it, Brother or Sister 
 in CHRIST, that you and I, of all persons in the world, 
 possess this over-valuation of ourselves ? How is it 
 that you and I, who know ourselves so much better 
 than our neighbours know us, who are known to GOD 
 so much better than we know ourselves, fall into this 
 sin of self-conceit ? How is it that we, whom GOD 
 and ourselves, if not our neighbours, know to be guilty 
 of such and such a fault ; to be possibly accountable for 
 further imperfection ; to be responsible for more grace 
 squandered than we can affirm of any other ; to have 
 missed more opportunities for good than have been 
 so much as offered to many how can we be puffed up 
 with this form of the sin of pride ? 
 
 Nor are these questions not to the point. For 
 the mental and moral, the intellectual and religious 
 part of our nature are so intimately connected, that 
 they act and react upon one another with strange 
 intercommunion. A conquest over one division in 
 either element of our being, will afford or enable us 
 to secure a more than ordinary insight into any of 
 the others. Hence, if we obtain a true estimate of our 
 own character devotionally, we may form an accurate 
 opinion of ourselves socially, or an opinion sufficiently
 
 ii.] Of the Deadly Sin of Pride. 59 
 
 accurate to prevent our lapsing into pride. And a man 
 who knows himself by confession, as GOD knows him, 
 or even as his confessor knows him, will hardly fall 
 deeply, will surely not fall past recovery into self- 
 deception and self-conceit. If then we can but realize 
 how little worthy we actually are of our own good 
 opinion, tested by the knowledge gained in the sacra- 
 ment of penance, we shall have done much towards 
 subduing, in the lower stages of the sin, that form of 
 pride which we call vanity or self-conceit. 
 
 2. Secondly : A check given to pride on the lower 
 platform of self-conceit, will afford us considerable 
 advantage in a contest with sin in the next higher 
 stage in which the sin assails us pride presumptuous. 
 
 For, if we are self-assured that we are not of value 
 even in our own sight, it will be long ere we take so 
 false an estimate of our powers as to attempt that for 
 which failure will declare them to have been unequal. 
 A just estimate of our own capacity will inevitably 
 check self-deceit, and will save us from the folly of 
 supposing self to be the efficient cause of human 
 action, under the delusions of pride presumptuous. 
 
 3. Having thus been furnished with a just estimate 
 of ourselves as a corrective of self-conceit ; and having 
 relieved ourselves from a false estimate of our powers, 
 in spite of the delusions of self-deception, we shall be the
 
 60 A Theory about Sin. [u. 
 
 more prepared to conquer self in the domain of self- 
 esteem. We shall never allow self to usurp the position 
 of meritorious cause to our actions. We shall never 
 ascribe to our own merit the ambition which tempts 
 us, the ambition which moves us, the ambition which 
 even causes us to succeed. And the third develop- 
 ment of the sin, as ambitious pride, will be dispelled. 
 4. Lastly : Rising by these three stages from a know- 
 ledge of self gained by examination of conscience 
 and confession of sin ; treading down contemptuous 
 self-conceit; mounting upon presumptuous self-decep- 
 tion ; and soaring above self-esteem in ambition we 
 may finally hope to conquer pride absolute, self- 
 worship, or idolatry of self; pride, caused by ingrati- 
 tude towards GOD ; pride, which elevates itself into a 
 great final cause. This victory will give us power to 
 conquer self at its source, self in its stronghold. It 
 will enable us to attribute all we are, and all we have, 
 and all we do, not to self, but to GOD. 
 
 A. M. D. G.
 
 in.] Of the Deadly Sin of Envy. 61 
 
 LECTURE THREE. 
 
 OF THE .DEADLY SIN OF ENVY : 
 
 THE SECOND SIN OF LOVE DISTORTED. 
 
 " Pilate answered them, saying, ' Will ye that I release 
 unto you the King of the Jews ? ' For he knew that the 
 chief priests had delivered Him for envy? S. MARK XV. 
 9 and 10. 
 
 I. 
 
 r I ^HE second of the capital sins, and the second of 
 -*- the sins which owe their origin to distorted love, 
 is Envy. And Envy has been described as inordinate 
 and selfish uneasiness of mind at another's good. 
 
 This, so far as it goes, is a fairly accurate descrip- 
 tion of envy, because it embraces the principle of both 
 the active and passive side of the mental aspect of this 
 deadty sin. The definition, you will observe, is nega- 
 tive in form. The state of mind, it affirms in other 
 words, the state of mind which is not at peace with 
 itself, which is not at peace with its neighbour, which
 
 62 A Theory about Sin. [in. 
 
 is not at peace with its GOD, at the good of another, 
 is the subject of envy. And this is comparable to 
 the parallel and inspired definition of the Christian 
 virtue which is the opposite of the capital sin, namely, 
 brotherly-love. Charity, saith the Apostle, envieth 
 not. In other words, the state of mind which envieth 
 not, which is not unpeaceful with its GOD, which is 
 not unpeaceful with its neighbour, which is not un- 
 peaceful with* itself, bears one of the marks of charity. 
 For charity and envy, the temper of mind which 
 loves good to its neighbour, and the temper of mind 
 which feels uneasy at its neighbour's good, are incom- 
 patible the one with the other. They are mutually 
 antagonistic. 
 
 For instance : Take a case stated in general terms. 
 Charity rejoices at the good of one's neighbour on two 
 grounds : I, as increasing the total sum of human hap- 
 piness ; and 2, as adding to the greater glory of GOD. 
 But envy feels uneasy at the good of one's neighbour on 
 two grounds : I, as not necessarily increasing our own hap- 
 piness ; and 2, as indirectly taking away from the glory 
 of ourself. Whilst, then, charity tends to augment the 
 greater glory of GOD by acts of human sympathy, envy 
 tends to lessen GOD'S glory, by withholding human 
 sympathy. Indeed, the envious man would limit GOD'S 
 goodness to himself, or would limit it in regard to his
 
 in.] Of the Deadly Sin of Envy. 63 
 
 neighbour. But the charitable man would rather seek 
 to follow in the spirit of the Apostle's unselfish desire, 
 who could wish himself accursed from CHRIST for his 
 brethren's sake. He would rather limit GOD'S good- 
 ness from himself, as being less worthy than his neigh- 
 bour ; would rather include his neighbour in all good 
 things, as being at least equally worthy with himself 
 to enjoy them, and perhaps more. In short, the envious 
 man is a distorter of charity he distorts the divine 
 principle of brotherly-love. He is uneasy in mind at 
 another's good. He does not accept the apostolic pre- 
 cept : If one member of the body corporate rejoice, 
 all the members should rejoice with it. He would 
 introduce schism into the Christian body. He would 
 invert the theory of charity, and distort the law of love, 
 saying : If one member of the body corporate benefit, 
 all the members may be discontented with and be 
 mortified at it. 
 
 The definition of envy as uneasiness of mind at 
 another's good, is a fairly sound definition, as has been 
 said, so far as it goes. But it does not go far enough. 
 It is content with stating a negation. The sin of envy, 
 however, has a positive, as well as a negative side. He 
 who suffers from distortion of love, becomes the agent 
 of love distorted. And it is only when bodily action 
 is taken upon a state of mental uneasiness, that envy
 
 64 A Theory about Sin. [in. 
 
 obtains its full proportions. Love distorted as a senti- 
 ment will eventually cause us actively to love evil to 
 those whom we should love as ourselves. The distorter 
 of love, esteeming his own self-importance to be lessened, 
 or his own self-interest to be endangered, by another's 
 advancement, (and thinking nothing of GOD'S glory or 
 man's welfare,) will inevitably develope into desiring 
 that other's destitution and compassing the same. For, 
 envy is not only a state of feeling, but a condition of 
 activity. And a complete definition of the deadly sin 
 can only be composed by combining these two ele- 
 ments, thus: An inordinate and selfish uneasiness of 
 mind at another's good, and action which ensues from 
 such want of peace, constitutes the capital sin of 
 envy. 
 
 Here we must distinguish. Envy is usually con- 
 sidered as one of the spiritual sins, in distinction, for 
 example, to gluttony, which is supposed to be wholly, 
 or almost wholly, sensual. But, in common with most, 
 if not with all the deadly sins, envy is in part bodily, 
 in part mental. So far as it answers to the first por- 
 tion only of the definition, of feeling selfish uneasiness 
 at another's good, it remains spiritual alone. When it 
 has become developed, so as to fall under the heading 
 of the last portion of the definition, namely, of active 
 unpeacefulness, it ceases to be only a spiritual sin,
 
 in.] Of the Deadly Sin of Envy. 65 
 
 But envy seldom remains in a single phase. Now, 
 it is the tendency of much, if not of all mental feeling, 
 to find expression in bodily action, either by word or 
 deed. Envy is no exception to this experience. Un- 
 less checked by sacramental power, lawless and love- 
 less desire, find speedy consummation in loveless and 
 lawless activity. And envy pays homage to this prin- 
 ciple. Hence, envy becomes a corporal sin, when action 
 develops from feeling : envy remains a spiritual sin, so 
 long as it exists mentally, without development into 
 action. It is a spiritual sin so long as it questions 
 only the will of Almighty GOD in bestowing upon 
 others that which He has not showered upon- us ; 
 which, in our opinion, others do not deserve ; or 
 which we deserve equally with, or more than others. 
 It becomes a corporal sin when we take action upon 
 the estimate which we have formed of GOD'S dealings, 
 and seek to alter, to modify, to reverse, or to restrain 
 them. In the mental phase of the sin, to use the 
 language of the Litany, " envy, hatred, malice, and all un- 
 charitableness " of feeling are the results. In the bodily 
 phase, the sin gives birth in word, to unjust judg- 
 ment, to hasty criticism, to religious gossip, scandal- 
 talking, and detraction ; and in act, it produces every 
 wicked deed which may legitimately ensue. 
 
 Envy, then, or selfish uneasiness of mind and action 
 
 F
 
 66 A Theory about. Sin. [in. 
 
 consequent thereon, may be exerted in two different 
 ways, towards two different classes of persons. We 
 may sin 
 
 1. In thought only; and also 
 
 2. In act, by word or deed: 
 
 And these are the two different ways of sinning by 
 envy. We may sin, also, in the social relations of life, 
 
 1. Against those beneath us; 
 
 2. Against those above us; and 
 
 3. Against those on an equality with ourselves : 
 And these are the three different classes of persons 
 against whom we may sin by envy. 
 
 Although both the ways of sinning by envy must be 
 considered, it is proposed to neglect two out of the 
 three classes of persons who are the objects of the sin 
 our worldly superiors and inferiors. For, in both cases, 
 selfish uneasiness of mind and ensuing activity are the 
 outcome of other deadly sins, which either have been, 
 or will be, discussed in past or future lectures. For 
 example : Envy may beget the sins of pride, or of 
 covetousness, or of anger : pride, in esteeming ourselves 
 of more worth than our inferiors ; covetousness, in de- 
 siring to possess the lot of our betters ; anger, in the 
 contemplation of the good of either, in which we are 
 not personally benefited. But anger, covetousness, and 
 pride form the subject-matter of other lectures. Our
 
 in.] Of the Deadly Sin of Envy. 67 
 
 attention, therefore, in regard to envy will be confined 
 to the case of our equals in life. 
 
 In the case of our equals, indeed, it would seem that 
 envy, pure and simple, holds its own undisputed sway. 
 For mental disquietude at the good of our equals in 
 life, and the issue of such want of peacefulness, is envy 
 undiluted by any qualifying circumstances. In such 
 development of deadly sin, anger need take no part ; 
 for the dignity of self-consciousness might be lowered 
 by an exhibition of this weakness. Covetousness need 
 not be excited ; for it is more than possible to envy 
 without being desirous to share, much less to super- 
 sede. And pride need feel no wound; for in the case 
 of equals, the worship of self would not be intermitted, 
 and even might not be questioned. Envy, therefore, 
 envy in thought, or word, or deed ; envy as distinct in 
 its effect from pride, from covetousness, from anger ; 
 envy, as a capital or root sin, has to be contemplated 
 in relation to those on an equality with ourselves. 
 
 Here, again, I am forced to make another limitation ; 
 for the subject, even in its contracted form, is too wide for 
 complete treatment in a single lecture. The capital sin of 
 envy, as we have seen, may be exercised either passively 
 or actively. We may indulge envious thoughts ; we 
 may act enviously either in word or deed. The deeds 
 which may ensue from stimulated envy are, in number, 
 
 F 2
 
 68 A Theory about Sin. [in. 
 
 legion. They could hardly be mentioned in the time 
 at our disposal. A deed of envy, in the typical case 
 of the high priests, included, directly or indirectly, 
 nearly every conceivable form of sin. It culminated 
 in suicide by the human agent, and in the deicide 
 of the Divine object, of this deadly sin. But short of 
 this cardinal instance of envy, the sin may lead to many 
 lesser crimes than self-murder and the death of GOD. 
 For instance : We may envy a man his position, so far 
 as'at once to deprive him of his position, and his position 
 of him. We may envy a man his influence, and spare 
 no pains, till we have diminished, if not destroyed it. 
 We may envy a man his wealth or possessions, to the 
 extent of making it or them our own. We may envy 
 him from personal motives, and come to hate him, or 
 make others hate him. We may envy him his good 
 name, and steal it away from him ; or his friendships, 
 and turn his friends into enemies. We may envy his 
 good deeds, and attempt to thwart them; or his abili- 
 ties, and seek to hinder their usefulness ; or even his 
 character and parts, and deny him pleasures which are 
 his due, and gratifications which it would be kind in 
 us to allow him to enjoy. In these and many more 
 ways, envy in act and deed may be called into being. 
 But with these cases, we have, on the present occasion, 
 nothing to say. We will confine our attention to two
 
 in.] Of the Deadly Sin of Envy. 69 
 
 points : first, to the passive form of the sin of envy in 
 thought ; secondly, to the active form of the sin of 
 envy in word. In both kinds of envy, remember, we 
 shall consider the sin as exercised against our equals 
 in life or society. The first sort of envy, I take to be 
 what theologians call malice. The second, I shall treat 
 as the sin of detraction. 
 
 II. 
 
 Of all the forms of deadly sin, perhaps the form 
 which is the least loveable before GOD, and most hateful 
 to man, is that of envy aggravated by malice. In- 
 temperance, indeed, lowers its votaries to equality with, 
 or rather, below the level of GOD'S animal creation ; 
 and sloth is a sin with few compensating qualities to 
 commend it to a Christian. But, there is a pride which 
 is endowed with an element of nobility. We may be 
 angry, as the Apostle says, and sin not. Some posses- 
 sions may lawfully be coveted for their higher use 
 to the greater glory of GOD, as S. Paul commands. 
 And the last of the seven deadly sins has a mysterious 
 and intimate connection with the chiefest of the Chris- 
 tian virtues. But it is otherwise with the form of envy 
 which we have now to consider. Malice is the lowest 
 in the scale of wickedness ; it is the meanest and most 
 despicable of vices. It almost deserves the epithet of
 
 70 A Theory about Sin. [in. 
 
 devilish : for no sin gives us closer relationship to, or 
 places us so nearly on a level with, the great lost spirit 
 than the sin of envy. 
 
 Is this an exaggerated statement ? Consider the 
 position of Satan in regard to man. Until the day of 
 doom, the devil exists in an atmosphere of envy. And 
 how does such envy manifest itself in human affairs ? 
 In many ways. Satan envies the work of GOD'S HOLY 
 SPIRIT, Who renews to man's soul, in baptism, the for- 
 feited gift of supernatural grace. Every child brought 
 to the font is a separate and additional source of envy 
 to the enemy of our salvation. He envies, again, the 
 sprinkling of the precious Blood on sin-stained souls, 
 and their cleansing restoration in the sacrament of 
 absolution. Every adult who kneels before the crucifix 
 in confession is an object of still fiercer envy to our 
 ghostly foe. He envies, again, the showing forth the 
 LORD'S death, as in this church, day by day, till He 
 comes the second time, in the most holy Sacrament of 
 the Altar. Every man or woman who approaches with 
 bended knee to receive the Body of our Incarnated 
 Master is the cause of Satan's keenest, bitterest envy. 
 And observe, my Brethren, that in these three cases, 
 in communion, in confession, in baptism, man gains 
 nothing which his envier loses. The last is incapable 
 of benefiting, desires not the benefit of, and would not
 
 in.] Of the Deadly Sin of Envy. 71 
 
 if he could benefit by, the gifts with which the first is 
 blessed. Yet, the devil envies the work of the Blessed 
 TRINITY in man's soul, envies the mercy of the 
 FATHER, envies the outpouring of CHRIST'S precious 
 Blood, envies the sanctification of the COMFORTER, 
 envies the good of souls enriched through the seven- 
 fold channel of the Sacraments of the Church. 
 
 Neither is it otherwise with the envious man, who is 
 the victim of a malicious heart under the influence of 
 deadly sin. It matters not, that he is powerless to 
 enjoy the good which GOD, in His bounty, bestows 
 upon another. It matters not, that he wishes not, and 
 cares not for, and perhaps even dislikes, the gift which 
 yet he will not cease from envying. It matters not, 
 that nothing is taken from him, that he is not im- 
 poverished, in order that his neighbour may be 
 endowed. It matters not, that his own capacity for 
 enjoyment might be enhanced, that something might 
 be added to his own stock of happiness, if he would 
 only be loving and sympathetic instead of uncharitable 
 and unkind. But he is envious. He is inordinately 
 and selfishly uneasy in his mind at another's good. 
 And this sin it is which brings even regenerated 
 human nature into such fearfully close contact, into 
 such hateful companionship with the spiritual nature 
 that is Satanic.
 
 72 A Theory about Sin. [in. 
 
 Malice, as the passive form of the spiritual side of 
 the sin of envy, is well defined in the terms already 
 employed. It is uneasiness of mind inordinate and 
 selfish at the good of another: that other being our 
 equal in the world ; such uneasiness being confined to 
 mental irritability. And here, I think, the theory which 
 we endeavour to apply to all the capital sins, ccmes 
 into play in the case of malice. Self being the source 
 and origin of human sin, and the deadly sins especially, 
 being the development of selfishness is malice, I ask, 
 my Brethren, an exception to this law ? In some cases, 
 it may be admitted, the parentage is not easy to dis- 
 cover. In some cases the descent is not easy to trace. 
 But a little trouble and some patience will serve to show 
 us the solution of the mental problem; and the adhesion 
 of the case of malice to the general law of sin will 
 become clear. For, self does lie at the foundation of 
 envy, however much self-deception may hide the truth ; 
 and the malicious man is essentially a selfish one. 
 Does any person doubt the truth of this assertion ? 
 Consider, again, for a moment, the terms of the oft- 
 repeated definition of the mortal sin of envy, of 
 which malice is only one development uneasiness of 
 mind at another's good ; and then, make an attempt 
 to analyse the definition. 
 
 On examination, we find that the situation in which
 
 in.] Of the Deadly Sin of Envy. 73 
 
 the envious man places himself, is composed of four 
 distinct factors. There is, first, GOD Who bestows the 
 good. There is, secondly, the good thing itself. There 
 is, thirdly, man who benefits by the good. Lastly, 
 there is self. No further relationship need enter into 
 the question. Any other relationship would compli- 
 cate it. It is complete as it stands. When, therefore, 
 another's good is offered to the envious man's imagi- 
 nation, self, .the last factor, bears a certain affinity to 
 the other three: I. to GOD, 2. to GOD'S gift, 3. to 
 GOD'S image. We will for the instant, and only for the 
 instant, take the envious man's position and consider 
 these affinities in order. I. The good conferred upon 
 another alters no relation which before existed, between 
 oneself and GOD. GOD is not changed to us-ward ; 
 we are not changed towards GOD : and so far as we 
 are concerned, He is free to give, or to abstain from 
 giving to another. 2. Neither is our connection with, 
 or dependence upon the gift bestowed either altered 
 or reversed. The gift was not ours before it was con- 
 ferred of GOD : it certainly is not ours after it has been 
 conferred on man. The gift was not intended for our 
 use ; and we are not made poor because another is 
 made rich. 3. Nor, again, is the recipient of GOD'S 
 bounty altered in his attitude towards us. He was 
 independent of us before, he is independent of us aftei,
 
 74 A Theory about Sin. [in. 
 
 GOD marked him for special favour. We, certainly, 
 are none the worse ; it is possible that he may be none 
 the better, for GOD'S blessing. Hence, in regard to 
 GOD'S gift to another than self, the relationship be- 
 tween self on the one part, and GOD, the gift and our 
 neighbour, on the other part, are unaltered. If, then, 
 we feel inordinate and selfish uneasiness of mind at 
 another's good ; and if three out of the four factors 
 of the product are unaffected in their connection with 
 us, the cause of such want of peace and rest must of 
 necessity be sought in the last component element. 
 And that element is self. 
 
 Self, then, is the source and origin of malice. And 
 how does malice exhibit its uneasiness of mind ? Malice 
 shows itself in too many ways to be summarized ; 
 yet some features in its effects may be noted. Selfish 
 uneasiness of mind first of all takes shape in nega- 
 tions. It feels unsympathetic, unloving, ungenerous 
 towards another's good. But it seldom is content with 
 a negative posture, and quickly assumes a positive sen- 
 sation towards the matter in question. From a want of 
 generosity and love and sympathy, the malicious man 
 becomes displeased with the good of another. He is 
 put out, to use a common term ; and feels saddened, 
 out of sorts, out of humour, soured. Perhaps he de- 
 generates yet further, and is annoyed, vexed, irritated,
 
 in.] Of the Deadly Sin of Envy. 75 
 
 excited to the edge of explosion and only to the edge 
 under this phase of envy, which you will remember, 
 represents the passive side of the sin. Later, on the 
 downward slopes of wickedness, the malicious man 
 becomes hard and bitter : bitter towards GOD ; hard 
 towards man. He is offended and morally scandalized 
 wherefore, it would be difficult for him to say; 
 offended, with no tangible ground for offence ; offended 
 almost nigh unto death. And he eventually comes 
 even to hate that good thing which another has re- 
 ceived, to hate that other who has received the good 
 it is well if he hate not the Giver of the good to the 
 other. Such are a few of the notes of malice. 
 
 Take some common-place examples. Take for re- 
 mark or analysis four forms of envy I. emulation, 
 2. rivalry, 3. jealousy, and 4. discontent. 
 
 i. In this age of mercantile activity and mechanical 
 invention, and of the application of the one to the 
 other, A, we wil] suppose, employs fresh means for 
 providing or multiplying the necessaries of life ; or he 
 adapts well-known materials to little-known results ; 
 or again, he discovers overlooked virtues in otherwise 
 neglected substances, of high economic value ; or once 
 more, he multiplies power and diminishes labour by 
 doing some things quicker or some things better or 
 more surely than before. The invention, the discovery
 
 76 A Theory about Sin. [in. 
 
 the adaptation, the employment, opens a new line of 
 business, secures a large custom, becomes a success. 
 By his sagacity A makes his fortune. Self, on the 
 other hand, in the person of B, we will again suppose, 
 self lacks the ingenuity to patent a new mechanical 
 design, lacks the talent to create a new channel for 
 capital or labour ; yet feels uneasiness of mind at A's 
 success, which he desires to emulate. Such selfish un- 
 easiness of mind in emulation at another's good is 
 malice. 
 
 2. Conceive the case of two other persons, C and 
 D. C, we will imagine, achieves distinction in litera- 
 ture or art, in science, in law or medicine. His skill or 
 eloquence, his research, his picture, or his book, as the 
 case may be, excites attention. It is widely noticed 
 in the public papers ; it is eagerly discussed in private 
 circles ; it becomes the basis of extended inquiry ; it 
 becomes an authority in cases of danger or difficulty 
 in each case respectively. And C gains credit, fame, 
 position, wealth by his eminence. Self, in the person 
 of D, appears on the stage. D also writes, but badly ; 
 and paints but ill. D also studies, though without 
 much advantage to himself or others ; and practices, 
 though without many clients or patients. And D is 
 offended at C, and holds himself to be injured. He 
 thinks all praise that falls to another, in his own special
 
 in.] Of the Deadly Sin of Envy. 77 
 
 vocation, to be taken from himself. He thinks all 
 success which attends the efforts of another, to be 
 the measure of his own failure. He feels uneasiness 
 of mind at the good fortune, or the deserved re- 
 putation of C ; and desires to rival him. Such selfish 
 want of peacefulness of mind in rivalry is malice. 
 
 Again: 3. Family relations prove a fruitful source 
 of the sin of envy. E, we will say, has a favourite 
 sister, a child he loves devotedly, a parent who is 
 nearly everything to him, a friend who may become 
 all in all. E has a perfect right, if it be a right ; E has 
 prefect liberty, . if it be only a privilege, to dispense 
 his love towards whatever persons and in whatever 
 proportion he pleases, so long as he injures no one, 
 and hurts the sensibilities of none, willingly. F, how- 
 ever, thinks otherwise. Self, he declares, has equal 
 rights and higher claims upon E's love than either 
 friend or parent, than either child or sister. He re- 
 sents, as a personal injury, the bestowal of all love 
 which is not directed upon, which is not centred in 
 himself. He is powerless to perceive the boundless 
 capacity of even human love. He cannot believe that 
 love is multiplied rather than diminished by division ; 
 that love is strengthened rather than weakened by 
 expansion. He heeds none of these truths ; but lets 
 the sentiments of the natural man take their course.
 
 78 A Theory about Sin. [in. 
 
 He becomes in turn unsympathetic and ungenerous, dis- 
 pleased and saddened, full of vexation and bitterness, 
 and at last, of hatred both of the loving and the loved. 
 In fact he is jealous. And all such selfish uneasiness 
 of mind in jealousy is malice. 
 
 Once more : 4. G is a man without any special con- 
 nection with ourselves, whose place in the world lies 
 altogether outside our own line of life. He is talked 
 about, written to, heard from, thought of, by others. 
 He exerts an influence, personal or social, to which it 
 would be absurd for us to aspire ; and is a man of 
 mark, with few or many admirers, as the case may 
 be. It is even possible that he is noticed by one whose 
 favour we would rather not enjoy ; is given what we 
 either do not want, or could not utilise ; is commended, 
 whether he deserves .it or not, and placed in a position 
 we could not fill ; is entrusted with work we should 
 fail in attempting ; or attains the object of his wishes, 
 hopes and labours, such attainment being far distant 
 from anything conceived by ourselves. Such is G ; and 
 as G is, so H, in the person of self, pronounces against 
 him why, we will not pause to inquire. But H feels 
 uneasiness of mind at G's vocation in life, at G's re- 
 sponse to GOD'S call, with uncharitable discontent. 
 And once more, all such selfish want of peace in dis- 
 contentedness is malice.
 
 in.] Of the Deadly Sin of Envy. 79 
 
 These present a few examples of inordinate and 
 selfish malice ; of envy which has its origin in self, 
 which has its fulfilment in the various forms of malice 
 above named, emulation, rivalry, jealousy, and dis- 
 content, with which we are familiar familiar either 
 in others or in ourselves. Nor would further examples 
 be hard to find from everyday life, in home life, or 
 public life ; in the office, or house of business ; in the 
 workshop, or at the counter; in the school, or in the 
 parish ; amongst persons living in the world, or out 
 of it ; with priests and people ; in both Church and 
 State. These cases, however, are confined to one de 
 velopment only of envy, to the positive side, to malice 
 in thought, to mere uneasiness of mind though in 
 ordinate and selfish at another's good, apart from 
 action. But the sin of malice seldom retains its earli 
 est impression. Its law of existence almost necessarily 
 implies a law of expansion : in practice entirely so. 
 Thought gives birth to energy : and energised thought, 
 as we have supposed, takes form in word. In the next 
 place, therefore, we have to consider that development 
 of envy which we know as verbal detraction. 
 
 III. 
 
 The saints have ever been strict with others and 
 severe with themselves on the sin of detraction. S.
 
 8o A Theory abozit Sin. [in. 
 
 Teresa declares of herself, that even during the time 
 when she led an imperfect life, GOD gave her a special 
 aversion from such sin. " I did not speak ill of any 
 one," she says, "and my ordinary custom was to avoid 
 detraction ; for I always bore in mind that I should 
 never wish to say anything of anyone, which I did 
 not wish should be said of me. This I paid attention 
 to on all occasions." Among various resolutions which 
 another devout religious made, in order to advance 
 in holiness, was this : " I wMl never inform myself," said 
 she, " of the faults of others ; and when I am forced 
 to speak of them, I will do it in the charity of the 
 Sacred Heart, considering whether I should be well 
 pleased if others said the same of me." S. Bonaventure 
 gives us a good rule to prevent detraction : " When 
 you perceive anything in another worthy of blame, turn 
 your eyes inwardly on yourself; and if you find that 
 you are guilty of some fault, pronounce that sentence 
 upon yourself which you would have passed upon your 
 neighbour." S. Bernard teaches us the same lesson by 
 an opposite method : " When you perceive in your 
 neighbour anything that pleases you, see if you possess 
 the same. If you have it, think how you may preserve 
 it. If you have it not, endeavour to acquire it." By 
 this means you will avoid the. temptation of seeing evil 
 in him, and of falling into the sin of detraction.
 
 in.] Of the Deadly Sin of Envy. 8 1 
 
 Again: there is no sin in condemning an action ob- 
 viously bad ; yet is there virtue in endeavouring to 
 excuse our brother : and thus, S. Bernard says in words 
 we know, though we may not know whence they come : 
 " Excuse the intention, even if you cannot excuse the 
 action." And again : " If the same temptation came 
 upon me," said the saint, " or had GOD permitted Satan 
 to have the same power over me, what might not have 
 happened ? " And S. Ignatius, when an action was so 
 evidently bad, that there was no way to excuse it, was 
 wont to suspend his judgment, by adhering to the 
 words of Holy Scripture: "Judge nothing before the 
 time. Who art thou that judgest another man's ser- 
 vant ? To his own master he standeth or falleth." 
 
 Strange and terrible stories are on record of the 
 violent and supernatural deaths which have happened 
 to those guilty of the sin of detraction ; and of one 
 who, in a frenzy which preceded his death, mangled 
 with his teeth the organ of speech by which he had 
 sinned. There is also on record the case of a holy 
 man who supernaturally received power to fall into a 
 deep sleep when backbiting was resorted to in his 
 presence. But these may not be edifying to mention 
 more definitely. The practical efforts, however, of a 
 certain saint to punish and check the fault in others 
 will bear repetition. She held the office of mistress 
 
 G
 
 82 A Theory about Sin. [in. 
 
 of novices in a religious house for women ; and was 
 wont to impose severe penances on old offenders in 
 the sin we are considering. As a preventative to the 
 sin, she always recommended her spiritual children to 
 speak little of their neighbours even in commenda- 
 tion ; for she said : " We begin by speaking good, and 
 end by speaking evil ; " and she would allow them to 
 say nothing in the absence of others which they would 
 not say in their presence. When, however, a novice 
 had been guilty of detraction, even in a slight degree, 
 the saint did not permit her to enter the convent- 
 oratory that night until she had acknowledged her 
 fault in the presence of others, and, as a penance, had 
 made with her tongue the sign of the holy cross on 
 the ground ; whilst, if the fault were more serious, she 
 made the novice prostrate herself, and the others to 
 place their feet upon the member guilty of detraction, 
 or to inflict three stripes of conventual discipline. 
 
 IV. 
 
 There is no doubt but that the descent from passive 
 to active envy is as facile as it is fatal. From the 
 thought to the word is only a step ; though for de- 
 traction to be the outgrowth of mental uneasiness, is 
 a serious declension in the path of godlessness. Un-
 
 in.] Of the Deadly Sin of Envy. 83 
 
 easiness of mind is under the command of self. 
 Action consequent thereon is beyond human control. 
 The malicious thought may be forgiven, and injures 
 none but the unhappy subject of it. The act of 
 maliciousness, be it word or deed, leaves its influence 
 behind until the last great day. And this is one 
 reason why sins of the tongue are not only so dan- 
 gerous, but also of such magnitude. A word once 
 spoken, like a deed once done, passes beyond our 
 power of recall. It is an act performed once and for 
 ever. It cannot be, as if it had never been uttered. It 
 may be repented by the speaker. It may be forgotten 
 by the hearer. It may be forgiven of Almighty GOD. 
 But it cannot be unsaid. Its effect may never leave 
 us this side the grave. Its remembrance will cer- 
 tainly come to us on the other. The word spoken is 
 noted in GOD'S book. And if, my Brethren, for every 
 idle word that men shall speak, we shall have to give 
 an account in the day of judgment, by thy envious 
 and malicious words shalt thou be condemned, O thou 
 detractor of thine own mother's son ! 
 
 Detraction, in word of course, follows the fourfold 
 division which marks malice in thought. It may be 
 envy in the disguise, I. of emulation, 2. of rivalry, 
 3. of jealousy, 4. of discontent. Of these four forms, I 
 purpose to neglect the first three, and more directly 
 
 G 2
 
 84 A Theory about Sin. [in. 
 
 vicious forms of envious detraction, and to consider 
 the last only and least heinous. 
 
 We need not seek to emulate our neighbour in 
 mercantile transactions or mechanical invention, and 
 second our efforts by depreciating his. We need not 
 be forced perhaps into actual rivalry with a friend in 
 letters, science, or law, and strive to lower his fame 
 by extolling our own. We need not be the hateful 
 slave of domestic or social jealousy, and basely 
 endeavour to diminish the love of another for a 
 third, by vainly attempting to increase it on behalf 
 of ourselves. It is enough, that we feel in general 
 terms, discontented with some other ; that we feel 
 sore, ungenial, out of humour, depressed towards 
 him; and that such discontent finds at once outlet 
 and expression in some word of disparagement. 
 Such disparagement may be truly called the sin 
 of detraction. 
 
 Now the sin of envy in the detraction of discontent 
 at another's good, may take at least three forms : 
 
 1. It may be direct. 
 
 2. It may be indirect. 
 
 3. It may be, what I will term, gratuitous. 
 We will discuss each form with brevity. 
 
 I, The direct form of detraction is the more generous
 
 in.] Of the Deadly Sin of Envy. 85 
 
 and open kind of depreciation, if there be any open- 
 ness, or if there be any generosity in the matter. 
 It goes straight to the point, and has the advantage 
 of boldness to gain its purpose. The positive detractor 
 thinks ill of his neighbour, and says so ; wishes evil to 
 his neighbour, and says so. He thinks his neighbour 
 undeserving of the good that befals him, and desires 
 all others to concur in such opinion. He wishes that 
 his neighbour were deprived of the good he enjoys, 
 and desires others to join in the effort of deprivation. 
 And whatever the detractor thinks or wishes, he says. 
 Why was so and so, he inquires, of all men destined 
 by GOD, or chosen by man, for this benefit ? What 
 has such an one done to deserve it ? How will society 
 at large, or his immediate friends, or even himself, be 
 made the better by his enjoyment of it ? His parts 
 and talents do not point him out as fitted for such 
 distinction ; and those qualities which would have 
 helped him most, he wants. His faults, not to say his 
 vices, are too glaring to escape observation; and 
 those failings which tell most against his interests, 
 he indulges. His position in life does not entitle him 
 to expept what has befallen him ; and some less com- 
 plete good would have more than compensated him 
 for what he has actually done, have been more suit- 
 able to his own needs, and more in accord with
 
 86 A Theory about Sin. [in. 
 
 the judgment of his friends. Such are specimens of 
 the form of detraction delivered with all the frank 
 candour of envious criticism, which if we may per- 
 sonate the vice distinctly challenges his neighbours' 
 claim to good fortune. 
 
 II. The indirect method of detraction is more diplo- 
 matic than the direct. It fails to attack its opponent 
 openly, but approaches the stronghold of his fame by 
 covered ways. The detractor is conscious that it is 
 labour lost to question the genuine qualities, or to 
 ignore the sterling merits of his unsuspecting enemy. 
 Both are safe from the breath of calumny, because 
 too obvious to be maligned. He would not only fail 
 to convince men of his own estimate of some other, 
 but would cover himself with ridicule in the attempt 
 There is, however, another plan of operation which 
 indirect malicious detraction can take. There is 
 nothing absolutely perfect in this world, the envious 
 man thinks : every thing, every person, every gift or 
 quality, is good or bad relatively. Even if such an 
 one is positively commendable in himself, it does not 
 at all follow that he is incomparable with others. So 
 the fellow-creature, the co-religionist, the brother in 
 CHRIST, is forthwith subjected to systematic detrac- 
 tion by a series of unfavourable comparisons with
 
 III. 
 
 Of the Deadly Sin of Envy. 87 
 
 his neighbours. He is placed in the scale of the 
 detractor's balance and found wanting. It may be 
 true, that A, B, or C, is deserving of the good which 
 has come to him ; but how many others are deserving 
 also, and to a larger extent ! How much more humble 
 is D under the like circumstances, or more diligent, 
 or more patient, or more persevering ! How much 
 better would E exert his influence, use his talents, 
 spend his money, employ his time ! How much more 
 fitted is F, both by nature and grace, both by endow- 
 ment and acquisition, both by family and connexion, 
 to fill so high and important a social position ! And 
 so may the detractor continue his malicious compari- 
 sons to the end of the alphabet, net valuing him who 
 is the object of it directly on his own merits ; not 
 honestly estimating him on his own deserts : but 
 always indirectly and meanly comparing him with some 
 other who is avowedly his superior in certain points ; 
 always suggesting, if not making the observation, Why 
 was such a gift squandered on one so utterly un- 
 worthy ? 
 
 III. The method of detraction which is at once most 
 indirect in form, and most direct in effect, is the method 
 which I have called gratuitous. Perhaps this form of 
 feeling selfish uneasiness at another's good is more
 
 88 A Theory about Sin. [in. 
 
 commonly expressed in two ways first by suggestion, 
 and secondly by innuendo. 
 
 I. First take the case of detraction by suggestion. 
 Suppose a man to be beyond the reach of direct 
 detraction, or beyond the detractor's power of injuring 
 him by this means. Suppose him to be, in his own 
 line, incomparably the best man in the best place, and 
 thus, above the influence of indirect disparagement 
 it is evident, in this case, that he is capable of being 
 wounded in his reputation most effectually, through 
 the instrumentality of malicious suggestion. And so 
 the detractor shapes his diabolical attack. He fully 
 admits, nay, he is eager to avow, in order to sharpen 
 the point of his weapon, that the object of his envy, 
 on the whole, is an admirable person ; that he fully 
 deserves whatever good may have come to him ; that 
 he, the detractor, wishes him well from his heart. But 
 then in the interest of truth, for the sake of society, 
 to prevent misapprehension, and for many other 
 reasons, equally good or equally bad, do not you think, 
 says the envious man, do not you think that such an 
 one is ? And then follows the suggestion of de- 
 traction, which we need not be at the pains to indicate 
 in other than general terms. 
 
 Is the victim valued as a public man ? You hear 
 that his family relations are unhappy ? Is his worth
 
 in.] Of the Deadly Sin of Envy. 89 
 
 apparent in private life? You are told that in public 
 he is unbearable. Does he give largely in alms ? Yes ; 
 but his name and abode appear in subscription lists. 
 Does he give liberally without ostentation ? Doubtless ; 
 but his poor wife and children suffer untold privations. 
 Has he much time at disposal for works of mercy? 
 It were better, says the detractor, if he attended more 
 to his worldly business. Has he become absorbed in 
 work to which he has been trained ? It is a pity he 
 can find no time for GOD'S poor and CHRIST'S little 
 ones. He is remarkably upright; but then his temper 
 is so bad. He is blessed with a sweet temper ; but his 
 vanity is undisguised. He is pure, but indevout; active, 
 yet fussy ; just, even if harsh ; truthful, though severe. 
 Indeed he would be perfect, so says the envious man, 
 were it not for certain failings which he cannot conceal, 
 and for certain faults which his friends cannot overlook. 
 And thus the detractor gratuitously suggests away the 
 character of one whom he dare not indirectly defame, 
 whom he cannot directly injure. 
 
 2. Nor is the man who indulges in innuendo less in- 
 genious a detractor, only he says less, and leaves more 
 to the imagination. He deals little with details, but 
 much with generalities ; and the more he can convey 
 in the fewest words, the greater he counts his success. 
 Not only does he not either directly or indirectly assail
 
 QO A Theory abotit Sin. [in. 
 
 a man's character, but he hardly ventures upon a sug- 
 gestion to his detriment. Rather, he envelops his 
 detraction in a vague mystery which he makes no 
 effort to solve, and hides it in a thick cloud of uncer- 
 tainty of his own composing-. He listens, it may be 
 with becoming patience, or even interest, to the praises 
 of the object of his envy ; and then, as it seems, almost 
 unconsciously, lets fall the innuendo which becomes the 
 death-blow to his neighbour's fair-fame. Of one he 
 will say : You would not suppose that so holy a person 
 could be subject to such and such an infirmity. Of 
 another: He has wealth, doubtless, and uses it well; 
 but did you ever hear how he made his money ? Of 
 a third : The story which I have been told of him, I 
 entirely discredit ; but I tell you what I hear, and you 
 must judge for yourself. Of a fourth : He is a most 
 charming person, and I like him immensely ; but is 
 he sincere or dependable ? Of a fifth : If we only 
 believe one half of what is said of him, he cannot be 
 quite so good as he seems. And so, the miserable 
 innuendo spreads venom-like through the. system of 
 society, leaving all smooth upon the surface. It 
 poisons the blood of a man's repute without obser- 
 vation, until it reaches some vital part. And the 
 victim suddenly awakes to find his character utterly 
 blasted.
 
 in.] Of the Deadly Sin of Envy. 91 
 
 To these descriptions of the various forms of envious 
 detraction, I will add, further, but two short observa- 
 tions. First : That, of course, it is not needful, in 
 order to be guilty of the sin of detraction, that we 
 should employ the very words I have used as indi- 
 cative of the sin, or that we should be influenced by 
 the very sentiments which I have supposed. Indeed, 
 the envious man himself may not be conscious of the 
 mental operation examined, nor capable of the vocal 
 utterance described. It is enough if the word spoken, 
 it is enough if the thought conceived fall far short of 
 these examples ; but it is not unwise occasionally 
 to estimate the extremes to which moderation in sin 
 may lead, to which moderation in sin does lead. 
 Secondly: That it may be necessary, sometimes and 
 under certain contingencies, to use words of warn- 
 ing to others about third persons, which, if spoken 
 under the influence of the sin of envy, would be justly 
 chargeable with detraction. The motive in such a case, 
 not the utterance, is the test of detraction, is the 
 token of brotherly love. And we have been consider- 
 ing, my Brethren, not the virtue but the sin. 
 
 V. 
 
 In conclusion, I will summarise, in a few words, a 
 portion of what has been said, that we may have some
 
 92 A Theory about Sin. [in. 
 
 definite thoughts to take away with us. After obtain- 
 ing a definition of the deadly sin of envy sufficiently 
 exact for our purpose, we saw that envy possessed both 
 a positive and a negative side ; the first a matter of 
 feeling, the second a matter of action. We then ob- 
 served that envy may be exerted towards our superiors, 
 our equals, and our inferiors; and this in two ways, 
 cither in word or deed, actively ; or in thought, pas- 
 sively. Of these two different kinds of envy, excited 
 by three different classes of persons, we have con- 
 sidered the case of envy towards our equals passive 
 envy in thought, that is, malice; and active envy in 
 word, that is, detraction. Then, we illustrated malice 
 under a fourfold division, of emulation, of rivalry, of 
 jealousy, of discontent. And lastly, we spoke of de- 
 traction, direct and indirect, as well as of the detraction 
 of suggestion and innuendo. We have also seen reason 
 to affirm of the deadly sin, from analysing the factors 
 which compose the situation in a simple case of envy, 
 that self is the source and origin of the sin. 
 
 It only remains to affirm of envy, that it follows the 
 law which may be observed of the other deadly sins 
 that the sin can only be subdued by the cultivation of 
 divine love. If envy be a form of love distorted, and 
 if a distortion of love leads, as we have seen that it 
 leads, by thought to word and deed, to loving ill and
 
 iii.J Of the Deadly Sin of Envy. 93 
 
 loving evil to those whom we should love as ourselves, 
 that is our neighbour ; if distortion of love leads, as 
 we have seen that it leads, to desiring another's 
 destitution, because we esteem our own power to be 
 lessened by another's good such distortion of love can 
 only be counteracted by love which is perfect and 
 divine. We learn from the example of the chief priests 
 to what extremes of deadly sin envy has led others 
 and may lead us even to suicide and deicide. Let 
 us learn from the apostle S. Paul, that brotherly love 
 is the antidote to the poison of inordinate, envious 
 selfishness ; for charity envieth not. 
 
 A. M. D. G.
 
 94 A Theory aboitt Sin. [iv. 
 
 LECTURE FOUR. 
 
 ON THE DEADLY SIN OF ANGER: 
 THE THIRD SIN OF LOVE DISTORTED. 
 
 " Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, 
 ' TJiou shalt not kill! . . . But I say imto you, ' That 
 whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall 
 be in danger of the judgment! " S. MATTHEW V. 21, 22. 
 
 I. 
 
 deadly sin of Anger, in the distorter of love 
 who is actuated by developed selfishness, causes 
 a man in a third way to love ill or to love evil to those 
 whom he should love as himself, that is, his neighbour. 
 If because of harm done to himself, in fact or imagi- 
 nation, intentionally or by accident, in word or deed, 
 he inordinately and selfishly desires another's injury, a 
 man is said to be actuated by the capital sin of anger. 
 The sin, therefore, stands third in order in the catalogue
 
 iv.J Of the Deadly Sin of Anger. 95 
 
 of the deadly sins ; and is the last of those sins which 
 are the issue of love distorted, in hateful succession first 
 to the sin of pride, and secondly to the sin of envy. 
 
 Anger, when it attains the proportion of a deadly 
 sin, may take at least three distinct forms, and may 
 be estimated in at least three different ways. The 
 three forms which the sin of anger. may assume, under 
 the influence of developed selfishness, it is hardly neces- 
 sary to say, are these : 
 
 1. Anger in thought; 
 
 2. Anger in word; 
 
 3. Anger in action. 
 
 Perhaps, if our attention to the subject has not been 
 specially taxed, the three ways in which the deadly 
 sin may be estimated are not so familiarly known to 
 some of us. They relate 
 
 1. To the matter of the sin; 
 
 2. To the manner of the sin ; 
 
 3. To the motive of the sin of anger ; 
 
 in regard to the results of distorted love, of loving 
 ill or evil to our neighbour. We will treat the subject 
 from both points of view ; and will consider firstly, the 
 three methods of estimating the sin ; and lastly, the 
 three forms which the sin may take.
 
 96 A Theory about Sin. [iv. 
 
 II. 
 
 Firstly : Theological writers assure us that the deadly 
 sin of anger is, or is caused by, or comes from " inordi- 
 nate and selfish love of, or desire for revenge." And so 
 far as concerns our neighbour, we may be content to 
 accept the explanation without entering into a defence 
 of it. The more we analyse the mental feeling of 
 anger, the more we examine the instinct which urges 
 the feeling to take outward form in word or deed, the 
 more shall we see that the spirit of revenge, in a wide 
 sense of the term, has taken possession of our soul. 
 Inordinate desire for revenge, therefore, in the selfish 
 distorter of love may be considered 
 
 1. In regard to the matter of the injury to another 
 which revenge makes us inflict, or seek to inflict: 
 
 2. In regard to the manner of inflicting such in- 
 jury : and 
 
 3. In regard to the 'motive which excites us to inflict, 
 or wish to inflict such injury. 
 
 In each case respectively, the bad intention, the faulty 
 method of execution, the wicked action itself, when we 
 commit deadly sin, are the opposites, in thought or 
 deed, to the virtues of strict justice, of brotherly 
 charity, of Christian meekness. 
 
 For example: Anger, or the inordinate and selfish
 
 iv.] Of the Deadly Sin of Anger, 97 
 
 desire for revenge, is the opposite, in the first place, 
 of strict justice, whenever the person who has caused 
 our anger has not deserved the punishment we inflict 
 or wish to inflict ; and this touches the matter of the 
 sin. It is the opposite, next, of brotherly charity 
 when, in the manner of punishment, we make our- 
 selves, as it has been said, both judges and execu- 
 tioners of the injury which we desire to another. It 
 is the opposite, lastly, of Christian meekness when, 
 in our desire for revenge, we punish the offender, not 
 for the good of his soul, but for the gratification of 
 ourselves, and as a salve to our wounded self-esteem; 
 .or when we harbour sentiments which eventually lead 
 to other forms of anger : and this affects the motive 
 of the sin. These three methods of going counter to 
 the virtues of meekness, of charity, and of justice 
 respectively, contain within themselves, as the effects 
 of indulged selfishness and of imperfect love, either 
 the germ or the development of deadly sin. 
 
 Take these three modes of estimating the capital sin 
 of anger, and consider them in less general terms. 
 
 I. Take the matter of the injury. 
 The sin of anger is incurred and guilt ensues, when 
 the punishment is out of proportion to the fault com- 
 
 H
 
 98 A Theory about Sin. [iv. 
 
 mitted. It matters not at all, whether the punishment 
 is, or is not, due. If it be not due, that is to say, if we 
 inflict an injury for an offence not given, we sin doubly; 
 first, by wrong judgment, secondly, by action founded 
 on the illusion. Angry persons are apt to be mistaken. 
 Their mistake, however, so far from mitigating their 
 guilt, enhances it. And even though guiltless through 
 the mistake, they are guilty by design, in the infliction 
 of the injury : and he that offends in one point against 
 the law of love, is guilty of all. But, even if the punish- 
 ment be due to the person who has wronged us, like 
 all other means to an end, physical or moral, it must 
 be proportionate to the offence in order to be perfect. 
 Indeed, it is only punishment, strictly speaking, so long 
 as such proportion is maintained. When the balance is 
 disturbed, it ceases to be punishment ; and according to 
 its kind becomes the effect of cruelty or vice, of spite or 
 malice, of passion or hatred. And I use the word " punish- 
 ment " in a wide sense. It may be applied to thought, 
 or word, or deed. For a fancied, or for an intended 
 slight, one person may be punished by another in many 
 ways ; for instance, by refusing to be conciliated, by 
 saying unkind words, by acts of discourtesy. Of course, 
 these different shades of punishment may be intensified, 
 until positive aversion take the place of temporary dis- 
 like ; until bad language be the result of unkind words ;
 
 iv.] Of the Deadly Sin of Anger. 99 
 
 until acts of personal violence become developed from 
 simple want of courtesy. But we will not contemplate 
 the extremes into which we, Brothers and Sisters in 
 CHRIST, are liable to fall. Suffice it to remember, 
 that by such wicked acts, or hard words, or bitter 
 feelings, a man punishes his neighbour overmuch ; 
 injures him in will or deed ; loves ill or evil to him ; 
 distorts the divine principle of love ; indulges deliberate 
 and inordinate selfishness ; and is guilty of the sin of 
 anger. And, remember, the bad act which causes the 
 guilt of anger is the opposite of the issues of the 
 virtue of justice. 
 
 II. Take the instrument or manner of the injury 
 which one may desire to inflict upon another. 
 
 The sin of anger ensues when a man himself will- 
 ingly becomes the agent of the punishment due to his 
 neighbour. In this case, we may suppose that punish- 
 ment, in some form, is actually our neighbour's due ; 
 that there is no mistaken cause of annoyance on our 
 part ; that there has been a real source of provocation 
 upon his. The question then arises Who is to be- 
 come the instrument of vengeance upon our neighbour ? 
 Without deciding, at the moment, who may be the 
 fit instrument of punishment, shall we personally be- 
 come our own executioner as well as our own iud^e 
 
 J 3 , 
 
 H 2
 
 TOO A Theory about Sin. [iv. 
 
 and it may be added, our own counsel and witness 
 and gaoler? 
 
 Suppose a case avowedly extreme, suppose the case 
 of murder. This is an instance, surely, in which we 
 may follow the injunction of the apostle, to be angry 
 and sin not. And that we may be angry in act as 
 well as thought, and in word equally with either, and 
 sin not, the example of our Blessed LORD in the temple 
 teaches us, when, in the language *of Holy Scripture, 
 the zeal of GOD'S house had eaten Him up. The fact 
 of sending a fellow-sinner without warning into the 
 awful presence of his Maker, with no preparation in 
 the way of sacraments to meet the judgment of his 
 works, is comparable for wickedness with only one 
 other form of sin, that of suicide. A person, then, 
 we will assume, commits murder upon a parent, a child, 
 a friend of mine. Granting the heinousness of the 
 guilt, am I at liberty to hunt down that murderer to 
 his place of concealment ; and if it be in my power, to 
 avenge the murder by the law of retaliation ? Putting 
 aside the chance of the murderer, as the more physi- 
 cally powerful, being able to kill me, instead of my 
 killing the murderer, and thus adding to his guilt 
 without taking from my own will anyone venture 
 to assert such conduct to be justifiable ? And yet, 
 we have the sanction of Holy Scripture for the dire
 
 IV Q/ ^ ie Deadly Sin of Anger. 101 
 
 fate of those who shed innocent blood, that by man 
 shall their blood be shed. 
 
 Again : Suppose the case of any crime which is not 
 so clearly punishable by GOD'S word, such as specu- 
 lative dishonesty on a large scale, perhaps within the 
 letter of the law, which makes beggars of the unhappy 
 victims of misplaced confidence. Shall one, who sees 
 his aged parent, his paralytic friend, or the infant in 
 arms suddenly reduced from affluence to indigence, 
 take the law, as it is called, into his own hands, and 
 avenge those that have suffered, upon the head of the 
 dishonest trustee, or fraudulent bankrupt who has 
 caused such suffering ? But, apart from the question 
 of being able to take the law into our own hands, 
 which under most circumstances would be impossible, 
 the question of deciding what that law may be offers 
 a preliminary difficulty. Who is to decide what punish- 
 ment may be sufficient, and yet not too severe, to meet 
 the requirements of some given offence ? It would be 
 dangerous to the offender and to society through him, 
 as well as to the victim himself, to place such power 
 in the hands of the sufferer. It would be unsatisfying 
 to the sufferer that the offender, if privately judged, 
 should be judged by other than one personally in- 
 terested in the punishment. And even if such difficulty 
 be overcome, it would neither be wise nor judicious
 
 IO2 A Theory about Sin. [iv. 
 
 to allow each citizen, without the restraints of law, to 
 avenge himself upon his adversary. The same argu- 
 ment will apply to the cases of many sins which 
 are simply not punishable, or are most inadequately 
 punished, by human law, though clearly and deeply 
 opposed to the law divine. Such immunity from, or 
 insufficiency of punishment may be due, either to the 
 infirmity of law-makers, or from the imperfection of 
 the law itself when made. But in either case, and in 
 all similar instances, which may be allowed to be 
 extreme, it is obviously inconvenient that a man him- 
 self should be the instrument of punishment for private 
 injuries upon the private instincts of anger. 
 
 Observe, Brethren, the law which governs extreme 
 cases, governs also cases which are not extreme. If 
 this be not so, the assumed law is no law at all ; and 
 the expediency which permits minor injuries to be 
 expiated by minor punishments, can easily be ex- 
 tended to punishments which are severe for injuries 
 that are deadly and both by the instrumentality of 
 private agency. Hence, anger, which takes the form 
 of becoming the agent of punishment to his neighbour, 
 is lawful to no Christian man as a private citizen. It 
 is unlawful, not only because such vengeance is lawless 
 in a human point of view ; but on the higher ground, 
 that it is opposed to the evangelical law of doing unto
 
 iv.] Of the Dead y Sin of Anger. 103 
 
 all men as we would they should do unto us. Human 
 corporate authority alone may punish sins which are 
 cognizable by the state. Divine and infallible autho- 
 rity may safely be left to punish sins that are not 
 cognizable by the state. But, in no case may man, as 
 the unit of society, usurp the functions of society at 
 large. In no case may one sinner presume to inflict 
 upon another sinner punishment which, sooner or later, 
 and far more effectually, will fall upon him, by the 
 sentence of the Judge of sinners. To attempt to wield 
 the direct power of GOD Himself, or to assume the 
 delegated powers of GOD'S deputy, the state, is to 
 become criminal in one phase of the deadly sin of 
 anger, in that phase which is opposed to the action 
 of the virtue of brotherly love. 
 
 III. Take the motive which suggests the infliction of 
 injury on our neighbour. 
 
 This point includes the real issue of the whole ques- 
 tion : for the motive covers or excludes the sinfulness 
 both of the matter of the injury, and of the manner 
 of inflicting it. With respect to the injury inflicted 
 upon another, be the punishment never so just, never 
 so equally apportioned to the fault, if we punish a man 
 less for the sake of the offence, and more for the sake 
 of the offender, the motive of the act is bad, and the
 
 IO4 A Theory about Sin. [iv. 
 
 act is a sinful act. With respect to the manner of 
 the injury, the motive alone decides whether the 
 infliction of penalty by human authority at our insti- 
 gation, or the wish for its infliction at GOD'S hands, 
 be sinful or sinless. In either case, if we cause punish- 
 ment to fall on one who has injured us, merely to 
 gratify some disorderly passion or wicked affection, 
 the motive, again, is bad, and the action is not without 
 sin. In the first instance, a sinful motive causes us 
 to deny the principles of justice, which allow no per- 
 sonal reason to influence the relations between guilt 
 and its atonement even in this life. In the second, 
 a sinful motive makes us ignore the claims of brotherly 
 love, which, though it administer punishment, never em- 
 ploys such an effort without a hope (incompatible with 
 a false motive) for the reformation of the offender. 
 In both cases, the wrong motive ensues from the want 
 of Christian meekness : for meekness teaches us to bear 
 with the injuries of others, and not to seek retaliation 
 however just, and however little opposed to charity. 
 If then, in our dealings with our fellow-men, our 
 motives be bad, we become guilty of a distortion of 
 love ; we love ill or evil to those whom we should 
 love as ourselves ; we desire another's injury as penalty 
 for harm done to ourselves ; and we become guilty, 
 in a most important aspect of the question, namely
 
 iv.] Of the Deadly Sin of Anger. 105 
 
 in the motive which influences us, of the deadly sin 
 of anger. 
 
 Thus much may be said d upon the three methods 
 of estimating this capital sin, from its matter, from 
 its manner, and from its motive. 
 
 III. 
 
 Anger is a sin which, unfortunately, is of so 
 
 m 
 
 common occurrence that illustrations of its effects are 
 scarcely needed by way of warning. The following 
 story, however, is worthy of repetition as showing the 
 extreme to which the sin may lead us extreme at 
 once of folly and wickedness. 
 
 The physician Galen, when a young child, as he tells 
 us himself, once chanced to see a man who, approach- 
 ing the entrance of his house, tried to open it in great 
 haste ; but, because the key would not act upon the lock, 
 and all his efforts were unavailing, he completely lost 
 his temper and flew into a passion. His face became 
 flushed with rage ; he gnashed his teeth ; he stamped 
 upon the ground. Then, as if the door was guilty of 
 standing in his way, he began to kick at it like a 
 madman ; and next, venting his fury on the key, he 
 was seen to gnaw at it with his teeth like a dog. Nor 
 did his madness stop here. For lifting up his darkened
 
 io6 A Theory about Sin. [iv. 
 
 eyes to heaven, he uttered blasphemies against GOD ; 
 as the doctor says, foaming at the mouth and bellowing 
 like a wild beast. The illustrious physician, child as 
 he was, v/as horror-struck at the sight, and never forgot 
 it. He seemed to be looking not on a man made in 
 GOD'S image, but on one who had lost the divine like- 
 ness: and the sight inspired him with such an abhor- 
 rence of anger, that he was never seen to give way to 
 passion during the whole course of his life. 
 
 By way of contrast to this insane victim of the 
 capital sin of anger, take an example of one who, in 
 domestic life, and by means which are certainly not 
 common, sought after perfection by cultivating the 
 virtue of meekness and forbearance. A certain lady 
 of Alexandria in the fourth century, not less illustrious 
 for her goodness than her birth, asked S. Athanasius 
 for one of the poor widows who were supported on 
 the alms of the Church, not so much to be her servant 
 as to exercise her patience. A widow of a mild 
 character and peaceable disposition was assigned to 
 her, and began to wait upon her new mistress with 
 attention and devotion. But the lady was the less 
 content with her, for the special purpose she had in 
 view namely, the improvement of her own temper 
 the more the widow's character was all that could 
 otherwise be desired. So she restored her to the
 
 iv.] Of the Deadly Sin of Anger. 107 
 
 Church, saying that she was a most excellent woman, 
 but not one of the sort which she wanted. The lady 
 then got an9ther widow, of a different caste a rough, 
 unpolished, sour, cross-grained creature, so says the 
 account, of the most troublesome character. Having 
 taken her home she laid herself out to treat the new 
 comer with every consideration and kindness. But 
 the ill-tempered woman, instead of showing gratitude 
 for the goodness of her mistress, answered to it only by 
 insult, abuse, and injury. The saintly lady thereupon 
 again called upon S. Athanasius, to tender her thanks for 
 having sent her such an attendant as she desired that 
 is to say, a person of a most disagreeable character, 
 who gave her . continual occasions for exercising the 
 virtues of patience, meekness, forbearance, and love. 
 
 My Brethren, let this example teach us, if not 
 literally to seek occasions for the trial of our temper, 
 at least in the spirit of it to bear with such trials as 
 are sent us by GOD, whether we be masters or servants, 
 whether we be employers or employed. 
 
 Listen to one more story ; and it is worth listening 
 to. It illustrates the value of forbearance in regard to 
 the sin of anger in others. In a manufacturing town 
 in the north of England, a certain church which plays 
 the part which this church plays, as a centre of Catholic 
 teaching and practice in the midst of a neglected popu-
 
 io8 A Theory about Sin. [iv. 
 
 lation, and which we will call S. Paul's, though such 
 was not its invocation a certain church attracted to 
 divine worship a large number of mill girls. One of 
 these girls was daughter to a father of prejudiced 
 opinion and violent temper. After bearing for a while 
 with ill-concealed discontent his child's submission to 
 the faith of our forefathers, the man forbad the girl 
 to worship any longer in the church. " Father, father," 
 said the child, again and again, time after time, "let 
 me go to S. Paul's," without moving the will of the 
 hard parent. " No," repeated the father, " no : thou 
 dost learn nothing at S. Paul's church." At last, one 
 day, irritated beyond endurance by the perseverance 
 of the girl, the brutal man, after repeating that she 
 learnt nothing at S. Paul's, raised his hand and with 
 a blow felled his daughter to the ground. The child 
 rose up again, spoke not a word, and went her way. 
 But her love for GOD was not to be beaten out of 
 her by a blow from man. Some days after, like a 
 brave English maiden as she was, the daughter again 
 boldly came to her father to make the same petition. 
 Again she was met with the like response, with the 
 like reason. " No, child, no ; thou dost learn nothing 
 at S. Paul's." But this time, the girl made answer, 
 and meekly said: "Yes, father, we do learn some- 
 thing at S. Paul's. We learn, when for nothing we
 
 iv.] Of the Deadly Sin of Anger. 109 
 
 be knocked down, to answer nothing again." Her 
 soft answer turned away the father's wrath : the man 
 was conquered by the girl. 
 
 My Brethren, this is a true story. It was told me 
 as a fact by a priest in the late " London Mission " ; 
 and though it loses in effect by not being repeated by 
 a northern tongue, it is true. 
 
 IV. 
 
 Secondly : We will consider the sin of anger as the 
 outcome of inordinate selfishness, which is developed 
 in three forms: I. in thought, 2. in word, and 3. in 
 deed. 
 
 i. In analysing the capital sin of anger in action, 
 we must keep continually before our mind this fact : 
 that the legitimate result of all anger in action is the 
 sin of murder. In truth, perhaps of all the deadly sins, 
 the beginning and the end are found more nearly to- 
 gether, and are more closely allied, in the case of anger 
 than of any other sin. Moreover, the steps which lead 
 from the one to the other are more easy to descend. 
 The sin almost naturally and irresistibly flows from 
 thought to word, from word to deed. And in this 
 peculiarity, anger stands somewhat apart from the other 
 capital sins. The sinful proud may have reasons even 
 more powerful than self-exaltation to conceal his pride.
 
 no A Theory about Sin. [iv. 
 
 The envious or covetous man may be the victim of 
 another sin which counteracts or keeps in check his 
 covetousness or his envy. The sluggard, for the hope 
 even of ultimate benefit to himself, may for a time con- 
 quer his besetting slothfulness. And the glutton and 
 lustful, for present advantage, may not yield, at least 
 outwardly, to their respective sins. But it is not so 
 with the angry man. It is almost impossible for him, 
 till he has mastered the sin, to hide it. It is almost 
 impossible for him till he has to an extent subdued 
 the sin, to prevent its outburst. No present advan- 
 tage, no ultimate benefit weigh with him. No other 
 sin acts as a counterweight. Reason is altogether 
 powerless to influence it. Harboured in thought, it 
 inevitably appears in word. Encouraged in word, it 
 seldom fails to appear in action. 
 
 If we take the pains to find the rationale of these 
 features in the sin of anger, we shall probably come 
 to two conclusions : I. that each deadly sin has its 
 own special characteristic: and 2. that the character 
 stamped upon anger is this, that pre-eminently above 
 all sins (if we except, perhaps, the sin of impurity), 
 the principle of the worst development of anger is 
 contained in its lightest form. And that principle, as 
 has been suggested, is murder. Anger, then, in any 
 shape, contains the germ of the fearful sin of murder.
 
 iv.] Of the Deadly Sin of Anger. 1 1 1 
 
 That such is the case the words of our Blessed LORD 
 declare, when, in the Sermon on the Mount, He was 
 pleased not only to reiterate the command " Thou shalt 
 not kill," but also to extend the "danger of the judg- 
 ment" to "whosoever is angry with his brother without 
 a cause." And the extension of the command was 
 needful when the letter of the Law became fulfilled 
 in the spirit of the Gospel. For, as anger is of the 
 essence of murder, and is murder in thought ; so, 
 murder is the sin of anger in deed. The issues of 
 murder are so awful, and the results so irremedi- 
 able, if not to the. agent, at least to the object, both 
 in this and in the next life, that, in order to prevent 
 the sin from attaining its unhealthy but certain de- 
 velopment, it is needful to stifle it in its birth. 
 
 Deeds of anger, then, find their legitimate result in 
 murder. That such is the case appears from the 
 definition of the sin. For, if anger is the inordinate 
 and selfish desire of another's injury, such inordinate 
 desire is only completely fulfilled by the absolute 
 removal of that other from the sphere of our own 
 existence. It need not be said, that such removal 
 can be accomplished only by the crime of murder. 
 But, short of this fearful consistency in wickedness, 
 anger in deed may become a deadly sin in many ways. 
 For instance: contentions and quarrels and strifes are
 
 H2 A Theory about Sin. [iv. 
 
 common and vulgar forms, which, though they may 
 escape the guilt of murder, yet have a tendency to 
 fulfil such guilt, and actually may incur the charge 
 of deadly sin. Jealousies and rivalries and emulations 
 and envyings offer other forms for thought : and so 
 also do law suits for doubtful rights, or for no rights 
 at all ; political disputes which go beyond the legiti- 
 mate bounds of party contests; social differences, set- 
 ting class against class, or one individual against 
 another ; or family feuds, which are hardly ever con- 
 tinued, even if inherited, without an element of anger. 
 Revenge, too, in countless ways, falls under the head 
 of anger as a sin : and such development of sin may 
 take a refined and polished aspect. 
 
 Again : Plans carried into execution for doing to 
 others as we would they should not do unto us such 
 others being those who have injured us partake, also, 
 of the nature of the sin. And these executed plans 
 need not be positive acts of mischief or violence in 
 person, or property, or character. They may, from 
 a bad motive, seek to discomfit our neighbour in 
 matters even sinful, which nearly affect his interest, 
 his comfort, or his convenience. Thus, an angry man, 
 himself, perhaps, not free from temptation to the same 
 sin, may seek to foil the pride of one, or to disappoint 
 the envy of another, or to baffle the covetousness of
 
 iv.] Of the Deadly Sin of Anger. 113 
 
 a third ; in each case, not for the purpose of benefit- 
 ing the soul of his adversary, but to gratify his own 
 inordinate and selfish feeling of anger. Nay, the feel- 
 ing may descend so low in the scale of wickedness, 
 that the angry man may condescend to take the part 
 of the enemy of souls, and become a human tempter 
 to human beings. He may plan seducements for his 
 neighbour. He may scheme, in order to arouse his 
 covetousness. He may plot, to excite his envy. He 
 may boast, or exaggerate, or pretend, or display, to 
 stimulate his pride. And in so doing he does the 
 devil's work, by human agency. But we need not go 
 so far in the declension of sin as this stage of action, 
 in order to find examples of the sin of anger. A hasty 
 blow, an ill-tempered push, and a malicious deed ; or 
 the impatient chastisement of little children, the un- 
 reasoning punishment of dumb animals, and the more 
 irrational violence sometimes displayed against inani- 
 mate creation, as in the case mentioned by Galen all 
 these examples of want of self-control are more or 
 less connected with the deadly sin of anger in deed. 
 
 Here, my Brethren, I pause for a few moments to 
 place before you a thought which has often crossed 
 my mind, as I walk along the streets of this huge 
 city. Few days pass, perhaps, in traversing, not only
 
 H4 A Theory about Sin. [iv. 
 
 the bye lanes, but also the main thoroughfares of 
 London, without evidence, often of an appalling kind, 
 of the extent to which anger exists in our midst The 
 blasphemy, the foul language, the cruel act, the out- 
 burst of passion towards man, or beast, or thing, 
 continually assail our ears or meet our gaze. What 
 are we, as Christians, to do, under such testimony, 
 on any given occasion, of the prevalence of sin ? We 
 should do, at least, two things. First : We should 
 offer up a silent prayer for the victim of the sin, and 
 for the victim of the outrage, with an act of reparation 
 to GOD'S offended majesty. Secondly: We should 
 make an act of humiliation for ourselves, owning, that 
 were it not for the efficacy of grace, we might be in the 
 place of the angry man, or worse, and the angry man 
 might be in our place, or better ; as well as offer a 
 hearty prayer to Almighty GOD, that the feelings of 
 anger with which we are tempted, may be controuled, 
 before they develope into word or deed which bear 
 plain marks of the characteristics of the capital sin 
 of murder. 
 
 2. The sin of anger in word will come home more 
 nearly to many amongst ourselves, than the sin which 
 developes into act. And although such development 
 is less heinous than the other, we must never forget
 
 iv.J Of the Deadly Sin of Anger. 115 
 
 that, as from the thought comes the word, so, in anger, 
 from the word comes the deed ; and that the angry 
 deed contains within itself the germ of murder. To the 
 more violent, if not more common forms of anger in 
 word, I will make but a passing allusion. The fact 
 that such words would not, save under much provo- 
 cation, or by the utterly sinful, be used in a sacred 
 building, or before our superiors, or in the presence of 
 those we love much or highly respect, is sufficient to 
 mark them as bad words. I here speak of oaths and 
 blasphemies ; of ill-sounding words of bad repute ; of 
 terms which are not actually profane, or immoral, in 
 themselves, but which bear a strong likeness to the 
 others ; of expressions which either convey more than 
 they assert, or are meant by the speaker to do so ; of 
 conventional phrases which may be understood in a bad 
 sense ; and of many similar words. All such language 
 uttered under the heat of passion, or temptation to 
 anger, is, of itself, of the nature of sin. 
 
 But, we need not stop in our examination of the 
 forms of spoken anger at violent language. There is 
 much that does not rise to profane, impure, or pas- 
 sionate words, which in its nature is sinful. How 
 many persons are there, in the main good-tempered, 
 who are apt to fall into the sin of querulousness, 
 acerbity, irritability, and petulance in word, under 
 
 I 2
 
 1 1 6 A Theory about Sin. [iv. 
 
 slight provocation to anger. Take the last two cases. 
 A friend or relation, we will suppose, says a word too 
 much about a given matter, or fails to say the right word, 
 or says a word too little and an angry explosion of 
 temper, though it be but a petulant word, is the result. 
 A person, in the best of tempers, begins a conversation 
 with a neighbour; a conversation which takes an un- 
 lucky turn, either in politics or religion, or any other 
 equally engrossing subject and anger in word, from 
 an irritable temper, ensues. An argument is attempted 
 on one's own part, or perhaps is unwillingly forced 
 upon one by another, with every self-determination to 
 keep in good temper. But, bye and bye, our adver- 
 sary declines to be persuaded ; does not see the point 
 of our argument ; seeks to persuade us by reasons we 
 cannot answer, though we may know them to be false; 
 or worse, forces upon us facts which we will not allow 
 and cannot deny, for we know them to be true and 
 again an angry word irritable or petulant, a sign that 
 our resolution has failed us, escapes. 
 
 Even smaller things cause us to employ words of 
 anger; for I will not contemplate things of magnitude, 
 such as disappointment, the loss of friends or money, 
 bad health, mental infirmity, failure in plans, or actual 
 wrong-doing from others .against ourselves. Thus : We 
 may feel angered, when our wishes are not instantly
 
 iv.] Of the Deadly Sin of Anger. 117 
 
 carried out; when they are done otherwise than we 
 wished ; when they are not done at all ; when they are 
 performed with apparent ill-will or without obvious 
 good-will and we give way in rebuke, or peevishness 
 of speech. It matters not, that the person who gave 
 offence intended no harm, and did his best to please. 
 It matters not, that he met with an unavoidable acci- 
 dent, that he sincerely meant to avoid annoyance. If 
 only the fatal chord was touched in the soul of the 
 angry man, the sound which proceeded answered to 
 the touch, and the angry word, irritable or petulant, 
 became added to the former sins of the guilty soul. 
 
 Again : Take any of the ordinary and small events of 
 life, in act or word, and witness the result in the angry 
 man's uncontroulable gift of speech in the other two 
 forms the forms of acerbity and querulousness. If 
 one chance to run against another in the street ; or 
 if he gets into, or fails to get out of, another's way ; 
 or passes too near before him, or jostles too close 
 behind him an angry word, offspring of angry temper 
 within, is often the unwitting, or even unconscious 
 offender's immediate punishment. Of course, an angry 
 word employed against us, more especially if well 
 deserved, is enough to beget words of anger in return, 
 as surely as echo answers to voice under certain 
 physical conditions of nature ; and a sharp word is
 
 1 1 8 A Theory aboiit Sin. [iv. 
 
 sufficient to ensure a snappish retort from the man 
 disposed by acerbity to sin by anger. But, it does 
 not need the words or acts of man to rouse the demon 
 of querulous anger in our heart, and to give it expres- 
 sion in word. The state of the weather to name a 
 commonplace instance be it hot or cold, be it dry 
 or wet, provided only that it interferes with our plans 
 of self-seeking, is a fruitful source of complaining, dis- 
 contented, words of anger against Almighty GOD. And 
 such words are fairly certain to be repeated in kind, 
 and exaggerated in degree, against the first of GOD'S 
 creatures who oppose or thwart us. Whilst, anger is 
 confined neither to GOD nor man in the case of many 
 unhappy persons. For some are so lost to the fitness 
 of things, under the influence of anger, as to employ 
 bad language to dumb animals as if they could 
 understand it when following only the law of their 
 creation ; and even to inanimate matter as if it 
 could be influenced by abuse when it simply obeys 
 the motive power impressed upon it by the angry man 
 himself. 
 
 3. And lastly : The sin of anger in thought will 
 come home more closely to most of us, than even the 
 sin which developes into word. And although such 
 development, it may be repeated in this case also, is
 
 iv.] Of the Deadly Sin of Anger. 119 
 
 less heinous than the last, we must again not forget, 
 that as from the word comes the deed which contains 
 within itself the germ of murder; so, the word spoken 
 in anger is only the product of the angry thought not 
 sufficiently or systematically controuled. 
 
 Perhaps the better plan to consider anger in thought 
 will be this to attempt to analyse in a few words the 
 state of mind, momentary or continuous, in which such 
 a feeling is apt to place us. In this consideration, we 
 may omit all details of the cause of our anger, and 
 confine our attention alone to the effect. We will 
 suppose, then, that some one has offended us ; and that 
 we, as a result, are guilty of the sin of anger. How 
 does this result mentally show itself to our inner self? 
 
 At first, it may be, though tempted to anger, we are 
 not angry; we hold our judgment in suspense. If cha- 
 ritably disposed, we are not quite sure whether or not 
 any offence were meant ; and we give the offender the 
 benefit of the doubt. Still, our mind is all prepared, 
 like the battery of an electric machine, to emit sparks 
 of passion, in word or deed, if our suspicions are well- 
 founded. But, there may be no opening for doubt. 
 The insult was marked and intentional ; and we, as 
 carefully and deliberately accept what was offered. 
 
 Then our trial begins. 
 
 Outwardly, perhaps, we have sufficient command over
 
 I2O A Theory about Sin. [iv. 
 
 our muscles to prevent obvious show of anger. But 
 a match has been applied to the gunpowder, and a 
 report has been heard within our soul which tingles 
 through our nerves. Yet, even outwardly, our coun- 
 tenance, that divinely given not, observe, Brethren, 
 the humanly developed index to our emotions, which 
 we know also as 'expression,' may prove tell-tale. The 
 pouting lip or knit forehead, the flushed cheek or 
 sudden palour, the vengeful look, or the kindling eye, 
 may betoken the storm which sweeps within. We 
 positively long to speak. If spoken, the angry word 
 seems to intensify the heat, and to cause the smoulder- 
 ing embers to burst into flame. If silent, we do one 
 of two things : we either harbour the insult ; or, by the 
 grace of GOD, we put it far from us. In the latter 
 case, we have gained the chiefest victory, we have 
 conquered ourselves and our besetting sin. We are 
 enabled to laugh it off, to turn the conversation, to 
 distract our attention, to occupy ourselves in some 
 other way, to think of some other matter, or, better 
 still, to offer up the insult to GOD. 
 
 But we may do otherwise; and the angry man will 
 do otherwise. We may accept the deed or word, and 
 make it part of ourselves. We may take it away with 
 us, as it were, think over it, and even meditate upon 
 it. We may repeat it to ourselves ; we may repeat it
 
 iv.] Of the Deadly Sin of Anger. 121 
 
 to others. We may anticipate the repetition of it, 
 without any intention on the side of our adversary 
 again to incur our anger. We may act it over and 
 over again even to a division of the parts in public 
 and private, by day and night. We may have learnt it 
 by heart so completely, as never to be wholly free 
 from it. The thought will come to us at all odd 
 moments. Our business will hardly keep it from us ; 
 and our devotions not at all. Dissipating pleasure 
 alone dispels the unhappy illusion of the angry man, 
 namely, of being made really worse by having been 
 injured. Not that we wish to be revenged. Far from 
 it. As we say, we willingly forgive ; but we cannot 
 forget. We have been injured, as a fact: and as a 
 sentiment, we feel it. And in our devoutest hours we 
 are haunted by it, even at GOD'S holy altar. 
 
 Neither are these the only malevolent effects of 
 deadly sin in our soul, when anger is consciously en- 
 couraged. We are even powerless to see the person 
 who has done us the wrong, or to hear of him, or to 
 read of him, without feeling the wrong he has done 
 us. His very name, or any chance word that brings 
 him to mind, will bring to mind, also, his injury of 
 us. In short, our heart is poisoned by his action : 
 and we are for a time in a state near akin to actual 
 demoniacal possession by the passion of anger. And
 
 122 A Theory abo-ut Sin. [iv. 
 
 nothing will successfully exorcise the demon, but 
 special resolution at the beginning of the day against 
 this feeling of anger ; special self-collectedness during 
 the day ; and special self-examination in regard to the 
 sin at the day's end, or even twice during the day. 
 Nor will these secondary and indirect efforts against 
 anger in thought avail anything, except they are sup- 
 plemented, or rather, except they are introduced by 
 sacramental aids : by confession of the deadly sin, to 
 banish it from our soul ; by penance, to prevent our 
 forgetting it and for keeping it in check ; and by the 
 Holy Communion to implant and increase in our soul 
 the opposite Christian virtue. 
 
 V. 
 
 In conclusion, this only need be added, in order 
 briefly to summarise certain salient features which 
 may be observed in the third of the capital sins the 
 last of the sins which owe their origin to love dis- 
 torted the sin of anger. 
 
 In all that has been said of the sin of anger, I have 
 confined our attention to the thought of deadly sin in 
 different forms and under various conditions. The sin 
 of anger has been viewed in regard to the motive which 
 makes us indulge it, to the manner of indulging it, to 
 the matter of the indulgence. It has also been esti-
 
 iv.J Of the Deadly Sin of Anger. 123 
 
 mated in reference to its results in thought, in word 
 in deed. The bad intention, the wrong instrument, 
 the wicked action, have also been shown to be antago- 
 nistic to the Christian virtues of meekness, of charity, 
 of justice. But, in all these cases, and under every 
 aspect of this form of love distorted, anger has been 
 discussed as a deadly sin. There may be, there are, 
 instances of love distorted which cannot be accounted 
 deadly sin. We may feel angry thoughts, we may say 
 angry words, we may do angry deeds, and yet not 
 be guilty of deadly sin. The matter of the action may 
 not be perfect, and we may offend against justice. The 
 manner of the action may be mistaken, and we may 
 be forgetful of charity. The motive of the action may 
 be questionable, and meekness may be ignored. Yet, 
 in each case respectively, we may escape the guilt of 
 positive deadly sin. 
 
 Our concern, however, at the present time is not with 
 sins which are not, but with sins that, in character, are 
 deadly. And enough, perhaps, has been said to indi- 
 cate some of the more marked features of this capital 
 sin. We have seen that anger is a form of imper- 
 fect love selfish and inordinate which springs from 
 love distorted. We have seen that the angry man 
 loves ill, or loves evil, to those whom he should love 
 as himself, namely his neighbour. We have seen that,
 
 124 -A Theory about Sin. [iv. 
 
 because of wrong done to himself, he desires another's 
 injury. And we shall have no difficulty to imagine 
 from what has been before said, that inordinate selfish- 
 ness is the source and origin of the sin ; that love 
 perfect and divine is the only antidote; and that he 
 who deliberately encourages, who wilfully utters, and 
 who habitually commits the thoughts or words or deeds 
 of this form of love distorted, is guilty before GOD of 
 the deadly sin of anger. 
 
 A. M. D. G.
 
 A THEORY ABOUT SIN. 
 
 PART II. 
 THE SIN OF LOVE DEFECTIVE.
 
 PART II. 
 THE SIN OF LOVE DEFECTIVE. 
 
 LECTURE FIVE. 
 
 FURTHER PRIMARY RELATIONS BETWEEN LOVE AND 
 SELF AND SIN. 
 
 LECTURE SIX, 
 OF THE DEADLY SIN OF SLOTH.
 
 v.] Further Primary Relations. 127 
 
 LECTURE FIVE. 
 
 FURTHER PRIMARY RELATIONS BETWEEN LOVE AND 
 SELF AND SIN. 
 
 III. THE DEADLY SINS THE DEVELOPMENT OF SELFISHNESS ; IV. DIVINE 
 LOVE THE ANTIDOTE OF SELF-LOVE. 
 
 "A new Commandment I give unto you, ' That ye love 
 one another ;' as I have loved you, that ye also love one 
 another? S. JOHN xiii. 34. 
 
 I. 
 
 / nr % WO of the four points in the respective con- 
 -*- nection between love and self and the capital 
 sins which we, my Brethren, have already considered, 
 are 
 
 I. That love is the principle of all human action : 
 
 and 
 
 II. That self is the source and origin of all human 
 
 sin. 
 
 The next in order of the component parts which 
 enter into and tend to complete our position is this :
 
 128 A Theory about Sin. [v. 
 
 III. That, consequent on the influence of imperfect 
 love, the deadly sins are developments of 
 human selfishness. 
 
 To this third elemental truth, I purpose to confine 
 your attention, in the first place, on the present occa- 
 sion. And I pray GOD to give us power to work out 
 our theory of the deadly sins to His greater glory, 
 and the good of souls. 
 
 II. 
 
 The theory of the deadly sins though the truths 
 enunciated deserve a less equivocal title by the light 
 of which we may examine some results of sinfulness 
 in daily life, I will remind you, may be shortly stated 
 in this form : that as selfishness is the cause of human 
 sin, so is divine love the cure for selfishness. To-day, 
 then, as a step forward in the argument, I purpose to 
 lead your thoughts first to the question of love that 
 emphatically is not divine, but human ; to the question 
 of imperfect love ; to its extent over the sins which we 
 call capital ; to its subdivisions ; and to what degree the 
 various modes of deadly sin are the out-come of de- 
 veloped selfishness. And this examination is the more 
 needful to be now approached, because we have already 
 employed the phraseology of imperfect love, in the 
 terms, distorted love, defective love, and excessive love ;
 
 v.] Further Primary Relations. 129 
 
 and it is well that we should realise distinctly the 
 value of these terms, in order to obtain a definite 
 idea of the relation which imperfect love bears to 
 love that is perfect and divine. We will, there- 
 fore, address ourselves to the point before us, that 
 the deadly sins are the development of personal 
 and inordinate selfishness, consequent on imperfect or 
 human love. 
 
 Love, as the motive principle of human action, admits, 
 as we have seen, of these four distinct forms only : 
 i. the love of GOD ; 2. the love of man ; 3. the love 
 of created things ; 4. the love of self. The first main 
 division of which love is capable, in this relation, is two- 
 fold. Love may be perfect, or love may be wanting 
 in perfection. The love of GOD, as GOD; the love of 
 GOD'S image, for His sake ; the love of His creation, 
 in regard to GOD these are three several efforts of 
 love. They are developments of love perfect and 
 divine. The love of self for one's own sake only, or 
 the love of the creature in relation only to self and 
 I desire to draw attention to the adverb, 'only' in 
 one word selfishness, is the personation of love imper- 
 fect and human. Of these two main divisions of love, 
 our concern at present, in tracing the development of 
 selfishness, will be limited to the latter, to human and 
 imperfect love. 
 
 K
 
 130 A Theory about Sin. [v. 
 
 Before, however, we consider the threefold aspect 
 of imperfect love, a few thoughts may be devoted to 
 the term 'selfishness,' with a view to anticipate objec- 
 tions. The word selfishness covers or declares an idea 
 in the less loveable, but widely loved division of our 
 principle of action, which hitherto has been passed 
 in silence. But the question demands examination. 
 The love of self and the love of GOD, have been placed 
 in direct opposition, if not in actual antagonism, as the 
 quotient of the two divisions of love, selfishness and 
 self-sacrifice respectively. On the last subject, that 
 self-sacrifice for the love of GOD is the exponent of 
 the highest form of perfect love, I shall say nothing. 
 It is the love of self, as the exponent of pure selfish- 
 ness, that requires mental caution in the employment 
 of the words. For the sake of clearness, I use the 
 terms love of self and selfishness, in their popular 
 meaning. And in this sense of the term, the love of 
 self only is the lowest and most degraded form of 
 imperfect love, as the motive principle of human action. 
 But, theologically, we have to make a distinction : and 
 this distinction I have marked by the adverb, 'only.' 
 The love of self only, in our relations to GOD and our 
 dealings with man, is of the essence of selfishness. Yet, 
 the love of self as the creature of GOD, as one whom 
 GOD wills to be saved, as one who was sent into the
 
 v.J Further Primary Relations. 131 
 
 world to save his own soul in this sense it legitimately 
 enters and was meant by GOD to enter, as one element, 
 into that form of love in action which is perfect and 
 divine. And it enters in the following way. 
 
 The salvability of our individual souls, I assume to 
 offer a crucial test of love, whether it be divine or 
 human. The desire of salvation, for the love of self 
 only, may be admitted without hesitation to be, and 
 is, utterly unworthy and selfish in character. The 
 desire of salvation for the love of GOD only, for the 
 greater glory of GOD, without controversy will be 
 allowed to form the highest possible motive in man. 
 But, it does not follow from hence, that desire of sal- 
 vation for the love of GOD only is the Christian anti- 
 thesis to such desire for the love only of self. Absolute 
 self-sacrifice and personal selfishness are not co-ordi- 
 nate terms of opposition in the Christian system of 
 revelation. They do not between them simply exhaust 
 the motives for seeking to attain to bliss. They do not 
 exclude the creation of a composite motive of desire 
 for the Beatific Vision. The love of Gou only is not 
 revealed in Holy Scripture, has not been taught by the 
 Catholic Church, to be the sole motive principle in 
 question. And it does not follow that such motive 
 principle alone is of the nature of that Christian gift 
 and grace which we know as self-sacrifice. To assert 
 
 K 2
 
 132 A Theory about Sin. [v. 
 
 this to be the case, to assert that the love of GOD only 
 is the sole motive for the desire of salvation, may 
 possess its advantages for incisiveness and brevity in 
 expression ; but it cannot be commended for accuracy 
 of statement. The definition is more clear than com- 
 plete. It is more concise than exact. The truth does 
 not lie in such extreme or exclusive statements. It 
 is many-sided ; and presents more points of observa- 
 tion than can be postulated in a single well-balanced 
 period. 
 
 The desire for salvation, as a catholic virtue, is a 
 composite feeling, the product, in proportions difficult 
 to calculate and needless to discuss, both of the love of 
 our own soul and of the love of GOD. It is no simple 
 and self-contained sentiment expressed by either por- 
 tion of this formula. It is only complete under the 
 joint influence of both. The desire of bliss is essen- 
 tially complex in character essentially, because the 
 Christian belief in the Beatific Vision involves a belief 
 in both GOD and man ; a belief that GOD wills both 
 His own greater glory and man's salvation ; a belief 
 that GOD wills His greater glory through man's sal- 
 vation ; a belief that GOD'S accidental glory, as divinity 
 teaches, is increased by such a fulfilment, in regard to 
 man, of GOD'S antecedent will of good pleasure. 
 
 This, I apprehend, is the judgment of the best
 
 v.] Further Primary Relations. 133 
 
 theologians. It certainly is the theory which assimi- 
 lates itself most closely to the supernaturalised instincts 
 of man. Nor are the mere natural instincts at issue 
 with this opinion. Far otherwise. For, from a Chris- 
 tian point of view, self is no isolated or separate 
 organisation, apart from and independent of the divine 
 influence. Self is rather an incorporated member of 
 a Person, of a Person at once divine and human ; a 
 member incorporated to the extent of being made one 
 with CHRIST, and of CHRIST being made one with it ; 
 incorporated with the privilege of becoming by sacra- 
 mental agency, a member of His Body, of His Flesh, 
 and of His Bones. In other words, self is one factor 
 of that mysterious union effected by the Incarnation, 
 the union between the Creator and the creature. 
 
 And what position do we attain in virtue of this 
 truth ? How may we now view the question between 
 self-sacrifice and selfishness, in relation to the motive 
 influence of salvability ? To a Catholic, and speaking 
 theologically, we attain to this statement of truth 
 that the love of self, as one element in the desire for 
 salvation, means the love of that which is predestined 
 to union with the Godhead, partially through the sacra- 
 ments here, perfectly in bliss hereafter. Personal desire 
 for salvation, therefore, means the desire for salvation 
 of a member of GOD'S SON ; and in conformity with
 
 134 A Theory about Sin. [v. 
 
 His will, for union with the Sacred Humanity. And 
 the greater glory of GOD is not diminished, it is en- 
 hanced, by the love of the members of His SON for 
 their own Blood-bought souls. Nay, we may say more. 
 We may say, that as GOD created man for His honour, 
 and is pleased to will the union of man with Himself, 
 such union would lack an element of perfection, and 
 such honour would lack an element of completeness, if 
 we failed to co-operate with GOD. And such co-opera- 
 tion is incompatible with self-sacrifice that desires not 
 personal salvation. The love of self, therefore, is only 
 one form of conforming the human will to the Will 
 Divine. It is only placing our eternal interest in 
 harmony with GOD'S sovereign pleasure. Desire for 
 salvation, in conformity with the will of GOD, may be 
 a lawful sentiment for a Christian man ; desire, based 
 on the common ground of the love of GOD and the 
 love of our own soul. And, hence, it may be affirmed 
 in this sense and speaking theologically, that there is 
 a love of self which is allied to the love of GOD, there 
 is a love of self which is not common selfishness. 
 
 This is a point which it is needful for us to under- 
 stand clearly and to hold with firmness, that the desire 
 for individual salvation is a composite sentiment, in- 
 cluding both the love of GOD and love of one's own 
 soul. But it is not less momentous for us to realise,
 
 v.] Further Primary Relations. 135 
 
 it is not less true for us to believe, that the love of 
 self for one's own sake only, even in the legitimate 
 desire of seeing GOD face to face, even in the honest 
 wish to fulfil the Creator's intention of union with the 
 creature, is the personation of imperfect love. It is 
 selfishness. And it is in the last and popular sense, not 
 in the strict theological meaning of the terms, that the 
 words 'love of self and 'selfishness' are used in con- 
 nection with the capital sins. To the relation between 
 mere human selfishness and our theory about sin, we 
 will now more especially address ourselves. 
 
 The love of self only, or the love of the creature in 
 relation only to self, we have agreed to call selfishness. 
 It is the personation of love imperfect and human. 
 And imperfect or human love, in regard to the deadly 
 sins, has been treated, by one of the latest but not 
 least talented commentators of the Divina Commedia 
 of Dante (Maria Francesca Rossetti, in her charming 
 volume " A Shadow of Dante," 3rd edition. Rivingtons, 
 1874), as capable of three distinct evolutions. Im- 
 perfect love, or the love of self only, may take 
 
 1. The form of loving ill or evil; or 
 
 2. The form of loving too little ; or 
 
 3. The form of loving overmuch. 
 
 And the man who indulges in these three forms of
 
 136 A Theory about Sin, [v. 
 
 selfishness may be viewed, respectively, as the distorter 
 of love, as the defaulter in love, as the exceeder in 
 love. Bearing in mind, then, our theory about sin, 
 that selfishness is the origin of human sin, we will an- 
 notate some of the features of this threefold evolution, 
 in order that our discussions upon the issues of im- 
 perfect love, both in the past and in the future, may 
 
 be made more definite and clear. 
 
 i 
 
 We will take the forms of selfishness one by one 
 in the order in which they stand. 
 
 i. The distorter of love, as the victim of the earliest 
 development of selfishness, loves evil or ill to those 
 whom he should love as himself, that is, his neighbour. 
 Distortion of love finds an outlet in the first three of 
 the deadly sins, in Pride, in Envy, and in Anger. If, 
 for his own selfish exaltation, as this method has been 
 ably explained, he inordinately desires another's de- 
 pression, the distorter of love is guilty of the sin of 
 pride. If, esteeming his own power or influence to be 
 lessened, he selfishly and inordinately desires (in theo- 
 logical language) another's destitution, the distorter of 
 love is guilty of the sin of envy. If because of evil 
 done, or attempted, or imagined to be done, to himself, 
 he selfishly and inordinately desires another's injury, 
 the distorter of love is guilty of the sin of anger. This 
 short commentary plainly indicates the position which
 
 v.] Further Primary Relations. 137 
 
 distortion of love, the first development of the imperfect 
 love of self only, occupies in the sad scheme of evil 
 which we are investigating, under the name of the 
 capital sins. And this development includes three sins 
 which we have already considered, in the last three 
 lectures, pride, envy, and anger. 
 
 2. The second division of selfish or imperfect love, as 
 the motive principle of human action, comprises but 
 one of the seven enemies of man's happiness, the 
 capital sin of Sloth. The slothful man is plainly a 
 defaulter in love. He selfishly loves less than he 
 might love the Highest Good, that is, GOD : and hence 
 selfishly loves more than he ought to love a lower 
 good, that is, himself. Striving after the one all too 
 slackly, the result of seeking after the other all too 
 eagerly, the defaulter in perfect love falls into the 
 deadly sin of Sloth. And the sin of Sloth will be 
 treated in our next lecture. 
 
 3. The last form which selfishness, or imperfect love, 
 may take, according to the classification of the old 
 philosopher and poet, Dante, whom we may thank- 
 fully follow, includes the three remaining capital sins, 
 Covetousness, Gluttony, and Lust; and these we hope 
 to discuss in three following lectures. He who is guilty 
 of this form of selfishness is called an exceeder in love. 
 The exceeder in love loves more than he ought to love
 
 138 A Theory about Sin. [v. 
 
 some lower good outside and beyond himself in created 
 things. If, as a principle of his action, the exceeder in 
 love loves money, or money's worth, overmuch, he is 
 called a covetous man. If inordinately the exceeder in 
 love loves the good things of this life in food and drink, 
 he is called a gluttonous man. If he is the unhappy 
 and unsatisfied slave of sensual gratification, or plea- 
 sure, the exceeder in love is called a lustful man. 
 
 Thus we see, at one view, the seven deadly sins 
 mapped out before us in their threefold division, both 
 as to their cause and as to their effect. Upon this 
 classification I will offer but a single observation in 
 this place. These seven developments of personal and 
 inordinate selfishness, the varied expression of imperfect 
 love as the motive principle of human action, are re- 
 spectively antagonistic to those efforts of divine love 
 which have already been named. Thus, to take them 
 in order: the love of GOD, as GOD, is eliminated by 
 the sin of sloth. The love of GOD'S image, man, for 
 GOD'S sake, is weakened by pride, envy, and anger. 
 The love of created things in comparison with GOD 
 is exaggerated by covetousness, by gluttony, and by 
 lust. These facts point to a new relationship, and one 
 perhaps not expected between the deadly sins and 
 divine love. They are suggestive of the truth, that as 
 self is the source and origin of sin, so love is the anti-
 
 v.] Further Primary Relations. 139 
 
 dote which counteracts the poison of self. And this 
 truth forms the last component part of our theory 
 about sin. 
 
 III. 
 
 Having thus shown that imperfect love, in the 
 form of developed and inordinate selfishness, finds ex- 
 pression in the seven deadly sins, we have now to 
 consider the converse of the last proposition, which 
 may thus be stated : 
 
 IV. That divine love is the antidote to the poison 
 of human selfishness. 
 
 Love is the antidote of self such is the position we 
 have to discuss. And in this consideration, we will 
 follow the order which we followed in discussing the 
 .co-ordinate proposition, that self is the origin of sin. 
 We will begin by taking a general view of the ques- 
 ti'on, and will then pass somewhat more definitely into 
 particulars. 
 
 Without entering into details, think for a moment, 
 my Brethren, thus : When we witness or hear of any 
 decided act of kindness to our neighbour in word or 
 deed ; any act which may be classed under one of the 
 seven bodily or spiritual works of mercy ; any act which 
 is the issue of a deadly sin stamped out of the life ; any 
 act which is a result of the opposite virtue : what do we
 
 14 A Theory about Sin. [v. 
 
 say or think of such an act, and the actor of it? If 
 we are blessed with the presence of the love of GOD in 
 our hearts, if we possess even a spark of sympathetic 
 generosity, do we not judge such an one to be emi- 
 nently unselfish ; do we not declare of such an act, that 
 it is obviously an unselfish act ? Are we not confident 
 that, in some form, love is the mainspring of the act, 
 and enters largely into the actor's being ? Are we not 
 sensibly drawn towards such an one, though we may 
 be personally unknown to him ; and do we not desire 
 a share in the overflowing of his love ? 
 
 Again : When we hear of or witness some act of 
 passive endurance, some word of enduring patience ; 
 when we listen to the soft answer that turneth away 
 wrath, or listen in vain for any answer which would 
 kindle wrath : what is our mental judgment, if not our 
 spoken verdict ? Again : When we observe the self- 
 command which takes it patiently when one does well 
 and suffers for it, or which offers the other cheek, after 
 the one has been smitten ; or when we note the endurance 
 which lets him have the cloak also who at the law has 
 taken away one's coat, or which is willing to go twain 
 with him who has compelled a journey of one mile : 
 again, what is our mental judgment, if not our spoken 
 verdict ? Are we not persuaded in both cases, that 
 these endeavours after the imitation of CHRIST are
 
 v.] Further Primary Relations. 141 
 
 the result of human selfishness subdued, are the out- 
 come of divine love encouraged and cultivated in the 
 soul ? Do we not feel instinctively if the words or 
 acts which drew forth these evidences of the super- 
 natural life had their source and origin in the love of 
 self that the antidote to the poison of human selfish- 
 ness must be sought in the influence of love which is 
 divine and perfect ? 
 
 Take an example from a low level in the workings 
 of divine love, yet from one in which love may shine 
 with equal power, though with less radius than on a 
 higher level of spiritual life. Suppose, in the presence 
 of a third person, that another gives utterance to a 
 false report of some absent friend ; or mentions a story 
 which is not false, but may be, in part, only too true, 
 which tends to defame his neighbour's character. And 
 suppose that we, standing by, hear the third person 
 attempt to qualify such statement ; to suggest that the 
 absent one is not so bad as he appears, or is reported, 
 to be ; to hint that the whole truth, probably, is not 
 known ; to affirm, positively, that the whole truth has 
 not been told ; or in other ways to give a charitable 
 colour to that which is wanting in charity what will 
 be our mental judgment, if not our spoken verdict, 
 upon this third person ? Shall we not say or think,
 
 142 A Theory about Sin. [v'. 
 
 What consideration for the aspersed and absent is 
 displayed ! How considerate is the man ! 
 
 I need hardly remind you, Brethren, that considera- 
 tion for others means forgetfulness of self. The con- 
 siderate man must be an unselfish man. Is it, then, 
 too much to declare, as was suggested at the outset, 
 that such an one is actuated by the instinct of divine 
 love; that he stands on the platform, even though on 
 a level which need not be high, of the supernaturalised 
 life ? And the same observation would be made by 
 the mental analyst, if the object of our estimate had 
 taken the passive, instead of the active line which 
 evidenced his freedom from human selfishness and his 
 obedience to the divine law of love. It would have 
 been just and true to affirm of his case, also, that the 
 poison of self had been counteracted by the medicine 
 of love. 
 
 Again : Suppose, on the same low level of spirituality, 
 that we are told of or see, at the hands of another, some 
 little act of kindness ; some act without dignity enough 
 about it to be classed as the effect of one of the Christian 
 virtues, but which, when done, certainly predisposes the 
 doer of it to have bestowed upon him the grace of such 
 virtue. Suppose a kind act to be done in a kind 
 manner ; or a stern act of duty to be done in a con- 
 siderate way ; or an indifferent act, about which choice
 
 v.] Fzirther Primary Relations. 143 
 
 may lawfully be exercised in the doing or not doing, 
 to be actually performed. Suppose, in the manifold 
 relations and intimacies of private and family life, the 
 little courtesies exacted by strangers are habitually and 
 gracefully conceded without compulsion to those with 
 whom we live little attentions, almost too minute 
 to be mentioned from this place, but not at all insigni- 
 ficant in helping to make or to mar the completeness, 
 and even the picturesqueness, of domestic intercourse 
 between father and daughter, between son and mother, 
 between husband and wife, between brother and sister. 
 What do we think or what do we say of one who thus 
 brings the softening and elevating law of love to bear 
 upon the commonplace incidents of every-day life, but 
 that he is an unselfish being, that he is sensibly actuated 
 by the love of GOD as GOD, and by the love of man for 
 GOD'S sake? And the same would be said, the same 
 would be thought, if passive unselfishness, in the place 
 of active conformity with the law of love, were the 
 subject of social or Christian criticism. The hasty 
 word accepted with a smile, or the hasty deed ignored 
 with composure ; the rare but valuable faculty of know- 
 ing when not to do and when not to speak, judiciously 
 exercised ; the argument or strife kept within the 
 bounds of good temper, or allowed to die out for want 
 of fuel ; the obvious bad manners of selfishness for
 
 144 A Theory about Sin. [v. 
 
 there are no such bad manners made less remarkable 
 by the good breeding of self-sacrifice : these would be 
 declared, and would be rightly declared to be evidences, 
 that a man was under a course of discipline by which 
 human selfishness becomes obedient to the demands of 
 love which is perfect and divine. 
 
 Again : Ascend higher by a step in the supernatural 
 life upon earth of divine love. Suppose we are told, 
 or read in the daily papers, of some act of heroism 
 by land or sea, some act of daring under imminent 
 danger to, or sacrifice of life, by fire, by accident, or 
 by storm. Take the sailor, that we heard of last 
 winter, that we hear of, in some form, every winter 
 during the gales which blow upon our savage coasts. 
 Take the sailor the common sailor as he is called 
 who trusts himself and some helpless child to an ex- 
 temporised means of escape from the ship stranded on 
 the shore ; who goes first, suspended over the boiling 
 surge on a fragile line, which may not, and eventually 
 does not, bear the strain upon its powers ; who ventures 
 first, not selfishly to save his own life, but in the 
 spirit of self-sacrifice to inspire confidence in the pas- 
 sengers committed to his charge. Or that other sailor, 
 of whom we have heard more, and more lately heard, 
 whose vessel, alive with human souls, was cut to the 
 water's edge at the dead of night, when riding in
 
 v.] Further Primary Relations. 145 
 
 supposed security within reach of land ; the captain, 
 who, in the view of almost certain death, could yet 
 defend the boats from over-crowding by the cowards 
 who prevented helpless women from escape ; the cap- 
 tain, whose natural instinct for self-preservation was 
 not so strong as to prevent his caring for others rather 
 than for himself, even to the last, as his ship went down 
 at anchor. Take the brave pitman from the black 
 country, of whom we also read in the winter of whom 
 we read almost year by year, under one name or 
 another after some awful explosion in a coal mine, 
 which has sent into eternity for judgment his friends 
 and relatives ; the pitman who volunteered volun- 
 teered, mark you, my Brethren, for it was not his 
 duty to descend the fatal shaft in order to succour 
 those that may have escaped suffocation, or burning, 
 or sudden death; the pitman, who is lowered beneath 
 the surface only to be drawn up again the victim of the 
 fate from which, by self-sacrifice, he attempted to save 
 others. Or, take the fireman, whose duty, in the mani- 
 fold subdivisions of human labour, we may affirm it 
 to be, to assist in the extinguishing of fires ; the fire- 
 man who performs such duty beyond the requirements 
 of mere paid service, who imperils his own life that he 
 may save the lives or property of others, or exposes him- 
 self to danger, perhaps, in order to save the things of GOD. 
 
 L
 
 146 A Theory about Sin. [v. 
 
 Take any one of these cases, and say if you do 
 not instinctively realize the existence of self-forget- 
 fulness, self-abnegation, self-abandonment in the conduct 
 of these brave men. I have quoted these cases as 
 instances taken from the supernatural life ; and have 
 done so advisedly. For, it matters not that the hardy 
 sailor, the determined collier, the intrepid member of 
 the fire-brigade, may have been, perhaps were, actuated 
 by a high, manly sense of positive duty, as they held 
 duty. This may be allowed. Such sense of duty, how- 
 ever, at such a time, under such circumstances, rose 
 to heroism, for which we hold these gallant men in 
 loving admiration. But an act of heroism never, or 
 seldom, stands alone, isolated and apart. Almost 
 without exception, it is the culminating point in a 
 course of action which must have been systematic, and 
 may have been life-long. From a Christian point 
 of view, it is due only to an effort of the life which, 
 living above the mere instincts of nature, may fitly 
 be called superhuman. For these men, little as they 
 may have been conscious of the mental process, would 
 never have been capable of making such efforts had 
 they habitually given way to selfishness ; had they not 
 been inspired with that form of divine love, however 
 acquired, which at once excites the desire of, and gives 
 the power for self-sacrifice.
 
 v.] Further Primary Relations. 147 
 
 Neither does our theory about sin fail, if we consider 
 the heroism of passive fortitude as exhibited now and 
 again even in this self-pleasing century. Take but a 
 few casual instances. Take the case of the Sister of 
 Charity, a lady by birth and feeling ; one who in purity 
 possesses the germ of the saintly life ; one, perhaps, 
 to whom the sin with which she is forced into contact 
 appears specially hateful, even to abhorrence ; one who, 
 for the love of JESUS, takes penitentiary work, and 
 is subjected to the waywardness, the ungovernable 
 temper, the dejection and despair, the undue elation 
 and passionate sorrow by turns, of the fitful inmates 
 of a house of mercy. Take the case of a nursing 
 Sister, highly educated and refined ; always prepared 
 to leave her convent life at the call of sickness from 
 poor or rich alike ; never hesitating to endure the sights 
 and sounds and other adjuncts unhappily inseparable 
 from the sick room, in the houses of the sick poor ; 
 glad to minister to the afflicted members of Him 
 Whose willing handmaid she is thankful to be. Or 
 take the case of the Hospital Chaplain, who in humble 
 obedience to the Catholic custom of receiving the 
 LORD'S Body before all earthly good, deliberately 
 offers to the poisoned atmosphere of a fever ward the 
 fairest chance of his own destruction, and dies dies 
 a victim to his duty in dispensing to the dying the 
 
 L 2
 
 148 A Theory about Sin. [v. 
 
 Source of life; dies, as men say, prematurely; slain, 
 we Catholics affirm, by the criminal indifference of his 
 Church which does not enforce I say not permit the 
 practice which has obtained from the very first, the 
 practice of the Reservation of the Blessed Eucharist. 
 
 Take any one of these cases, and ask yourselves, 
 Brethren, whether or not such passive fortitude springs 
 not from that form of divine love which creates the 
 virtue of self-sacrifice, by eliminating the influence of 
 human selfishness? 
 
 Will any person venture to question the position, 
 that divine love is the all-powerful, energising, per- 
 fecting influence which first attacks and then destroys 
 the empire of human selfishness, whether active or 
 passive, within the soul ? Will anyone deny that love 
 is the antidote of the poison of self ? If any feel dis- 
 posed to doubt, let him examine at his leisure the 
 Christian virtues which are the opposites of the capital 
 sins ; let him discover their cause, trace their course, 
 witness their result; and then, let him declare what 
 relationship he may discover in the three great terms 
 of the moral problem which we seek to solve, the inter- 
 communion that exists between love and self and sin. 
 Patient enquiry, my Brethren, will discover much more 
 but it will not fail to place the enquirer face to face,
 
 v.] Further Primary Relations. 149 
 
 at least, with these truths. The man who is little in 
 his own sight, by the cultivation of humility; who is 
 never jealous of another's advantage, through the dic- 
 tates of brotherly love; who is seldom seen to lose 
 his temper, under the discipline of meekness such a 
 man bears the character of one whose life is instinct 
 with love, of one who has counteracted human selfish- 
 ness by love divine. The love in such an one is so 
 apparent that it cannot be hid. It is so unconsciously 
 inspiring that it becomes infectious. We long to be 
 allowed to love him. He is one whom we would have 
 to love us. 
 
 Now, what are these three Christian virtues, but the 
 opposites of the first three of the capital sins ? What 
 are the virtues of humility, of brotherly love, of 
 meekness, but the sin of pride subdued, the sin of envy 
 conquered, the sin of anger controuled ? What are 
 these virtues, but counteracting influences which neu- 
 tralise the principle that underlies distortion of love, 
 the loving evil to those who are to be loved as our- 
 selves, namely, our neighbour ? Even this general 
 statement confirms in general terms the theory under 
 examination, that love is the antidote to self. And 
 this general confirmation receives specific support if we 
 test our theory about sin by the definitions already 
 given of the same deadly enemies of the soul. For:
 
 150 A Theory about Sin. [v. 
 
 If the proud man for his own exaltation inordinately 
 desires another's depression, not for the glory of GOD, 
 not for the good of souls, not for the benefit of created 
 things, but for the love of self then, it follows, that 
 the gift which subdues the sin of pride by the culti- 
 vation of humility, must cause also the subdual of 
 selfishness from whence pride comes. Such subdual 
 can only be attained by the influence of divine love. 
 
 If the envious man, esteeming his own power to 
 be lessened, inordinately desires another's destitution, 
 again, not for the glory of GOD, not for the good of 
 souls, not for the benefit of created things, but for the 
 love of self then, it follows, that the gift which con- 
 quers the sin of envy by the dictates of brotherly love, 
 must be the conqueror also of selfishness from whence 
 envy springs. Such conquest, again, can only be se- 
 cured by the influence of divine love. 
 
 If the angry man, because of evil done to himself 
 inordinately desires another's injury, once more, not for 
 the glory of GOD, not for the good of souls, not for the 
 benefit of created things, but for the love of self then, 
 it follows, that the gift which controuls the sin of anger 
 by the discipline of meekness, must be the controul- 
 ing power also of selfishness from whence anger flows. 
 Such controul, once more, can only be obtained by the 
 influence of divine love.
 
 v.] Further Primary Relations. 151 
 
 Hence, in the case of pride, envy and anger, sins 
 which are vanquished respectively by humility, by 
 brotherly love, and by meekness, it may be held that 
 divine love is the antidote to the poison of human 
 selfishness. 
 
 Neither is it otherwise in the case of the remaining 
 deadly sins. Time fails us to examine this matter 
 in detail, through the developments of selfishness which 
 may be nullified by love that is perfect and divine, 
 but which unchecked by love, take form in the sins of 
 sloth, of covetousness, of gluttony, and of lust. Yet, 
 thus much may be said, even in brief : The defaulter 
 in love, he who once loved less than he might love the 
 Highest Good, and strove after it all too slackly ; but 
 now, by loving, generous indulgence has become exact 
 in his relations towards GOD and man, is one whose 
 besetting selfishness has given way before the power 
 of divine love. And the exceeder in love, he who once 
 loved more than he ought to love the lower good of 
 created things, whether in money, or in food, or in 
 sensuality ; but now in the spirit of self-sacrifice loves 
 less immoderately such lower good, is one who, to this 
 extent, has vanquished human selfishness by perfect 
 love. He is liberally content with what GOD provides 
 without the selfishness of covetousness. He employs 
 temperately gifts which were given for use, and not
 
 152 A Theory about Sin. \v. 
 
 for neglect, and still less for abuse, apart from the 
 selfishness of gluttony and excess. He chastely keeps 
 guard over his sensual appetites, free from the bondage 
 of selfishness in impurity. Divine love has purely 
 purged away the dross of human selfishness. Self- 
 sacrifice has been developed on the decay and death 
 of self-love. Love has been perfected by love. In 
 other words, in the case also of the last of the deadly 
 sins, in the case of sloth, of covetousness, of gluttony, 
 and of lust, as well as in the case of pride, envy and 
 anger, the antidote to human selfishness may be 
 affirmed to be the divine principle of love. 
 
 IV. 
 
 The last of the four elementary truths, in the 
 relation between love and self and the capital sins, 
 has thus been reached. In our first lecture, and with 
 regard to man's accountability or man's perfection, we 
 have seen, 
 
 I. That love is the principle of his action : and 
 
 II. That self is the origin of his sin. 
 
 We have learnt to-day, in the present lecture, and 
 in relation to the battle of the Christian life, and the 
 ultimate victory of love, 
 
 III. That sin is the development of his selfish- 
 
 ness : and
 
 v.J Further Primary Relations. 153 
 
 IV. That the antidote to his selfishness is love. 
 
 We have now, therefore, considered the preliminary 
 questions which I desired, by GOD'S help, to place 
 before you, the answers to which tend to resolve our 
 theory about sin, that as self is the source of sin, so 
 divine love is the cure for self-love. And this leaves 
 us free to consider the fourth of the capital sins, the 
 single sin of love defective, the sin of sloth, of which 
 I hope, please GOD, to speak in our next lecture. 
 
 A. M. D. G.
 
 154 A Theory about Sin. [vi. 
 
 LECTURE SIX. 
 
 OF THE DEADLY SIN OF SLOTH : 
 
 THE SIN OF LOVE DEFECTIVE. 
 
 " A ltd we desire that every one of you do shew the same 
 diligence . . . that ye be not slothful, but follotvers of 
 them who . . . inherit the promises." HEBREWS vi. n, 12. 
 
 I. 
 
 T N the threefold division of imperfect or human love, 
 -* the development of which leads to deadly sin, we 
 have seen, on a former occasion, that the capital sin 
 of Sloth occupies a middle position between two dif- 
 ferent classes of sin. It is to this result of imperfect 
 love sloth that I have to direct your attention to- 
 day ; sloth, the sin of the defaulter in love, the sin 
 which, in our sad scheme of wickedness, stands midway 
 between the sins of the distorter of love which we have
 
 vi.J Of the Deadly Sin of Sloth. 155 
 
 considered, and the sins of the exceeder in love which 
 we shall hereafter consider. 
 
 In attempting to ascertain the relations between love 
 and self and sin, and to elaborate a theory on their 
 interdependence and mutual connection, upon so wide 
 a scale as is offered by the seven capital sins, it is as 
 well, from time to time, to recall to mind our land- 
 marks. Having concluded our inquiry into one class 
 of sins, and before we enter on the discussion of another 
 class of sins, the present seems a fit time to take once 
 more a rapid survey of our position. And such a survey 
 will best be made in relation to the sin which forms an 
 order by itself, and naturally divides from each other 
 the other two classes the sin of sloth. You may 
 remember, then, that the distorter of love, he who loves 
 ill or evil to those whom he should love as himself, 
 namely, his neighbour, sins by pride, by envy, and by 
 anger. The exceeder in love, he who loves more than 
 he ought to love some lower created good, sins by 
 covetousness, by gluttony, or by lust. But the defaulter 
 in love, he who loves less than he might love the 
 Highest Good, that is GOD, is guilty of the deadly sin 
 of sloth. And the sin of sloth bears the following 
 human relations to the four elementary truths which 
 have been already considered. Thus : 
 
 I. Love being the motive principle of all human
 
 156 A Theory about Sin. [vi. 
 
 action, as we saw in our first lecture, sloth falls short 
 of perfection through a deficiency of love. It loves GOD, 
 if we may personate the sin, it loves GOD too little. 
 2. Self being the source and origin of sin, in regard 
 to human sin, slothfulness becomes sinful through an 
 excess of self-love. For, if a man loves the Creator too 
 little, it follows as a matter of course, that he loves the 
 creature too much : and under any form of created 
 things, such love must centre in self. Again : 3. It was 
 shown in our last lecture that the deadly sins, being 
 developments of selfishness, through imperfect love, the 
 slothful man strives all too slackly after the love of 
 GOD, and seeks not at all to perform those duties which 
 are the outgrowth of such love. And lastly : 4. Love 
 being the antidote to the poison of self, the remedy for 
 the'sin of sloth consists in loving GOD more thoroughly 
 and more nearly as He ought to be loved ; for perfect 
 love is the fulfilling of the law. 
 
 II. 
 
 First of all, we will endeavour to obtain, at the outset 
 of the lecture, from these considerations a definition of 
 the deadly sin which we have to consider. Sloth is the 
 sin which selfishly feels inordinate indisposition of soul 
 towards the love ot GOD. It takes the form of incon-
 
 vi.] Of the Deadly Sin of Sloth. 157 
 
 tinent indolence, which makes us wish to neglect our 
 duty, rather than to perform it. And it may be 
 described in a single word. For whilst the six other 
 deadly sins are sins of commission, sloth is the one 
 capital sin of omission. 
 
 Sloth, then, may be defined as the sin of omission. 
 It stands equidistant from the sins which are more or 
 less spiritual in character, and from those which are 
 more or less sensual. As a development of selfishness, 
 it forms an exception to the other developments of im- 
 perfect love. It is neither wholly sensual, nor wholly 
 spiritual ; but in part affects, and in part is affected by 
 both classes of sin. It occupies, as before said, a 
 division by itself: and the fact that it stands alone, 
 unmatched in kind or degree with any other sin, less 
 influenced by than influencing all others, makes the 
 task of analysing and discussing this sin one of ex- 
 ceeding difficulty. The difficulty is felt in at least two 
 different ways. It is ever more easy to attack a definite 
 disease, than one which is deficient in symptoms. It is 
 easier to correct a positive fault, than to supply an 
 absent and uncertain virtue. And sloth, eminently, 
 is a sin of deficiency, is a negative form of sin. 
 It loves too little : it leaves undone. The truth that 
 the capital sins are states and conditions rather than 
 overt acts of wickedness that they are instincts rather
 
 158 A Theory about Sin. [vi. 
 
 than instances is specially true in the case of sloth. 
 The remedy, then, for a condition of sinfulness, can 
 only be said to be a condition of holiness of life which 
 represents the opposite. We cannot counteract habitual 
 sin, by single acts of duty, so long as the mental 
 character remains unchanged. We cannot cure organic 
 disease by mere local applications. 
 
 .This vagueness of treatment is more than to other 
 deadly sins applicable to the great sin of omission. In 
 such a case it is hopeless to pass beyond the most 
 indefinite generalities ; it is almost impossible to give 
 utterance to other than obvious truisms. For instance : 
 If sloth is an indisposition of soul towards the love 
 of GOD ; it can only be affirmed that the cure for sloth 
 is to be found in cultivating the love of GOD more 
 entirely. If sloth assumes the shape of indolence 
 towards our duty ; we must seek to conquer sloth by 
 persevering diligence in work. If it be the selfish sin 
 of omission ; we must counteract the poison by the 
 antidote of self-sacrifice, by love in acts of commission. 
 Indeed, the sin of sloth is so indefinite, and the manner 
 in which it may be dealt with is so general, that it has 
 a fair chance of escaping, and often practically escapes, 
 correction, from the difficulty of dealing with the vice 
 directly and in detail. 
 
 Yet, its vagueness is not the only difficulty which we
 
 vi.] Of the Deadly Sin of Sloth. 159 
 
 have to surmount in dealing with the sin of sloth. 
 There is the further difficulty of its comprehensiveness. 
 Its influence is absolutely boundless in the domain 
 of Christian duty. It affects ever)' 1 deadly sin to be 
 conquered. It influences each principal virtue to be 
 acquired. There is no sin, the subdual of which may 
 not be hindered by sloth. There is no virtue which 
 may not be forfeited, from failing to seek it with suffi- 
 cient diligence. Indeed, sloth bears the same relation 
 to wickedness, that perseverance bears to holiness of 
 life only in an opposite direction. Distortion of love, 
 on the one hand, and excess of love, on the other, will 
 never be brought into harmony with divine love, by 
 deficiency of love in the slothful man. The virtues of 
 humility, brotherly love and meekness, the opposites 
 respectively of the first three deadly sins, cannot be 
 cultivated by one who deliberately loves GOD less than 
 he might love the Highest Good. The vices of covet- 
 ousness, gluttony and lust, viewed as results of the 
 last three deadly sins, cannot be conquered in the mind 
 or body of one who strives all too slackly for the con- 
 quest over excess of love, for the lower good of created 
 things. And the comprehensiveness of sloth, in regard 
 to the other capital sins, offers further difficulty in the 
 way of its treatment. 
 
 For, if the deadly sin is the embodiment of more
 
 160 A Theory about Sin. [vi. 
 
 than a constitutional disinclination for activity or 
 exertion, in temporal or spiritual matters ; it becomes 
 needful to enquire, what are the symptoms in the 
 general complaint which makes the disease specific? 
 What are the features which take the results from the 
 domains of negation, into the more easily recognised 
 status of positive sin ? When we speak of a slothful 
 man, do we mean one whose sloth is evidenced in 
 mental feeling by distorted love towards his neighbour ; 
 or in bodily action, by excessive love towards created 
 things ? Or is his sloth confined to influence on the 
 mainspring of life, and exhibited in deficiency of love 
 towards GOD ? Our treatment of the sin of sloth, 
 and our estimate of the victim of the sin, will depend, 
 to a considerable extent, upon the answer which may 
 be given to these questions. 
 
 Ancient spiritual writers, however, help us to sur- 
 mount the difficulties, both as to the ambiguity, and 
 also as to the universality of the sin of sloth. They 
 draw, as it were, a genealogical table of the sins which 
 own sloth for their unlovely and unloved ancestor ; 
 and show from the results which flow from the fountain- 
 head on many sides, how indisposition of the soul 
 towards GOD may develope, under the influence of 
 inordinate selfishness ; and in various ways, to the 
 neglect and abandonment of our duty towards GOD,
 
 vi.] Of the Deadly Sin of Sloth. 161 
 
 towards our neighbour, towards created things, and 
 towards ourself. 
 
 III. 
 
 The chief sins which issue from the stem of the tree 
 of sloth are five in number. We will consider them 
 in order, and more or less at length. 
 
 I. The first of the daughters of sloth is indifference 
 towards holy things, and what has been termed numb- 
 ness of soul with regard to one or more of the divine 
 commands. This the earliest, even if the least sinful, 
 is by no means the least dangerful of the results of 
 sloth. Indifference, or numbness of soul may be com- 
 pared to the effect of intense cold upon the extremities 
 of the human body. The victim of the attack either 
 fails to feel, or fails to notice, the sensation. He con- 
 tinues his work or his labour unaware of danger and 
 unsuspecting of incapacity. But, having occasion to 
 call upon the part affected to take more than a general 
 share in the economy of the body corporate, the heed- 
 less sufferer is made painfully conscious of his loss of 
 power; and the hand or the foot is found to be frost- 
 bitten. 
 
 It is not otherwise with the spiritually chilled. They 
 perform the duties of their religion much as usual, 
 
 M
 
 1 62 A Theory about Sin. [vi. 
 
 neither better nor worse. They apparently neglect 
 none of the more obvious claims of the supernatural 
 life, and perhaps perform many that are not superficial. 
 But, should any accident take them out of their usual 
 course of action, should they be suddenly called upon 
 to make some decided act of self-sacrifice towards their 
 neighbour, or to give evidence of absorbing love towards 
 GOD, they find themselves utterly powerless to answer 
 to the supernatural call. They were unconscious of 
 having lost power with GOD ; they were unconscious of 
 having lost sympathy for man ; they were unconscious 
 until the virtue was gone, absolutely gone. It is 
 not unlikely, in either case, mental or physical, that 
 lookers-on were more aware, than the person chiefly 
 concerned, of the coming attack ; and perhaps a neigh- 
 bourly warning, or a friendly shake might have saved 
 the member of either the spiritual or sensuous frame 
 from impotency. But, as it is, force to the body or 
 force to the soul, for the moment, has been sacrificed, 
 and their permanent vigour has been endangered. In 
 both cases careful treatment, medical or priestly, is 
 needed, to ensure restoration to comparative health. 
 
 II. Indifference, then, or numbness of soul about the 
 things of GOD, is the first-born of sloth ; but she 
 quickly gives place, by what may be called the prin-
 
 vi.] Of the Deadly Sin of Sloth. 163 
 
 ciple of spiritual selection, to a more favoured sister 
 in the struggle for existence. Nature, we are told, 
 abhors a vacuum ; and whatever amount of truth 
 may be contained in this saying, it is a matter of 
 experience, that two bodies cannot occupy the same 
 position in space at the same time, whether such bodies 
 be material or spiritual. There can be no doubt that 
 grace is utterly impatient of indifference ; and where 
 this effect of sloth possesses the soul, the love of GOD, 
 under a higher law than even the expression of His 
 will in Nature, has ceased to abide. To prevent, 
 therefore, the continuance of a spiritual vacuum which 
 is empty, swept and garnished by indifference, many 
 evil spirits more wicked than itself, and with more 
 favourable conditions for obtaining the mastery, enter 
 in and dwell there. And the second occupant which 
 fulfils the soul of the slothful is dissipation of mind 
 in favour of created things, a tenant which is worse 
 than the first. 
 
 Now dissipation of mind in favour of the creature 
 must take one of two forms. It will love created 
 things, either more than is due, or less than is meet. 
 It may be assumed, that love expended on that which 
 falls short of the Highest Good, will be in excess rather 
 than in deficiency: and there is every reason to sup- 
 pose, that the man who loves more than he ought to 
 
 M 2
 
 164 A Theory about Sin. [vi. 
 
 love some lower good, will become guilty of covetous- 
 ness, or of gluttony, or of lust. For, the love of the 
 creature, though it admits of almost an endless number 
 of variations in detail, may, in the development of 
 inordinate selfishness, be classed under one of these 
 three divisions of excess in love. 
 
 Examine this point more closely. The slothful man, 
 in the first place, almost instinctively desires posses- 
 sions, money, or money's worth, under temptation to 
 covetousness, which sloth will not allow him to seek 
 after diligently. Such feeling, under the circumstances, 
 is found to be well-nigh irresistible : and we know 
 that money is the root of all evil. The slothful man, 
 next, is indisposed to deny himself in meat and drink ; 
 and his mind seems forced to dwell upon cognate 
 temptations, whom sloth prevents from accepting the 
 Apostolic injunction, that he who will not work, neither 
 shall he eat. Lastly, the slothful man is fairly certain to 
 fall into the debasing sin of impurity. For, he who loves 
 more than he ought to love some lower good, inevitably 
 gravitates to the lowest possible point, beyond which 
 he can be attracted no further. And such centre of 
 gravity, in many fallen natures, is to be found only in 
 deadly sins of the flesh : for, there is a development 
 of slothful selfishness, 7 which the Apostle places in in- 
 timate connection with wantonness against CHRIST.
 
 vi.] Of the Deadly Sin of Sloth. 165 
 
 When, however, dissipation in favour of the creature 
 reaches this point, when the slothful, as the defaulter 
 in divine love, loves more than he ought to love, 
 money, or food, or sensual gratification, then, the sin' of 
 sloth has become developed into the sin of covetous- 
 ness, of gluttony, or of lust ; and under the headship of 
 one of these deadly sins against our own souls, we must 
 look, respectively, for its further consideration. 
 
 III. To indifference and dissipation of mind may be 
 added, as a third offspring of sloth, a sin which I shall 
 call, 'aversion from sanctity.' And this antipathy to 
 religion in the abstract, and to Him Whom religion 
 personates ; this antipathy to religion when it takes 
 form in outward expression and influences men and 
 women with whom we are brought into contact; this 
 antipathy exhibits itself in two ways. The slothful 
 man may be offended at holy things ; he may even come 
 to hate them. The slothful man feels offended at holy 
 persons; and also eventually hates them. It is, per- 
 haps, not unnatural that the selfish slothful should first 
 be offended at and then hate those acts of religion 
 which, directly or indirectly, would check his selfish- 
 ness or stimulate his sloth. It is not unnatural that 
 he should feel the same sentiments towards those whose 
 office it is to attempt to make him holy by holy means ;
 
 1 66 A Theory about Sin. [vi. 
 
 or towards those, perhaps, who themselves seek to be- 
 come the one through the other. But it is not, at first 
 sight, transparently clear, why aversion from sanctity 
 in any given human being should find expression in 
 offence or hatred, towards holy persons with whom 
 he is not brought into contact, and towards holy things 
 by which he is not directly influenced. And yet, 
 experience shows, that, apart from all individual con- 
 nection with either, such aversion from sanctity fills 
 the soul of the selfish man who is slothful, fulfils it 
 even to the verge of possession. 
 
 How does this aversion from sanctity, which may 
 verge in some cases towards demoniacal possession, 
 manifest itself? It takes form in many ways; and 
 of course, the feeling intensifies as it becomes developed. 
 The slothful man first of all neglects the means of 
 grace, both ordinary and sacramental. He discovers, 
 so he conceives, that daily prayer is consumptive of 
 time which might be better employed. He persuades 
 himself that early Communion is a strain upon his 
 powers, which incapacitates him for his daily work. 
 Sunday (he holds) is too completely a day of rest, bodily 
 and mentally and both elements of our nature are 
 taxed by divine worship to be devoted to serving 
 GOD. Overmuch prayer is weariness to the flesh, and 
 its advantage if not doubtful, is certainly not distinct.
 
 vi.] Of the Deadly Sin of Sloth. 167 
 
 Confession of sin (he argues) is not so essential to a 
 Christian man as abstaining from sin : it even destroys 
 independence and virility of character. Self-examina- 
 tion is suitable for women, or effeminate men ; and 
 meditation is needful for religious. And books, the 
 tendency of which is not bad, are preferable for read- 
 ing to those of a devotional character, whose aim is 
 direct and clear. Such, my Brethren, are specimens 
 of the sophistries with which the slothful man justifies 
 to himself his selfishness. Such are some of the truths 
 which are truisms, which are half-truths, which are 
 perverted truths, which in matter, if not in form, are 
 falsehoods, with which the selfish man deceives his 
 own soul. 
 
 But, the defaulter in love, who strives all too slackly 
 after the means of grace, by which he may attain to 
 the Highest Good, seldom remains content with mere 
 neglect of such means. The neglect which began, 
 perhaps, with a certain tenderness of conscience, in- 
 creases as conscience hardens by repeated negligence, 
 and eventually becomes habitual. The slothful passes 
 through the stages of indifference and dissipation, 
 which develope, by no uncertain or unmarked course, 
 into positive dislike, hatred, and even loathing. Indeed, 
 such development possesses almost the certainty of law. 
 But, without speculating, in this place, upon the causes
 
 1 68 A Theory about Sin. [vi. 
 
 of the swift declension from piety to godlessness, it 
 may suffice to point out a few examples of aversion 
 from sanctity, as a system of revealed dogma, of eccle- 
 siastical discipline, of Church authority in ceremonial, 
 or as an expression of Catholic custom or opinion ; 
 examples, which are at once suggestive of and evidence 
 for the law. 
 
 i. Take the case of the most holy Eucharist, as a 
 cardinal instance of this truth. Slothful men begin 
 a career which ends in aversion from sanctity, in matters 
 of doctrine, by neglecting this ordinance of CHRIST. 
 They neglect to make meet preparation to receive 
 into the chamber of the soul their Maker and their 
 GOD by self-examination and confession of sin. They 
 neglect to receive their LORD and Master under due 
 bodily conditions, with physical dispositions the highest 
 and holiest they can offer before earthly food passes 
 their lips. They neglect to make thanksgiving, I do 
 not say worthy of the gift bestowed upon them, for that 
 were impossible ; but giving of thanks at all, to Him 
 Whom they have received, after they have received 
 Him. They neglect to worship Him without reception 
 either on week-days or Sundays, when they may enjoy 
 so great privilege with so little exercise of self-denial. 
 Thus they begin. And neglect of the practice enjoined
 
 vi.] Of the Deadly Sin of Sloth. 169 
 
 by the Church, leads on to and ends in denial of the 
 doctrine which she teaches. Indifference to the act of 
 Communion developes indifference to the position 
 of the sacrament in the divine scheme of revelation. 
 They ignore the mystery of which it is both main- 
 spring and centre. They explain away the doctrine 
 of the Eucharist, and deny that it claims to be a 
 sacrifice before it can be a sacrament. They decline 
 to see the universality of the duty of fasting Com- 
 munion ; and failing to perceive, they will not bow to 
 the world-wide condemnation of after-breakfast or after- 
 dinner Communions for there is no difference in prin- 
 ciple between the two kinds of non-fasting reception. 
 They will not own that the Blessed Eucharist is the 
 one and only public service instituted by our Divine 
 Master, and hence that the holy Oblation ought to be 
 offered in every church, as in this church, daily. And 
 they eventually come to abhor both the doctrine 
 upheld and the upholders of it. They malign the 
 dogma and persecute those who teach it. And failing 
 to obey the LORD'S command, they come to disbelieve 
 its reality ; and their aversion from the truth makes them 
 join with the sceptical followers of CHRIST, who profanely 
 said : " How can this MAN give us His Flesh to eat ? " 
 
 2. The same law of declension, also, is evident, if we
 
 i/o A Theory about Sin. [vi. 
 
 turn from dogma to discipline. The man who loves less 
 than he might love the Highest Good, and fails to 
 conquer his besetting sin of sloth, not only is apathetic 
 towards but neglects the sacrament of confession. 
 Here, at once are two stages in the downward course 
 towards aversion. But the apathetic man seldom stays 
 long, or stays at all, at neglecting confession. That 
 which he neglects,, by the action of religious Nemesis, 
 he comes to dislike. He dislikes the sacrament, dis- 
 likes those who administer its benefits, dislikes those 
 who submit to its discipline. Nor does his antipathy 
 cease with dislike. The slothfully selfish eventually 
 blasphemes confession, maligns confessors, and despises 
 penitents. He not only will not himself approach the 
 tribunal of mercy, but prevents those whom he may in- 
 fluence from obtaining its blessings, and slanders those 
 who dispense them. In short, from loving less than he 
 might love, he eventually ceases to love at all. Love 
 is turned into hate. From neglecting and defaming 
 one of the sacraments of the Church, the selfish man 
 becomes averse from sanctity both in itself and in its 
 professors. And he is ultimately given over to believe 
 a lie, a lie which takes shape in a half-truth which is 
 wholly false, and contents itself with repeating parrot- 
 like the question of the faithless Jews of old: "Who 
 can forgive sins but GOD alone ? "
 
 vi.] Of the Deadly Sin of Sloth. 171 
 
 3. The same law of debasement, once more, is 
 evident, if we turn from Christian? dogma and discipline 
 to Christian ritual. Those who will rrot submit to 
 Catholic practice, and speak lightly of Catholic dis- 
 cipline, are little likely to sanction Catholic cere- 
 monial which expresses the one and accompanies the 
 other. Here I take the case of the a;vowed religious 
 libertine : for the case of the mere dilettante High 
 Churchman so-called, who professes to love high ritual 
 in conjunction with low belief and lax practice, I 
 decline to entertain he is an anomaly in the kingdom 
 of grace, and need be referred to here no further. 
 Indifference, then, to ceremonial, in the highest act 
 of Christian worship in which we can join, is another 
 form of aversion from sanctity, caused by the sin of 
 sloth. For instance : Take any outward act which is 
 patent and evident to all, instantaneously, such as the 
 eastward position of the priest when celebrating, or 
 an act of humble reverence at the " Incarnatus Est " 
 in the Creed ; or take any unobvious, and not always 
 observable, but highly significant ceremony, such as 
 offering the mixed chalice, or the lavabo after the 
 offertory: and how does the selfish man estimate the 
 matter, and desire to act upon it ? His indifference 
 first of all, observe, my Brethren, makes him tolerate 
 and patient of departures from Catholic usage; and
 
 172 A Theory about Sin. [vi. 
 
 then, on the other hand, makes him intolerant and 
 impatient of any restoration in doing the things of GOD 
 decently and in order. He not only finds no edification 
 to his own soul in the ceremonial of the Church ; but 
 would selfishly deprive those who are edified by those 
 harmless aids to devotion (to take the lowest view) which 
 bear the consent of Christendom. Neither does his 
 selfish sloth end in desire or thought. He allows 
 himself to descend from evil wishes to evil words 
 and actions. He speaks ill of that which he dislikes, 
 he speaks ill of those who use what he dislikes, until 
 he hates both it and them : and his aversion from 
 sanctity causes him to employ every effort to abolish 
 from the modern Church of to-day the orderly, the 
 intelligent, and I will add, the lawful ceremonial of 
 Catholic antiquity. 
 
 4. Hatred of holy things and holy persons is not 
 confined, however, to the legitimate object of the one, 
 or to the active work of the other. Aversion from 
 sanctity finds scope for display in other ways. Of 
 these, I shall take two for further notice, different in 
 character, different in manner of exhibition, and dif- 
 ferent also in the class whence they spring; one 
 only in their immoral origin and source. The first 
 gives evidence of popular prejudice, and is confined
 
 vi. j Of the Deadly Sin of Sloth. 173 
 
 to a comparatively innocent exhibition of aversion from 
 sanctity. The other expresses intellectual hatred of 
 the keenest sort, and is not confined to evidence which 
 is innocent. 
 
 For instance : The oldest amongst us may easily 
 recall the time when our brethren of the Roman 
 Catholic clergy could not appear in public, in priestly 
 garb, without causing a certain amount of popular 
 excitement amongst passers-by. Many of us can 
 remember that a similar sensation was created by our 
 own Sisters of Mercy, in the earlier days of the Catholic 
 Revival, when they ventured abroad in their conventual 
 habit. And even now, at the present day, an English 
 priest or religious, in his cassock and cloak, is no un- 
 observed, is no uncommented phenomenon, in the 
 streets of London. It is not difficult, of course, to 
 account for such small indications of popular feeling, 
 by simple curiosity. But there is, I believe, a deeper 
 cause below. The insignificant disturbance on the 
 surface of society, at the sight of that which personates 
 a belief in something higher and holier than the world 
 can understand, arises from the impatience of the world 
 towards religion and its professors, is caused at least 
 by either conscious or unconscious aversion from 
 sanctity. 
 
 Nor is it otherwise, again, with the infidel opinion
 
 174 A Theory about Sin. [vi. 
 
 of the day, as represented by the public press. News- 
 papers which appeal to educated readers, we will say, 
 of the upper orders, and which are acute, far-seeing, 
 just, wise, temperate, when speaking of things of this 
 world, in politics and law, in letters, science, or art, 
 become the opposite of all these qualities when matters 
 of the next world are discussed. The word 'priest,' 
 save coupled with a sneer; belief in the supernatural, 
 except it be denied ; the theory of the sacraments, if 
 accepted, or the necessity of creeds, if believed ; the 
 hope of heaven, from a Christian point of view, and 
 the fear of hell, under any circumstances any of these 
 thoughts, received on authority only, are enough to 
 throw off their balance presumable leaders of public 
 opinion. In their anxiety to proclaim themselves 
 infidel, and in their eagerness to attack the truth, with 
 the infallibility of journalism, they lose self-controul. 
 A spirit seems to possess them, at which I glanced 
 above, of Satanic hatred of the faith : not, observe, my 
 Brethren, not of this or that form of belief, but of the 
 faith itself, under any form of divine revelation. And 
 this possession not only cramps their soul, but little 
 as they think it dwarfs their intellect; so that such 
 writers appear incapable to sustain an argument, or 
 to master a theological proposition, which yet they 
 purpose to demolish or explain away. And the
 
 vi.] Of the Deadly Sin of Sloth. 175 
 
 calm ignorance which men otherwise learned display ; 
 and the positive nonsense which men otherwise rational 
 publish, when they venture to criticise our holy Re- 
 ligion, is suggestive of only one explanation namely, 
 that these writers, being apostates from the faith, have 
 been given over to judicial blindness, as a punishment, 
 even in this life, for their deliberate and studied aver- 
 sion from sanctity. 
 
 IV. The fourth of the developments of the sin of 
 sloth, i. to numbness of soul, 2. to indifference, and 
 3. to aversion from sanctity, is to be found in cowardice, 
 or fearing and avoiding pain or labour in the service 
 of GOD. This result of sloth flows almost directly 
 from our definition of one possessed by this deadly sin. 
 For, the defaulter in love, who loves less than he might 
 love the Highest Good, and strives after it all too slackly, 
 would naturally be indisposed towards any sacrifice for 
 GOD. Such a man accepts all that GOD sends him, if 
 not as his due, at least without much question as to 
 his personal fitness for divine benefactions. Neither 
 may he in any way misuse, wrongly enjoy, or over-tax 
 GOD'S gifts. He may stand, perhaps, between either 
 extreme. He may not be so bad as the worst type 
 of slothfulness, as the man who hid his lord's talent 
 in the earth. Nor yet, may he be able to boast that
 
 176 A Theory about Sin. [vi. 
 
 his pound has diligently gained ten pounds. He is 
 rather in the position of the servant who had received 
 two talents and had just managed to gain also two 
 other talents besides them. And here we take a 
 favourable, not to say prejudiced, view of the selfish 
 slothful. We allow him to be credited with the benefit 
 of the doubt, that he may possibly appear in the middle 
 position between the very bad and the very good. This 
 place is assigned him not without sufficient reason. 
 For, as a matter of fact, it is the position towards 
 sloth which the vast majority of persons respectable 
 members of society actually and almost deliberately 
 assume. It would be uncharitable to say that they 
 make no use of their talent. They do not. It would 
 be untrue to affirm that they made of it the best 
 possible use. They have not. They do or have done 
 neither the one nor the other. They stand in that 
 almost hopeless and altogether unsatisfactory of all 
 positions, in a dull, common-place, self-satisfied, medio- 
 crity. Almost hopeless, I say, because they present 
 few openings for the attack of the prophet of GOD, 
 who would convince them of sin ; and altogether un- 
 satisfying, because they possess insufficient stamina for 
 the making of a genuine saint. 
 
 Such as these, my Brethren, such as these are 
 incapable of self-sacrifice. They know not the senti-
 
 vi.] Of the Deadly Sin of Sloth. 177 
 
 ment of generosity of conduct towards GOD. There 
 is no enthusiasm in their nature ; and no power of 
 voluntary mortification. And yet, enthusiasm is but 
 a cold word to express the love which we ought to 
 bear towards our Divine Master, of Whom the honey- 
 tongued Father could write, 
 
 JESU, the very thought of Thee 
 With sweetness fills the breast: 
 
 whilst the same Divine LORD has distinctly told us, 
 as if to indicate the minimum of mortification as the 
 measure of our supernatural life, that except a man 
 take up voluntarily take up his cross daily and 
 follow Him, he cannot be a disciple of the Crucified. 
 
 On this large subject, I shall say but few words, and 
 will only take an average member of society, as a 
 single example of one who little esteems himself 
 guilty, even in a modified manner, of the sin of sloth. 
 Such an one may be married or single. He may live 
 by himself or with some near relative. He is engaged 
 in trade, manufacture, education, or government work. 
 He is punctual at his office or business in the morning, 
 and exact in the time of leaving his appointed labour 
 in the evening. Meanwhile, he is scrupulous in per- 
 forming his duty, and gives back full measure for all 
 that he receives. Nor is he forgetful of his Maker. 
 Though GOD is not in all his thoughts, yet he is 
 
 N
 
 178 A Theory about Sin. [vi. 
 
 regular in his private devotions, and is a church-goer 
 at certain times and seasons to what extent in either 
 case I pause not to inquire, for I assume it to be the 
 extent to which conscience demands. He is, moreover, 
 courteous to all with whom he is concerned officially ; 
 is kind and cheerful to those at home; takes every 
 opportunity for self-culture ; honestly enjoys and does 
 not abuse his liberty ; and does not wilfully turn his 
 back upon any case of distress which comes directly 
 before him. 
 
 Yet, at night, when he reviews the life in miniature 
 which, in this exacting age, is compressed by the force 
 of circumstances into the compass of a single day if 
 such an one should ask himself: "What good thing 
 have I done to-day, over and above the limits of my 
 duty ? " what answer, think you, Brother or Sister in 
 CHRIST, would he be able to make to his soul ? And 
 these questions : How have I shown my love to GOD ? 
 How have I benefited GOD'S image, for His sake ? 
 How have I used His creature, for GOD'S greater 
 glory ? How have I laid up in store for my own soul, 
 GOD'S redeemed possession, against that great day ; 
 if not gold, silver, precious stone, at least hay, wood, 
 stubble ?. these questions may usefully be asked by 
 many who do not account themselves average members 
 only of the mystical body in the spiritual life. If we
 
 vi.] Of the Deadly Sin of Sloth. 179 
 
 love the Highest Good less than we might love, if we 
 strive after it all too slackly, if we are a defaulter in 
 love, we shall find much difficulty in making answer 
 to such questions. And this difficulty ensues from a 
 form of the fourth development of selfishness in sloth 
 which we call cowardice, that is fearing or avoiding pain 
 and labour in the service of our GOD. 
 
 V. The last development of sloth is the sin of despair. 
 And, as it is the last, so is it also the most fearful. On 
 this awful subject, I will only remind you, that the one 
 only soul which holy Church has pronounced to be 
 irrevocably lost, to be lost for ever, is the soul of him 
 who gave way to the sin of despair ; and that was the 
 soul of the traitor, Judas : remind you only, I say, 
 before repeating to you a story of despair with which 
 I lately met, and which will illustrate the danger of 
 this form of sloth more effectually than any words of 
 my own. I shall relate it almost in the simple language 
 of the original. 
 
 An aged man, who had lived without GOD in the 
 world, and who against light and knowledge had been 
 guilty of many sins, was at the point of death, when a 
 priest, to whom the soul of the sinner was dear, visited 
 him, and urged him, even at the last hour, to seek that 
 repentance which he had so long and so slothfully 
 
 N 2
 
 180 A Theory about Sin. LVI. 
 
 delayed. The sick man, the victim of slothful despair, 
 either would return no answer to the priest's entreaties 
 to make confession of his sins ; or returned answer only 
 to postpone the needful act of penitence. At last, after 
 many solicitations for the love of JESUS, the old 
 man was persuaded to confession. " To-morrow," said 
 he, " I will confess my sins." To-morrow came. The 
 patient was worse a day nearer to both death and 
 judgment a day nearer either to Heaven or to 
 Hell. But the priest was prepared to execute his 
 holy office. He spoke kindly to the sick man, en- 
 couraged him, prayed with him, made the sign of the 
 Cross, and awaited his confession. But the sick man 
 uttered nothing. The priest again encouraged him to 
 begin ; when the victim of despair suddenly recited, in a 
 sepulchral tone, the psalmist's description of the sinner : 
 " The ungodly shall see it, and it shall grieve him : " 
 and immediately hid his face beneath the bed-clothes. 
 The confessor uncovered the old man's head, told him 
 that there was no time to be lost, and urged him again 
 and again to make his confession at once. "Yes, 
 Father, I will confess," said he: and repeating, but 
 with weaker voice, the second part of the text, con- 
 tinued : " He shall gnash with his teeth and consume 
 away ; " and again, immediately hid his face in the 
 bed-clothes. Again, the man of GOD gently uncovered
 
 VL] Of the Deadly Sin of Sloth. 181 
 
 his head ; and to entreaties, for his soul's sake to make 
 confession at once, he added the tears of burning 
 charity. "Yes, Father; yes, Father," said the dying 
 man once more ; " I will confess : " and once more 
 hid his face in the bed-clothes, after having gasped 
 out with difficulty, word by word, the last portion of 
 the concluding verse of the H2th Psalm: " The desire 
 of the ungodly shall perish." The priest once again 
 gently uncovered the old man's head ; but the slothful, 
 selfish sinner who despaired of GOD'S mercy was dead. 
 He had passed away to his last account. 
 
 IV. 
 
 Thus have we glanced at the five principal sins which 
 branch from the root of sloth : 
 
 1. Indifference or numbness of soul towards re- 
 
 ligion. 
 
 2. Dissipation of mind from the Creator to the 
 
 creature. 
 
 3. Aversion from sanctity, from holy things and holy 
 
 persons, even from sights and sounds which 
 bring to mind the supernatural. 
 
 4. Cowardice in the service of GOD. 
 
 5. The last and indelible sin of Judas, the sin of 
 
 despair. 
 These are the five developments, which take from
 
 1 82 A Theory about Sin. [vi. 
 
 the ambiguity of the sin of sloth, and make it definite ; 
 which grasp the universality of the sin of sloth, and 
 make it particular. These are the developments which 
 mark this form of evil as the deadly sin of omission. 
 As in former cases, I have attempted to place before 
 you a general survey of the sin in question, a state- 
 ment of its position in the constitution of wickedness, 
 and an analysis of some of its main features, more or 
 less complete. With such an attempt, imperfect as 
 it is in plan, and still more imperfect as it is in execu- 
 tion, I am forced to be content. All application of 
 the details of the sin to your own individual cases I 
 must leave, of necessity, to yourselves, to your souls, to 
 your director, and to your GOD: 
 
 In conclusion, I will only say thus much : That 
 sloth being that developed form of inordinate selfish- 
 ness which, striving after the love of GOD all too 
 slackly, loves less than it might love the Highest 
 Good ; sloth can only be conquered by the perform- 
 ance of those acts of commission which are the 
 opposites of the five sins of omission that constitute 
 sloth. In other words, the distorter of love must 
 conquer sloth, 
 
 First, by zeal for religion, which is the opposite of 
 indifference ;
 
 vi.] Of the Deadly Sin of Sloth. 183 
 
 Secondly, by self-collectedness and concentration of 
 soul upon GOD, which is the opposite of dissipation ; 
 
 Thirdly, by love for, and attraction towards holy 
 things, which is the opposite of aversion from sanctity ; 
 
 Fourthly, by boldness in the service of CHRIST, 
 which is the opposite of cowardice; 
 
 And lastly, by perfect confidence in the mercy of 
 GOD towards penitent souls to the end, which is the 
 opposite of the awful sin of despair. 
 
 A. M. D. G.
 
 A THEORY ABOUT SIN. 
 
 PART III. 
 SINS OF LOVE EXCESSIVE.
 
 PART III. 
 SINS OF LOVE EXCESSIVE. 
 
 LECTURE SEVEN. 
 
 SOME SECONDARY QUESTIONS IN THE RELATION 
 BETWEEN LOVE AND SELF AND SIN. 
 
 LECTURES EIGHT, NINE, AND TEN. 
 
 OF THE DEADLY SINS OF AVARICE, GLUTTONY, AND 
 
 LUST. 
 
 LECTURE ELEVEN. 
 
 FINAL QUESTIONS IN THE RELATION BETWEEN LOVE 
 AND SELF AND SIN.
 
 vii. J Some Secondary Questions. 187 
 
 LECTURE SEVEN. 
 
 SOME SECONDARY QUESTIONS IN THE RELATION 
 BETWEEN LOVE AND SELF AND SIN. 
 
 I. OF THE INTERDEPENDENCE BETWEEN THE DEADLY SINS : II. OF 
 THE IMPERFECTION OF THEIR NUMBER. 
 
 "And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a 
 Beast rise lip out of the sea, having seven heads and ten 
 horns . . . and tipon his heads the name of Blasphemy" 
 
 REVELATION xm. i. 
 
 I. 
 
 T N the examination of so wide a field of theolo- 
 * gical and moral inquiry as that of the Seven 
 Capital Sins, and the relation between love and self 
 and sin, some primary questions must of necessity be 
 overlooked, and many secondary questions can only 
 be treated with superficial brevity. It would have 
 been impossible to consider certahi questions, even in 
 general terms. It would have proved harmful to 
 the argument attempted above, and distracting to 
 sustained thought, had certain other questions been so 
 much as named. Yet it tends towards the complete-
 
 1 88 A Theory about Sin. [vn. 
 
 ness of our estimate of the seven enemies of the soul 
 that an effort should be made to delineate features 
 which have been hitherto untraced. Indeed, a theory 
 about sin would be obviously imperfect which failed 
 in an attempt, however feeble, to deal with such 
 elements. Hence, it may be an advantage to be 
 enabled to consider some of these omitted points, 
 whether subordinate or essential, with a view to lessen 
 the imperfection which cannot entirely be removed. 
 
 It is hardly needful to tabulate these hitherto 
 neglected elements of inquiry. The larger part of the 
 omissions must have been made mentally conscious 
 to all in the course of the foregoing discussion. The 
 dogmatic or practical hiatus caused by the absence 
 of other component parts may, perhaps, have been 
 overlooked in the progress of the argument. But 
 whether or not such defects were observed at the time, 
 the benefit, if not the necessity, of a more detailed treat- 
 ment of the matters in question will become apparent 
 when such deficiencies are, in part, supplied. To the 
 consideration of two of these points, therefore, without 
 further preface, we will now address ourselves. 
 
 II. 
 
 There is one question of some interest intellectually, 
 and not without importance devotionally, connected
 
 vii.] Some Secondary Questions. 189 
 
 with the deadly sins, to which I invite your atten- 
 tion in the first instance. If there is any truth in the 
 theory maintained in the lectures introductory to the 
 two former parts, if our premisses are sound and our 
 argument is without fault, there is more interdepend- 
 ence and relationship between the guilty seven than 
 at first sight seems probable. Let us consider this 
 point the interdependence of the seven capital sins 
 in detail. First, let us see what may be urged 
 against this position by observing the elements of dis- 
 cord which exist between the deadly sins. From 
 discord we will turn to harmony ; and we will examine 
 those features, secondly, which the deadly sins possess 
 in common. Lastly, we will endeavour to find an 
 average between these opposite elements. 
 
 First: The differences which separate the deadly or 
 capital sins from one another are obvious. They are 
 the result in the soul of man of the three forms of 
 imperfect love of love in obliquity, of love in de- 
 ficiency, and of love in excess. The effects obtainable 
 from such varied sources, from sources in some cases 
 opposite and in others antagonistic, must needs be 
 various. This is the first note of discord between 
 the sevenfold development of sin. Again : The 
 deadly sins are divisible into three distinct classes.
 
 190 A Theory about Sin. [vn. 
 
 In one of these classes the spiritual ingredients over- 
 power the sensual: in one, the sensual components 
 outweigh the spiritual : in one, the two elements are 
 intimately connected with each other. Such clearly 
 marked divisions must be the result of organic differ- 
 ences equally distinct, which ensue in results equally 
 variable. This is the second note of discord. Again : 
 These seven sins, if we may be allowed to personate 
 them, may also be viewed under other mutable cir- 
 cumstances. They may be actively directed against 
 man, as their chief antipathy : or they may fall short 
 of, or be turned from GOD, as their last end : or they 
 may be attracted towards created things, as their 
 highest earthly satisfaction. And the opposite con- 
 clusions to which they severally tend, point to qualities 
 equally opposite, by which they may be severally dis- 
 tinguished. This is the third and last note of discord 
 which shall be named. 
 
 Such, Brethren, are some of the peculiarities which 
 constitute the differences observable between the seven- 
 fold development of evil which we are estimating. 
 
 Secondly : On the other hand, what are the circum- 
 stances attending the deadly sins which afford evidence 
 of their relationship and mutual dependence ? That 
 such circumstances may be mentioned appears pro-
 
 vii.] Some Secondary Questions. 191 
 
 bable from considering the differences already stated : 
 and their record will prove the harmonies which have 
 been suggested. For instance : First, in the case of 
 each of the sins, there exists but one motive principle 
 energising the different emotions called into play, 
 which is love. For love, as we have seen, is the prin- 
 ciple of all human action ; and the deadly sins are 
 only human actions done under certain conditions of 
 love, from certain motives of love, with certain results 
 of love. And this causes one element of harmony 
 between the deadly seven. Next : In each case the 
 parentage of the capital sins, together with their 
 training or culture, is but one. For human selfish- 
 ness is the source and origin of human sin in general ; 
 and in particular the capital sins are only the expres- 
 sion of developed and inordinate selfishness consequent 
 on various forms of imperfect or human love. This 
 creates another element of dependence which produces 
 harmony among the seven. Then, thirdly: In each 
 case the remedy for the capital sins is also one 
 one only. For love, perfect and divine, is the 
 antidote to the poison of self. And this produces 
 yet another element of dependence, which results 
 in harmony amidst the otherwise discordant agencies 
 of ill. 
 
 Such, Brethren, again, are some of the features,
 
 1 92 A Theory about Sin. [vii. 
 
 either in cause or effect, either in development or cure, 
 which these seven sins possess in common. 
 
 How may we estimate the value of these diver- 
 sities and affinities respectively, so as to be able 
 either to compare or contrast them, or to obtain an 
 average which may indicate either and satisfy both ? 
 The balance will not be difficult to discover ; nor will 
 it be hard to decide towards which end it- inclines. 
 The characteristics of the two opposite influences 
 which bear upon the deadly sins are plainly marked. 
 The differences which tend to separate them, are 
 differences in degree rather than in kind. The simi- 
 larities which tend to unite them, evidence agree- 
 ment in principle rather than in detail. A common 
 factor of the seven which influences the principle, 
 which influences the origination, which influences the 
 development, which influences the extinction of an 
 habitual course of action, is not to be weighed against 
 mere antagonistic results in form, or in class, or in any 
 outward and variable circumstance. Hence we con- 
 clude, that the seven capital sins are severally related 
 more nearly than they are independent. Further in- 
 quiry shows, that they are mutually related by close, 
 intimate, and sometimes unexpected affinities. 
 
 This theoretical conclusion is strengthened by taking 
 a practical though superficial view only of the capital
 
 vii.] Some Secondary Questions. 193 
 
 sins. For example : Consider the sins individually. 
 Sloth, in order to become otherwise than vaguely 
 general, finds an outlet, first negatively, in failing to 
 combat pride, envy, or anger ; and then, positively, in 
 yielding to the attacks of covetousness, gluttony, or 
 lust. And this feature in the nature or development 
 of one sin, sloth, furnishes a plain note cff interde- 
 pendence between all the seven sins. Again : Pride 
 and anger are intimately connected in their results. 
 For, the proud man is almost certain to feel annoyed 
 if his self-love be wounded : and the angry man 
 would perhaps seldom be incensed if he were clothed 
 with the virtue of humility. Here, then, we find 
 obvious marks of connection between other two of 
 the deadly sins ; and these both the product of a single 
 cause, distorted love. Take, again, other two of the 
 same sinful family, in this case the product of different 
 efforts of imperfect love, oblique and excessive I mean 
 the sins of envy and covetousness. These two sins, how- 
 ever opposite in their cause, are nearly akin in their 
 effect ; and indeed in certain phases they are absolutely 
 identical. Or, once more, take the two remaining sins, 
 which owe their origin to a single form of imperfect 
 love, love in excess. Gluttony and lust are so far allied, 
 that they are often mutually related as cause and 
 consequence. For instance : Intemperance, as an in*- 
 
 O
 
 194 A Theory about Sin. [vn. 
 
 centive, frequently leads to impurity, in thought, word, 
 or deed. Impurity indulged frequently leads to in- 
 temperance, in order to silence conscience, to support 
 shame, to hide disgrace, to drown despair. From this 
 cursory view, therefore, of the deadly sins, it appears, 
 that whatever differences may be seen in detail, what- 
 ever variations may be found in degree, yet substantial 
 agreement subsists in certain forms of action and 
 reaction, between pride, envy and anger on the one side ; 
 between covetousness, gluttony and sloth on the other 
 side ; with sloth as the unholy mean between the two. 
 
 These instances afford but general evidence to a 
 general proposition. Closer affinities will be observable 
 upon more minute and detailed inspection of and com- 
 parison between the capital sins. Here, however, my 
 Brethren, your patience and the time at my disposal 
 interpose limits. There are seven deadly sins ; and 
 if we estimate the relationship which each individual 
 sin bears to each other individual sin, an easy ma- 
 thematical calculation will suggest to how great a 
 length the examination may extend. I therefore pur- 
 pose to confine our attention to two only of these 
 enemies of our soul, to the first and last of the seven 
 sins ; and to endeavour to see by what principle 
 pride, and to what extent impurity affect, or are 
 affected by, the other deadly sins respectively.
 
 vn."] Some Secondary Questions. 195 
 
 First : Consider the case of pride, in regard to what 
 may be termed first principles in deadly sin. Pride 
 has been described as an inordinate belief in, desire 
 of, or love for self-excellence, for this one object, the 
 love of self. If this definition be accepted, we can 
 easily trace the connection between the sin of pride 
 and the other two sins which flow from love dis- 
 torted, namely envy and anger. All three of them, 
 if again we may personate the sins, love evil to their 
 neighbour. Take them severally, and estimate them 
 with care. The envious man inordinately desires 
 another's destitution, because he esteems his own 
 power to be lessened. But here come the crucial 
 questions Why should he esteem his own power to 
 be lessened, if he be not a proud man ? Why should 
 he not welcome such lessening of power, if he possess a 
 true estimate of himself as a humble man ? Hence, 
 we see at once that the sin of pride is clearly con- 
 nected, under certain aspects, with the sin of envy. 
 Again : The angry man inordinately desires another's 
 injury, because of evil, real or imagined, done to him- 
 self. But here, again, come the crucial questions 
 Why should he think that to be evil absolutely, which 
 relatively is less ill than he actually deserves ? Why 
 should he expect anything but ill or evil done to 
 himself, if he were judged by GOD, or rewarded by 
 
 O 2
 
 196 A Theory about Sin. [vn. 
 
 man, according to his works ? Such would be his sen- 
 timents, were he not proud instead of humble, were 
 he clothed with humility in the place of pride. But the 
 angry man is not humble. He is essentially if not 
 constitutionally or by habit, yet in the moment of 
 passion or in the hour of revenge he is essentially 
 a proud man. And pride is thus connected with anger 
 as it is connected with envy, equally though in a 
 different way. 
 
 Neither, if we pass from sins of distorted love to 
 sins caused by deficiency of love, shall we find that 
 there is no relationship between pride and sloth. 
 The very definition of sloth is suggestive of the relation- 
 ship. For, if a man loves GOD less than he might love 
 Him, and if he strives after the Highest Good all too 
 slackly, there is every chance that he is influenced by 
 an inordinate belief in and love for self. Belief in self 
 gradually eliminates belief in GOD : and love for self is 
 incompatible with earnestly striving after the love of 
 GOD. In other words, the defaulter in love who sins by 
 sloth is guilty also of the sin of pride. 
 
 We will next consider the sins which arise from 
 excess of love in man towards the lower good of 
 created things : sins which find their natural issue in 
 covetousness, in gluttony, in lust. Nor does the in- 
 fluence which we have seen existing in the case of love
 
 vii.] Some Secondary Questions. 197 
 
 distorted and of love in default fail to exhibit itself 
 here also, though in this case we need not enter into 
 detail. For, the man who is covetously desirous of 
 possessions with which GOD has not endowed him, can 
 scarcely fail to think that he, equally with or more 
 than others, is deserving of such possessions ; which is 
 only another method of saying that he is proud, and 
 in self-estimation is conceited. The man who is glut- 
 tonously wishful for food of better quality, or drink 
 in more abundance than he is accustomed to, or can 
 afford, or may obtain, would certainly not fall into 
 such sins if he estimated his own worth at the value 
 with which GOD esteems him, by the virtue of humility. 
 And, the man who is a slave of sensual gratification, if 
 indeed he be not sunk beneath the level of conscien- 
 tious scruples, thinks that he, of all men, is enabled 
 without self-abasement to indulge in sensuality ; that 
 he, of all men, possesses sufficient power of self-con- 
 troul to descend into the bottomless pit of impurity so 
 far and no farther ; that the self-excellence in which he 
 believes enables him, of all men, to love a lower good 
 in created things more than he ought, and yet to escape 
 the charge of deadly sin. And what is this, again, 
 but the proud man's line of argument, on behalf of 
 his own love for and belief in self? Hence, once 
 more, in the case of lust, of gluttony, of covetousness,
 
 198 A Theory about Sin. [vn. 
 
 not less than in the case of sloth, envy, anger, the 
 man who is guilty of these forms of imperfect love is 
 guilty also of the sin of pride. 
 
 Turn, now, from principle to practice, and consider 
 the sin of lust in connection with the other deadly 
 sins. First of all, there can be no sort of doubt, how- 
 ever it may be explained, that the first and last of 
 the capital sins, pride and impurity, are intimately, nay 
 mysteriously, related. It is acknowledged, I believe, 
 by all spiritual writers who treat the subject of the 
 latter, and also by some who treat of the former sin. 
 It has been admitted by confessors. It is felt by 
 penitents. It may be observed by ourselves. As a 
 matter of fact, about which there is no question, 
 though there may be many theories, pride and im- 
 purity walk hand in hand. The proud man almost 
 inevitably falls into the sin of lust, perhaps as a direct, 
 certainly as a suitable, punishment from GOD, in His 
 permissive Will. The impure man always is, or always 
 becomes, more or less proud in obedience to a law in 
 human economy of universal obligation. And if we 
 pass from these mutually dependent propositions, and 
 turn to those which are not so self-evidently reciprocal 
 in Christian ethics, we shall find that the lustful man is 
 fairly certain, sooner or later, to be betrayed into the
 
 vii. J Some Secondary Questions. 199 
 
 sins of envy and covetousness. Indeed, under one 
 aspect, and under certain conditions of mental action, 
 lust, envy, and covetousness are but three develop- 
 ments of a single sin. For, he who loves more than 
 he ought to love the lower good of created things, 
 under the influence of sensuality to take a wide view 
 of the case cannot but love evil to those whom he 
 should love as himself apart from sensuality. In other 
 words, the exceeder in love becomes self-evolved into 
 a distorter of love. Excess in one direction not un- 
 naturally developes into obliquity in- another direc- 
 tion ; and the sensual man becomes envious. Neither 
 can he remain there as his last development. The 
 enviously impure becomes impurely covetous. For, 
 should a limit be placed upon self-indulgence, the 
 lustful man will witness or conceive sensual gratifica- 
 tions which others lawfully enjoy: seeing or knowing 
 such gratifications, he will be tempted to desire them : 
 and, inordinately desiring such gratifications, he will 
 sin by coveting them. And thus the circle of moral 
 iniquity becomes self-completed : the victim of im- 
 purity becomes the victim also of the sin of cove- 
 tousness. 
 
 Nor is it otherwise in the case of the remaining 
 deadly sins, anger, sloth, and gluttony. The con- 
 nection between these developments respectively of
 
 2OO A Theory about Sin. [vn. 
 
 the three forms of imperfect love and the sin of im- 
 purity ; how their influence bears upon it ; how it may 
 be generated from them ; how these sins may originate 
 from lust, is too obvious to need more than a passing 
 observation. Anger generally follows in the wake of 
 sensual gratification ; for hate quickly, if not bitterly, 
 succeeds to love in sensuality gratified. Sloth pro- 
 verbially leads to impurity; and the lustful man 
 naturally and almost inevitably sinks into indolence. 
 And the love of created things over much in eating 
 and drinking, or the absence of mortification in one 
 division of our complex nature, leads, without excep- 
 tion, to self-indulgence in other divisions ; and hence, 
 in Scriptural language, the "gluttonous man and the 
 wine-bibber " falls an easy prey to the attacks of the 
 demon of impurity. 
 
 We may allow, then, I think, after a consideration 
 even as superficial as the above inquiry into both 
 classes of temptation, that in practice, not less than 
 in principle, the deadly sin of lust both influences and 
 is influenced by the sins of pride, envy and covetous- 
 ness, of anger, sloth and gluttony. 
 
 III. 
 
 The remaining point which demands our attention 
 is the asserted, and, from a certain point of view,
 
 vii.] Some Secondary Questions. 201 
 
 the actual, imperfection of the catalogue of the deadly 
 sins. 
 
 Objections to the systematic order of the sins 
 and their number, as the Church has arranged and 
 limited them, meet us under two distinct forms, both 
 in ethics and in sentiment. We will consider them one 
 by one. 
 
 I. What may be called without disrespect the senti- 
 mental objection to an exhaustive division of the seven- 
 fold enemies of our soul is perhaps the most common 
 and, I will add, the least reasonable. Men say in a 
 vague sort of manner, men say with the confidence 
 which want of evidence often inspires, as if the ques- 
 tion were unanswerable Why should there be seven 
 capital sins, neither more nor less ? Why should there 
 not be six or eight sins ? Or, if you are anxious for 
 a number which has, or is supposed to have, a more 
 mystical sound or look, why not 'five or nine? It 
 would seem, continues the objector, that the Church 
 first decided on the number seven, and then proceeded 
 to allot the like tale of sins to complete the list. 
 
 Now, of course, in reply to objections based not 
 upon evidence, but on the supposed fitness of things 
 as they present themselves to the objector's mind, the 
 best rejoinder is at once the most direct and opposite.
 
 2O2 A Theory about Sin. [vn. 
 
 To a Catholic, it would appear that the reason why 
 the Church teaches there are a certain number of 
 deadly sins, is simply this because as a matter of 
 experience she has found the actual number to be 
 seven, neither less rior more. And to a Churchman, 
 the questions come as naturally as the reverse may 
 sound in the ears of a non -Churchman Why should 
 there not be seven capital sins ? Why should there 
 be either nine or five ? Is there anything in the fit- 
 ness of things either against the negative, or in favour 
 of the affirmative position ? And when we consider 
 that the Church teaches us to hold seven to be the 
 number of the capital sins, this answer to a faithful 
 member of CHRIST'S Body is sufficient. It rests with 
 those beyond her blessed influence to show, upon evi- 
 dence stronger than sentiment, that there should be, 
 or~ that there is, a number to represent the capital 
 sins other than the number, at once both mystical and 
 matter of fact, seven. 
 
 But I am not disposed to take refuge in a mere 
 juggle of words, or balancing of question and answer. 
 Apart from the direct teaching of the Church; apart 
 from . all evidence to the contrary ; apart from direct 
 evidence in their favour, which we shall consider by 
 and by there is much indirectly to suggest to a 
 devout mind that there are neither less nor more
 
 viz. J Some Secondary Questions. 203 
 
 than seven deadly enemies of our soul. Indirect evi- 
 dence, in such a matter, may be taken to be evidence 
 sufficiently strong to oppose to mere sentimental ob- 
 jections on the other side. And such evidence may 
 be furnished from a Catholic interpretation of a largo 
 number of passages in Holy Scripture, of which I 
 shall here quote but a few. 
 
 For instance : There were certain nations in Canaan 
 which the children of Israel were commanded to con- 
 quer before they could inherit the Promised Land ; 
 and holy men have ever understood these nations to 
 represent in a figure our sins, which we must vanquish 
 before we can reach the Heavenly Jerusalem. These 
 nations, equally with the capital sins, were seven in 
 number. Again : In the daily sacrifice for sin, under 
 the Jewish Law, the priest was directed both for his 
 own sins and for the sins of the people, to sprinkle 
 the blood of bullocks before the LORD ; and the 
 number of times which the priest was ordered to 
 sprinkle such sacrificial blood was the same with the 
 number of our root sins seven. Again : Naaman, 
 the Syrian, was ordered by the prophet Elisha to 
 wash in the waters of Jordan to recover him of his 
 leprosy, the world-wide type of sin. Can we doubt 
 that he washed once for each of the typical sins of 
 man's fallen nature seven times ? Solomon tells us
 
 2O4 A Theory about Sin. [vn. 
 
 that the just man falleth into sin : for who is he that 
 liveth and sinneth not ? And when we learn that he 
 falleth seven times, can we doubt that there exists for 
 us, Catholics, a mystical allusion to the seven deadly 
 sins of man's regenerated nature ? 
 
 Nor, if we turn from the Old Testament Scriptures 
 to those of the New, shall we fail to find that the same 
 number, seven, appears over and over again in regard 
 to sinners, in regard to sin. When our Divine Master 
 was pleased to deliver from the power of sin her that 
 was possessed by Satan, it is said that He cast out 
 neither fewer nor more, but seven evil spirits from the 
 saint of the future one, surely, as typical of, if not 
 as personating, each of the seven deadly sins. We are 
 told, if our brother trespass against us daily, that we 
 are to forgive him, on his penitence, daily even to 
 the extent of a sevenfold forgiveness. Is it fanciful 
 to imagine that each fall and each forgiveness may 
 typify, in cause or in effect, one of the seven capital 
 or root sins ? And lastly, we read in the Revelation 
 of S. John the Divine of the spirits of GOD, whether 
 or not their work may be to combat the sevenfold 
 development of evil, that their number also is the 
 mystical number, seven. Neither is it without signifi- 
 cancy, apart from begging the question at issue, that 
 there arc seven Christian virtues, distinct from those
 
 vii.] Some Secondary Questions. 205 
 
 termed Theological and Cardinal, which have ever been 
 esteemed the opposites of the seven capital sins. 
 
 From these indirect considerations it is not unlikely, 
 to say the least, that the Church's estimate and limit 
 of deadly sin is substantially correct that there are 
 seven distinct and definite enemies of our inner life, 
 neither less nor more. If the above interpretations of 
 Holy Writ be sound, and they are independent, and 
 were not made to support a theory, a cumulative force 
 is given to evidence on behalf of the teaching of the 
 Church which raises our position to a high degree of 
 probability. Whilst, if we measure such probability 
 by the absence of all evidence producible on the other 
 side, that the number of the sins must be calculated 
 on a different basis, the probability against the first 
 objection to the sevenfold order of the deadly sins 
 mounts almost to certainty. And you will re- 
 member, my Brethren, that we are now only dealing 
 with the sentimental objection against the Church's 
 catalogue. 
 
 Secondly : There is the ethical difficulty to be con- 
 sidered ; and this difficulty takes the following form : 
 It is said, certain sins exist which are deadly and are 
 not found in the catalogue of the seven capital sins ; 
 but if one such sin only may be named, it is of itself
 
 206 A Theory about Sin. [vn 
 
 sufficient to support a charge of imperfection against 
 the order of the Church. And, of course, the sins 
 which the objector has in mind, even if they do not 
 pass his lips, are certain social sins, notably the sin of 
 falsehood, possibly the sin of theft. 
 
 There are, however, two lines of thought to be in- 
 dicated before we can conveniently meet the ethical 
 objector to the sevenfold division of sin on his own 
 ground. 
 
 I. We must not forget, though the Church has 
 declared the number of the deadly sins to be seven, 
 that she has so declared with full knowledge of the 
 Ten Commandments of GOD. The two enactments 
 indeed may be considered almost and practically co- 
 ordinate. Where they ageee, they are identical in 
 aim though diverse in form. Where they differ, they 
 differ in practice rather than in principle. They stand 
 in the same mutual relationship respectively as the 
 Gospel stands to the Law. The one overlaps and 
 fulfils the other. The second is contained in, is pre- 
 supposed by, the first And the last in order of time, 
 as well as the second in point of authority, namely the 
 catalogue of the Church, is to be understood as supple- 
 menting and not as supplanting the earlier and more 
 binding, namely the Decalogue of GOD.
 
 vii.] Some Secondary Questions. 207 
 
 Moreover, no code of written law, either graven by 
 the Finger of GOD or imposed by GOD'S Church, 
 whether it apply to moral instinct or human action, 
 can be absolutely exhaustive. Equally in the Church 
 and in the World, there must ever exist both execu- 
 tive and judicial powers to adapt statutes to events, 
 and to apply laws to cases as they arise. And though 
 the principles of moral action are unaffected by the 
 change of time and place, yet such principles have to 
 be extended or modified in practice according to cir- 
 cumstances. The ingenuity of man can always evade 
 standards of right or wrong which the ingenuity of 
 man has prepared nay, which the Omniscience of 
 GOD has prepared. Even the Decalogue of the Creator, 
 by the marvellous power of free will in the creature, 
 may be disobeyed, though no command has been 
 literally broken. 
 
 II. Taking a broad view of both lists of human 
 wickedness, it may be urged that the Ten Command- 
 ments more or less ignore that side of morality which 
 affects the inner life of man, as a responsible being 
 endowed with self-consciousness ; that the deadly sins 
 more or less ignore those outward developments of evil 
 which ensue from self-consciousness being disused, from 
 responsibility being denied. As a formula which pre- 
 vails with less precision than a law, the capital sins
 
 208 A Theory about Sin. [vn. 
 
 are concerned with the source and origin of wicked- 
 ness : the Commandments forbid its legitimate out- 
 come and product. Moreover, from another point of 
 view, it may be said that the first table of the Deca- 
 logue is wholly, and the second table is partially, 
 assumed under the legislation of the deadly sins : and 
 that where the two catalogues of sin assimilate, the one 
 alludes to sinful habits, motives, or states of being, the 
 other forbids definite, overt, and positive acts of sin. 
 
 These two lines of thought will help us to meet the 
 objection that theft and falsehood, as social wickedness, 
 are not included in the Church's index of the capital 
 sins. 
 
 In the first place : If we consider the seven sins of 
 the Church as supplementary to, rather than as sup- 
 planting the ten commands of GOD, two facts im- 
 mediately appear. Not only is it evident, I. that 
 lying in one form and thieving of all kinds are defi- 
 nitely forbidden by the Commandments, and hence are 
 inferentially condemned in the list of the sins : but 
 also, 2. that theft which is one product of covetous- 
 ness, and falsehood which may ensue from any capital 
 sin, are both equally and positively hostile to the 
 evangelical table. Nor are these the only sins which 
 are either apparently overlooked, or avowedly dis
 
 vii. J Some Secondary Questions. 209 
 
 regarded by one or both codes of moral law. For 
 instance : Honour to one's parents, and whatever 
 duties of social, political, or religious life ensue from 
 the Sixth Commandment, are absolutely omitted from 
 reference in the list of the deadly sins. And these 
 obligations are omitted probably for a further reason 
 than because they find a place in the Decalogue, 
 namely, as forming the assumed basis at once of the 
 natural, artificial, and supernatural phases of human 
 life. Again : Under the elder dispensation the sin of 
 rebellion, the sin of dealing with familiar spirits, and 
 the sin of taking usury from a poor brother ; or, as 
 they are termed under the younger dispensation, law- 
 lessness or disobedience, witchcraft, and extortion 
 three sins held in special abomination in the sight of 
 GOD find no place in definite terms in the decalogue 
 of Mount Sinai. And once more, to mention a sin 
 with which we, thank GOD, are only familiar by name : 
 The sin of tyranny or despotism is forbidden under 
 neither code of morality ; and yet we, as Englishmen, 
 distinctly hold it to be one of the very worst of political 
 and social crimes. 
 
 In the second place : Two opposite opinions may be 
 held of sin in relation to human wickedness. The 
 acceptance of either of them is fatal to the objection, 
 that the catalogue of the capital sins is incomplete. 
 
 P
 
 2io A Theory about Sin. [vn. 
 
 First : The estimate of deadly sin which views it as 
 the cause rather than as the effect of moral turpitude, 
 is clearly illustrated from the case of the sin of false- 
 hood for we may, I think, suitably confine our atten- 
 tion to one only of the alleged imperfections in the 
 catalogue of evil, and that the all-important example 
 of lying. Here the contrast between the Mosaic code 
 and the Evangelical law is apparent. Where the one 
 forbids murder, the other condemns anger. Where the 
 first says, " Thou shalt not commit adultery," the last 
 declares sensuality to be sinful. Where the Law par- 
 ticularises the goods of another which a man may not 
 covet, the Gospel affirms of the spirit of covetousness, 
 that it is of the nature of deadly sin. In each case, 
 you will observe, Christianity attacks the principle of 
 sin at its source and origin ; Judaism curbs the develop- 
 ment of sin in its result. And the case of falsehood 
 is fairly comparable to these instances For falsehood, 
 from the point of view whence we consider it, is less 
 a consequence than a cause : falsehood is rather an 
 aggregate of many, various, and often opposite in- 
 fluences, than an effect created by a given influence. 
 
 Take, for example, the sins one by one, and your- 
 selves, judge my Brethren : A man may lie in exhibit- 
 ing his pride, or in hiding his pride, or in ministering 
 to his pride. And the sin of pride in its essence is only
 
 vii.] Some Secondary Questions. 2 1 1 
 
 one expression of falsehood towards GOD, or of falsehood 
 towards man. It costs little to the envious or covetous 
 man to depreciate his neighbour untruly, in his person, 
 in his position, in his possessions, or in his fair fame. 
 And, in this aspect, envy and covetousness are but 
 varied forms of untruth. Under the influence of passion, 
 a man will without hesitation magnify or diminish, sup- 
 press or deny, distort or ignore the truth. And anger, 
 therefore, may be held to be one development of false- 
 hood. Who has ever heard the glutton or impure 
 save in the lowest degree of either form of sensuality 
 when under the influence of sin and when charged 
 with such influence, avow himself to indulge in 
 either impurity or excess ? And is it not evident of 
 both these deadly sins, that they are the product of 
 untruth : especially of the last of the capital sins ; for, 
 who can be true either to himself or to his victim, who 
 can be true either to GOD or man, who is guilty of the 
 awful sin of adultery ? 
 
 Second : But deadly sin, in its relation to immo- 
 rality, may be viewed more as an effect than as a cause. 
 In this aspect it is difficult to imagine a falsehood 
 being uttered apart from a cause which itself owes its 
 origin, directly or indirectly, to some other form of 
 wickedness. If this be allowed, the sin of lying differs 
 in kind as well as in degree, from all other sin. Take 
 
 P 2
 
 212 A Theory about Sin. [vn. 
 
 any of the deadly sins envy, or sloth, or avarice. 
 Under certain conditions these sins may be viewed, as 
 We have in fact considered them, as arising from a good 
 principle carried to excess, or perverted through dis- 
 tortion, or cramped by defect. But under no circum- 
 stances can falsehood be linked with holiness. No 
 phase of holiness in deficiency, no phase of holiness 
 in obliquity, no phase of holiness in extravagance can 
 produce falsehood. And if we examine the matter 
 with care, we shall become conscious, not only that 
 falsehood has its source in each deadly sin, but that, 
 apart from such sin, falsehood has no existence. A man, 
 indeed, may be said to be false, to be unreliable, to 
 be untrue, abstractedly and in general terms, yet he 
 is thus described by a figure of speech only. He is 
 not untrue in the same sense that he may be proud 
 or envious, slothful, gluttonous or impure. His want 
 of veracity will not have an object on which to 
 exercise itself without temptation from one of the 
 seven deadly sins. It will become actively energised 
 only under the form of one of them. Even the ap- 
 parently pointless lie, the practice of unpremeditated 
 falsehood, or the habit of invention, exaggeration, sup- 
 pression, or deceit, which has become almost a second 
 nature, may be dictated by conceit or vanity, or be 
 the result of some other sin.
 
 VIL] Some Secondary Questions. 213 
 
 Hence, it would appear that falsehood and the same 
 may be affirmed of theft cannot be quoted as an in- 
 stance of the imperfection of the sevenfold development 
 of sin. Indeed it forms a marked example of the 
 completeness of the catalogue, and of its perfection 
 from a moral point of view. Had falsehood been pro- 
 nounced to be the eighth capital sin, the list would 
 have been scientifically incorrect. So far from false- 
 hood being a deadly sin supplemental to or independent 
 of the recognised seven, whether as cause or effect it 
 is intimately connected with them all. Either the 
 seven capital sins severally conspire to create untruth : 
 or falsehood necessarily developes into the seven forms 
 of deadly sin. In neither case can it be regarded as 
 a self-contained sin which destroys the perfection of 
 the Church's systematised arrangement. 
 
 IV. 
 
 With the consideration of these two omitted points 
 in our theory about sin we will be content. Time fails 
 us, to-day, to attempt more than the discussion 
 
 I. Of the interdependence and relationship between 
 
 the seven deadly sins : and 
 
 II. Of the imperfection of their catalogue. 
 
 The words of the text, which speak of the Apo- 
 calyptic Beast named " Blasphemy," who rose up out of
 
 214 A Theory about Sin. [vn. 
 
 the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, are sug- 
 gestive, at the least, of some mystical connection be- 
 tween these two numbers, seven and ten, in relation 
 to the "heads" of the deadly sins and the "horns" 
 of the sins against the Commandments. But more 
 need not be said than to point out the possibility 
 of such interpretation to devout students of Holy 
 Scripture who are imbued with the teaching of the 
 Church. 
 
 In our next lecture I shall hope to discuss the first 
 sin of the last division of the capital sins those caused 
 by excess of love. And the first of these sins is the 
 deadly sin of avarice. 
 
 A. M. D. G.
 
 viii.] Of the Deadly Sin of Avarice. 215 
 
 LECTURE EIGHT. 
 
 OF THE DEADLY SIN OF AVARICE : 
 
 THE FIRST SIN OF LOVE EXCESSIVE. 
 
 " The love of money is the root of all evil:: which while 
 some coveted after, they have erred from the faith> and 
 pierced themselves through with many sorrows" 
 
 i S. TIMOTHY, vi. 10. 
 
 I. 
 
 'nHO-DAY we enter upon the third and last division 
 -- of the capital sins, in considering the sin of 
 Avarice. 
 
 We have already discussed, you will remember, the 
 case of one who loves evil to those whom he should 
 love as himself, namely his neighbour. We have also 
 estimated him who loves less than he might love the 
 Highest Good, that is GOD. We have now, therefore, 
 to examine the characteristics of the man who loves
 
 216 A Theory aboiit Sin. [ VIIT - 
 
 more than he ought to love some lower good amongst 
 created things. I need hardly remind you, that the 
 distorter of love finds expression for his obliquity in 
 the sins of pride, envy and anger; nor that the de- 
 faulter in love withholds his meagre service from GOD 
 under the influence of sloth. But it may be well to 
 enforce upon you once more, that the exceeder in love, 
 the first of whose specialties we are now called upon 
 to analyse, can offend in three several ways : 
 
 1. By the capital sin of avarice or covetousness : 
 
 2. By the capital sin of gluttony, or excess in eating 
 
 and drinking : 
 
 3. By the capital sin of impurity, or in theological 
 
 language, luxury or lust. 
 
 To these three developments in selfishness, conse- 
 quent upon love which is imperfect and human, upon 
 love which is in excess, rather than in defect or in 
 obliquity, we will now turn. And the one thought, 
 beyond a sense of duty, that helps us to persevere in 
 our self-imposed task of annotating the deadly sins 
 a task which may be profitable, but certainly is not 
 attractive is the truth, that here also, as in other 
 instances, relief may be found from the burden of sin : 
 a fountain has been opened for sin and for all unclean- 
 ness. Here, as in other cases, light shines upon dark- 
 ness that may be felt. For here too, perfect love is the
 
 viii.] Of the Deadly Sin of Avarice. 217 
 
 antidote to the poison of human selfishness, and the 
 love of GOD within our hearts will keep us pure and 
 undefiled. Let us pray the HOLY SPIRIT of Love, my 
 Brethren, whilst we now venture to speak of and listen 
 to, whilst we now think over and ponder upon, the 
 sin of man which is more sensual in character than 
 spiritual. 
 
 II. 
 
 Covetousness, as one of the capital sins, and as one 
 form only of sin against the Tenth Commandment, 
 may be defined to be that inordinate and selfish love 
 of money which is otherwise called Avarice. 
 
 This love of money, which of course includes, and 
 I shall take to mean, the love of money's worth, and 
 what money may purchase, becomes sinful in at least 
 four different ways, under two distinct conditions. We 
 may sin by covetousness, 
 
 I. In regard to money which we actually possess ; 
 
 and 
 
 II. In relation to money of which we are not actually 
 
 in possession. 
 
 Two results flow from each of these divisions. We 
 may sin under the first head, namely, in regard to the 
 money we possess, 
 
 i. By inordinate and selfish complacency in possessing
 
 218 A Theory about Sin. [vm. 
 
 or spending our money a complacency which 
 
 shows itself by display, extravagance, or waste ; 
 
 or 
 2. By inordinate and selfish anxiety to hoard and 
 
 save our money lest we should diminish it ; and 
 
 thus be guilty of parsimony. 
 
 We may sin under the second head, namely, in 
 relation to money we do not possess, either 
 
 1. By inordinate and selfish eagerness to obtain 
 
 more money, which issues in ceaseless thought 
 and effort for its acquisition ; or 
 
 2. By inordinate and selfish concern which follows 
 
 the loss of our money, as if we had forfeited 
 some real good a concern which takes the 
 form of dejection. 
 
 All these developments of avarice spring from im- 
 perfect love. The covetous man, who is an exceeder 
 in love, loves more than he ought to love the lower 
 good of created things, which in this case is money. 
 And you will at once perceive, from the order in which 
 the different forms of sin have been arranged, that 
 covetousness arises from the extremes of two kinds 
 of excess in love. The avaricious man loves what he 
 has, and is either lavish or mean ; or he loves what he 
 has not, and either labours too much for its gain, or 
 mourns too much for its loss.
 
 vm.] Of the Deadly Sin of Avarice. 219 
 
 We will consider these various forms of covetous- 
 ness in order, at greater or lesser length. 
 
 III. 
 
 Two preliminary questions, however, must be dis- 
 cussed in the first place, which apply equally to either 
 class of sinners by covetousness : 
 
 I. Who may be an avaricious man ? and 
 
 II. How a man may be avaricious ? 
 
 First : The avaricious man loves what he has, or 
 loves what he has not, inordinately and selfishly. And 
 this form of imperfect love may be developed in the 
 hearts of members of every class of society. It is by 
 no means confined to any single class. The rich are 
 certainly subject to the temptation. But the poor are 
 not at all free from its dangers. And those who enjoy 
 a competency that is, either a little more than they 
 need, or a little less than they want also feel its 
 influence. The sin, then, does not consist in what we 
 possess ; but in the attitude which we assume to- 
 wards our possessions. And Holy Scripture clearly 
 endorses this view of the sin. It emphatically extends 
 the limits of covetousness to each class of society. Of 
 course, it is only a matter of experience, that the more 
 a man possesses, the more occasions of temptation are 
 open to him. But, it is equally a matter of fact that a
 
 220 A Theory about Sin. [vm. 
 
 man may be tempted to avarice more vehemently, the 
 fewer the number of his earthly goods. The more he 
 wants, the more he may be tempted to covetousness. 
 
 This truth is forced upon our attention in a remark- 
 able manner, by the words of our Blessed LORD 
 Himself, as recorded in the Gospel according to 
 S. Mark, and by their effect upon His disciples. 
 When in their self-sacrificing simplicity the Apostles 
 of the LORD JESUS listened to their Master's denun- 
 ciations of covetousness, we read, simply, they "were 
 astonished at His words." Their astonishment, appa- 
 rently expressed in desire for further light, was met 
 by our LORD by the explanation, that what He in- 
 tended to convey was, the difficulty of attaining to 
 bliss, not for those who were wealthy in the abstract, 
 but for those who trusted in and depended upon their 
 wealth. Here, we should have thought, the disciples 
 ought to have been satisfied. It would commend itself 
 to most minds, without causing surprise, that such men 
 would find much difficulty in entering the kingdom of 
 Heaven ; even as a camel, in going " through the eye 
 of a needle." Yet, strangely enough, this is not the 
 thought which was uppermost in the minds of the 
 Apostles. For, we read again, after their Divine 
 Master had added this gloss upon His words, that the 
 disciples "were astonished out of measure, saying
 
 viii.] Of the Deadly Sin of Avarice. 221 
 
 among' themselves 'Who then can be saved?" Nor 
 does our LORD soften down His words, or explain 
 away their meaning. He adds : " With men it is im- 
 possible ; but not with GOD." Hence, my Brethren, 
 we may conclude, that the universality of the danger, 
 to rich and poor alike, is the measure of the extent of 
 the temptation to trusting in worldly goods. Hence, 
 we may learn, that none are exempt from the liability 
 of falling into the deadly sin of covetousness. 
 
 This truth, that a man need not be a man of wealth 
 to be covetous, that the bare possession of riches does 
 not make him guilty of sin, is important to be insisted 
 upon at the present day. It is important for two 
 reasons : I . because the extremes of both wealth and 
 poverty are so widely separated ; and hence it appears 
 difficult to apply the same law to both : and also, 2. 
 because the gradations of wealth and poverty are so 
 indistinct ; and hence it is often actually impossible to 
 mark the distinction between them. The millionaire as 
 a generic term, one of a class of whom we have heard so 
 much of late years the millionaire who can leave behind 
 him, mainly perhaps in self-acquired wealth, from a 
 quarter of a million sterling to two or three millions of 
 money, may be considered absolutely rich. The indus- 
 trious mechanic who, from no fault of his own, has 
 become an object of private benevolence ; or the beggar
 
 222 A Theory about Sin. [vm. 
 
 who prefers penury to the heartless charity of state- 
 granted doles in workhouses which disgrace our country, 
 the beggar may be considered absolutely poor. 
 
 But, how many shades are there, between wealth 
 which appears to most of us fabulous, and poverty 
 which, let us thank GOD, to many whom I see before 
 me is almost equally imaginary ? How many are there 
 who have large incomes, moderate incomes, small 
 incomes ; and who is to say, which of them may be 
 rich, and which of them may be poor ? How many, 
 again, are there, with variable, fluctuating, and uncer- 
 tain incomes, sometimes large and sometimes small ; 
 with incomes which never rise beyond competency, and 
 sometimes fall below it ; without incomes at all, who 
 now live in comparative affluence, and now in com- 
 parative indigence and who is competent to decide 
 between them, which may be accounted rich, and which 
 may be accounted poor ? It is a matter only of com- 
 parison. We are all rich, in comparison with our poorer 
 brethren. We are all poor, in comparison with neighbours 
 more wealthy than ourselves. Hence, to all of us, 
 without exception, apply the words of our Blessed 
 LORD, " Children, how hard is it for them that trust in 
 riches to enter into the kingdom of GOD." We may 
 affirm, therefore, an avaricious man to be one who trusts 
 in his possessions, be he wealthy, or be he poor.
 
 viii.] Of the Deadly Sin of Avarice. 223 
 
 Second : This disposes of the first prefatory question, 
 Who an avaricious man may be ? and this leads to 
 the second inquiry, How may he be avaricious ? And 
 in the words, " Covetousness which is idolatry," 
 the Apostle explains in what consists the deadly 
 sin of avarice. Covetousness is a form of idolatry. 
 It is, as S. Paul elsewhere explains, worshipping and 
 serving " the creature more than the Creator, Who is 
 blessed for ever. Amen." It is the love of money 
 more than the love of GOD. The covetous man, 
 therefore, is an idolater. And this scriptural decision 
 on the position of avarice in the Christian warfare 
 supports the position which the vice occupies in 
 the theory of the deadly sins, which we are attempt- 
 ing to perfect. For, by the definition we have 
 formulated, the covetous man is an exceeder in 
 love. And of those who love more than they ought 
 to love some lower good in created things, the man 
 who loves money or money's worth selfishly and in- 
 . ordinately is covetous. Such an one is declared by 
 Holy Scripture to be an idolater. 
 
 How does the sin of the idolatry of Covetousness 
 
 display itself? This is a question which we shall 
 
 * endeavour to answer at more length further on. 
 
 But it is one which may be summarised here. In 
 
 few words, it makes a God of money. The covetous
 
 224 A Theory about Sin. [vm. 
 
 man is a worshipper of Mammon ; and his duty to- 
 wards his money-God, may, without a thought of any- 
 thing, but divine irony, be thus described. The duty 
 of the covetous man towards mammon is first to 
 believe in it, next to fear it, and then to love it. 
 He must love, he must fear, he must believe his 
 money-God, with all his heart, with all his mind, with 
 all his soul, and with all his strength. But he must 
 do more. The avaricious man must worship his 
 money-God ; he must call upon his majesty, as the 
 worshippers of Baal called, from morn to eve ; he 
 must honour his Satanic name and Satanic word ; and 
 he must serve him truly all the days of his life. 
 
 Does it strike any reverent mind, that such a bur- 
 lesque savours of the profane ? I would answer : It is 
 the Apostle S. Paul who tells us, that covetousness 
 is idolatry and the worship of money. It is the 
 Prayer-book which concisely tells us what is our duty 
 towards ONE Whom to worship is not idolatry. 
 I simply apply to S. Paul's judgment the test 
 of the Catechism : and I ask you that hear me, 
 is such description a fair, or is it an exaggerated 
 account of the devotee of mammon ? I firmly believe 
 that such estimate is true. Experience of others, 
 self-knowledge, observation in the world, confirms the 
 opinion, that such estimate is true ; true to the life
 
 VIIL] Of the Deadly Sin of Avarice. 225 
 
 of poor, fallen, weak humanity ; true to human nature 
 regenerated indeed, but fallen again by actual sin to 
 that last state which is infinitely worse than the first. 
 And the sentence of the Wise Man confirms this ap- 
 plication of S. Paul's judgment, expressed in the 
 language of the Catechism. There is not, he says, 
 "there is not a more wicked thing than a covetous 
 man : for, such an one setteth his own soul to sale." 
 Yes, my Brethren, here we find an answer to the 
 question : How a man may be avaricious ? The 
 answer is this. The man who inordinately and sel- 
 fishly loves more than he ought to love that lower 
 good which we call money, is an idolater of mammon, 
 and is amongst the most wicked of created things ; 
 for he setteth his own soul to sale, even to sale to 
 the devil. Thus may a man be avaricious. 
 
 IV. 
 
 Listen to a simple story, almost a parable, from the 
 writings of the Saints. 
 
 It is related of a certain wealthy person living 
 abroad, that his house adjoined the cottage of a poor 
 day-labourer ; and that his bed-chamber was so close 
 to his neighbour's humble tenement, that the man of 
 means could hear all that was said, and observe all 
 that was done within it. And this was the result 
 
 Q
 
 226 A Theory about Sin. [vin. 
 
 of his observation. The rich man saw that the poor 
 man -was always cheerful and showed no sign of being 
 heavy at heart. When he came home at night, tired 
 with his day's work, he would light his fire, smoke 
 his pipe, sing his song, talk to his wife, play with 
 his children, and after his supper, would lay him down 
 and take his rest in quietness and singleness of heart. 
 
 Turning to his own case and comparing it with that 
 of the peasant, the wealthy man wondered that he could 
 never feel the cheerfulness, could never feel the content- 
 ment, could never feel the mental peace of his poorer 
 neighbour. His days were full of anxiety. His nights 
 were constantly disturbed. His life was a burden to 
 himself and a misery to others. While thinking over 
 the contrast, it forced itself upon the gentleman that 
 possibly it was his wealth which caused his own dis- 
 quiet, that possibly it was the labourer's poverty which 
 caused his peacefulness. To test the truth of his con- 
 clusion, the rich man adopted a simple artifice. He 
 took a purse full of money, and one night placed it 
 on the step of the poor man's door where he and 
 none other would see it in the morning. 
 
 The rich man again watched his neighbour ; and 
 this was the result of his observation. The labourer 
 got up as usual and on finding the purse was at 
 first beside himself with joy. But shortly he became
 
 viii.] Of the Deadly Sin of Avarice. 227 
 
 anxious as to how he was to hide his treasure, and 
 how he was to spend it. That day he did not go to 
 work : but stayed at home and brooded over the 
 matter. He was fearful that his friends should learn 
 his secret ; he was afraid to tell even his wife and 
 children. He was ignorant how to conceal his newly 
 found wealth ; he did not even know how to spend 
 it. And he could think of no other course than to 
 hide the money in his bed and to lay himself down 
 to keep guard upon it. From this time forward his 
 peace of mind left the peasant. His songs were 
 heard no more. He was sullen to his wife. He 
 never played with his children. He became an 
 altered man ; and eventually took to his bed, for 
 covetousness having possessed itself of his heart, next 
 attacked his person as if by poison. The gentle- 
 man was now convinced that the poor man's peace 
 of mind had been lost when the purse of money 
 had been found. He called at the cottage ; and on 
 inquiry, was told by the wife, that her husband was 
 in bed, ill with a pain in his side. " I will undertake to 
 cure your husband," he said, and making his way to the 
 bed-side of the money-sick patient, explained the device 
 which he had adopted ; recovered his purse of money; 
 gave the poor man a handsome sum by way of re- 
 compense for what he had suffered ; and went his way. 
 
 Q 2
 
 228 A Theory about Sin. [vm. 
 
 It is needless to add, that the poor man returned to 
 his daily work a happier man ; and that his wealthier 
 neighbour returned to his inherited possessions a wiser, 
 if not a better one. 
 
 V. 
 
 We are now in a position to deal with the four 
 kinds of avarice which have been named. You will 
 remember that they are these : 
 
 1. Inordinate and selfish complacency in having, 
 
 2. Inordinate and selfish anxiety in keeping, 
 
 3. Inordinate and selfish eagerness in getting, 
 
 4. Inordinate and selfish concern in losing, 
 
 the God of the covetous man, money. And this form 
 of idolatry may be concisely expressed in four verbal 
 characteristics love, fear, desire, distress. Of two of 
 these results of covetousness, namely fear of lessening 
 the money we possess, and distress at losing the 
 money we have acquired, I purpose to say but little, 
 in order to devote more time to the other two, 
 namely, the love of mammon and the desire of gain. 
 But a few words may not be out of place upon 
 covetous parsimony and avaricious dejection, in the 
 first instance. k 
 
 These two forms of mammon-worship bear a family
 
 viii.] Of the Deadly Sin of Avarice. 229 
 
 likeness to each other. It does not always follow, 
 but there is a tendency towards both forms of 
 covetousness, in the case of the acquisition of money 
 by our own efforts. I do not say that the inheritors 
 of wealth are always generous, and the creators of 
 capital are always wanting in generosity. Such a 
 statement would be untrue and absurd. But, all else 
 being equal, there is undoubtedly a tendency in self- 
 made men (as they are called) towards over-saving 
 the dearly-bought gains of toil, which does not affect 
 so closely or in the same way the man who is born 
 to what his father made or what his father left. 
 Again : I do not say that inheritors of property can 
 always lose with equanimity and dignity, or that 
 makers of their own fortune need always lose with 
 unmanly concern the possessions upon which, in either 
 case, the heart is fixed. This would be foolish to 
 affirm. But, again, all else being equal, there is more 
 tendency to dejection, when the result of honest 
 work is lost, than when bequeathed wealth only fails. 
 And this is true, in spite of possibly greater energy, 
 greater capacity, and greater zeal, to repair the loss 
 in the money-maker, than falls to the share of the 
 inheritor of money. In both cases, it is hard to part 
 from the idol of the soul, either by one's own free 
 gift, or by actions over which, perhaps, we can exercise
 
 230 A Theory about Sin. [vm. 
 
 no control. In both cases, covetousness is the cause 
 of the sensation. 
 
 It is, perhaps, scarely worth while to compare or 
 contrast these two forms of .mental covetousness, when 
 both are bad. Yet, their salient points may be indi- 
 cated. And it will be seen by one who analyses 
 this form of imperfect love, that there is a mean- 
 ness about the miserly disposed, which the dejected 
 man need not feel ; and there is a want of manli- 
 ness about losing without dignity, which the parsi- 
 monious need not feel. The results, however, taken 
 by sin are as different as their forms. The covetous 
 man who is mean and parsimonious withholds from 
 those who have a claim on him, and ill-requites those 
 who have done him service. He is ungenerous to- 
 wards friends, grasping in business with others, and 
 hard upon dependants. He is heartless upon the 
 needs of others ; neglects the calls of charity ; turns his 
 back upon his Maker and His service ; and even denies 
 himself what his position in society demands, without 
 being chargeable with extravagance. On the other 
 hand, the avaricious man, Avho loses heart when he 
 loses money, has no character worthy of admiration. 
 As in the present day, more money, perhaps, is made 
 by living, than is left by dead men, it seems the 
 more unworthy, that money lost in the endeavour to
 
 VIIL] Of the Deadly Sin of Avarice. 231 
 
 make further money should be a cause of despondency 
 to the avaricious. Of course, when loss occurs from 
 causes beyond the victim's control, much that might 
 be otherwise urged has no place. Yet, even here, 
 the man who sees in the ordinary concerns of life 
 the over-ruling dispositions of a particular Providence, 
 will be careful, how the loss of mere, worldly good 
 produce a double evil ; and inflict upon him, over and 
 above loss of money, additional and more real evil, 
 in the misery of an unquiet and dejected spirit. 
 
 We will now turn from the consideration of anxiety 
 in keeping money and of concern in losing money 
 to these two forms of covetousness : I. Selfish and 
 inordinate complacency in having possessions, and 
 2. Selfish and inordinate eagerness in getting them. 
 
 This will lead us to touch on that aspect of the 
 idolatry of avarice which creates love of and desire for 
 mammon. And we will annotate the covetous man 
 who is engaged in securing the object of his wor- 
 ship, before we estimate him in the possession of it. 
 
 VI. 
 
 I. The covetous man sins against the divine law 
 of love, when inordinate and selfish eagerness to ob- 
 tain more money issues in ceaseless thought and
 
 232 A Theory about Sin. [viu. 
 
 effort for its acquisition. Let us consider one form 
 of such covetousness in the light in which it may 
 strike a Christian member of society, namely, specula- 
 tion. Now, speculation is a word of doubtful signi- 
 ficancy, and of double meaning. It may be used 
 indifferently both in a good and in a bad sense ; may 
 be applied to small transactions and to large, with 
 equal truth. It is speculation to buy commodities 
 of every-day. life, in never so small a way, in the 
 cheapest market, and to sell them in the dearest. It 
 is speculation to traffic in bond and share and scrip 
 at the Exchange by hundreds and thousands of 
 pounds at a venture. In a certain sense, all trade 
 and all business may be termed speculation ; and 
 none can offer to sell what another may wish to buy, 
 without an element of speculation. But with the ele- 
 ment of speculation in the ordinary and common- 
 place transactions of buying and selling, I am not 
 now concerned. I would limit our attention to that 
 phase of money-making which is connected less with 
 legitimate commerce than with the accidental or even 
 anticipated rising and falling in public prices or pri- 
 vate securities. And how may such speculation be 
 defined, from a point of view other than a specu- 
 lator's ? If we analyse the matter with care we 
 come to this conclusion, that speculation which is not
 
 VIIL] Of the Deadly Sin of Avarice. 233 
 
 based upon certainty, and which, in fact, is suc- 
 cessful speculation, may be described as the enrich- 
 ment of ourselves at the expense of our neighbours. 
 
 These two conditions are made advisedly. For, specu- 
 lations which are failures come under another category. 
 And speculations which are not bond fide transactions 
 deserve a very different title. But such as are genuine 
 and successful may thus be fairly described. It matters 
 not at all, whether such enrichment of ourselves at 
 the expense of others proceed from an area which 
 is incalculably wide, so that it is difficult to deter- 
 mine the insignificant loss of any individual unit; or 
 whether advantage is gained in .large sums from few 
 persons. It matters not, whether a decimal part of a 
 penny be added a hundredfold on an article of com- 
 merce bought by the million ; or whether the stocks 
 rise or fall, by which thousands of pounds are 
 realised by the stroke of a pen, which ensures judi- 
 cious purchase or sale. The result is the same in 
 either case. Finance is not solely a paper trans- 
 action. Paper indeed represents gold ; but gold-leaf 
 falls not like manna from heaven. Hence, no purse 
 is filled by speculation without some pocket being 
 emptied. No fortune is made by speculation with- 
 out another fortune, or many other fortunes, being 
 proportionately marred. And the speculator is one
 
 234 -A Theory aboiit Sin. [VIIT. 
 
 who seeks to secure his own advantage in the money- 
 market, at the expense either of some other or of 
 many others. 
 
 Observe, Brethren, I do not presume to offer any 
 opinion on the morality of such a profession, as a pro- 
 fession. I do not question it ; and am content to accept 
 it as an acknowledged outlet of commercial energy. 
 And, in the manifold division of human labour, there 
 must be those whose business it is to organise the 
 supply in proportion to the demand for money, as well 
 as those who are enabled to furnish the sinews of 
 mercantile transactions. There must be speculators as 
 well as capitalists. And I only wish to point out the 
 bearings of the term 'speculation,' in order to indicate 
 the possible dangers which may attach to the pro- 
 fession of money-making. I only desire to show to 
 what results inordinate and selfish eagerness to obtain 
 more money actually leads, namely, to the enrichment 
 of ourselves at the cost of our neighbours. 
 
 There are, however, many persons, in these days, 
 who speculate without being speculators I mean, 
 mere dabblers in speculation, dilettante financiers, men, 
 and women too, who do not take up money-making 
 as a profession ; who do not study and know nothing 
 of the science of finance, in a business-like way ; and 
 who are, or ought to be, otherwise and sufficiently
 
 viii. J Of the Deadly Sin of Avarice. 235 
 
 engaged in their own special occupation. Such as 
 these wish to make a small capital do the work of a 
 large income. Of course, this pecuniary feat can only 
 be performed by obtaining an abnormal and danger- 
 ously high rate of interest. But high interest is only 
 another name, as has been well said, for bad security. 
 Hence, these amateur speculators who realise this 
 fiscal truth are kept in a perpetual state of monetary 
 excitement and change. They vary their investments 
 according to the signs of the times which they vainly 
 endeavour to decipher ; and their feelings vary with 
 the fluctuations of the money-market, which they are 
 unable to account for, and are powerless to predict. 
 To this class of speculators, perhaps, more than to 
 any other, apply the larger part of the evidences of 
 covetousness. For they not only, as a rule, display 
 inordinate and selfish eagerness to obtain more money, 
 but they feel inordinate and selfish love for the money 
 which they possess ; are beset by inordinate and selfish 
 anxiety to save it ; and are haunted by inordinate 
 and selfish concern if it be lost. By them, therefore, 
 the true meaning of speculation should be earnestly 
 considered. To them, especially, is the explanation 
 offered. For, without the sanctions of professional 
 responsibility, and apart from their own legitimate 
 calling in life, they the amateur speculators increase
 
 236 A Theory about Sin. [vin. 
 
 their own incomes solely at the expense of the incomes 
 of other persons. 
 
 Inordinate and selfish eagerness to increase wealth 
 may, however, be the temptation of both classes of 
 speculators, the professsional and the amateur. And 
 what may be the symptoms of the temptation ? Take 
 but a few of them. The speculator is always on the 
 look out for an opportunity of making money ; " turn- 
 ing an honest penny," as he calls it. Nothing is too 
 vast for his untiring energies; nothing is too small to 
 escape his keen observation. The advertising columns 
 of the daily papers give evidence of the height, in 
 public schemes, to which he soars. The plans of one's 
 friends indicate the littleness of detail to which he 
 allows himself to descend. Is it the preservation of 
 animal food at the other side of the globe, or the 
 supply of pure milk at home ? Is it a new method of 
 producing heat and light, by gas or fuel, at our own 
 doors ? Is it one of the endless new forms of life- 
 assurance ? Is it to counteract alleged extravagance 
 of profit in the retail business of objects of daily, hourly 
 domestic use, or of articles of more costly worth ? Is 
 it to obviate the discomfort of a sea-voyage, or to 
 increase the comfort of locomotion by land ? It matters 
 not. Men can always be found to provide money with a 
 view to increase ; to give money in order to make more.
 
 VIIL] Of the Deadly Sin of Avarice. 237 
 
 Nor is this eagerness to make money confined to 
 public enterprise. There is a fair chance if one acci- 
 dentally overhears a conversation in the street, it is 
 certain if you are in society with friends, at one time 
 or another, that the talking turns or will turn on the 
 question of prices the price of meat, of bread, of hay, 
 of coal ; the increase of rent or wage ; the difficulty 
 of saving ; the decrease of grain ; the hardness of the 
 times. Of course, there is a right side to all this 
 eagerness : and of this side, I say nothing. Money 
 both represents and supplies means of life. Economy, 
 or the making the best and fullest possible use of GOD'S 
 gifts, or man's labour, is a matter of duty. And public 
 enterprise, or private care, enables persons to live ; 
 the same people with greater comfort ; more people 
 with the like comfort ; both with larger powers to give 
 to GOD. Hence, some thought about money is not 
 only allowable, but needful. The only question is : 
 How much thought may lawfully be bestowed upon 
 this state of existence, and its means of support ? It 
 is a difficult question, hard to be answered. But a 
 reply must be given : and I would venture to answer 
 it by accommodation, thus : 
 
 The sin of covetousness arises when you love more 
 than you ought to love the lower good of created 
 things, which is, or is the product of, money. When
 
 238 A Theory about Sin. [vm. 
 
 your public actions, or private efforts, tend to make 
 you love money instead of, more than, or even in 
 addition to GOD then, you are in danger I say no 
 more, but you are in danger from the sin of covetous- 
 ness. When you can think of little or nothing else. 
 Care for little or nothing else, take interest in little 
 or nothing else, speak of little or nothing else, than 
 speculation then, you are in danger of covetousness. 
 Again : When money or money-making comes men- 
 tally before you in your holiest hours, in communing 
 with your GOD ; when your collectedness is dis- 
 turbed by it, your prayers are distracted by it, your 
 meditations are interrupted by it, your worship is 
 hindered by it ; when you confess the feeling over and 
 over again, and yet, over and over again have to seek 
 absolution for the fault then, you are in danger of 
 covetousness. Once more: When mammon and its 
 temptations have your last thoughts, or even keep you 
 awake at night, visit you in sleep, come to you in 
 your first conscious moments, and continue with you 
 throughout the day : when complacency in possession, 
 or elation in getting, or anxiety in saving, or dejection 
 at loss, disturb the even teriour of your inner being 
 then you are in danger of covetousness. When, lastly, 
 you make money so fast for yourself and your family, 
 or when you save money so little for GOD and His
 
 viii.] Of the Deadly Sin of Avarice. 239 
 
 Church, or when you lose money so quickly to your 
 fellow man that, under any of these circumstances, you 
 become hard and selfish, unloving or unsympathetic, 
 or careless about giving a tithe of what you possess in 
 charity then, once more, Brother or Sister in CHRIST, 
 you are in danger of falling, even if you have not 
 already fallen into the deadly sin of covetousness, 
 which, as the Apostle says, is idolatry. 
 
 VII. 
 
 II. The covetous man sins against the divine law of 
 love when inordinate complacency in possessing or 
 spending money results in the worship of mammon. 
 Of these two forms of covetousness, avarice in pos- 
 session, or belief in, reliance on, or devotion to money, 
 comes under the head of the sin of pride of possession. 
 This gives us additional evidence of a truth which we 
 considered in our last lecture, namely that the inter- 
 dependence of the deadly sins is intimate. For, here 
 we see, how closely allied covetousness is to pride ; 
 allied to this extent, that one development of avarice 
 is identical with a certain form of pride. On this 
 point, therefore, nothing further need be said. In the 
 remaining kind of avarice, spending our money, the 
 worship of mammon may take at least three distinct 
 forms, namely, I. of display, 2. of extravagance, and
 
 240 A Theory about Sin. [vin. 
 
 3. of waste. And upon these I purpose to offer only 
 a few general remarks upon first principles. 
 
 These three forms of the worship of mammon may 
 be, and often are, but three aspects of a single act. 
 Thus : The intention of any given action may be to 
 cause display ; the matter of the action may be extra- 
 vagant ; the result of the action may be wasteful. But 
 the terms may also refer to three independent acts : and 
 of these, perhaps, waste in the service of mammon com- 
 bines the greatest amount of evil, with the least amount 
 of compensating advantage. Some defence may be 
 urged for extravagance, if not done for mere display, 
 on behalf, at least, of those who directly or indirectly 
 benefit by the circulation of money. But, there are 
 few palliative circumstances to be admitted in favour 
 of waste. Indeed, things wasted are doubly lost. They 
 are lost by their own absence of utility. And loss also 
 ensues from the use in their stead of the object which 
 takes their place. And by waste, I mean not employ- 
 ing things to the greatest advantage, and to the fullest 
 extent. In which description we may see the difference 
 between the prodigality of Nature, and the waste of 
 thoughtless man, in will if not in deed. Nor did our 
 Blessed LORD fail to teach His disciples the virtue of 
 making the most of the gifts of His divine hand, even 
 when supernaturally supplying the lower needs of man's
 
 VIIL] -Of the Deadly Sin of Avarice. 241 
 
 organisation. " Gather up the fragments that remain," 
 is the command of CHRIST after miraculously feeding 
 the five thousand, "that nothing be lost." If, then, 
 our Divine Master was pleased to let nothing fail 
 in its use, which Himself had created even out 01 
 the usual course of Nature with unsparing superfluity ; 
 shall it not be our part to withstand, in opposition 
 to the worship of mammon, that want of adaptation 
 of means to end, which can never be commended, and 
 which we call waste ? 
 
 Again : Extravagance is a form of avarice which 
 often is a companion of useless waste. But, there are 
 qualifying circumstances attending the matter, if not 
 the manner of this sin.' Much that goes by the name 
 of extravagance is simply the distribution of money 
 by wealthy men in channels other than the objector, 
 or even other than the supposed requirement of Political 
 Economy, considers the best channels of distribution. 
 Into this subject, which is a question more to be 
 decided by political science than by the science of 
 morality, I will enter no further than to say thus 
 much : Extravagance is a sin of varying import, and 
 what may be sin in one man may be harmless in 
 another. Money spent in extravagance can with diffi- 
 culty be wasted. It might be better spent ; but it is 
 not lost. For instance : There are many articles of 
 
 R
 
 242 A Theory about Sin. [vm. 
 
 manufacture not absolutely essential either to the well- 
 being or to the comfort of the human race. It may 
 be, or it may not be, an act of extravagance in any 
 given person to make himself possessor of such luxuries. 
 But the money spent upon them helps to support the 
 artisan and his family employed on its production : 
 and if everyone surceased from buying such objects 
 of industry, those whose work in life consists in the 
 production of them would be, amongst many others, 
 the immediate sufferers. Still, undoubtedly, the sin 
 of extravagance does lie against some, against many, 
 in the act only of wrong distribution of money, or of 
 its circulation in bad channels. When, however, we 
 pass from this view of the subject to consider the 
 motive with which money is caused to change hands, 
 the motive on which mammon worship is based be- 
 comes eminently sinful. Whatever may be the cir- 
 cumstances of the man who is charged with extrava- 
 gance, whatever may be the result which ensues from 
 the change of money-ownership, if the act be done 
 with a view to mammon worship, it bears the stamp 
 of deadly sin. And that in untold cases in this vast 
 city, amongst both rich and poor, the cultus of mam- 
 mon under this form of avarice is widely popular, 
 needs, my Brethren, no words of mine to enforce. 
 Lastly, in the threefold development of avarice in
 
 VIIL] Of the Deadly Sin of Avarice. 243 
 
 spending, comes the sin of display. This form of 
 covetousness is confined to the intention ; and an act 
 which may not be extravagant in one person, nor 
 wasteful in another, may yet be chargeable with 
 display, if done with a bad motive. Indeed, it is 
 the motive which determines the fact, as well as a 
 large portion of the amount of guilt of, though it does 
 not alone decide the punishment due to the sin of 
 avarice. When the motive is vitiated by the desire of 
 display for the sake of mitigating personal drawbacks 
 of which we are conscious, or of keeping up appear^ 
 ances which we already possess, or of gaining social 
 advantages of which we are emulous, it is sinful. 
 When display is employed for the sake of imposing 
 upon our inferiors, surpassing our equals, or rivalling 
 our superiors, it is sinful. When display is used for 
 the sake of concealing our meanness in other ways, or 
 of magnifying our gains, or of diminishing our loss, it 
 is sinful. In any and in all of these ways, the sin of 
 covetousness is developed from the imperfect love of 
 the lower good of created things. And such excess 
 of love for money, or money's-worth, may truly be 
 called the worship of mammon. 
 
 VIIL 
 
 To conclude : We have thus stated or considered, 
 
 R 2
 
 244 A Theory about Sin. [vm. 
 
 with more or less fulness, the four kinds of covetous- 
 ness, the love, the fear, the desire, the distress, occa- 
 sioned by avarice. We have stated or analysed the 
 character of the covetous man, under the fourfold 
 influence I. of complacency in having, 2. of anxiety in 
 keeping, 3. of eagerness in getting, and 4. of concern 
 in losing money. And by money, we have agreed to 
 understand what money may purchase, money's worth, 
 mammon. The covetous man, we have seen, be he 
 rich or be he poor, is one who trusts in his possessions : 
 and he who makes an idol of his possessions is a 
 covetous man. We have also seen, that all these 
 forms of avarice come from one source, excess of love 
 towards the lesser good of created things. Hence, we 
 may learn in this case, again, and it is more than a 
 play upon words, that love being the principle of 
 human action, and selfishness being the origin of 
 human sin ; covetousness, the first of the developments 
 of imperfect love in excess, can only be counteracted 
 by the antidote of the poison of self, which is divine 
 love. 
 
 How do these truths meet with us in practice, in 
 the common concerns of every-day life ? They meet 
 with us in this way : The love which sees in created 
 things only an evidence of GOD'S undeserved goodness, 
 and which loves created things in GOD and for GOD,
 
 viii.] Of the Deadly Sin of Avarice. 245 
 
 is able to perceive intellectually, and to work out 
 practically in his daily life, the truth that man is but 
 the trustee or steward of the manifold gifts of His 
 bounteous hand. The realisation of this truth will 
 produce two results, one passive and one active : 
 
 T. The money which is Another's, and not our own, 
 we shall neither love to keep, nor fear to lessen ; we 
 shall not feel over-much desire for its increase, nor 
 over- much pain at its diminution. It is GOD'S money. 
 Let Him do with it as seemeth Him best. Such in a 
 few words is the passive result of the truth, in our 
 minds. 
 
 2. But it will produce, also, an active result, in our 
 lives. If we are stewards only or trustees, and not 
 absolute owners of GOD'S gifts, it is clear that we are 
 bound by our duty to act towards such gifts as He, 
 the Almighty donor, may ordain. A trustee under 
 the provisions of a human will of a deceased friend, 
 would not question such a principle. The stewards 
 of GOD'S gifts to man, under a divine Testament, must 
 also accept it. And mark this, man possesses only 
 a just claim for his own use, to nine-tenths of the 
 wealth, be it much or little with which GOD h : as 
 blessed him. The tenth part is GOD'S. He must give 
 back to GOD, to GOD'S Church, to GOD'S poor, one- 
 tenth part of what GOD has vouchsafed to place at
 
 246 A Theory about Sin. [vin. 
 
 man's disposal. Such was the ordinary custom of the 
 Jews ; and we have yet to learn that the divine com- 
 mand for such tithings has been either withdrawn by 
 GOD Himself directly, or mediately modified by His 
 Church. It is true that tithes of all we possess may 
 no longer be exacted by the Church on the authority, 
 so to say, of divine statute law, nor by the fear of 
 punishment from human secular law. But the custom 
 is still a living part of the common law of the Catholic 
 Church. 
 
 It is here worthy of note, though too much stress 
 may not be laid on the circumstance, that the hard 
 things against the sin of covetousness which appear 
 in the pages of Holy Scripture, appear in the New, 
 rather than in the Old Testament. They appear, that 
 is to say, at a time when the requirement to pay tithes 
 became legally obsolete, though they were still morally 
 binding ; when tithes ought to be paid, but were not 
 enforced. The Gospel, no doubt, is a religion of 
 liberty. But, the liberty which the Gospel proclaims, 
 is liberty by GOD'S grace to do good, to which a re- 
 ward is attached ; not license from the Wicked One 
 to do evil, without punishment following. And liberty 
 to do good is hardly fulfilled, in such matters, by a 
 Christian doing less of free will than a Jew was con- 
 strained to do of obligation.
 
 vin.] Of the Deadly Sin of Avarice. 247 
 
 Nor is this principle one which may not be enforced 
 upon those who enjoy the privilege of worshipping in 
 ' free and open ' Churches. A ' free Church,' it cannot 
 be too plainly said, is not a church in which persons who 
 can give are free to give nothing. Few greater moral 
 mistakes can be made. It is free, GOD be thanked, to 
 all who are able to give nothing. It is not free to any 
 who can give something free, in the sense that they 
 are not bound to give a'ccording to their means. 
 They who can give and how many are they amongst 
 us who are blessed with competency are bound to give, 
 voluntarily, at least as much as perhaps even more 
 than they would have both willingly given and paid of 
 obligation, had the church not been made free. And 
 why ? By the law and in the spirit of self-sacrifice : 
 that they may give for those who are powerless to 
 give for themselves. The rich must pay for the freedom 
 and liberty of the poor in a 'free and open Church.' 
 We must not forget this moral obligation in theory. 
 In practice we must not relax our efforts to continue 
 the services and work of the church in which we 
 worship at their highest possible perfection. In every 
 ' free and open Church ' that is built, and much more 
 that is endowed, we have a noble instance of generous 
 disinterestedness as a model which, after our measure, 
 we may follow. Let us see to it, my Brethren, that
 
 248 A Theory about Sin. [vin, 
 
 we fail not in our personal self-sacrifice to carry on 
 with equal generosity and not less nobility, a work for 
 GOD and souls begun in a spirit of self-abnegation. 
 
 We admit, then, the fact which few are disposed, in 
 set terms, to deny, however little they may act up to 
 their admission, that we are only stewards of GOD'S 
 gifts of money and money's worth. If this admission 
 be valid, the result which follows, namely the practice 
 of conforming to GOD'S own law of human possession, 
 by devoting a tithe of our income to His service, will 
 prove to be one of the greatest preservatives against 
 the deadly sin of covetousness. A thank offering to 
 GOD, for the power and means of giving back to the 
 Giver of all Good, will enable us to love Him, the 
 Highest Good, more completely, with a perfect and 
 divine love ; will enable us to love the lower good of 
 created things, as it is meet, with imperfect and human 
 love. It will prevent the worship of mammon, which 
 is idolatry, by checking our complacency in having, by 
 lessening our anxiety in keeping, by moderating our 
 eagerness in getting, and by solacing our concern in 
 losing the money in regard to which, in His goodness, 
 GOD has made us overseers. 
 
 A. M. D. a
 
 ix.] Of the Deadly Sin of Gluttony. 249 
 
 LECTURE NINE. 
 
 OF THE DEADLY SIN OF GLUTTONY: 
 
 THE SECOND SIN OF LOVE EXCESSIVE. 
 
 " TJiere was a certain rich man, which was clothed in 
 purple and fine linen, and fared stimptuously every day 
 . . . And in hell he lift up his eyes being in torments" 
 
 S. LUKE xvi. 19, 23. 
 
 I. 
 
 r I ^HE sixth of the deadly sins, and the second of 
 -*- the sins which owe their origin to an excess 
 of love for the lower good of created things, is the 
 capital sin of Gluttony. And the sin of gluttony 
 consists in an inordinate and selfish desire for the sen- 
 sual pleasure which arises from the gratification of 
 eating and drinking. 
 
 From this definition of the sin, it appears that 
 gluttony, when the desire developes into action, may 
 take a double form under a single title :
 
 250 A Theory about Sin. [ix. 
 
 1. In regard to the food we eat ; and 
 
 2. In regard to the sustenance we drink. 
 
 In neither of these forms do I purpose to discuss the 
 extreme limits to which the sin may be carried. It 
 would be out of place, in lecturing to the congrega- 
 tion which is collected within these walls. It would 
 be needless, living in the phase of society of which 
 we find ourselves members. It would be out of 
 place in this church : for, if any of us feel ourselves 
 to be guilty of the sin of gluttony, in either of its 
 two forms, we feel ourselves to be guilty, I will ven- 
 ture to say, my Brethren, more in the germ and less 
 in the expansion of the vice. It would be needless, 
 also, to discuss the extremes of gluttony, in either 
 form, with society at large as we find it constituted 
 at the present day. Society, in its varied and oppo- 
 site developments, from both its bad and its good side, 
 is simply intolerant of the sin when coarsely exag- 
 gerated, or vulgarly displayed. It is either too super- 
 ficially cultivated, or too deeply refined ; it is either 
 too falsely respectable, or too truly religious ; it is 
 either too much afraid of the sentence of the world, or 
 too careful about GOD'S verdict, to connive at, much 
 less to indulge in over-eating or excess in drink, in 
 the common acceptance of both terms. And for this 
 amount of support from society on behalf of the prin-
 
 ix.] Of the Deadly Sin of Gluttony. 251 
 
 ciple, if not of the practice of asceticism, though the 
 motive may not be the highest, we Churchmen are 
 bound to feel thankful. 
 
 On these grounds I do not intend to discuss the 
 vice of gluttony in its extreme development. This 
 limitation will at once relieve us of many difficulties 
 in our examination of the capital sin from this place. 
 And there is another limitation which will also tend to 
 make our efforts in dealing with gluttony more easy. 
 I do not propose to consider the sin, in either of its 
 aspects, as a corporate sin, that is as a sin of or 
 against society, or any section of it. I would rather 
 consider it as a personal sin,, that is as the sin of an 
 individual Christian against his own soul against his 
 own soul, even rather than against his GOD. And 
 my reason for not discussing gluttony as a social or 
 corporate vice is two-fold. 
 
 Firstly : Because sins against society in the abstract, 
 or sins of society against itself, can be treated in such 
 general terms only, that all individuality is lost by the 
 breadth of treatment. Definiteness is forfeited as the 
 penalty for comprehension. And this truth has been 
 exhibited with singular and lamentable force of late 
 years, in the case of one element of gluttony, namely, 
 excess in drink. Drunkenness has positively flourished 
 under the influence of general denunciations, as a sin
 
 252 A Theory about Sin. [ix. 
 
 of or against society ; or of prohibitions based on social 
 as distinct from religious grounds. It has flourished to 
 such an extent that the state has been forced to legis- 
 late, and the Church is preparing to second the legis- 
 lation upon more definite and individual treatment, if 
 not upon a more distinctly religious recognition of the 
 enormity of the sin. 
 
 Secondly : We will consider gluttony as a personal 
 sin as distinct from a sin against society, because 
 society, in any of its manifold developments, is suffi- 
 ciently powerful to be left to its own guardianship ; and 
 gluttony in food or drink is, or has a tendency to 
 become a social vice. We may reasonably feel indis- 
 posed to undertake the defence of an organization, 
 which at least in its worldly phase, is probably in- 
 different to our advocacy on any terms, and certainly 
 would decline our interference if enforced upon Catholic 
 principles. 
 
 It is, therefore, with the vice as a personal sin, as 
 an individual offence against our own soul, that I desire 
 to deal with that form of gluttony which has to be 
 considered ; as a sin into which, Brother or Sister in 
 CHRIST, you or I are personally liable to fall, into 
 which you or I, GOD forgive us, may have personally 
 fallen.
 
 ix.] Of the Deadly Sin of Gluttony. 253 
 
 II. 
 
 We have, then, to deal with gluttony under a two- 
 fold aspect ; 
 
 1. As an individual, personal sin ; and 
 
 2. As a sin indulged to an extent which falls short 
 of excess. 
 
 Consider for a moment both positions in general 
 terms. From the nature of the case, corporate efforts 
 against the sin must needs be made against such a 
 vice as gluttony, when sin has become developed in 
 society as a body, by habitual excess. Neither par- 
 liamentary interference, nor the action of philan- 
 thropic societies can successfully wage war upon, or 
 indeed would attempt to attack this capital sin in 
 an exceptional phase. Moderated self-indulgence in 
 eating or drinking by single persons is outside the 
 scope of political or social action. Physical force to 
 protect any given man against his own vice, and 
 even philanthropic arguments levelled against the 
 evils of intemperance in the case of many men, 
 could hardly be applied to cases in which the sin 
 does not rise, at worst in the world's estimate, above 
 harmless, and at most, under any circumstances, to 
 occasional self-indulgence. It is the more needful, there- 
 fore, I may almost say, it is the more essential for 
 Religion to charge herself with the task of warning
 
 254 A Theory about Sin. [ix. 
 
 individual souls of the danger of self-indulgence in 
 moderation and in small matters. For self-indulgence 
 in moderation and small matters, by the inevitable 
 law of development, will surely lead to indulgence in 
 matters of moment and even excess. And the sin of 
 individual souls will possess every chance of being 
 multiplied on a wider human field ; for such sins, as 
 the sin of gluttony, are unhappily infectious. 
 
 Nor is it paradoxical to say, that the earlier stage 
 of indulged gluttony is the more dangerous to the 
 individual soul than the later habit. Apart from the 
 physical results which attend habitual want of self- 
 command in either division of the sin of gluttony, 
 systematic indulgence which is extreme is obviously 
 hostile to the interests of spirituality. It requires no 
 inspired prophet of GOD to warn us, that excess in 
 the use of food, whereby our bodily health is en- 
 dangered or impaired, is absolutely sinful. It needs 
 no human director of souls to assure us, that intem- 
 perance in the use of drink, to the extent of clouding 
 or injuring GOD'S highest gift to the natural man 
 the gift of self-consciousness is not sinless. But it 
 does need superhuman decision, it does require Scrip- 
 tural authority, to condemn excess and intemperance 
 which avowedly, and perhaps deliberately fall short 
 of these extremes. The sudden withdrawal of the
 
 ix.j Of the Deadly Sin of Gluttony. 255 
 
 veil between this world and the next, before the eyes 
 of man by GOD Himself, alone will awaken persons 
 of the comfortable classes, high or low, to a sense of 
 the danger of doing nothing more sinful than giving 
 way to systematised sensuality, even short of extremes. 
 An inspired pencil alone can depict the rich glutton 
 in hell-fire, as the due punishment for his sin of un- 
 mortified and habitual self-indulgence, which could not 
 be taxed with absolute excess. 
 
 The parable of Dives and Lazarus is one which 
 comes home to many of us who enjoy the blessing, 
 and yet are exposed to the danger of living in a 
 state of competency. The plain and unconventional 
 mode of treatment, by inspiration, of the sin of 
 gluttony which it contains deserves our careful atten- 
 tion. It supports the argument, otherwise para- 
 doxical, that the earlier stage of indulged sin, which 
 is content with moderation and falls short of excess, 
 is the more dangerous to the individual soul. For 
 observe, no vice is laid to the charge of the rich 
 man : no vice but one, and that in terms which do 
 not necessarily involve excess ; no vice but one, and 
 that not directly named, but incidentally mentioned 
 in the way of historical narration. The rich man 
 "fared sumptuously every day." And yet, his punish- 
 ment is by no means vague. It is distinct and definite :
 
 256 A Theory about Sin. [ix. 
 
 I may add that it is condign and awful. He is 
 seen " inr torments." He declares himself to be " tor- 
 mented in this flame." His case, of course, included 
 both forms of gluttony. He was self-indulgent, and 
 so far as we know, only moderately self-indulgent, 
 in both solid and liquid means of natural sustenance. 
 Nor are we told that his style of living, to use the 
 language of the day, was outside his means ; nor that 
 living within his income, he gave way to undue ex- 
 cess. For he was a rich man, " clothed in purple 
 and fine linen," who " fared sumptuously every day." 
 And if his, my Brethren, was the punishment of few 
 stripes of one who knew not his LORD'S will, what 
 shall be the punishment of many stripes of one who 
 knows his LORD'S will and performs it not ? " If the 
 righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly 
 and the sinner appear?" 
 
 III. 
 
 This leads us to another preliminary question. 
 Neither form of the sin of gluttony presents attractive 
 features for consideration. Neither presents features 
 otherwise than repulsive. But this is, or ought 
 to be, no special peculiarity of the vice which we 
 are considering. To a Christian man, anger or envy 
 or sloth, are not, or ought not to be, pleasing sins
 
 ix.] Of the Deadly Sin of Gluttony. 257 
 
 to discuss. Nay, they are eminently un-pleasing. 
 The peculiar painfulness, however, of the two-fold sin 
 of gluttony lies, perhaps, in the fact of its affecting, 
 and of its being affected by, the lower part of our 
 composite nature, the part which, up to a certain 
 point, we possess in common with the animal crea- 
 tion. This is the question which next demands our 
 attention. 
 
 To an extent, and only to an extent, need we share 
 in the opinion which underlies this prevailing and 
 popular sentiment. Nor does it follow that such 
 singularity arises from attachment to sins of the 
 animal class beyond those of a less fleshly character. 
 But, we cannot fail to remember, that all sin is hate- 
 ful, more hateful than sinful man can imagine, in 
 GOD'S sight. We cannot recall evidence to show that 
 He hates, with more holy and just indignation, sen- 
 sual than spiritual sins. Indeed, from two equally 
 clear evidences of His Almighty will and pleasure, if 
 we may venture to judge in the matter, we might 
 say, that since GOD punishes both alike, sins against 
 the flesh and sins against the spirit are both equally 
 loathsome in His All-pure eyes. The sin of pride, 
 which is almost entirely a spiritual sin, cost heaven to 
 Lucifer. Hell was the fate of a certain rich man, for 
 a sin almost entirely sensual, the sin of gluttony. 
 
 S
 
 258 A Theory about Sin. [ix. 
 
 And it is noteworthy, in confirmation of this opinion, 
 to observe an Apostolic injunction. When S. Paul 
 would mention the deadly sins which should not so 
 much as fall by name from lips once purpled with 
 the Precious Blood, he does not confine our silence, 
 as many would confine it, to the sin of impurity. He 
 extends his prohibition to the sin also of avarice. 
 Thus, the inspired Saint places on an equality, from 
 one point of view, sins which are more or less spiritual, 
 and sins which are more or less sensual in character. 
 " All uncleanness," are his words, " and covetousness, 
 let it not be once named among you, the faithful 
 in CHRIST JESUS, as becometh saints." 
 
 The sensation, disagreeable to all minds, and 
 specially painful to some, with which sins of the flesh 
 gluttony for instance are viewed, arises perhaps 
 from the supposition that they assimilate their victims 
 to the condition of the beasts that perish. On 
 the possibility of such assimilation, as a matter of 
 fact, something will be said hereafter. But at present, 
 and for myself, I may say, that granting the possibility, 
 I fail to see any absolute or peculiar degradation in 
 the comparison. Man's composite nature is the com- 
 mon ground of meeting between the higher forms of 
 organisation, as they are considered, of the Angel- 
 host, and the lower forms of organisation, as they are
 
 ix.] Of the Deadly Sin of Gluttony. 259 
 
 called, of the animal creation. The terms, higher and 
 lower forms, are used with qualification. For, I am 
 not prepared to affirm, for instance, that the marvellous 
 mechanism of insect life which the microscope alone 
 can disclose : or the organic adaptation of means to 
 end, which the human intellect cannot always follow 
 in thought, even when perceived in fact, in higher 
 forms of creation ; or again, the gift of instinct, or 
 even the power of reason, exhibited in understanding, 
 memory and will, in still higher developments of the 
 animal world I cannot affirm that such features in 
 insect or animal life are evidences of a lower class of 
 organisation. Rather, we should be disposed to think 
 of such efforts of creation if Almighty power and 
 Infinite wisdom is capable of comparison that a larger 
 and higher and more perfect effort of creative power 
 was needed in order to originate an organisation which 
 possessed these features, than one which possessed 
 them not 
 
 But, however we may allot the different efforts of 
 creative power between an organisation in which the 
 spirit is dominant, such as GOD'S Angels, and one in 
 which the flesh appears to reign supreme, such as 
 GOD'S animal creation ; there can be no doubt that 
 the highest effort of GOD'S power was reserved for 
 the act of creation which combined these two elements 
 
 S 2
 
 260 A Theory about Sin. [ix. 
 
 with a third, even more precious than either, in the 
 person of man. Man expresses the union of body 
 and spirit with soul. He is the only being in the 
 universe, of which we are conscious, that combines 
 them all. The third element may be neglected on 
 the present occasion. But of man's two-fold nature 
 it may be affirmed, that it is analogous on the one 
 hand to the nature of the beasts that perish, and on 
 the other to that of the Angels who see GOD and 
 live. If therefore, there be nothing essentially evil in 
 animal nature, which it would be profane and absurd 
 to suppose, our own bodily powers and functions which 
 we share with the lower forms of creation, give us a 
 positive superiority over the higher forms which lack 
 such organisation. These last are wanting in at least 
 one element of man's composite perfection. 
 
 But there is one more thought which may be placed 
 before you in regard to the question of man's degra- 
 dation by reason of his animal propensities. We 
 were made, indeed, in common with the brute crea- 
 tion, of the dust of the ground. But we were also 
 made, in certain spiritual qualities, a little lower only 
 than the Angel-host And it is in the union of 
 features peculiar to the lower and higher forms of 
 creation respectively, features which are common to
 
 ix.] Of the Deadly Sin of Gluttony. 261 
 
 neither, that man has his own special dignity, his 
 own special honour. Observe, my Brethren, we were 
 made, that is, the natural man was made, a little 
 lower, and a little lower only than the Angels. But 
 when he was once re-made by sacramental power, 
 when continually renewed by sacramental grace, then 
 man became, not a little lower, but a great deal 
 higher in the scale of creation than the Angel-host. 
 For, unto which of the Angels said GOD at any time, 
 even in a secondary sense, as He is pleased to say 
 to us as members of the Only-Begotten : " Thou art My 
 Son, this day have I begotten thee-" in holy Baptism ? 
 Of which of the Angels or Archangels or of all the 
 blessed company of heaven can it, in any sense, be 
 said as in the most Holy Eucharist it may truly be 
 said of us, that he is a member of CHRIST'S " Body, 
 of His Flesh, and of His Bones"? 
 
 From these facts both in science and also in 
 theology we see that any degradation we may con- 
 tract by our animal relationship, is more than atoned 
 by our angelic affinities, is more than obliterated by 
 our sacramental union with the GODHEAD. Nor 
 must it be forgotten, when we talk of our animal 
 propensities, as if they were below the dignity of a 
 rational being to entertain, that our Blessed LORD 
 and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST, in His human relation-
 
 262 A Theory about Sin. [ix. 
 
 ship, and sin only excepted, was and is exactly in 
 our position. In whatever relationship man, in his 
 lower organisation, may stand towards the animal crea- 
 tion, in the same relationship stands ONE Who was 
 and is Perfect MAN as well as Perfect GOD. So that, 
 if it be a degradation to human nature to have certain 
 affinities with the nature of the beasts that perish, it 
 is a degradation which we, as members of the Crucified, 
 can without hesitation and most gladly share with our 
 Divine Master. And mark this, my Brethren, the only 
 way in which man man as GOD has been pleased to 
 constitute him can possibly become united with the 
 GODHEAD, by divine incorporation into the MANHOOD 
 of CHRIST, is through the means, is through the 
 medium of that lower organisation which we share in 
 common with, the animal creation. 
 
 Here I desire to distinguish. Certain sins have been 
 spoken of as lowering mankind to the level of the 
 beasts that perish. But I have spoken by accommo- 
 dation only. Such a statement is neither true in the 
 case of men, nor just in the case of beasts. It is not 
 just towards GOD'S animal creation ; for no animal 
 can be subject, in a moral sense of the word and as 
 a self-conscious being charged with responsibility, to 
 vice why, it is needless here to explain. We, men,
 
 ix.] Of the Deadly Sin of Gluttony. 263 
 
 may, indeed, by a figure of speech, talk of the obstinacy 
 of one animal, of the gluttony of another, of the lazi- 
 ness of a third, of the vanity of a fourth. But no one 
 attributes to such creatures conscious moral imper- 
 fection, for which account will be required any more 
 than he predicates moral perfection in others from 
 qualities of industry, or wisdom, or patience, or fidelity. 
 The animal simply obeys the law of its being which 
 has been impressed upon it by an Almighty hand, and 
 is unconscious alike of moral rectitude, or of moral 
 obliquity. It is therefore unjust towards that portion 
 of GOD'S creation which has not fallen from the 
 standard of its creation, to compare its natural quali- 
 ties which animal perfection demands shall be exerted, 
 with the powers of mankind which are exercised only 
 in a state of human imperfection. We do injustice to 
 the animal creation, through the poverty of human 
 language and confusion in human thought. We call 
 that a vice in animals which may be compared with 
 wickedness in man ; and we say that man, by debasing 
 himself and degrading his nature, falls to the level of 
 the brute which fulfils the object of its creation. But 
 the truer and juster line to take with the animal world, 
 that world which fulfils GOD'S will in the object of its 
 existence, is rather this to think and speak of such 
 examples and patterns to man of GOD'S holy will per-
 
 264 A Theory about Sin. [ix. 
 
 formed, as a great Saint spake and thought. S. Francis 
 of Assisi's love for and intercourse with the animal 
 world is touching to read of, and instructive. The 
 humblest animals were his friends. The sheep and 
 the hare and the ass were brothers. The bird and 
 the bee were sisters. 
 
 But, if it be unjust to the animal world to say that 
 certain sensual sins lower man to the level of the brute 
 creation, it is untrue to affirm the same in regard to 
 man. And it is untrue, because the assertion contains 
 but a half-truth. The whole truth is only declared 
 when we say, that such sins lower mankind, not to 
 the level, but below, infinitely below the level of the 
 beasts that perish. The reason of this is not obscure, 
 if what has been urged be allowed, and no more need 
 be said on the subject but this : That the human being 
 who wilfully and deliberately fails in the object of his 
 creation for example, by self-indulgence in sensuality 
 falls below the level of the animal being which truly 
 and loyally and honestly fulfils his object : and that, 
 though by a figure of speech we call animals lazy, 
 vicious, vain, or gluttonous, it is no figure of speech, 
 but a most true verity to affirm of a sinful man that he 
 is worse, incalculably worse than a beast, who indulges 
 in sloth, or in pride, or in swinish excess.
 
 ix. j Of the Deadly Sin of Gluttony. 265 
 
 IV. 
 
 Anecdotes relating to the sin of gluttony in mediaeval 
 writers not unnaturally own a monastic origin or assume 
 a conventual character. 
 
 Take one in the light of a parable a parable which 
 perhaps contains more truth than some may be disposed 
 to admit. 
 
 It is related of a nun, walking in the garden of her 
 convent, that her eyes fell on a lettuce, and that she 
 was tempted to the sin of gluttony. She yielded to 
 the sin, plucked the lettuce, and ate it greedily. But 
 she yielded fatally ; for as she was eating, a devil 
 entered into her, and she became possessed, with tor- 
 ments. Help was procured from a neighbouring abbot, 
 who was sent for to exorcise the fiend : and as soon 
 as the holy man entered the garden, and before he 
 was exorcised in the holy Name, the fiend began to cry 
 out, by the mouth of his victim : " What have I done, 
 what have I done, that I am to be cast fortli ? I was 
 resting quietly on a lettuce, and she came and greedily 
 swallowed me up, and I have taken possession of her." 
 
 A worse fate happened to a monk who gave up him- 
 self to the sin of gluttony. This hapless man lived in 
 a monastery of Lycaonia, and was held in great esteem 
 and veneration by all his brethren for his apparently
 
 266 A Theory about Sin. [ix. 
 
 godly life, and for the manner in which he performed 
 all his outward duties. But the unhappy monk was 
 a slave to gluttony ; so that, whilst others fasted, he 
 took secret opportunities for eating. At length he was 
 overtaken with a serious illness which proved to be 
 his last. As the hour of his departure drew near, the 
 monks flocked around his bed, thinking to hear and 
 behold at the death of so holy a man something for 
 their soul's edification. What they did hear was this : 
 " Brethren," said the dying man, " when you fasted, 
 I feasted in secret : for which cause I am given over 
 to the infernal enemy, who has already coiled himself 
 around my feet and knees, and is now reaching my 
 heart." With these words he expired.] 
 
 A saintly old monk, while sitting at table with other 
 monks, was favoured by GOD with an inward vision, in 
 which it was revealed to him that some of his brethren 
 were eating sweet honey, others were eating plain bread, 
 and others, again, were eating uncleanness. Astonished 
 at the vision, as he was well aware that the same pro- 
 vision had been provided for all, he besought GOD to 
 enlighten him as to its meaning. The Good LORD 
 answered his prayer and told him, that those who were 
 eating in fear of transgressing against temperance, and 
 hence had their minds uplifted to GOD, and joined 
 prayer with eating, were they who fed on honey. Those
 
 ix.] Of the Deadly Sin of Gluttony. 267 
 
 who merely were taking their meal with thankfulness, 
 and acknowledged their food as GOD'S gift, without 
 any special remembrance of the Giver of it, were they 
 who fed on bread. Those who were eating for the sake 
 of eating only, who gave up themselves to the sensual 
 gratification and could think of nothing but their food, 
 were they who fed on uncleanness. The vision set 
 forth the divers effects of the same needful act of eat- 
 ing upon divers characters, according to the end and 
 , intention which each one set before himself. To those 
 who were eating for a holy purpose, the support of our 
 mortal frames for the glory of GOD, their nourishment 
 was as bread and honey : while to the souls of those 
 who were eating for the unworthy end of satisfying the 
 palate only, their food was turned into uncleanness, 
 defiling them with many faults. " If then," continues 
 the author quoted, " we wish our food to be profitable 
 to the body without prejudice to the soul, let us set 
 before ourselves a right intention, and perform this 
 lower action of our bodies without eagerness, and with 
 an inward renouncement of all gratification." 
 
 V. 
 
 The sin of gluttony, when considered in the practical 
 details of every-day life, is not altogether so well suited 
 for minute analysis as some of the deadly sins which
 
 268 A Theory about Sin. [ix. 
 
 have been discussed from this place. I purpose, there- 
 fore, to adopt a plan different in this case from the 
 plan adopted in former cases. I shall not enter into 
 minute detail. In the lieu of such detail, gathered 
 either from experience in myself, or from observation 
 of others, I am content to quote from the teaching, 
 and thus to be sheltered under the authority, of a Saint, 
 Bishop and Doctor of the Church. What has been 
 already laid before you, indeed, on the other capital 
 sins, has also been collected from masters of the spiritual 
 life : and hence comes any value which may attach to 
 such collected thoughts. But hitherto, the estimates or 
 examples have been sometimes altered or re-arranged, 
 have been sometimes enlarged or contracted, and have 
 been always adapted to the necessities of modern life. 
 Now, however, I propose to quote the Saint's analysis 
 of the sin, somewhat developed indeed, but almost in 
 his very words. There will be benefit to all concerned 
 in such a treatment of such a sin. I shall speak with 
 authority. You will assent without question. And 
 both of us will be edified by the systematic and ex- 
 haustive, and withal the devout and scriptural estimate 
 of the sin of gluttony, which an ancient Father has 
 handed down to us as the teaching of the Church of 
 his day on a matter of morals. 
 
 The analysis of the sin of gluttony by S. Gregory the
 
 ix.] Of the Deadly Sin of Gluttony. 269 
 
 Great, is concerned with one feature alone of this two- 
 fold sin. The Saint confines his attention to the popular 
 meaning of the term, as equivalent to viciousness in 
 the use of food. He also treats the vice as a personal 
 sin, as distinct from a sin against society. And he 
 does not descend into particulars, in regard to gross 
 or vulgar excess. Thus, the Saint's method harmonises 
 excellently well with our own plan, and with the re- 
 quirements of the present day, specially with a view 
 to the circumstances of those to whom I speak, and 
 to the times in which we live. To this prefatory state- 
 ment, I need only call to mind two points of which we 
 must not lose sight. First : That the sin of gluttony 
 consists in an inordinate and selfish desire for the 
 sensual pleasure which arises from the gratification of 
 taking food, when such desire developes into action. 
 Secondly : That the parable of Dives and Lazarus 
 teaches us that he, who in hell-fire lifted up his eyes 
 being in torment, was a certain rich man who fared 
 sumptuously every day. 
 
 We are tempted to the sin of gluttony, says the 
 Saint and Doctor, in five different ways : and these 
 five temptations oppose five distinct hindrances to our 
 spiritual perfection. We will take them in order, and 
 nearly in the language of the Father. 
 
 I. We are tempted to gluttony when, for the mere
 
 270 A Theory about Sin. [ix. 
 
 purpose of gratifying our palate, we anticipate the time 
 of eating, by forestalling our regular hour for meals. 
 
 This is our first temptation : and you will observe 
 that it has reference to time. 
 
 II. Without anticipating the time of eating, we may 
 be tempted to sin in regard to the quality of our food, 
 when we seek delicacies wherewith to pamper, what 
 the ascetic bishop well calls, this vile sense of taste. 
 
 Quality, you will perceive, is the leading feature of 
 the second temptation to gluttony. 
 
 III. It may further happen, that although we be 
 content with ordinary food, and so escape the second 
 temptation; and although we fail to anticipate the 
 hour of our meals, and so escape the first ; yet, we 
 may fall into a third temptation. And the third in- 
 centive to gluttony, to use the Saint's words, consists 
 in seeking after sauces and seasonings for the sensual 
 enjoyment of the palate. 
 
 In this case, stimulants to the appetite is the third 
 note or mark of spiritual hindrance. 
 
 IV. We may, by GOD'S help, be free from these 
 three temptations only to fall, by the malice of our 
 bitter foe, into a fourth. We may avoid condiments ; 
 we may be indifferent to quality ; we may be punctual 
 in time : but if we exceed in the amount of food which 
 we consume, so as to partake of common dishes beyond
 
 ix.] Of the Deadly Sin of Gluttony. 271 
 
 what nature demands, we succumb to the fourth tempta- 
 tion of this capital sin. 
 
 Here the main point, in this fourth temptation to 
 gluttony, consists in quantity. 
 
 V. Lastly, even if we avoid all the former means of 
 sinfulness in the matter of eating, we may still offend 
 against the opposite virtue of temperance, by partaking 
 necessary food with too much eagerness. 
 
 The last note of gluttony, therefore, is marked by 
 the mode or method of eating: and adds the holy 
 bishop, this last fault is worse than all the others, as 
 it is a clearer sign of our attachment to the sensual 
 pleasure which eating affords to our natural appetite. 
 
 Hence, according to this great master of spirituality, 
 we may become guilty of the sin of gluttony in 
 five different ways, each of which possesses its own 
 distinctive character, each of which may be recalled 
 to mind by a single word. I. We may sin in the 
 matter of time. 2. We may sin on a question of 
 quality. 3. We may sin by the use of stimulants. 4. 
 We may sin in relation to quantity. And 5. we may 
 sin, lastly, from eating with undue eagerness. 
 
 Having thus enumerated the five evil inclinations 
 which tempt us to pamper the sense of taste, the good 
 bishop appeals to Holy Scripture to enforce his analysis
 
 272 A Theory about Sin. [TX. 
 
 of the sin, and to afford illustration of its practical 
 working. It will be well for us to note these scriptural 
 instances, not only as to their details, that they may 
 be avoided ; but also, as to the punishments which 
 severally ensued to the guilty, either by the just judg- 
 ment of Almighty GOD or by the sentence of man. 
 
 i. With regard to the temptation of anticipating 
 the hour of our meals, S. Gregory brings forv/ard the 
 example of Jonathan, the son of Saul. On the day 
 on which the Israelites smote the Philistines from 
 Michmash to Aijalon, and were much distressed and 
 very faint for want of sustenance, King Saul adjured 
 the people saying : " Cursed be the man that eateth 
 any food until the evening." But Jonathan, we read, 
 " heard not [or perhaps, heeded not] when his father 
 charged the people with an oath. Wherefore he 
 tasted a little of the wild honey of the wood." No 
 doubt in consequence, his eyes were enlightened. 
 But what was the immediate and supernatural result 
 of this disobedience ? GOD " answered not" unto 
 Saul " that day " when he would take counsel of 
 Him whether or not he should "go down after the 
 Philistines ; " whether or not GOD would " deliver 
 them into the hand of Israel." And when the cause 
 of this mysterious silence was sought by lot, and the 
 lot pointed to Saul and Jonathan as guilty, the latter
 
 ix.] Of the Deadly Sin of Gluttony. 273 
 
 made confession of his sin, and said : " I did but taste 
 a little honey, and lo, I must die." Whilst, although 
 the sentence was afterwards reversed by the demo- 
 cratic will of the people, even under so absolute a 
 monarchy as that of Israel ; yet of his own son, and 
 for this act of implied gluttony, did Saul say : " GOD 
 do so and more also, for thou shalt surely die, 
 Jonathan." 
 
 Jonathan's case may be considered as a warning 
 against the capital sin of gluttony in the matter of 
 time. 
 
 2. In order to deter us from daintiness in the 
 selection of food, the Saint next instances the glut- 
 tony of the children of Israel in the wilderness, when 
 they murmured against Moses and Aaron. "Would 
 to GOD (they said) we had died in the land of Egypt, 
 when we sat by the flesh-pots and did eat bread to 
 the full." And also, when they " wept again and 
 said : ' Who shall give us flesh to eat ? We remember 
 the fish which we did eat in Egypt freely ; the 
 cucumbers and the melons, and the leeks and the 
 onions and the garlic,' " which appear to have been 
 luxuries to them. But now, they complain, " our soul 
 is dried away ; there is nothing at all besides this 
 manna before our eyes." And how did GOD punish 
 His rebellious and discontented, though much-loved 
 
 T
 
 274 -A Theory about Sin. [ix. 
 
 people'? GOD " rained flesh upon them as thick as 
 dust : and feathered fowls like as the sand of the sea. 
 ... So they did eat and were well filled : for He gave 
 them their own desire ; they were not disappointed 
 of their lust." But we read a commentary upon their 
 conduct five hundred years later, in their recorded 
 punishment. For "while the meat was yet in their 
 mouths, the heavy wrath of GOD came upon them, 
 and slew the wealthiest of them ; yea, and smote 
 down the chosen men that were in Israel." Or, as it 
 is elsewhere said: "The LORD smote the people with 
 a very great plague." 
 
 The conduct of the Israelites furnishes an example 
 of the sin of gluttony in the question of the quality 
 of food. 
 
 3. The holy bishop calls to mind the sin of the 
 sons of Eli, the high-priest, as an illustration of the 
 third temptation to gluttony, namely, in the super- 
 fluous seasoning of food. " The sin of these young 
 men was very great," says holy Scripture : " for they 
 made the offering of GOD to be abhorred." And why, 
 or how ? They appear to have been guilty in two 
 ways. They not only desired to secure for themselves 
 more than their legal share of the sacrificial flesh, or 
 sought it before they were entitled to claim their 
 allotted portion: but, they also forcibly took posses-
 
 ix.J Of the Deadly Sin of Gluttony. 275 
 
 sion of the meat, in order that it might be cooked to 
 suit their palate after one fashion, rather than after 
 another. These may seem to some of us to be com- 
 paratively light faults, and hardly worth the place 
 which is assigned to them in the sacred drama. And 
 no doubt they were coupled in these young men with 
 other sins which were more heinous. Yet, what does 
 Inspiration declare concerning them ? " The sons of 
 Eli were sons of Belial; they knew not the LORD." 
 What was the punishment with which GOD both at 
 the time threatened them, and afterwards actually 
 fulfilled ? " This shall be a sign unto thee," said GOD 
 to Eli, " that shall come upon thy two sons, Hophni 
 and Phinehas : in one day they shall die both of them." 
 "And it was so." For, not long after, when "the 
 Philistines fought, and Israel was smitten, and they 
 fled every man into his tent," that " the two sons of 
 Eli were slain." 
 
 The fate of the sons of Eli should make us hesi- 
 tate to sin by gluttony in the use of stimulants. 
 
 4, On excess in the quantity of food as a tempta- 
 tion to gluttony, are quoted the words of the prophet 
 Ezekiel against the guilty city of Sodom. Apparently, 
 no fewer than three of the deadly sins were justly 
 chargeable against the self-doomed inhabitants, one 
 in each of the three classes of sin, the result of im- 
 
 T 2
 
 276 . A Theory about Sin. [ix. 
 
 perfect love. They were guilty of pride, caused by 
 love distorted ; of sloth, caused by love defective ; of 
 gluttony, caused by love excessive. Behold, saith 
 GOD, by the mouth of His prophet : " Behold, this 
 was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom . . . fulness of 
 bread ... in her and in her daughters : . . . therefore 
 I took them away as I saw good." And how did it 
 seem good unto the Good LORD to take them away ? 
 The words " brimstone and fire from the LORD out of 
 heaven," sufficiently indicate the punishment inflicted 
 on Sodom for its sin of gluttony, as exhibited in un- 
 due excess, or in scriptural language, "fulness of 
 bread." 
 
 The guilty cities of the plain teach us a lesson, per- 
 haps unexpected, in the capital sin we are discussing, 
 in relation to quantity. 
 
 5. As a warning against over eagerness in eating 
 even coarse and common food, the Saint adduces the 
 case of Esau, whose greediness in partaking of " bread 
 and pottage of lentiles " is apparent, from his having 
 sold his birthright for so mean a price. Thus, saith 
 the SPIRIT of GOD, in the calm, dispassionate terms 
 of sacred history when recording the sin of man, 
 "thus Esau despised his birthright." And how was 
 this form of gluttony punished ? Eighteen centuries 
 after the event, we have this inspired comment on
 
 ix.] Of the Deadly Sin of Gluttony. 277 
 
 the conduct of Esau, which reveals his punishment, 
 till then unknown to the world. Of the " profane 
 person . . . who, for a morsel of meat sold his 
 birthright," we learn that " he found no place 
 for repentance, though he sought it carefully, with 
 tears." 
 
 Esau's greediness thus stands as a monument pre- 
 served by GOD, to teach us to avoid that form of the 
 sin of gluttony which arises from eating with undue 
 eagerness. 
 
 These five species of the sin of gluttony, which, as 
 I have said, may be remembered by as many single 
 words time, quality, stimulants, quantity, and eager- 
 ness may be reduced, as a commentator on the 
 Saint's words has pointed out, to two generic heads. 
 The vice may be reduced 
 
 1. To a search after the indulgence of the palate; 
 and 
 
 2. To the pleasure which ensues from the act of 
 eating. 
 
 A little consideration will show the truth of this 
 arrangement. Why, urges the writer in question, why 
 is it an imperfection to forestall the hour of our 
 meals, but that this argues an impatience to indulge 
 our palate ? Why is it blameworthy to search after
 
 278 A Theory about Sin. [ix. 
 
 costly dishes and savoury sauces, except that such 
 misapplied industry comes from a desire to give 
 pleasure to the taste ? Why is it sinful to eat to 
 excess ? Because it is a sign that we eat not from 
 necessity, but for indulgence. And the same may be 
 said when we allow ourselves to consume our neces- 
 sary food with too much eagerness. 
 
 VI. 
 
 To this examination of the sin of gluttony by 
 S. Gregory the Great, two remarks only need be 
 added, with which I will conclude : 
 
 1. There is nothing sinful in the fact of feeling 
 gratification in the act of eating. It is equally inno- 
 cent with feeling satisfaction or enjoyment in hearing 
 good music, GOD'S work in science, or in gazing at 
 a beautiful view, GOD'S work in nature. The feeling 
 is a natural sensation, and therefore cannot be evil, 
 because it was implanted in us by the Good 
 LORD. The sin of gluttony consists not in feeling 
 pleasure when we eat, but in eating that we may feel 
 pleasure. 
 
 2. Neither is it in itself sinful to partake at certain 
 times, and under certain conditions, of delicacies in 
 food. If we never ate other than the plainest and 
 simplest fare, there would be no opportunity, on the
 
 ix.] Of the Deadly Sin of Gluttony. 279 
 
 one hand, for exercising self-denial when the Church 
 commands us to abstain, or, on the other hand, of 
 feasting when the Church bids us to rejoice. It is 
 not in the luxuries of food that Satan alone, or that 
 Satan chiefly tempts us. Adam fell by eating an 
 apple : and our Divine Master was tempted to satisfy 
 His human hunger with bread. In this case, also, 
 the sin lies, not in the mere gratification of the palate, 
 but in the search after such sensual gratification. 
 
 A. M. D. G.
 
 280 A Theory about Sin. [x. 
 
 LECTURE TEN. 
 
 OF THE DEADLY SIN OF LUST : 
 
 THE THIRD SIN OF LOVE EXCESSIVE. 
 
 "Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see 
 GOD" S. MATTHEW, v. 8. 
 
 I. 
 
 THE Virtue of Chastity, the opposite of the 
 last of the deadly sins, takes its title, accord- 
 ing to S. Thomas, from the Latin word to chasten, 
 or chastise. Whatever we may think of this negative 
 derivation from a critical point of view, there can be 
 no doubt of the value of the thought in a devotional 
 aspect. For even as a perverse child, says the Angelic 
 Doctor, requires to be chastened lest he fall into 
 wickedness ; so does our lust stand in need of chastise- 
 ment lest it be drawn away into excess. And the 
 virtue of chastity is the virtue which holds in check 
 the sensual appetite, even if it does not ultimately 
 conquer it. In other words, the last of the seven
 
 x.] Of the Deadly Sin of Lust. 281 
 
 capital sins, namely, Impurity, the sin which is the 
 opposite of Chastity, may be defined to be the in- 
 ordinate love of and desire for that form of selfishness 
 which is called sensuality. 
 
 II. 
 
 The virtue of chastity and the sin of impurity 
 are subjects which can only be treated from this 
 place with difficulty, if not with danger. But, how- 
 ever dangerous or difficult it may be to discuss 
 these matters in public, the difficulty is enhanced 
 and the danger is intensified when they are 
 discussed in private. In either case, the difficulty 
 or danger to a large extent is due to the 
 conventional unrealities of a false and hollow civi- 
 lization. They result, not from the world's estimate 
 of the seventh deadly sin being exaggerated, for the 
 opposite is unhappily and notoriously the case ; but 
 from the estimate which society forms of sin in the 
 abstract, and of the first six capital sins in the con- 
 crete an estimate which falls short of the truth. They 
 result, not because the world realises the heinousness 
 of the sin of impurity ; but because society inade- 
 quately appreciates the effects of other sins, such as 
 avarice, or sloth, or envy, or anger, or even pride. 
 
 Nothing so fatally deadens the moral perception of
 
 282 A Theory about Sin. [x. 
 
 the evil of sin, as familiarity with wickedness under 
 any form, in thought or word nothing, that is to say, 
 short of sinfulness in action. The open and undis- 
 guised way in which persons allow themselves to speak 
 of sin, and the unguarded attitude they mentally as- 
 sume towards sins upon which the world has placed 
 no social stigma that ensures silence, creates such 
 deadness. And the Nemesis of Virtue haunts these 
 rash and unguarded persons. For the age which con- 
 dones six of the deadly sins is the victim, perhaps 
 to an unparalleled extent, of the seventh. Indeed," 
 with regard to the sin of impurity society is incon- 
 sistent to its core. It is in part prudish, in part licen- 
 tious. It tolerates the sin it will not speak of; and 
 commits the sin which may not be denounced. For 
 instance: Society is patient of the journalist, upon 
 whose daily records of vice, in the needlessly detailed 
 reports of the law-courts, in cases of drunkenness, 
 extortion, murder, slander, theft, and violence it dwells. 
 It is only impatient with the minister of religion, 
 when he would exhort, rebuke, persuade, condemn, 
 with scriptural impartiality all violations of the holy 
 law of GOD. The result is two-fold. As surely as 
 the natural nerves become blunted by repeated in- 
 fliction of physical suffering; so does the supernatural 
 instinct become callous by familiarity with outward
 
 x.] Of the Deadly Sin of LiLst. 283 
 
 forms of wickedness. And the public conscience, 
 hardened by contact with six of the capital sins, 
 becomes an easy prey to the seventh and most deadly. 
 Topics which a priest may not treat, and which 
 bishops declare are unfit for sacramental confession 
 even in penitentiaries, become, with either public or 
 private approval, the subject-matter of platform 
 speeches, the point of interest in questionable leading- 
 articles or reviews, the staple of the novelist's pros- 
 tituted talent, the unwholesome seasoning of letter- 
 writing, conversation, and social gossip. 
 
 It has been said, that the danger or difficulty of 
 discussing chastity or its opposite arises, to a large 
 extent, from conventional unreality. But it does not 
 arise from this cause alone. The natural law which 
 governs the relation between outward objects and inner 
 sensations is fulfilled in this case as in the case of 
 others. The sense of sight, of taste, or of hearing 
 may be the innocent cause of the sin of avarice, of 
 gluttony, or of anger. It is equally true, neither 
 more nor less, in the case which we are considering, 
 the case of impurity. Over and above the temptations 
 afforded by the others, a fourth of the five human 
 senses namely, the sense .of feeling may be the 
 cause of the last of the seven deadly sins namely, 
 the sin of luxury. The connexion between the
 
 284 A Theory about Sin. [x. 
 
 senses without and the affections within is beyond 
 a question. Yet are they not more keen, nor more 
 harmful, in the latter case than in the former instances. 
 When, therefore, the world would have us to surcease 
 from warning men and women against the deadly 
 effect of passion, gluttony, or covetousness, because 
 the warning by the very fact of warning may be 
 productive of the evil against which it is directed ; then, 
 and then only may the Church, on the like ground, 
 abstain from warning men and women against the 
 deadly issue of a want of holy chastity. 
 
 But there is a further consideration, indepen- 
 dent of the inconsistencies of modern society, at 
 which it will be wise to glance, though only 
 to glance. Man was created, both in his higher 
 organisation and also as to his lower sensibilities, 
 by GOD, the All-pure. Hence, so long as man fulfils 
 only the object and intention of his creation, under 
 GOD'S law, and in obedience to his natural senses, he 
 can never act the part of one who is wanting in per- 
 fection. For instance : Take the senses which are the 
 most nearly allied to certain of the deadly sins. A 
 man may see that which .belongs to another, without 
 being guilty of covetousness. He may hear words of 
 contumely or insult, without giving way to anger.
 
 x.J Of the Deadly Sin of Lust. 285 
 
 Fie may sustain his bodily frame by sustenance, and 
 not fall into the sin of gluttony. Nor is it otherwise 
 with the remaining senses, and specially with that 
 function of the sense of feeling which, indulged, may 
 result in sensuality. One object of man's creation 
 and it was no mean object was the re-production, by 
 sacramental oneness with another, of a third in his 
 own image and after his likeness, to the greater glory 
 of GOD. Of course, I speak of the new creation, under 
 the extension of the Divine Incarnation by sacramental 
 agencies, which was anticipated even before the elder 
 dispensation. And this instinct of re-production, im- 
 planted in all animated nature, becomes a rational 
 sentiment in man, as the earthly means of creating 
 saints for glory, and multiplying objects of union 
 between the Creator and the creature. 
 
 Moreover, this sentiment implanted in mankind, 
 finds a counterpart in the divine will ; and in its fulfil- 
 ment causes us to become living types of the Holy 
 TRINITY. For all, whether or not they personally 
 fulfil and extend the law of reproduction, are them- 
 selves the subjects of the divine law. Each one, as 
 child of father and mother, is a member of a 
 developed earthly triad which adumbrates not indis- 
 tinctly the mystery of the ONE IN THREE. And 
 the Divine Nature itself, in an ineffable manner, is
 
 286 A Theory about Sin. |_x. 
 
 obedient to the almost universal law of reproduction. 
 For, though the conditions are different, and the con- 
 clusions are not the same, there never was a time 
 when relationships between FATHER, SON and PARA- 
 CLETE have not existed in the Blessed TRINITY ; there 
 never has been a time when the Eternal SON was 
 not begotten from the Everlasting FATHER, and the 
 Divine COMFORTER did not proceed from Both. 
 
 Nor may we forget the influence of our theory 
 about sin upon the position which love occupies in the 
 economy of virtue and in the disorganisation of vice. 
 GOD is Love : and in the fulfilment of His own divine 
 law of self-existence, Love was manifested in the 
 eternal filiation of the Second Person from the First, 
 and in the perpetual procession of the Third Person 
 from Both. Submission to the law - of love in His 
 creatures, is merely the repetition of the fulfilment by 
 GOD Himself, is merely the fulfilment of one object 
 of His creatures' existence : and hence, must be not 
 only sinless but commendable. It is only when man 
 disobeys the law of love, that he falls into the 
 sin of impurity. It is only when he loves more than 
 he ought to love some lower good in created things, 
 in the domain of sensuality ; it is only when he be- 
 comes an exceeder in love, by failing to love GOD 
 as the Highest Good, that man disobeys the law of
 
 x.] Of the Deadly Sin of Lust. 287 
 
 chastity. And such excess of love becomes sin when 
 indulged in thought, as well as in act ; when con- 
 sented to in trifles equally with matters of moment. 
 For, we must never forget the feature in sin which 
 was noted in the case of anger, and is even more true 
 in the case of luxury, namely, that wilful wickedness 
 in any degree is of the essence of wickedness of 
 the worst form. Our Blessed LORD, with equal 
 emphasis and the like particularity, has condemned 
 the angry thought which leads to murder, and the 
 unchaste desire which leads to adultery. He has 
 taught us, that as murder is only anger in action ; so 
 sensuality is nothing short of the fearful sin of adul- 
 tery in thought. And in one sense, the law of evil 
 is more invariable with the sin of lust than with that 
 of anger. For, in the case of anger, its expression 
 may be one only of evil influence which need not 
 exist in essence ; but in the case of impurity, its de- 
 velopment is a violation of inevitable law impressed 
 upon our nature, a violation by excess. Hence it is, 
 that I have ventured to define the last of the deadly 
 sins as the inordinate love of and desire for that form 
 of selfishness which is called sensuality. 
 
 III. 
 In treating the subject of the seventh deadly sin,
 
 288 A Theory about Sin. [x. 
 
 I shall again to some extent vary the method 
 adopted in earlier lectures, and adhere to the method 
 pursued in the last. I do not propose to draw a 
 picture, however indefinite or vague, of one who is 
 the slave of impurity, as I have attempted to depict 
 the characteristics of those who may be guilty of 
 pride, envy, or anger. I intend, also, as in the lecture 
 on gluttony, to depend more upon the words of ac- 
 cepted spiritual writers, than upon my own knowledge 
 and experience however gained. This, I repeat, will 
 enable me to speak with more authority, and you to 
 listen with greater patience. Moreover, I purpose to 
 treat more of the virtue which is the opposite of the 
 vice, than of the vice which destroys the virtue. 
 Hence, we shall learn what to avoid by knowing what 
 to cultivate. We may hope to advance towards per- 
 fection, therefore, under the influence of the law of 
 progression through antagonism. 
 
 Spiritual writers distinguish between various kinds 
 of chastity. There are at least four species of the 
 virtue. I will name them in the order of perfection : 
 
 There is I. virginal, or absolute chastity. 
 
 There is 2. conjugal, or sacramental chastity. 
 
 There is 3. The chastity of widows and widowers, 
 which may be termed vidual.
 
 x.] Of the Deadly Sin of Lust. 289 
 
 There is 4. The chastity of repentance, which is 
 penitential. 
 
 These four classes may be more exactly defined. 
 
 I. The first, or virginal chastity, belongs to those 
 who, by GOD'S grace, and the care of their guardian 
 Angel, have ever kept unblemished the spotless inno- 
 cence imparted to them as infants at the font. 
 
 II. The second, or conjugal chastity, may be claimed 
 by those who have entered the estate of holy matri- 
 mony ; and in virtue of sacramental grace have kept 
 their marriage vow inviolate. 
 
 III. The third is the continence of the widowed 
 state ; of those who are married, but whose sacra- 
 mental union has been visibly intermitted in time, 
 only to be again consummated in eternity. 
 
 IV. The fourth is the self-command of those who 
 belong to none of the other three orders of chastity; 
 of those who, as a matter of fact, have fallen into 
 deadly sin ; but who, after contrition, sacramental con- 
 fession and absolution, are now living a godly life of 
 penitential purity. 
 
 These several classes of chastity, to adopt the figura- 
 tive language of the Fathers, have each a lustre proper 
 to themselves, whereby they deck the garden, of the 
 Church. Of the first three, S. Ambrose writes thus : 
 " Here you may behold the white lilies of virginity 
 
 U
 
 290 A Theory about Sin. [x. 
 
 which adorn it by their brightness. There the flowers 
 of honourable widowhood which, though barren, are 
 yet comely to the eye and embellish it with their 
 beauty. In another part of GOD'S vineyard you may 
 see the fertile harvests which fill with precious grain 
 the storehouse of the Church the vineyard, where the 
 vines married to the elms produce abundant fruit for 
 the SAVIOUR of mankind." Whilst in yet another part, 
 it may be added, may be seen the sombre hues and 
 mournful tints of those plants which have beautiful 
 and delicate leaves indeed, but neither flower nor 
 fruit But even the penitential order of chastity find 
 their own special place in the LORD'S garden, their own 
 special grace of form and colour. They may be fairly 
 typified by the foliage plant of luxuriant and devout 
 repentance. Thus, continues the Saint, do all con- 
 tribute, by the purity which is in harmony with their 
 several orders, to embellish and enrich the garden of 
 pure delight. And of these four classes, the first three 
 may be called the positive forms, the last may be termed 
 the negative form of the divine virtue of chastity. 
 
 Upon the negative, or penitential form of purity, I 
 do not purpose to touch on the present occasion. 
 But, to the three positive forms S. Jerome assigns, to 
 each class severally, the excellencies which it may 
 justly claim. Commenting on the Parable of the Sower
 
 x.] Of the Deadly Sin of Lust. 291 
 
 the Saint and Doctor of the Church gives to the chastity 
 of widowed life the preference over that of wedlock ; 
 to the purity of the virgin state supremacy over both. 
 The good ground on which the seed fell, and sprang 
 up, and brought forth fruit, this the Saint explains to 
 be the heart of the virtuous who yield fruit to the 
 Church, each with a certain measure of variation. The 
 thirty-fold is the spiritual fruitfulness of those who live 
 chastely in the marriage state. The sixty-fold is the 
 product of continent and blameless widowhood. But 
 the hundred-fold springs from the heart of virgins, as 
 being of all the purest and least defiled. To each 
 degree of chastity, therefore, must be assigned its own 
 special dignity and glory. The highest place is given 
 to spotless virginity ; the middle state, to pious widow- 
 hood ; and the lowest position, to holy matrimony. 
 Yet each class must be praised in subordination only 
 to the special virtue of the other two. Thus, virginal 
 integrity must not be commended so as to detract from 
 the honour due to chaste widowhood ; nor must the 
 continence of widowhood be praised to the detriment 
 of Christian marriage. Each estate of chastity pos- 
 sesses its own peculiar excellence and virtue, though all 
 are not equal. 
 
 Here it is needful to make a qualification. Although 
 
 U 2
 
 29 2 A Theory about Sin. [x. 
 
 there exist various classes of chastity as one star dif- 
 fereth from another star in glory yet may salvation 
 be attained under the influence of any one. Holy 
 Scripture, both of the Old and New Testaments, seems 
 to point to examples of each order in turn that all may 
 have hope. The royal David and the saintly Magda- 
 lene are instances of penitential chastity. The pa- 
 triarchs, some of the prophets, Joachim and Anna, are 
 instances of chaste wedlock. Naomi and Judith, the 
 prophetess Anna, and the great apostle S. Peter appear 
 as preachers of continent widowhood. And Elisha, 
 S. John the Baptist, the Virgin Mother of GOD, and the 
 virgin disciple whom JESUS loved, afford practical 
 lessons in the highest order of chastity, namely, that of 
 pure virginity. All these saints of both dispensations, 
 by the help of the queen of virtues, attained to bliss. 
 And if the Vision of GOD is the promised reward of the 
 pure in heart, of all the chaste without any qualification 
 of outward estate, it is not becoming to compare those 
 who have a higher gift of GOD with those who possess 
 the lower, both being under the influence of the same 
 divine grace. But still less seemly is it to compare 
 the present position, or the future hopes, of those who 
 have been kept from falling into sin GOD'S grace 
 alone marking the difference between them. Indeed, 
 although it may be admitted in the abstract, and in
 
 x.] Of the Deadly Sin of Lust. 293 
 
 practice is undoubtedly true, that holy virginity is a 
 higher state than conjugal purity or than pious widow- 
 hood ; yet may a widowed or married person be more 
 perfect and chaste than one who is unmarried. For 
 such a one, teaches the Angelic Doctor, may be far 
 more willing and ready in his mind to observe conti- 
 nence, if it were demanded by GOD'S service, than the 
 other who actually possesses the treasure of virginity. 
 In which case, the chastity of the married person will 
 surpass that of the unwedded, in affection though not 
 in effect. In such judgment S. Augustine concurs. 
 Writing to a holy virgin the Bishop of Hippo bids her 
 thus think with herself: "Though unmarried, I am not 
 better than Abraham who lived in holy wedlock. For 
 had it behoved Abraham to lead the life that I am 
 leading, he would have led it with far more perfection : 
 whilst had I to lead the life which he led, my perfection 
 would fall far below that which he practised." In both 
 cases, it is only a matter of divine grace, more or less 
 active a matter which may not be measured in the 
 scales of a human balance. 
 
 Perfect chastity, then, is less concerned with the out- 
 ward circumstances of its advocates than with their 
 inward affections. With this opinion accords the esti- 
 mate of the virtue, as taught by spiritual writers. They 
 teach that chastity consists in the inward act of the
 
 294 ^ Theory about Sin. [x. 
 
 will ; in the firm, determined and enduring resolve not 
 to suffer anything that is not compatible with absolute 
 purity : and that the outward relations of the bodily 
 frame only incidentally affect the perfection, or imper- 
 fection of the state. This judgment is compatible with 
 a belief in the higher condition of virginal purity when 
 compared or contrasted with the chastity of widows, of 
 the married, or of penitents. It is also supported by 
 the incidental evidence of Holy Scripture. For whilst 
 S. Paul individually considers the case of penitents, the 
 married and widows, in his admonitions to chastity in 
 their several cases; he yet broadly exhorts to purity 
 in general terms as applicable, nay, as essential to all 
 the faithful. And it is remarkable, or rather, it is only 
 what might be expected, that the virtue of chastity is 
 enforced by the Apostle in every one of his Epistles 
 (with the exception of the Epistle to Philemon), be 
 they addressed to corporate bodies or Churches, to 
 individual bishops as chief pastors, or to Christians as 
 private persons. 
 
 Thus, to state these Scriptural injunctions briefly, one 
 by one : " This is the will of GOD," says the Apostle 
 to the Thessalonians, and the context proves that the 
 word is used of the virtue of chastity ; " this is the 
 will of GOD, even your sanctification." " Follow peace," 
 he says in his Epistle to the Hebrew Christians ; " and
 
 x.] Of the Deadly Sin of Lust. 295 
 
 holiness (or purity), without which no man shall see the 
 LORD." " Keep thyself pure," is the charge of the Saint 
 to his own son in the faith, Bishop Timothy. " Un- 
 cleanness," the Apostle writes to the Ephesian converts, 
 " let it not be once named amongst you as becometh 
 Saints." To the Philippians he urges, " Whatsoever 
 things are pure ... if there be any virtue, think of 
 these things." " Having the promise of the Gospel, 
 dearly beloved," he writes to the Church in Corinth, 
 " let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh 
 and spirit." To the Church of Rome, S. Paul the aged 
 speaks "after the manner of men, because of the in- 
 firmity of the flesh : " and bids it " to yield its members 
 servants to righteousness unto holiness." " Unto the 
 pure," he declares to S. Titus, " all things are pure ; " 
 they preserve their purity under all conditions of life. 
 "Walk in the spirit," he commands the Catholics of 
 Galatia, " and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh " 
 the first of which, the Apostle says, are sins against 
 chastity. Such are examples of Biblical teaching ; 
 and the reason which ascetic writers assign for the re- 
 peated warnings of S. Paul to both sexes and under 
 all circumstances, against violations of the law of purity, 
 is the wide-spread calamities which the opposite vice 
 entails upon mankind in this life, and the endless woe 
 which it ensures in the next.
 
 296 A Theory about Sin. [x. 
 
 IV. 
 
 It is not easy to find in the pages of old devotional 
 writers a story which it may be edifying to repeat to 
 a mixed congregation, on the subject of the last of the 
 deadly sins. But, in a treatise on the senses, I have 
 found one which an author quotes as an instance of 
 how displeasing to GOD is the incautious use of the 
 sense of touch in this relation. It may well be re- 
 peated. The anecdote need not be taken as historical. 
 I offer it as not unfit to be accepted as a warning 
 against even apparently harmless familiarity for the 
 story relates to a religious devoted to continence. 
 
 A certain holy abbot was tried by GOD with a long 
 and painful sickness, which deprived him of the use 
 of his limbs, so that he was unable to turn on his side, 
 or even to put forth a hand to take necessary food 
 After a year of so tedious an illness, he recovered suffi- 
 ciently to enable his attendants to remove him from 
 his bed, and to place him in a chair. Yet, even then, 
 like a statue in a niche, he could move neither hand 
 nor foot. Meanwhile, he received a visit from a neigh- 
 bouring monk, William by name, a distinguished ser- 
 vant of GOD, who touched with pity at his helpless 
 state, exhorted him to beseech the Almighty to restore 
 him at least the use of his right hand, that he might 
 employ it in some work. " No," answered the devout
 
 x.] Of the Deadly Sin of Lust. 297 
 
 abbot, "never will I ask for bodily health. I rejoice 
 that GOD is pleased thus to try me in the crucible of 
 infirmity, in order that being cleansed from all defile- 
 ment, I may be worthy to be united to Him." The 
 tender heart of brother William could no longer bear 
 to see his friend in so sad a plight. He seized the 
 abbot's helpless hand, blessed it, and healed it in the 
 sight of all present 
 
 Some days after, a kinswoman of the abbot, with all 
 her family, came to visit him. The holy man, thinking 
 that courtesy required it of him, caused himself to be 
 carried in his chair to the monastery gate ; in order that 
 he might the more easily converse with hen While 
 talking with his kinswoman, the abbot related the 
 wonderful cure he had obtained of GOD, through the 
 merits and intercession of brother William. On hear- 
 ing this, the lady seized the abbot's restored hand and 
 pressed it to her lips. Most persons would approve of 
 such an act, as an act of piety or devotion. Few persons 
 would see in it a shadow of evih Yet, at this touch, 
 at this kiss, the hand again became benumbed, and as 
 helpless and devoid of life as stone. Of course, this 
 event became known to brother William, who once more 
 restored the useless member to power, after having duly 
 warned the abbot against a liberty innocent in itself, 
 which may be unseemly and is not without danger.
 
 298 A Theory about Sin. [x. 
 
 In order to keep unspotted this jewel of the super- 
 natural state, the lives of the Saints are full of examples 
 of the means which pure men and chaste women have 
 taken to preserve it. These cases or some of them are 
 collected in works of ascetic theology. Let me quote 
 from one of them. If chastity be so precious a gem, 
 so vast a treasure of sanctity such is the devotional 
 argument what wonder that, rather than lose it, or 
 even endanger it, the Saints have taken measures with 
 themselves against temptation, which the world in this 
 half-hearted, self-seeking age, would denounce as eccen- 
 tric, if not extravagant ? What wonder that the stern 
 S. Benedict wandered naked among brambles, and 
 crimsoned the thorns with his blood ? That the self- 
 denying S. Jerome was wont to smite his breast with 
 hard stones ? That the ascetic S. Francis of Assisi 
 deliberately rolled himself in the snow on one of the 
 coldest nights of a cold Italian winter ? That the 
 spiritual S. Bernard plunged boldly into a frozen pond ? 
 That S. Macarius walked barefoot amid briars ; and 
 S. Martinianus stood upon scorching embers ? That an 
 Egyptian solitary burnt the fingers of his hand, one 
 by one, in the flame of a lamp ; and a youth of noble 
 birth gashed his face with a razor? What wonder, I 
 say, that these and many others cruelly tormented 
 their rebellious flesh to secure the gift which opens to
 
 x.] Of the Deadly Sin of Lust. 299 
 
 us the Vision of GOD, when we see the world braving 
 even death itself to acquire honour, or power, or posi- 
 tion, or place, or wealth ? 
 
 Nor need these examples be confined to the case of 
 men. Of course such cases are the more worthy of 
 note, from the nature of the virtue as well as of the 
 sex under consideration. But women have proved them- 
 selves not less jealous of their purity than saintly men 
 under temptation. It is needless to do more than 
 name some of the more illustrious maidens of Church 
 history who, as virgins, have preserved their innocence 
 S. Agatha, S. Agnes, S. Cecilia, S. Genevieve, S. 
 Lucy, S. Rose of Lima, S. Scholastica, S. Teresa : 
 though if any desire details of other saintly women, 
 they are not wanting. A native of Alexandria con- 
 cealed herself for twelve years to escape the impor- 
 tunities of some high-born but dissolute youth. Another 
 in the same city, was cast into a cauldron of boiling 
 pitch for not accepting a preferred suit, when self- 
 devoted to a Heavenly Bridegroom. A third, in order 
 to preserve her innocence which was endangered, 
 prayed that she might become repulsive before men. 
 The LORD hearkened unto her prayer ; and until the 
 danger was overpast, she became the willing sufferer 
 of a loathsome leprosy. Many others sought death 
 rather than consent to sin. A whole convent of nuns
 
 300 A Theory about Sin. [x. 
 
 at Ptolemais, on the storming of the city by the Sara- 
 cens, mutilated themselves, that they might escape a 
 worse fate at the hands of the Mussulmans. These 
 religious were given courage to disfigure their faces ; 
 and thus, bathed in their own blood, were slaughtered 
 by the Saracens as victims of chastity. This fact is 
 believed to be historical. 
 
 V. 
 
 An old Spanish theologian has written a treatise on 
 the subject of chastity, which he has entitled, " The 
 Triumph over Incontinency." The book is divided into 
 three parts, which are headed respectively, the Incen- 
 tives to Impurity, its Effects, and Antidotes. The sub- 
 ject-matter of these divisions, after the fashion of his 
 day, and as a help to the memory, are reduced by the 
 author, Drexelius, to doggrel verse. The antidotes to 
 impurity are nine in number, and may be thus described 
 in English : 
 
 " Books, prayers, stripes, confession, labours, fasting ; 
 
 " Strict watch, CHRIST'S presence, torments ever- 
 lasting." 
 The effects of impurity are six-fold : 
 
 " Fame, virtue, soul and body, wit and wealth, 
 
 "They blast, taint, kill, waste, dull, and take by 
 stealth."
 
 x.] Of the Deadly Sin of Lust. 301 
 
 Whilst the incentives, named in the form of a warning, 
 are seven in number : 
 
 " Sloth, meats, books, pictures, wandering eyes, 
 words, mates, 
 
 " Fly, fast, change, avoid, close, shun, and shut the 
 
 gates." 
 
 Of these three divisions, it is purposed to notice only the 
 last, which naturally comes first in the treatise, and to 
 annotate more or less briefly the seven-fold incentives 
 to a breach of chastity. 
 
 i. The first of the allurements to impurity mentioned 
 by Drexelius, is sloth. Nothing more surely than an 
 idle life makes a man incline towards, and ultimately 
 yield to this form of vice. This truth is avowed even 
 by Pagan authors, by whom it has been well said that, 
 " Lust is the business of those who are idle ; " that, 
 " To do nothing is to do evil ; " that, " To be idle 
 is to play the wanton : " heathen aphorisms which may 
 fairly take the Christian shape of " Idleness is full of 
 concupiscence." That sloth should become one of the 
 enticements to impurity, is another proof of the inter- 
 dependence of the seven deadly sins which has before 
 been noticed. But as the sin of sloth was discussed 
 under certain aspects in a former lecture, the subject 
 need not now detain us longer.
 
 302 A Theory about Sin. [x. 
 
 2. The second allurement to incontinency is the sin 
 of gluttony and of excess in drink. And here the 
 same observation meets us, in regard to the mutual 
 dependence between the capital sins and their relation- 
 ship. The same fact has to be stated, that this entice- 
 ment was treated under another form on a previous 
 occasion. We will therefore be content to remember 
 that, in support of this second position of our mediaeval 
 guide, we may quote the authority of Holy Scripture, 
 and that from both the Testaments. The sin of Sodom, 
 as we have before seen the prophet Ezekiel teaches us, 
 had its source, not only in abundance of idleness, but 
 in fulness of bread ; that is to say, not only in the 
 sin of sloth, but in the sin of gluttony. Again ; the 
 Israelites of old sat down to eat and drink at the idol 
 sacrifices, and rose up to play. In other words, they 
 were guilty first of excess at the idolatrous feasts, and 
 then were lascivious in the impure games which en- 
 sued a " play," in Scriptural language, so far from 
 innocent as to end in a plague, which slew four-and- 
 twenty thousand. And hence, S. Paul, who reminds 
 the luxurious Corinthians also of this fact, bids his 
 Ephesian converts not to be drunk with wine wherein 
 is dissoluteness, or impurity. 
 
 3 and 4. The third and fourth allurements to a want 
 of chastity, which Drexelius terms obscene books and
 
 x.] Of the Deadly Sin of Lust. 303 
 
 dishonest pictures, may be overpassed for the present. 
 They both belong to a single class of temptations. 
 One of them will be treated by and by. 
 
 5. This leads us to the fifth allurement to inconti- 
 nency, wandering eyes. The mischief of lust, says 
 our author, creeps not only through the single gates 
 of man's body or mouth, or the double doors of his 
 ears, but also through the double casements of his 
 eyes. We want no further testimony of this truth 
 than our own personal experience. Yet, the Scriptures 
 give us both a warning of what to avoid, as well as an 
 example which we may follow. The man after GOD'S 
 own heart, as a penitent, once was guilty of two deadly 
 sins, adultery and murder, under the malign influence 
 of unwary eyes. David, walking in the cool of the 
 evening on the top of his house, accidentally saw a 
 beautiful woman washing herself. Such is the warn- 
 ing. Again ; The man whose patience has become a 
 proverb, and who was patient even with himself, the 
 patriarch Job deliberately made a covenant^ with his 
 eyes, that he would not think upon a maid. Such 
 is the example. The sight ill-governed, say the 
 Fathers, is a sign of a soul ill-managed. And our 
 Divine Master's words are more than suggestive on 
 this painful subject : " If thine eye offend thee, pluck 
 it out and cast it from thee."
 
 304 A Theory aboiit Sin, [x. 
 
 6. " Evil communications corrupt good manners," 
 writes the Apostle. Evil words are the sixth tempta- 
 tion to the sin of luxury which we must avoid. It 
 matters little in what part of the body you receive a 
 wound, so long as the wound is deadly. So, continues 
 the Spaniard, " it imports not much, if thou shouldest 
 perish, whether thou perish by the eye, or by the 
 ear." The same lesson is taught us by an ancient. 
 A heathen master observing two of his scholars talk- 
 ing together as they walked, enquired the subject of 
 their converse. Which, when they had declared, the 
 master commanded both to be severely beaten ; the 
 one for speaking, and the other for listening unto that 
 which was impure. So, also, Inspiration : " All un- 
 cleanness, let it not be once named amongst you, as 
 becometh saints." 
 
 7. The last of the incentives to incontinency is 
 sinful companionship. The inevitable law of com- 
 plicity in wickedness obtained even from the first. 
 No sooner had our mother Eve sinned, than she made 
 her husband a partner in her guilt. " Depart from 
 the tents of these wicked men," was the command of 
 Moses, in the case of Korah and his company, "lest 
 ye be consumed in all their sins." The patriarch 
 Joseph would not suffer so much as his bones to re- 
 main, permanently, among the heathen Egyptians.
 
 x.J Of the Deadly Sin of Lust. 305 
 
 Even the brave Peter, before he was made a Saint 
 became a coward in the midst of the enemies of his 
 LORD, and denied that he knew the MAN. So true 
 it is, all the world over, that none can touch pitch 
 and not be defiled therewith. None can associate 
 with the impure and themselves remain chaste. 
 
 Thus have we shortly stated five of the seven allure- 
 ments to the sin of lust, which Drexelius mentions 
 i. guilty companions, 2. evil communications, 3. wander- 
 ing eyes, 4. over eating and drinking, and 5 . bodily or 
 mental sloth. 6. Books, or 7. pictures, with a tendency 
 which is not pure complete the sevenfold incitement 
 to the seventh capital sin. Literature and art are so 
 closely allied, both in the genius which inspires them, 
 and the sentiment to which they appeal, that they may 
 be conveniently classed together in one division. But 
 as books revolve in an infinitely larger circle than 
 pictures ; and as the causes of temptation are, as a 
 fact, more widely diffused through the agency of the 
 press than by the painter's brush, I propose to con- 
 fine our thoughts in conclusion to immoral literature. 
 And to this subject I earnestly beg your attention. 
 
 VI. 
 
 Immoral Literature may seem to be a subject hardly 
 suitable for the thoughts of those who worship within 
 
 X
 
 306 A Theory about Sin. [x. 
 
 these walls. And yet, I venture to think, that a warn- 
 ing is needed for us, lest immoral literature become 
 to us an allurement to incontinency. For, my Brethren, 
 at the present day works of this class are not confined 
 to the back alleys and side streets of our towns ; are 
 not sold only in penny numbers, or halfpenny tracts ; 
 do not circulate alone amongst the uneducated or little 
 taught ; do not appeal solely to the poor in this world's 
 goods, or to the outwardly vicious and sinful. No. The 
 immoral books of which I speak are read, I may say 
 are devoured by the respectable classes, and by the 
 well-to-do in the world. They attract the educated 
 at the least, sometimes the intellectual. They are sold 
 at a cost of from half-a-guinea to a guinea and a half. 
 They are found in the studies of men of the middle 
 classes and of the upper-ten-thousand, and in ladies' 
 drawing-rooms. And so far from their being confined 
 to the material slums of the city, they issue from every 
 circulating library, even from those which are self-styled 
 " select." And the name of the legion is Fiction. 
 Modern novels are the form, which immoral, upper- 
 class literature takes in our day. And fiction is the 
 allurement to the deadly sin we are considering of 
 which I would briefly speak. 
 
 It may not be without benefit that I should first 
 quote a few words from the Spanish divine, to show
 
 x.] Of the Deadly Sin of Lust. 307 
 
 what was his mind on the subject. Books of this kind, 
 he says, "are a very plague, an assured poison to the 
 reader. And what is worse, you meet with it in every 
 place, and find it scattered everywhere, not only in 
 one language, but in many. For this shameless kind 
 of writing many are branded with infamy. Some have 
 composed histories ; and others have written satires : 
 some have sung poems and invented fables ; and others 
 have entered into another kind of writing in which, 
 as well with true as with feigned narrations, they aim 
 at nothing else but to poison the minds of their 
 readers with the plague of impurity, by alluring them 
 to unchaste thoughts if not to words, to impure desires 
 if not to acts themselves." 
 
 Such words, written nearly three centuries ago, are 
 not unsuitable to our times. But I would prefer to 
 speak in the language of to-day ; and rather by the 
 lips of others than by my own. To this end, I shall 
 quote the judgment of an anonymous writer, and 
 mainly in his own 'words, who criticised novels from 
 a literary and secular point of view, not from a re- 
 ligious standpoint, seven years ago in " Blackwood's 
 Edinburgh Magazine" ("Novels," September, 1867). 
 English novels, says the writer in question, "have for 
 a long time, from the days of Sir Walter Scott at 
 least, held a very high reputation in the world, not so 
 
 X 2
 
 308 A Theory about Sin. [x. 
 
 much perhaps for what critics would call the highest 
 development of art, as for a certain sanity, wholesome- 
 ness, and cleanness, unknown to other literature of the 
 same class." The writer describes the good effect of 
 this peculiarity, namely, that authors were placed on 
 their honour, and readers were made unsuspicious and 
 confiding. Our novels were, without disparagement, 
 family reading ; and our children could be amused 
 equally with their elders. 
 
 Of late years, however, an obvious change has passed 
 over our light literature. It is not that its power has 
 failed, nor that its popularity has diminished much 
 the opposite. It is because a new impulse has been 
 given to, a new course has been taken by, the flood 
 of modern story-telling. Whence came this new style, 
 it is needless to enquire : but society has accepted it, 
 and it thrives. Perhaps it began about the time of 
 the publication of " Jane Eyre " and " Shirley," by 
 Currer Bell. But since then it has developed with 
 intensity : and stories, the whole interest of which is 
 concerned with sin against the seventh command- 
 ment, and revelations of things that lie below the sur- 
 face of human life, are now mainly, if not solely 
 popular. Such tales, the writer holds, might flow here 
 and there from one morbid imagination, or from one 
 school of novelists, without casting a stigma on society.
 
 x.] Of the Deadly Sin of Lust. 300 
 
 But this is not the law of their appearance. Their 
 authors have almost monopolised the lower strata 
 of light literature ; and most of the more popular 
 works are, in the worst sense of the word, sensational. 
 Writers who possess no genius and little talent make 
 up for the lack of both, by displaying their acquaint- 
 ance, real or assumed, with the accessories and sur- 
 roundings of vice. They devote the little mental 
 power which they possess to an attempt to picture 
 what they assume to be the master passion ; to 
 describe the inmost, over-ruling and all-powerful 
 tendencies of the human heart tendencies which, 
 according to their own perverted imaginings, all point 
 in one unclean direction. 
 
 It is impossible to follow this writer into even the 
 few instances which he quotes. But to two facts he 
 gives prominence which are worth quoting : 
 
 First : It is a peculiarity of these vile novels, that 
 their authors are not of the sterner sex. On the con- 
 trary, their authors are generally women. It is to 
 women that the world is indebted for these revela- 
 tions of what even if true, and much more if false, 
 had better remain untold. Women describe those 
 sensuous raptures with which we are too familiar in 
 novels of this class. This fleshly and un-lovely record 
 is the pretended story of the feminine soul, whether
 
 3io A Theory about Sin. [x. 
 
 from the pen of man or woman, as it is said to 
 exist under conventional coverings. This keen appre- 
 ciation of flesh and blood, this eagerness in physical 
 sensations, is represented as the natural and common 
 sentiments of English girls and English women. Ic 
 is offered to them not only as a portrait of their 
 own state of mind, in which they may view them- 
 selves ; but also as the photograph of others, in which 
 they may find their daily amusement and mental 
 food. Such a phenomenon might indeed exist, and 
 yet society at large might be innocent. But 
 
 Secondly: Another fact has to be noticed, which 
 makes the case much more serious. The class repre- 
 sented does not disown the portrait. It does not 
 repudiate the likeness. On the contrary, it hang.s 
 up the picture in boudoir and drawing-room. The 
 books which contain these mental analyses circulate 
 everywhere, and are not even contradicted by the 
 silent token of neglect. The subjects of the slander 
 for J would believe it to be a Satanic slander 
 make no obvious show of objection or dissent. Nay, 
 they read unblushingly some of the worst specimens 
 of these infamous novels. They calmly discuss their 
 contents with neighbours of the other sex, at the 
 dinner table or afternoon party. They criticise them 
 with a frank impartiality and confidence, which one
 
 x.] Of the Deadly Sin of Lust. 311 
 
 can but charitably hope may be caused by guileless 
 ignorance or by innocence undefiled. 
 
 Since the substance of these words were written in 
 1867, the evil which they deplore has increased both 
 in degree and extent. To the two facts which the 
 critic in " Blackwood " notices, namely, I. that the 
 authors of these noxious books are chiefly women ; 
 and 2. that society as a whole does not repudiate 
 such estimates of itself, I will add a third from 
 personal observation, as indicative of the morality of 
 the age. It is this that the writers of these infamous 
 works are courted by the world ; that persons other- 
 wise blameless assent to such false hero-worship ; and 
 that the woman who, with considerable minuteness of 
 detail, describes the scenes and incidents of the lowest 
 class of immorality, and the life and pleasures of 
 licentious men and impure women, is considered a 
 seemly point of attraction in any common-place social 
 gathering. 
 
 " Why do you read such a scandalous book?" was 
 lately said to a lady. " How could I tell that it was 
 scandalous until I had read it ? " was the prompt 
 reply. There was some truth, there was much decep- 
 tion in this answer, in regard to a certain bad novel. 
 And it clearly points to a need. The censorship
 
 312 A Theory about Sin. [x. 
 
 of a venal press and there is a venality of popularity 
 as well as of money of a press which, as a rule, is 
 not more pure than the immoral fiction which it 
 patronises, cannot be trusted. Even the leading Church 
 newspaper, in the past year, patronised one of the 
 very worst specimens of the novels of the current 
 season, and commended its authoress. Hence, we 
 must become our own censors. We must establish 
 for novels our own private " Index Expurgatorius." 
 And this must be the law for ourselves never to 
 read the works of any author whom we know to have 
 been guilty in this way of the sin of impurity ; never, 
 unless assured beforehand that any given book con- 
 tains nothing that is harmful. Nor need this domestic 
 Index deprive us of that element of imaginative en- 
 joyment which is as certainly wholesome in its proper 
 place as it is natural. For a good novel is a great 
 intellectual treat. The novels, however, which are the 
 worst in impurity are, as a rule, the worst in style, 
 and the worst also in taste. Their manner is as bad 
 as their matter; and their grammar is as faulty as 
 their morals are lax. We shall gain by our loss in 
 exercising the self-restraint of not opening such bad 
 books as these. And there yet will be left for inno- 
 cent amusement and harmless recreation, the works of 
 many authors in the first rank of fiction whose books
 
 x.] Of the Deadly Sin of Lust. 3 1 3 
 
 may be read without moral defilement, and with in- 
 telligent interest in the possible operations of the hu- 
 man mind and the probable course of human action. 
 
 Here then we ma)'- find a method of avoiding one of 
 the seven incitements to impurity, to refer once more 
 to the old Spaniard, in the matter of vicious books. 
 We may abstain from reading them. And this self- 
 denial in reading will not of 'course begin and end 
 in the avoidance of bad novels. It will extend to all 
 literature of doubtful edification in relation to the 
 deadly sin of luxury. It will extend, especially, to the 
 newspaper reports of cases in that moral blot upon 
 English law, the godless divorce court, which, even 
 if it be needful for the public weal to make known, 
 it cannot be needful for private Catholics to defile 
 themselves with. 
 
 VII. 
 
 Thus may we, according to S. Thomas, in one way 
 and to a certain extent, chasten and chastise, even if 
 we do not eventually conquer, that form of inordinate 
 selfishness which we call sensuality, in the last of the 
 deadly sins. Thus may we, even by such elementary 
 and negative efforts, strive to lessen, according to 
 Drexelius, the allurements to incontinency, by exer- 
 cising its opposite, the virtue of chastity. We may
 
 3 14 <A Theory about Sin. [x. 
 
 diminish the temptations to luxury ; and by so doing 
 we may increase our spiritual attraction to pureness 
 and holiness of life. To recall once more the imagery 
 of S. Ambrose from the garden of our Good LORD, 
 we may severally cultivate one of the four develop- 
 ments of chastity towards which we are led, or by 
 which we are influenced : 
 
 1. The sombre hues of the foliage-plants of devout 
 penitence ; 
 
 2. The produce of the fertile harvests of the vines 
 and elms of holy matrimony ; 
 
 3. The comely flowers and mellow tints of honourable 
 widowhood ; and 
 
 4. The pure white lilies of spotless virginity. 
 Thus may each one, in the state of life to which 
 
 GOD has called him, seek after perfection by one of 
 the greatest of GOD'S gifts, purity purity of heart 
 and mind, purity of will and intention, purity in act 
 and deed. Thus may we purify ourselves even as 
 He is pure, in confidence of the assured result ; in 
 confidence, that even here the pure in heart shall 
 see GOD ; in confidence, that hereafter the pure in 
 deed shall enjoy the fulness of eternal bliss in the 
 Beatific Vision of the All-pure. 
 
 A. M. D. G.
 
 XL] Final Questions. 
 
 LECTURE ELEVEN. 
 
 FINAL QUESTIONS IN THE RELATIONS BETWEEN LOVE 
 AND SELF AND SIN: 
 
 TITLE OF THE SINS; INORDINACY ; DEADLY AND VENIAL SIN; 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 " There is a sin nnto deatJi . . . and there is a sin not 
 unto death." I S. JOHN, v. 16, 17. 
 
 I. 
 
 WITH the following pages, the present course 
 of Lenten Lectures on the seven deadly sins, 
 which has been extended beyond the usual limits, 
 will be concluded. 
 
 There are certain final questions in the mutual re- 
 lations between love and self and sin, which if explained 
 will tend to make more evident certain positions which 
 have been assumed, and to make less hard to be re- 
 ceived certain difficulties which have been either over- 
 looked or passed over. There are many of these to 
 which I would willingly invite your attention. The 
 time at our disposal will enable us to consider only
 
 316 A Theory about Sin. [xi. 
 
 three of them, at greater or lesser length, on the present 
 occasion. The last to be discussed is of absolute con- 
 sequence. The first is of little moment. The middle 
 question justly stands in a middle position. I will 
 mention them in the inverse order of importance, but 
 in the actual order of treatment. 
 
 I. The name or title under which the seven enemies 
 of our soul have been analysed or examined, ' capital ' 
 or ' deadly ' sins. 
 
 II. The employment of the adjective, 'inordinate,' 
 which has been joined to the term ' selfish ' in the 
 several definitions of each of the seven deadly or 
 capital sins. 
 
 III. The difference which exists between inordinate 
 and selfish sins, which may be justly termed deadly, 
 and those which, as a matter of fact, are only venial. 
 
 These three points, being more or less abstract in 
 themselves, require to be discussed more or less 
 argumentatively. Hence they will tax our patience 
 and demand our attention. I venture to hope not in 
 vain. 
 
 These three points having been treated, I shall con- 
 sider our theory about sin to be stated with the fulness 
 which circumstances permitted ; and our Lenten work 
 for the good of souls and the glory of GOD to be 
 complete.
 
 XL] Final Questions. 317 
 
 II, 
 
 I. The first point to which, in a few words, I desire 
 to lead your thoughts is one to which, perhaps, it would 
 have been better had they been led at the outset, rather 
 than at the close of the present course of lectures. I 
 mean the name or title of the sins which we have con- 
 sidered. They have been termed almost indifferently, 
 mortal or deadly sins, and capital or root sins. Of 
 these, on some grounds, the more fitting names for the 
 seven enemies of man are the latter, capital sins ; the 
 less fitting are the former, mortal sins. For, from these 
 seven issue as from either head or root all other sins to 
 which men are liable theoretically, or into which they 
 practically fall. They form the germ or basis from 
 whence spring up or branch forth all that breaks the 
 new commandment given by our Divine LORD, to love 
 one another ; all that violates the two-fold table of the 
 new law, the love of GOD and of our neighbour. Hence, 
 these developments of evil are conveniently and justly 
 termed capital or root sins. 
 
 It is also, of course, strictly correct to call these 
 seven sins, as the Church calls them, deadly. But they 
 are the less fitted to bear this title in popular language, 
 because it is sometimes found to mislead. To those 
 who have not been trained from childhood in the
 
 318 A Theory about Sin. [xi. 
 
 language of Catholic theology, the term ' deadly ' is apt 
 to prove confusing, and to produce doubts and scruples 
 in minds free from such temptations. Without enter- 
 ing here into the difficult question of the notes or marks 
 of deadly as distinct from venial sin, and thus anticipate 
 our last point : and without trenching on our second 
 point by an attempt to show under what conditions a 
 given sin may pass from one phase of evil to another, 
 the remembrance of three truths may prevent misappre- 
 hension in the use of the adjective 'deadly.' 
 
 1. A difference does exist between mortal and venial 
 sin, not as a matter of speculation, but as a matter of 
 fact ; not as a casuistical problem, but as a dogmatic 
 verity. Pagan moralists, Jewish writers, the Church 
 Anglican, Roman and Oriental, and Holy Scripture 
 concur in holding to the distinction. Moreover I will 
 add, our own common sense, intellectual power, and 
 Christian conscience teach the same truth, that all sin 
 is not deadly, that some forms of sin are venial. 
 
 2. As there are differences in kind between various 
 classes of sins, so are there differences of degree between 
 various forms of the same sin. A passing feeling of 
 nervous irritability is not of equal guilt with a deliberate 
 act of murder ; though both may be classified under the 
 head of the deadly sin of anger. A passing feeling of 
 covetousness, or desire for the possessions of another, is
 
 XL] Final Questions. 319 
 
 not equal in wickedness to a planned and executed 
 scheme for making such possessions one's own ; though 
 both may arise from the deadly sin of avarice. A 
 passing feeling of lassitude, or want of energy for any 
 given work, is not equally vicious with systematically 
 neglecting one's duty towards GOD or man ; though both 
 may be assigned to the deadly sin of sloth. And the 
 same law would apply to other sins which fall under the 
 headship of imperfect love, whether distorted or in excess. 
 It would apply even more definitely. For it may be 
 affirmed, that the passing thought, even if not im- 
 mediately disavowed and checked, is not of the like 
 gravity with the sentiment deliberately harboured, the 
 affection positively encouraged, or the thought con- 
 sciously allowed to develope into action. 
 
 3. Sins not deadly in their germ may become deadly 
 in their expansion. It may be difficult to trace the 
 growth of sin, or its development, or its change, or its 
 completion. It may be difficult to declare when and 
 how sins from occasional become habitual, and from 
 accidental become deliberate. It may be difficult 
 to decide when and how sins of infirmity become 
 sins of malice, or sins of ignorance become sins of pre- 
 sumption. But there is such a law of declension in 
 wickedness. It is well that we should acknowledge 
 the possibility of such declension, in order that we may
 
 320 A Theory about Sin. [XL 
 
 avoid it. It is well that our language should follow the 
 experience of our actions. But as it is true that we may 
 be angry and sin not ; that we may be covetous and 
 sin not ; that we may be slothful and sin not in each 
 case after a deadly manner : so, it is true that we may 
 fall into the faults indicated by these terms, and be 
 guilty of mortal sin. 
 
 It were needless to state these truths were it not that 
 they are denied, forgotten, or ignored by the indifferent, 
 by the scrupulous, or by the wicked respectively. And 
 it is for reasons which may be gathered from these 
 truths that, whilst we do not deny that capital sins are 
 or may become deadly, we hold it to be probably wiser, 
 and certainly not less safe, to call the seven sins witli 
 which we have dealt capital, rather than mortal sins. 
 
 111. 
 
 II. It will not have escaped your observation, my 
 Brethren, in each of the definitions which have been 
 offered of the seven deadly sins, that the word ' inor- 
 dinate ' finds a place. It is to this adjective ' inordinate,' 
 and to the feature ' inordinacy ' in the characteristics of 
 each of the seven capital affections of man's heart, that 
 I desire in the next place to lead your thoughts. 
 
 One of the phenomena of our mortal frame which 
 strikes all thoughtful persons, but which few thoughtful
 
 XL] Final Questions. 321 
 
 persons attempt to explain, is the capacity of our bodily 
 organs for suffering. That the organisation of our bodies 
 by a Creator perfectly Good and Almighty should be 
 made in the first instance capable of disorganisation, is 
 in itself a mystery to which none can find an adequate 
 solution. Observe ; this question is distinct from the 
 old and only not everlasting difficulty of the origin of 
 the mystery of evil in GOD'S world, though "it may be, 
 and possibly is, connected with it. But it is certainly a 
 difficulty to one who believes in an All-wise, All-loving 
 All-merciful, All-powerful First Cause, to realize that 
 our human frames are capable of, are subject to disease, 
 decay, death. It is, of course, arguable that such capa- 
 city even for deterioration is but one further proof of the 
 absolute perfection of our bodies. Whether or not this 
 theory be admitted, the difficulty is one which meets 
 us in the domains of physical science as well as on 
 the borders of theology, and forces itself 'on our notice 
 as a matter of everyday experience. It is a fact, think 
 of it, postulate it, explain it away as we will. 
 
 Now the laws of our physical nature frequently point 
 to laws in our moral nature, are suggestive of laws in 
 our spiritual nature. Difficulties in the order of grace 
 which faith declines to allow, are often parallel to, if 
 not identical with anomalies in the order of nature ; 
 
 Y
 
 322 A Theory about Sin. [XL 
 
 which experience cannot fail to accept. There is 
 strong similarity between the capacity of man's moral 
 and superhuman nature for sinfulness, and the capacity 
 of man's physical and earthly nature for disorganisation. 
 This resemblance is marked in more than a single point. 
 It often happens in the bodily frame, that disease is 
 caused by no external influence, but only by the tem- 
 porary or permanent imperfection of some given organ 
 in the natural life. It is at the least conceivable also, 
 that moral perfection may become impaired, not by the 
 agency of the external world, but by some inherent 
 defect in certain qualities or attributes, either temporary 
 or permanent, in the life above nature. And, speaking 
 without philosophical exactness, this is the idea which 
 underlies the use of the adjective 'inordinate' in the 
 definitions already given of the deadly sins. Sin, in 
 relation to the seven-fold form which it assumes, may 
 be treated as the product, not of any external agency, 
 but of certain inward affections disorganized, or of 
 a single affection inordinately exercised, in seven 
 different ways. 
 
 The whole theory about sin which it has been my 
 endeavour to elaborate is based upon this assumption. 
 We have seen that each of the deadly sins owes its 
 origin to the affection of love under various conditions
 
 XL] Final Questions. 323 
 
 of distortion, or deficiency, or excess. This is only to 
 state in other language, that love inordinately affected 
 in these three different, if not antagonistic directions 
 will result to restate the sins in their three-fold division 
 in pride, envy, or anger ; in sloth ; or in covetousness, 
 gluttony, or lust. 
 
 But, it must be further observed, that it requires this 
 feature of inordinacy, amongst other elements, to make 
 that actually sinful which otherwise has only a capacity 
 for sinning. It is not all distortion of love, it is not all 
 deficiency of love, it is not all excess of love, that is of 
 the nature of sin. It is only when such excess, such 
 deficiency, such distortion becomes inordinate that sin 
 ensues. Here it may be remarked how strong is the 
 likeness between sin against the law of morality and 
 sin against the law of faith, between ungodliness and 
 heresy ; and this likeness may help us to realize the 
 question before us. Moral wickedness, or sin consists, 
 for the most part, in the exaggeration, inversion, or 
 falling short of the contrary Christian virtue. Mental 
 sin or heresy consists, for the most part, in over press- 
 ing, or perverting, or understating the opposite Catholic 
 truth. In either case there is a general law which 
 underlies both. Divine truth forms the basis of most, if 
 not of all heresies. Natural instinct and power under- 
 
 Y 2
 
 324 A Theory about Sin. [xi. 
 
 lies the commission of most, if not of all the deadly 
 sins. But in both cases inordinacy, under different 
 forms respectively, alone is the test of guilt. 
 
 This law of the effect of inordinacy, is more easy 
 to trace in the case of some, than in the case of others, 
 of the deadly sins. Yet, may it be shown of envy, 
 sloth, and gluttony sins in each class very low in the 
 scale of evil that the natural affections or powers, 
 when they fall short of inordinacy, fall short also of 
 deadly sin. Take the sins one by one. 
 
 1. It is possible to conceive that envy may exist, 
 envy on behalf of another for gifts denied to that other 
 which are lavished on some third person ; or envy for 
 the reputation, work, or influence of some other which 
 may attach elsewhere in both cases for the glory of 
 GOD and the good of souls envy may exist without 
 mortal sin. " Enviest thou for my sake ? " said Moses to 
 Joshua, without declaring such envy to be sinful ; and 
 even whilst intimating that GOD'S glory would be en- 
 hanced if man had more cause for envy. Hence, it 
 would appear that so long as distorted love is not per- 
 verted to extremes; in other words, so long as envy 
 is not indulged inordinately, the affection itself cannot 
 necessarily be charged with the nature of sin. 
 
 2. Again: It is possible to conceive that the prin-
 
 XL] I"~inal Questions. 325 
 
 ciple of sloth might be beneficially exerted in tempera- 
 ments decidedly the opposite of slothful. A character 
 over energetic, rash, headstrong, impulsive, unreflecting, 
 might be improved by an element of that deficiency of 
 love which, when exaggerated, leads to sloth. And 
 here, so long as sloth be not carried to extremes ; in 
 other words, so long as inordinate sloth be not indulged, 
 the affection in itself does not necessarily partake of the 
 nature of sin. 
 
 3. Once more : It is possible to conceive even that 
 the principle of gluttony may be defended, when not 
 carried to extremes. Indeed, we cannot doubt that th 
 principle which is capable of exaggeration has its own 
 due and lawful position in our bodily economy, when 
 held in subordination to higher instincts. Otherwise, 
 the human race could not be preserved in its integrity 
 and perfection. Our Divine Master Himself felt the 
 pangs of hunger, and was pleased to satisfy them. And 
 here once more, so long as this form of excess of love, 
 for the lower good of created things is restrained 
 within bounds, so long as the principle of gluttony 
 is not encouraged inordinately, in the affection itself 
 there is no sin. 
 
 So might the remainder of the seven enemies of our 
 soul, under the influence of inordinacy, be reviewed,
 
 326 A Theory about Sin. [XL 
 
 and in each case be shown to lack the nature of sin 
 when kept under due control. 
 
 We can claim Apostolic injunction for a certain sort 
 of anger, when exercised under given conditions, and 
 coupled with specified cautions. When therefore these 
 cautions are observed, and when these conditions are 
 remembered, anger cannot have the nature of sin. 
 " Be ye angry and sin not : let not the sun go down 
 upon your wrath." Is it beyond probability that in- 
 ordinacy might violate these safeguards and make 
 that affection of distorted love sinful which before was 
 sinless ? 
 
 5. Again : We can point to Apostolic authority for a 
 certain sort of covetousness, exercised upon stated objects 
 and followed by given results a certain sort of cove- 
 tousness, therefore, which cannot be of the nature of 
 sin. " Covet earnestly the best gifts ; and yet show I 
 unto you a more excellent way." Is it beyond a ques- 
 tion that inordinacy might cause even the Apostle's 
 moral directions to become, in their effects upon love 
 in excess, sinful ? 
 
 6. Again : There is a certain feeling of self-respect 
 which, with a felicity of expression the world has well 
 described by a figure of speech as ' proper pride/ and 
 which, in the case of the first of the deadly sins, bears
 
 XL] Final Questions. 327 
 
 further evidence of the theory under examination, 
 namely, that there is a form of pride, unaffected 
 by inordinacy which is not unallied to godliness. 
 
 7. And the last of the capital sins is of so mys- 
 terious a nature and is so intimately connected with sin- 
 less human love, and even with perfect love divine, 
 that it is not impossible to conceive though here I 
 speak with the utmost caution something that falls 
 short of inordinacy in the affection which underlies 
 luxury, to fall short also of positive deadly sin. 
 
 Thus it appears, that the seven capital sins, having 
 their source and origin in an affection which is divine, 
 may under certain conditions be exercised apart from 
 guilt. It requires the element at least of exaggeration, 
 or as we have termed it, of inordinacy, to make that 
 sinful which is the product severally of distorted love, of 
 deficient love, and of love that is excessive. 
 
 IV. 
 
 III. The consideration of inordinacy as affecting 
 the issues of the capital sins naturally leads to a con- 
 sideration which in part has been anticipated in the 
 foregoing discussion. I allude to the question of the 
 relation and difference respectively between mortal and
 
 328 A Theory about Sin. [XL 
 
 venial sin. This is a question which, at the present day, 
 needs to be raised and needs to be answered. 
 
 It is a wide, almost boundless question. It is hard, 
 almost insoluble. But there are limits within which its 
 treatment may be confined. There are explanations 
 which serve to lessen the difficulty, however involved 
 may be the problem. 
 
 The relations which connect mortal and venial sin 
 and the differences which sever mortal and venial sin, 
 first of all, find their justification in the common consent 
 of a common humanity. Man's Christian common sense 
 tells him that, as a matter of fact, differences in guilt 
 exist between great sins and little sins. Man's Christian 
 common sense tells him that, as a matter of experience, 
 the relations between them are such that little sins 
 develope into great sins. It were needless to insist on 
 such elementary positions, were it not that they are 
 constantly denied in the interest of theological partisan- 
 ship. Yet, talk even to a theological partisan calmly, 
 as a friend and not as an opponent. Ask him if he 
 really thinks that the guilt of the loss of temper is equal 
 to that of the commission of murder ; and he will say : 
 " No." Talk to him reasonably, as a rational being. 
 Ask him if he really does not hold that the sin of 
 losing one's temper may eventually result in the sin of
 
 XL] Final Questions. 329 
 
 murder ; and he will say: "Yes." And if the partisan 
 thus make answer, in the negative and affirmative 
 respectively, he virtually abandons his theological 
 position, that there is no difference in guilt between 
 venial sin and mortal sin. He accepts the position, 
 that the former may lead to the latter. 
 
 The common consent of a common Christianity, then, 
 affirms that certain affinities connect mortal and venial 
 sins ; asserts that certain diversities separate them. 
 Evidence thus obtained is strengthened, so far as it 
 may be strengthened, by secular or semi-religious testi- 
 mony ; is confirmed and assured to us on the authority 
 of the Church and the declaration of Inspiration. For 
 instance: The devout and moral heathen of the pre- 
 Christian age, and the ancient Jewish Rabbi of the 
 pre-Christian Church, held to these positions, of course 
 in different language both from each other and from the 
 terms which we should employ. Both, however, speak 
 decidedly, to the extent to which they are severally 
 capable to bear witness. The Catholic Church, whether 
 East or West, in her catechisms and confessions, as 
 well as by the voice of orthodox divines, maintains the 
 like propositions. The Church of England, in her Six- 
 teenth Article, distinctly pledges herself to the dis- 
 tinction, by the employment of the theological term
 
 330 A Theory about Sin. [XL 
 
 ' deadly sin ' (peccatum mortale) in relation to bap- 
 tism. Nor is Holy Scripture silent on the matter; 
 though it is not my purpose to argue the question from 
 Inspiration, but only to indicate its teaching. 
 
 For instance : Our Blessed LORD, at the conclusion 
 of the Parable of the Unjust Steward, warned His 
 disciples that "he that is unjust in the least is unjust 
 also in much;" words which call to mind the saying 
 of the Wise Man : " He that contemneth small things 
 shall fall by little and little," and are, at the least sug- 
 gestive of the truth that venial sin may develope into 
 mortal. Again : That mortal and venial sin are not 
 identical is more than suggested by the words of our 
 Divine Master in His Sermon on the Mount, in which 
 He speaks, incidentally, of the differences between 
 various kinds of the sin of anger ; that of several kinds 
 of anger, one is in danger of the judgment, one is in 
 danger of the^council, and one is in danger of hell- 
 fire. And whilst S. Paul dogmatically affirms of 
 many heinous sins, that such as are guilty of them 
 shall not enter the Kingdom of GOD ; S. John de- 
 clares with equal definiteness, that though "all un- 
 righteousness is sin," yet "there is a sin which is not 
 unto death." 
 
 In view, therefore, as may now be said, of the common
 
 XL] Final Questions. 331 
 
 consent not only of Christendom but of mankind, of the 
 moral instinct of the heathen world, of the tradition of 
 the pre-Christian Church, and of the declarations both 
 positive and negative of our Blessed LORD and His 
 Apostles, was not the Church Catholic justified in 
 declaring that a difference exists between little sins 
 and great sins ? Was not the National Church of 
 England justified in the employment of the theological 
 term ' deadly sin ' in distinction to such sin after 
 baptism as may be termed ' venial ? ' Was not Chris- 
 tian common sense, and the spiritualized Christian in- 
 tellect and conscience justified in teaching that, under 
 certain conditions, venial sin may develope, and will 
 develope, into mortal sin ? In each case there was more 
 than justification. 
 
 Next : What meaning does the Church attach to the 
 words respectively, 'venial' and 'mortal' sin? To answer 
 this question at once in theological and popular terms 
 requires attention and care. Of course, in the first 
 place, sin itself is divided into original sin and actual 
 sin. In speaking of the difference between mortal and 
 venial sin, we have to deal only with sin tha.t is actual, 
 the act of a man, in its two-fold form, I, of com- 
 mission (in thought, word, or deed), or 2. of omission. 
 Actual sin has been defined by S. Thomas to be " an
 
 332 A Theory about Sin. [XT. 
 
 act deviating from what is ordered for the end of man, 
 contrary to the rule of nature, of reason, or of eternal 
 law." Now there are two ways in which such devia- 
 tion, or such opposition, may take place. It may take 
 place, firstly, as an act of aversion from the Creator. 
 It may take place, secondly, as an act of conversion 
 towards the creature. In both cases what theologians 
 call ' loss ' loss ensues to the soul of man. In the first 
 case, a stain is left upon the soul ; and the loss can only 
 be repaired by a fresh infusion of the grace of GOD : 
 and to such sin is given the name of 'deadly.' In the 
 second case, though loss has ensued, no stain has been 
 left upon the soul ; the loss may be repaired by an 
 act of Divine grace which it has not destroyed : to such 
 sin is given the name of 'venial.' 
 
 Into the question of the punishment due in either 
 case, we need not enter further than to say, that it is 
 proportioned to both kinds of sin. Of deadly sin, as an 
 act of aversion from the Infinite and Eternal, itself bear- 
 ing the same characteristics, the punishment due must 
 be eternal and infinite. Of venial sin, as an act of con- 
 version towards the creature, towards the temporal and 
 finite, itself bearing the same characteristics, the punish- 
 ment due is finite and temporal. But of the effect of 
 sin after baptism: i. We must hold generally to the
 
 XL] Final Questions. 333 
 
 above definition, that in the act of deviation or op- 
 position consists abstractedly the guilt of sin. 2. We 
 must hold in particular, that in the act of aversion from 
 the Creator consists the guilt of deadly sin ; and in the 
 act of conversion towards the creature consists the guilt 
 of venial sin. Such is the theological distinction be- 
 tween venial sin and deadly sin : and rather than use 
 my own words, to mark the distinction, I have quoted 
 the substance of a definition given in an " Explanation 
 of the XXXIX Articles " by one whose name will com- 
 mand respect, Bishop Forbes, of Brechin. 
 
 But it may prove helpful if an attempt be made 
 to give a somewhat more popular definition of these 
 two terms. By venial sin, in the language of a simple 
 catechism, the Church would have us to understand 
 that sin which does not kill the soul, yet is displeasing 
 to GOD. It does not positively deprive us of grace, 
 but it weakens grace within the soul ; and though it 
 is more easily pardoned than mortal sin, and does not 
 need the sacrament of confession for its cleansing, yet 
 its commission predisposes us to the commission of 
 deadly sin. On the other hand, by deadly sin the 
 Church would have us to understand that sin which 
 does kill the soul, and is deserving of eternal punish- 
 ment. It does deprive us of supernatural life, which is
 
 334 A Theory about Sin. [xi. 
 
 the grace of GOD ; and if committed after baptism, it 
 does need for its cleansing the sacrament of confession. 
 Without presuming to limit the power of GOD'S pardon 
 for sin, or to confine His mercy to His own appointed 
 means of bestowing it, we, Christian priests, can but 
 simply affirm however unpalatable be the assertion 
 that the only covenanted way of obtaining forgiveness 
 of deadly sin in GOD'S Church, after baptism, is through 
 the sacrament of confession. The only covenanted way : 
 and it may be added, that the only sin which the faith- 
 ful are bound to confess is that which is deadly. 
 
 The difference between mortal and venial sin may be 
 illustrated by a comparison with physical ailments from 
 which the body suffers. Grace and nature, here as else- 
 where, appear under similar conditions. The theological 
 difference may be compared with the natural difference 
 which exists between diseases that are chronic and 
 diseases that are organic using both terms in their 
 popular meaning. Chronic disease need not involve 
 organic decay ; does not necessarily end in death ; 
 though if neglected it may attack the source of phy- 
 sical life. Not otherwise is it with venial sin. Venial 
 sin need not involve the actual loss of grace ; does not 
 necessarily end in the death of the soul ; though if 
 encouraged, it certainly will lead to the deprivation
 
 XL] Final Questions. 335 
 
 of the supernatural life. In both cases, physical and 
 spiritual, those who are careful of health are careful 
 also to avoid that which tends towards the injury of 
 health. A complete state of bodily health is prevented 
 by the presence of the symptoms of chronic disease. 
 Perfect purity of soul and absolute holiness of life 
 are compromised by the infection even of venial sin. 
 
 Lectures which treat of the seven capital or root 
 sins are avowedly concerned more with deadly than 
 with venial sin. In the foregoing lectures there has 
 been occasion to observe from time to time, or the truth 
 was apparent without observation, of certain acts of 
 sin, that though such sin theoretically falls under the 
 headship of one of the deadly seven, yet, that the 
 act practically does not necessarily involve the com- 
 mission of mortal sin, or indeed the commission at all 
 of sin. Hence it is well, before the conclusion of the 
 present course, to endeavour to obtain a standard 
 sufficiently exact to satisfy theoretic principles, and 
 sufficiently elastic for practical purposes, to enable us 
 to decide when we may fall into the one sort of sin, 
 and when we may fall into the other. I approach 
 the subject, however, with hesitation, for two reasons. 
 It is almost impossible to offer a standard which may
 
 336 A Theory about Sin. [xi. 
 
 be at once comprehensive, and yet not vague. It is 
 altogether* impossible to offer examples which may 
 enable us to use the standard as a guide in daily life. 
 There is the consequent danger of confusing persons 
 with words when they are anxious about actions, and 
 desirous to learn what degree of guilt may attach to 
 any given sin. But the danger is inseparable from 
 treating the capital sins from this place : and it is miti- 
 gated by the fact, that we have access to ' discreet and 
 learned ' priests, equally competent and willing to resolve 
 cases of conscience brought before them. The difficulty, 
 however, I would essay to meet thus : 
 
 Mortal sin, as it has been said, is that form of sin 
 in which the soul of man is averted or turned from 
 its Eternal, its Uncreated, its Incommunicable Good, 
 which is GOD, by an act of deviation from or opposition 
 to His law. This act, as a result, kills the soul; and 
 as a punishment, it. deserves eternal and infinite pain 
 and loss. It produces this evil result in time, because 
 the commission of deadly sin in a Christian, observe 
 my Brethren, deprives him of the grace of GOD, which 
 is the life of his soul. It deserves this dire fate in 
 eternity, because the commission of deadly sin in a 
 Christian, again observe, partakes of the character and 
 attributes of Him against Whom it is committed.
 
 XL] Final Questions. 337 
 
 Moreover the commission of deadly sin by a Christian 
 is more absolute in its effect and more fearful in its 
 punishment because in such a one it " crucifies afresh 
 the SON of GOD, and puts Him to an open shame ; " it 
 "treads under foot the SON of GOD, and counts the 
 Blood of the Covenant an unholy thing." 
 
 If this be accepted as a definition of deadly sin, 
 and if such be its result and its fate, under .what 
 conditions, it may be asked, does committed wicked- 
 ness become deadly sin ? What is the standard at 
 which venial sin rises in heinousness of guilt to the 
 level of deadly sin ? The answer to this question is 
 two-fold: i. Theologically speaking; the sin which, in 
 an act of deviation from or opposition to the will of 
 GOD, began by being a conversion only towards the 
 creature and ends in aversion from the Creator; 
 which began by GOD'S grace being obscured and ends 
 by GOD'S grace being withdrawn is a deadly sin. 
 2. Practically speaking ; that sin is a deadly sin which 
 is done under the joint influence of two distinct con- 
 ditions : first, that the sin be a serious or grievous 
 offence in the sight of GOD ; and secondly, that the 
 sin be done with perfect consent and sufficient know- 
 ledge. Both conditions are required in combination 
 to constitute deadly sin. If either are wanting in the 
 
 z
 
 338 A Theory about Sin. [xi. 
 
 commission, the sin does not fall under the stigma of 
 mortal sin : it is a venial offence only. For example : 
 If the sin be serious, and yet done without full con- 
 sent ; or if the sin done with full knowledge be not 
 serious ; in either case, the sin is venial only, it is not 
 mortal. But, to repeat the definition combined with 
 the conditions, every serious sin which is committed 
 with sufficient knowledge and perfect consent is a 
 deadly sin before GOD. It is a sin which by an act 
 of deviation from and opposition to the Divine Will, 
 places the soul of man in a posture of aversion from 
 its Eternal, and Uncreated, and Incommunicable Good. 
 It is a sin which not only obscures the grace of GOD, 
 in the soul, but causes it to be withdrawn. It is a 
 sin which kills the soul in this life, and deserves eter- 
 nal punishment. in the next. It is a deadly sin. 
 
 I do not purpose to enter further into this difficult 
 question, than to recur for a brief space to the ele- 
 mentary example mentioned at the outset. I in- 
 stanced the case of the capital sin of anger, and 
 suggested that even a reasonable theological oppon- 
 ent, who in theory demurred to a difference between 
 deadly and venial sin, would not affirm that the guilt 
 of a sin of temper was of equal heinousness with the
 
 XL] Final Questions. 339 
 
 guilt of the sin of murder ; would not deny that the 
 venial sin of temper might eventually develope into 
 the mortal sin of murder. And this case furnishes a 
 suitably clear example of the standard above stated. 
 A mere sin of temper cannot be termed a serious or 
 grievous offence against GOD, even if committed with 
 perfect consent and sufficient knowledge. Much less if 
 committed without consent or without knowledge can 
 it be termed grievous or serious. It is therefore fitly 
 named venial. But the sin of murder could hardly be 
 termed otherwise than a serious or grievous offence 
 against GOD, even if committed without perfect consent 
 and full knowledge : whilst if committed with consent 
 and with knowledge, it still more deserves the title 
 of grievous or serious. It is justly named deadly. 
 
 Again : If we turn from practical conditions to a 
 theoretic definition, we shall probably perceive, in 
 view of our estimate of the capital sin of anger, that 
 though the sin of temper may be described as an act of 
 deviation from or opposition to the will of GOD, it is 
 rather an act of conversion towards the creature than of 
 aversion from the Creator. As such it only obscures 
 grace ; it does not cause grace to be withdrawn ; and 
 hence, only deserves finite and temporal punishment. 
 It may be forgiven by an act of grace the opposite of 
 
 Z 2
 
 34-O A Theory about Sin. [XT. 
 
 the sin, by one which falls short of a formal act of 
 confession of sin to a priest. It is simply a venial 
 offence. But in view of the same estimate of the 
 capital sin of anger, the guilt of the sin of murder must 
 be declared to consist in an aversion of the soul of man 
 from GOD, being as it undoubtedly is a deviation and 
 opposition between the human will and the Will Divine. 
 As an act which places the soul in antagonism to its 
 Eternal, Uncreated and Incommunicable Good, it causes 
 the death of the soul by the withdrawal of grace in this 
 life ; and it deserves as a punishment in the next life 
 eternal pain and loss. Such sin after baptism cannot be 
 forgiven, in the covenanted scheme of salvation, with- 
 out and apart from an act of confession of sin to a priest. 
 It is worse than a venial offence. It is deadly sin. 
 
 These considerations, also, indirectly point to the 
 truth not directly treated, that venial sin may lead, 
 and if encouraged will lead, to sin that is deadly. 
 
 V. 
 
 It has been needful, from the form which the pre- 
 ceding lectures have taken, to dwell on man's sin 
 almost to the exclusion of GOD'S love for man ; to 
 dwell on man's sin entirely apart from man's peni- 
 tence awd GOD'S absolution. Almost to the exclusion
 
 XL] Final Questions. 341. 
 
 of GOD'S love, I say for ever and again we have 
 had cause to remember that love is the antidote of 
 self. Entirely apart from man's penitence for contri- 
 tion, confession of sin, and amendment of life, have 
 not formed the subject-matter of our thoughts. At the 
 end of this course of lectures I venture to adhere to 
 the opinion expressed at the outset. I believe the 
 principle to be sound on which they were projected, 
 on which they have been developed. And though 
 I neither say, nor think, that our time during 
 Lent might not have been more profitably employed, 
 yet, I am convinced that any loss of time which may 
 have ensued is due to the manner and not to the mat- 
 ter of the lectures, to myself and not to my subject. 
 
 It is meet and right that, under certain conditions 
 of time and place, we should endeavour to obtain a 
 comprehensive view of sin, of sin as it exists theo- 
 logically, of sin as it presents itself to us practically. 
 To obtain this view is no easy task, even with suitable 
 means at command. But it is worth while to make 
 the effort, in regard to the benefit which attends any 
 measure of success, and even a certain amount of 
 failure. As a savage is surprised when he sees him- 
 self for the first time reflected in a looking-glass ; as 
 one of ourselves may be unconscious of our own per-
 
 342 A Theory about Sin. [xi. 
 
 sonal appearance, when photographed from a point of 
 sight which we cannot otherwise, or do not otherwise, 
 obtain so, I think, it is with sin. The truer, keener, 
 more definite, more exact be the representation ; the 
 less usual the aspect which may be transferred to paper, 
 of a sinner under the influence of any one of the deadly 
 sins the more forcibly will the picture come home to 
 the observer, with a view to its conquest. And it 
 matters not whether the spectator be a sinner who, by 
 GOD'S grace, possesses the capacity of a saint ; or one 
 who has not fallen into the depicted sin, but yet may 
 become sinful. Hence, of set purpose, I have sought to 
 reproduce the sinner rather than to indicate the saint, 
 rather,, even, than to describe the penitent. 
 
 The plan adopted, I admit, devotionally is the lower 
 plan. It is also the least attractive to the preacher, 
 though it may not be the least useful to the hearer. 
 It might have been more suitable for the priest to 
 dwell on the covenanted means of counteracting sin 
 by love \ to urge the irresistible power of all-prevailing 
 love over the only not unconquerable force of sin. But 
 there are different modes of compassing the same end. 
 The minister of GOD is bound to " reprove and rebuke," 
 as well as privileged to " exhort with all love-suffering," 
 And as a physician of souls, I have endeavoured, how-
 
 XL] Final Questions. 343 
 
 ever inadequately, to probe the wound and to discover 
 the symptoms, as a preliminary operation to pouring in 
 the oil of sympathy and the wine of discipline. This 
 last treatment for sin-sick souls it is both the duty and 
 privilege of a confessor to administer. To the former 
 end, as a preacher, I have devoted the time placed at 
 our disposal for these Lenten lectures. 
 
 I now conclude. If the analysis of the seven deadly 
 sins has taught some persons certain truths in the inner 
 working of their souls, which before they knew not ; if it 
 has made others more familiar with certain features of 
 sin in the soul, of which before they were only partially 
 conscious ; if it has solved some difficulties in regard 
 to daily temptations and trials, though it has left many 
 unexplained ; if, finally, it has indirectly offered some 
 suggestions for the conquest of sin in the facts of daily 
 life, though many could not be given then, a theory 
 about sin which underlies the analysis, namely, that 
 human selfishness is the source and origin of the deadly 
 sins, will not have been stated in vain. 
 
 A. M. D. G. 
 
 THE END.
 
 I ONUON : 
 
 K CLAV, SON.>, AND TAYLOR, PRINTEKS, 
 BREAD STREET HILL.
 
 SELECTION OF WORKS EDITED BY THE 
 REV. ORBY SHIPLEY, M.A. 
 
 RITUAL OF THE ALTAR : The Office of Holy Communion^ -with 
 Rubrical Directions, Private Prayers, and Ritual Music. Price $s. 
 
 GLOSSARY OF ECCLESIASTICAL TERMS. Price i8j. 
 
 ASCETIC LIBRARY : I. Mysteries of Calvary, Price 3*. 6</.; 2. 
 Preparation for Death ; 3. Holiness of Life ; 4. Examination of Con- 
 science. Price 5.?. each. 
 
 HYMNS AND VERSES : I. Lyra Eucharistica ; 2. Lyra Messianica; 
 3. Lyra Mystica. Price los. 6d. the set. 
 
 MANUALS OF DEVOTION FOR HOLY COMMUNION : i. 
 Divine Liturgy [for Sacramental Reception] ; 2. Daily Sacrifice [for 
 Spiritual Communion]. For daily use. Price is. each.
 
 SELECTION OF WORKS EDITED BY THE 
 REV. ORDY SHIPLEY, M.A. 
 
 SPIRITUAL READING : I. Meditations for a Month and the 
 Seasons ; 2. Avrillon's Readings on the Holy Spirit, and Meditations 
 on the Holy Communion ; 3. Bourdaloue's Spiritual Exercises for a 
 Retreat ; 4. Luis ol Granada's Considerations on the Four Last 
 Things. Price from is. to 2s. 6d. each. 
 
 THE LITURGIES OF 1549 [1st Book of Edward VI. ] AND 1662 
 [our own Office] : Printed in Parallel pages. Price is. 6J. 
 
 SIX SHORT SERMONS ON SIN : Lent Lectures. Price is. 
 
 SECULAR JUDGMENTS IN SPIRITUAL MATTERS. Price u. 
 
 In preparation. 
 
 ALTAR WORSHIP : A Manual of Holy Communion for Worship 
 without Reception. From Greek, Latin, and English sources.
 
 BY THE SAME EDITOR. 
 
 STUDIES IN MODERN PROBLEMS. 
 
 In Two Volumes, Price $s. each. 
 
 FIRST SERIES. 
 SACRAMENTAL CONFESSION. By A. H. WARD, B.A. 
 
 ABOLITION OF THE XXXIX. ARTICLES. Part I. Their Zwinglian 
 igin. By NICHOLAS POCOCK, M.A. 
 
 THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE. By J. W. LEA, B.A., F.G.S. 
 
 CREATION AND MODERN SCIENCE. By GEORGE GREEN- 
 WOOD, M.A. 
 
 RETREATS FOR PERSONS LIVING IN THE WORLD. By 
 T. T. CARTER, M.A. 
 
 CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT. By E. L. BLENKINSOPP, M.A. 
 
 THE BISHOPS ON CONFESSION IN THE CHURCH OF 
 ENGLAND. By ORBY SHIPLEY, M.A.
 
 BY THE SAME EDITOR. 
 
 STUDIES IN MODERN PROBLEMS. 
 
 In Two Volumes, Price $s. each. 
 
 SECOND SERIES. 
 
 SOME PRINCIPLES OF CHRISTIAN CEREMONIAL. By J. E. 
 FIELD, M.A. 
 
 A LAYMAN'S VIEW OF CONFESSION OF SIN TO A PRIEST. 
 Part I. Scriptural and Ancient Authorities. ByJ. D. CHAMBERS, M.A. 
 
 RESERVATION OF THE BLESSED SACRAMENT. By H. 
 HUMBLE, M.A. 
 
 MISSIONS AND PREACHING ORDERS. By J. E. VAUX, M.A. 
 
 A LAYMAN'S VIEW OF CONFESSION OF SIN TO A PRIEST. 
 Part II. Anglican and Modern Practice. By J. D CHAMBERS, M.A- 
 
 ABOLITION OF THE XXXIX. ARTICLES. Part II. Their Cal- 
 vinistic Adoption. By NICHOLAS PocoCK, M.A. 
 
 THE FIRST LITURGY OF EDWARD VI. AND OUR OWN 
 OFFICE. By ORBY SHIPLEY, M.A.
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 Return this material to the library 
 
 from which it was borrowed. 
 
 ; 2