every particular with equal freedom: but I wish my readers clearly
to understand the condition in which we were placed, and the means used
to reduce us to what we had to submit to. Not only were we required to
perform the several tasks imposed upon us at work, prayers, and
penances, under the idea that we were performing solemn duties to our
Maker, but every thing else which was required of us, we were constantly
told, was something indispensable in his sight. The priests, we admitted
were the servants of God, specially appointed by his authority, to teach
us our duty, to absolve us from sin, and to lead us to heaven. Without
their assistance, we had allowed we could never enjoy the favour of God;
unless they administered the sacraments to us, we could not enjoy
everlasting happiness. Having consented to acknowledge all this, we had
no other objection to urge against admitting any other demand that might
be made for or by them. If we thought an act ever so criminal, the
Superior would tell us that the priests acted under the direct sanction
of God, and _could not sin_. Of course, then, it could not be wrong
to comply with any of their requests, because they could not demand any
thing but what was right. On the contrary, to refuse to do any thing
they asked, would necessarily be sinful. Such doctrines admitted, and
such practices performed, it will not seem wonderful when I mention that
we often felt something of their preposterous character.

Sometimes we took a pleasure in ridiculing some of the favourite themes
of our teachers; and I recollect one subject particularly, which at one
period afforded us repeated merriment. It may seem irreverent in me to
give the account, but I do it to show how things of a solemn nature were
sometimes treated in the Convent, by women bearing the title of saints.
A Canadian Novice, who spoke very broken English, one day remarked that
she was performing some duty "for the God." This peculiar expression had
something ridiculous to the ears of some of us; and it was soon repeated