{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_60705/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_60705","id":"gutenberg_60705","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/60705","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Religious thought -- 19th century"],"text":"[Transcriber's note: This production is based on\nhttps://archive.org/details/meditationsmoral00guiz/page/n3]\n\n{1}\n\n    Meditations And Moral Sketches.\n\n\n          _By M. Guizot._\n\n\n\n       Translated From The French By\n\n      John, Marquis Of Ormonde, K. P.\n\n\n\n  \"M. Guizot has recently collected his essays on religion,\n  philosophy, and education into a single volume, under the title\n  of 'Meditations and Moral Studies.' This work, which at present\n  is scarcely known in England, deserves particular\n  attention.\"--_Quarterly Review_, No. 187,\n\n\n\n                Dublin:\n\n  Hodges And Smith, 104, Grafton Street.\n\n                 1855.\n\n\n{2}\n\n               Dublin:\n\n        Printed By R. D. Webb,\n\n          Gt. Brunswick-St.\n\n\n{3}\n\n          _Translator's Preface._\n\n\n\nThe three following Essays, although written some time back,\nappear to bear so strongly on a question daily and hourly\ndiscussed among ourselves, that I make but one apology for\npresenting them in an English form, which is to the illustrious\nauthor, whose sentiments (notwithstanding all the attention I\nhave given to the task) I cannot but fear I may yet have failed\nin representing.\n\n{4}\n\nThe Translation contained in the following pages originated in\nthe simple desire to facilitate the access to sentiments deemed\nbeneficial.\n\nHe who undertook this pleasing and benevolent task, has been\nremoved from this earthly scene. Let it be hoped that this solemn\ntruth may add interest to his labours for others, and that his\nearnest wishes for their benefit may be in some measure realized.\n\n{5}\n\n               Preface.\n\n\nWhen I collected these moral sketches, which were written at\ndifferent times and under varying circumstances, I did not think\nthat I needed to add anything to them. A recent event, however,\nhas determined me, in now publishing them, to say a few words\nmore.\n\nHaving been called upon on the 30th of last April to take the\nchair at a meeting of the Protestant Bible Society, I expressed\nmyself in these terms:--\n\n   What is after all, speaking religiously, the great question,\n   the most important question which at present occupies the\n   minds of men? It is the question in debate between those who\n   acknowledge and those who deny a supernatural, certain, and\n   sovereign order of things, although inscrutable to human\n   reason. The question in dispute, to call things by their right\n   names, between supernaturalism and naturalism. On the one\n   side, unbelievers, pantheists, pure rationalists, and sceptics\n   of all kinds. On the other, Christians.\n\n  \"Amongst the first, the best still allow to the statue of the\n  Deity, if I may make use of such an expression, a place in the\n  world and in the human soul; but to the statue only,--an image,\n  a marble. God himself is no longer there. Christians alone\n  possess the living God.\n\n{6}\n\n  \"It is the living God whom we need! Our present and future\n  safety requires that faith in supernatural order, that respect\n  for and submission to supernatural order should again pervade\n  the world and the human soul,--the greatest minds as well as\n  the simplest, the most elevated classes as well as the most\n  humble. The truly efficacious and regenerating influence of\n  religious belief depends on this condition. Without it, all is\n  superficial, almost worthless.\n\n  \"We may, at this day, with safety strive to re-animate and\n  propagate the Christian faith; for liberty--religious and civil\n  liberty--is abroad to prevent faith begetting tyranny and\n  oppression of the conscience--another sort of impiety. The\n  friends of liberty of conscience may fearlessly return to the\n  God of the Christian; there are no longer, nor will there ever\n  henceforth be, captives or slaves around his altars. Let, then,\n  Christian faith and piety return; they will bring back in their\n  train neither injustice nor violence. Doubtless, much care must\n  be taken and many contests sustained, in order that religious\n  liberty may be preserved unharmed in the midst of growing\n  religious fervour; but this beautiful harmony will be attained,\n  and will do honour to our time. Between Christians of different\n  communions there may exist henceforth but those struggles of\n  free faith and piety, which alone are permitted by the law of\n  God, and are alone worthy of His attention.\"\n\n{7}\n\nThese words have been remarked upon, and either approved of or\nobjected to, in very different senses, by philosophers and by\nChristians.\n\nOn the day after they had been uttered, Mr. Louis Veuillot said\nin _l'Univers_,--\"Monsieur Guizot made a speech which we\nhave read with a sentiment of respect and sympathy, mingled with\nsome grief. It would be impossible for us to do otherwise than\nhighly honour the man who makes, even _a-propos_ of a\nmovement which we do not approve and which is far from being\ngood, so noble a profession of Christian faith. It would be\nimpossible for us not to regret deeply that so great and generous\na spirit, one so well formed to comprehend unity, and so\nnaturally disposed to submit himself to it, not only does not\nperceive that he is out of place amidst the separated members of\nthe mother church, but even takes the lead in a movement which\nhas been and still is opposed strongly to the doctrine of that\nchurch. What is Christianity? It is authority. What is\nProtestantism? It is free inquiry; and the Protestant Bible\nSociety is the practice of free inquiry driven to its last and\nindefinite limit.\"\n\nOn the same day M. Charles Gourand said in _l'Ordre_--\n\"Monsieur Guizot's speech breathes at once the spirit of faith in\nrevelation and love of religious liberty. But he must conform his\npractice to his precepts.\n{8}\nIf it is thought that there exists no serious difference between\na rationalist, however thoroughly convinced and honest he may be,\nwhether called Plato, Descartes, or Leibnitz, and an atheist; if\nit is thought that apart from the teaching of the church all\nreligious belief is superficial and nearly vain; then there is no\nroom for hesitation, it is within the pale of the true church, of\nthat great Catholic Church, which from St. Paul to De Maistre,\nhas bent under the same discipline so many haughty spirits and\ngreat minds, that an asylum and pardon are to be sought. For if\nit be allowable to insinuate that atheism is logical rationalism,\nit is still more so to say that Protestantism is but inconsistent\nrationalism. In fact, either private judgment has the sway in\nmatters of faith; and has it entirely, for who can flatter\nhimself that he can take a part in free enquiry and say to it,\n'Thus far shalt thou go, and no further!' or else it is authority\nwhich bears rule. But neither can she, any more than private\njudgment, do so by halves; she must have all or nothing. A\ncompromise between the two systems is chimerical; _fusion_\nis still more hopeless, if possible, in religious than in\npolitical systems.\"\n\nI shall not discuss the matter; I shall lay aside every personal\nquestion, every controverted point, every argument. Controversy\nopens the abyss which it pretends to fill, for it adds the\nobstinacy of self-love to differences of opinion. To overcome\nobjections raised by honourable and sincere men gives me but\nlittle pleasure. I have a higher desire. I aspire to unite myself\nwith them in the truth. Two ideas fill my mind, and predominate\non this subject. I wish to set them forth in pure and bright\nlight. If I succeed, if I can transfuse them into other minds,\nthey will do their own work, and render unnecessary the\ncontroversy from which I abstain.\n\n{9}\n\nIt would not be worth while to live if we gathered from a long\nlife, no other fruit than a little experience and prudence in the\naffairs of this world, against the moment of leaving it. The\nprospect of human affairs, and the inward trials of the soul,\nafford brighter gleams, which spread themselves over the\nmysteries of nature and the destiny of man, and of this universe\nin the midst of which man is placed. I have received from\npractical life, deeper insight into these formidable questions,\nthan meditation and science have ever given me.\n\nThe first and most important is this. The world and mankind do\nnot explain themselves naturally and simply by themselves, by the\nsole virtue of the fixed laws which preside over them, or of the\npassing determinations which display themselves. Neither nature\nand her power, nor man and his acts, suffice to explain the\nprospect which human intellect contemplates or catches a glimpse\nof.\n\nThen, as nature and man are insufficient to explain themselves,\nit follows that they are equally so to govern themselves. The\ngovernment of the universe and of the human race differs from\nthat aggregate of natural laws and facts which human reason\nobserves there, as much as from the accidental laws and facts\nwhich human liberty introduces.\n\nThat is to say, that beyond the natural and human order which\nfalls under our notice, is the supernatural and superhuman order\nwhich God directs and developes beyond the reach of our\nresearches.\n\n{10}\n\nAnd when man ceases to believe this to be the case, ceases to\nbelieve in this supernatural order, and to live under the\ninfluence of this belief, then disorder intrudes among men and\nsocieties of men, and there commits ravages which would\ninfallibly lead to their destruction, did not the wise goodness\nof God restrain them in their faults, and render them incapable\nof absolutely withdrawing themselves from the empire of truth,\nmuch as they may misunderstand it.\n\nThat the religious question is now fairly raised between those\nwho, more or less explicitly and from a variety of motives, do\nnot admit this supernatural order of things, that is, the greater\nnumber of philosophers whatever their denomination; and those who\nreally admit it, that is, all Christians; is what no serious mind\ncan deny.\n\nDo I mean then to put on a level and confound all who disallow\nsupernatural order, whether unbelievers or sceptics, atheists or\nrationalists?\n\nGod forbid I should imagine, far less express, anything so\nabsurdly and heinously wicked! I know the happy inconsistencies\nof the mind of man, and the clouds which, to the eyes of the most\nlearned, cover the paths they are treading.\n{11}\nSurely, between the impious man who denies God, and the\nrationalist who is satisfied that, without going further than\nnature leads, and taking for granted I know not what\ntransformation, he has found and established a God,--the interval\nis immense; immense, doubtless, in the eye of divine justice, as\nwell as of human equity. And such is our levity and intellectual\ndepravity, that in this vast space eminent minds and ingenuous\nhearts may, and, alas! probably always will be met, at every step\nbetween gross materialism and pure deism. The variety and forms\nof error are infinite and infinitely varied; and man, when\nfalling into it, makes infinite efforts to retain some fragments\nof truth; and God permits him to succeed or honestly persuade\nhimself he has done so, which will one day prove his excuse or\nelse be to him a plank of safety.\n\nI admit all distinctions, all inequalities, all sincerity. I only\naffirm two things; one, that all the philosophic schools of our\nday, different as may be their systems and merits, have this in\ncommon, that they deny this supernatural order, and strive to\nexplain and govern man and the world without its aid; the other,\nthat where faith in this order does not exist, the bases of moral\nand social order are deeply and increasingly shaken, man having\nceased to live in presence of the only power which really\nsurpasses him, and which is able at once to satisfy and direct\nhim.\n\nNatural order is the field open to man's knowledge. Supernatural\norder is so in degree to his faith and hope; but knowledge does\nnot penetrate it. In the order of nature man exercises a share of\naction and power; in supernatural order he has but to submit. It\nhas been said in the spirit of conciliation and peace, \"Religion\nand Philosophy are sisters who should mutually respect and\nprotect each other.\"\n{12}\nThe words bear the stamp of the chim\u00e6ras of human pride.\nPhilosophy springs from man; it is the work of his mind. Religion\ncomes from God; man receives it, and often alters it after\nreception, but he does not create it. Religion and philosophy are\nnot sisters. They are daughters, the one of \"Our Father which is\nin Heaven,\" the other of mere human genius. And their condition\nin this world is no more equal than their origin. Authority is\nthe apanage of religion; liberty is that of philosophy.\n\nI now approach the second of the dominant ideas, more than ever\nessential to true order, and which I wish to bring prominently\nforward.\n\n\"Christianity,\" says M. Veuillot, \"is authority.\" It is true;\nChristianity is authority, but it is not authority only; it is\nthe entire man, all his nature and all his destiny. Now, moral\nobedience is the nature and destiny of man; that is, obedience in\na state of liberty. God created man to obey His laws; he created\nhim free that he might morally obey. Liberty, like authority, is\nof divine institution; the work of man is revolt and tyranny.\n\nIn the social state, authority and liberty need protection, and\nboth have a right to it. There is need of control, both for the\ngovernors and the governed, for both are men. Hence political\nlaws and institutions which now sustain, now limit power; that\nis, which decide on what conditions and by what means authority\nis to be exercised and liberty secured.\n\n{13}\n\nWhat is the measure of authority necessary for Government, what\nthe extent of liberty possible in human society? What are the\nmeans of action, what the pledges to be given alike to authority\nand religion? Matters depending on circumstances, variable\naccording to the times, the social condition, the manners, races,\nand different degrees of civilization amongst nations. It belongs\nto the politician to solve these questions.\n\nWhen Christianity appeared in the world, appeal was first made to\nliberty, the moral liberty of man. This was necessary, as it came\nto abolish ancient creeds which were protected by the established\npowers. In this struggle, not only did growing Christianity never\nattack or question the existing authorities, but it formally\nacknowledged their rights, and while respecting them herself\nordered others to respect them also. But at the same time, as\nregards the relations of men towards God, she appealed to the\nfree consciences of men, and affirmed in principle the same\nliberty which she practised. \"We must obey God rather than man,\"\nsaid St. Peter. \"Try the spirits whether they be of God,\" said\nSt. John. \"I speak as to wise men, judge ye what I say,\" said St.\nPaul.\n\nAt the creation God prescribed obedience to men under penalty of\ndeath; in the day of regeneration God set man's liberty in motion\nto begin the work of salvation.\n\n{14}\n\nThere is no partiality with God, no void in his designs; when he\nacts upon man he takes human nature as a whole; our inclinations,\nour wants, our interests, our various rights are all before his\neyes. He at the same time provides for and satisfies all;\nauthority as well as liberty, liberty as well as authority. It is\na dangerous mistake to misapprehend this complete and harmonious\ncharacter of the divine work, and to mutilate it by seeking\nweapons in it for our human dissensions. Christ came to save\nmankind, not to give a party triumph. Christianity began by\ninvoking liberty and giving her action. She then overcame, and\nset forth her authority. She then accommodated herself to the\nvarious forms and degrees of authority and liberty which the\ncourse of events brought out here and there in the world.\nAssociated with the destinies and deeds of the human race,\nChristianity has suffered for our mistakes and faults, and has\nbeen often altered and compromised by the waywardness of human\nliberty and authority. But by her origin and essence she is\nbeyond the reach of their struggles, inexhaustible in her virtue\nto heal contradictory evils, and always ready to afford help on\nthe side where danger threatens or redress is needed.\n\nIn the actual state of society and disposition, it is authority,\nand with authority order, which are in danger: Christianity owes\nthem all her support. I know of no greater falsehood or more\ngross perversion than that of the men who in this day strive to\nturn the Christian religion to the promotion of that brutal and\nfoolish anarchy which they denominate social democracy. The\ngospel and history are equally repugnant to this absurd\nprofanation.\n{15}\nThe cause of civil authority and of the Christian religion is\nclearly common. Divine order and human order, the State and the\nChurch, have common dangers and common enemies. May God grant\nthem common wisdom; for while at the same time each separately\nand both in concert must re-establish authority in her position\nand rights, they must also solve another and newer problem, and\nsatisfy other and pressing wants.\n\nI have nothing to say to those men who think that for many ages\nsociety in Europe, and especially in France, governments as well\nas the minds of men, have pursued a totally wrong road, and that\nthere is nothing in the prevailing character and tendency of our\nactual civilisation but error, corruption and decay. I understand\nthat, thinking thus, they deem retrograde reaction necessary as\nwell as legitimate, and venture upon it accordingly. As regards\nsuch, I can but express my profound conviction; that they will\nhave no success. Even were they right, they would have no\nsuccess. If they were right, modern society would be condemned to\nperish; we should make progress in decay; but we should not\nreturn to what is past. But they are not right. No one is more\nconvinced than I am of the immense mistakes and fatal errors of\nour day. No one more fears and abhors the influence which the\nrevolutionary spirit exercises among us, and the danger with\nwhich that threatens us; a human Satan, at once sceptical and\nfanatical, anarchical and tyrannical, eager to deny and to\ndestroy, incapable alike of creating aught that can live or of\nallowing aught to be created and exist under its eye.\n{16}\nI am one of those who think it absolutely necessary to overcome\nthis fatal spirit, and to replace in honor and power the spirit\nof order and faith, which is the spirit of life and safety. But I\ndo not believe that this revolutionary spirit preponderates in\nmodern minds. I do not believe that our civilization has been for\nages mere mistake and corruption. I do not believe in the\nirremediable evil, or inevitable decay of my time and of my\ncountry.\n\nThe characteristic, the most important part of modern\ncivilisation is the prodigious increase of the ambition and power\nof man. Recall what has taken place in past ages and that which\nnow goes on, the long series and vast mass of human toil and\nsuccess of all kinds in all places, the many secrets laid bare by\nscience, the many monuments raised by genius, the riches created\nby industry, the progress of justice, the ease introduced into\nthe condition of the lowly as well as the great, the weak as well\nas the strong; man marching as a master over the whole space of\nthe earth which he inhabits, and gauging with an accurate eye the\nworlds which he cannot reach; the mind spreading her discoveries\nand ideas through every recess of human society; matter in its\nevery form subjected and made subservient to man's use; this\nexpansive and ascendant ardour which circulates in the whole\nsocial body; this activity universal, incessant, and unceasingly\nfruitful, which puts every thing in motion, and works for the\ngeneral good. Never has man advanced so rapidly to the conquest\nand dominion of the world; never in his capacity and with the\npowers of man has he exercised such a rule over nature and\nsociety.\n\n{17}\n\nI know how much there is here of evil and danger, of intoxication\nand miscalculation; these, however, are not the symptoms of\ndecline, they are those of greatness and futurity. It is with\nthis great fact, this enormous increase of the power and ambition\nof humanity, that Church and State, Christian and civil\ngovernment have to deal henceforth. When, with the help of God\nand outward circumstances, they shall have brought man back to\nrespect those eternal laws which he has so foolishly\nmisconstrued; when they shall have again placed bounds to his\npower, and subdued the vanity of his pride, man will still remain\npowerful and haughty, conscious of his strength and full of\ndesire for the rights which have excited his ambition. Where\nthere is strength, by natural harmony and in a certain measure,\npower and liberty follow. What hereafter will be that measure?\nWhat share of influence will man, each individual man, exercise\non his own and the public destiny? That is the problem; it may be\nsolved, it cannot be eluded. The spirit of liberty has entered\nsociety in the train of the labours and progress of humanity; it\nmay be kept in its proper sphere, it cannot be expelled.\n\n{18}\n\nEverywhere civil governments are aware of this, and act\naccordingly. I see the deepest injustice prevailing towards the\ngovernments of our day. It is false that they are indifferent to\nthe welfare and progress of nations. It is false that they only\nlook to stability and tyranny. They may doubtless feel personal\npassions, old errors; but whatever their form, they are all, from\nmotives of prudence or duty, seriously impressed with the\nnecessity of respecting the rights and ameliorating the condition\nof men. And those most opposed to liberal appearances make every\nday, in their laws and practice, a multitude of changes\nfavourable to justice and liberty.\n\nI say, too, that European governments, amidst the storms of the\nlast sixty years, have conducted themselves, taking all into\naccount, with great moderation. Their dignity incessantly\ninsulted, their existence attacked, they have not given way,\neither during the struggle or after the victory, to those\nexcesses of passion or power with which the history of the world\nhas been so long filled. They may be shewn to have been neither\nforeseeing nor able in their methods, whether of resistance or\nconcession to the new-born spirit; but it is unjust to set them\ndown as its intractable adversaries. In the formidable strife of\nour day between governments and revolutions, history will surely\nnot impute to the former the most insolent contempt of justice\nand liberty. And if the spirit of revolution were as moderate in\nits pretensions and acts, as governments have shown themselves\ndisposed to be towards the spirit of progress, the great problem\nof the conciliation of order and liberty, in civil society, would\nbe near its solution.\n\n{19}\n\nThe government of religious society, or to speak with greater\naccuracy and freedom, the Catholic Church, has an analogous\nproblem to solve; the more important because if the state of the\nminds of men is closely watched, it is seen that it is in the\nreligious order that the idea of liberty is strongest and most\ndeeply rooted. The right of conscience before God appears and is,\nin fact, very superior to that of conscience before men. If there\nbe, in the life of the soul, one portion in which the\nintervention of force is more than elsewhere unrighteous and\nodious, it is clearly when the relation of the soul with her\nCreator and Judge is in question, and when the question for her\nis of eternity and salvation. Here, moreover, is a feeling which\nwe have all experienced, a principle to which we have all paid\nhomage. Christians or philosophers, Catholics or Protestants, we\nhave all had and still have, even amidst the most civilized\nnations, need to invoke in our turn religious liberty, as that\nwhich, of all the cries for liberty, most surely arouses in the\nheart the idea of a sacred right and necessity, that which\nexcites the most lively susceptibility and most general sympathy.\n\nI feel a profound respect for the Catholic Church. She has been\nduring centuries the Christian Church of all Europe. She is the\ngreat Christian Church of France. I look upon her dignity, her\nliberty, her moral authority, as essential to the fate of entire\nChristianity; and did I believe that the Catholic church could\nnot, without self-abjuration, accept in the State the principle\nof religious liberty, I should be silent; for above all things I\ndetest hypocrisy and subtlety. _But it is not so_.\n\n{20}\n\nLet the Catholic Church maintain fully her fundamental\nprinciples, her permanent inspiration, her doctrinal\ninfallibility, her unity. Let her by her laws and internal\ndiscipline interdict to her faithful followers all that may tend\nto the injury of these; it is her right as well as her faith. But\nlet her at the same time fully admit, not of the separation of\nthe Church and State, that clumsy expedient which lowers and\nweakens both under the pretext of freeing both, but of the\nseparation of spiritual and temporal order, of the civil and\nreligious state, and acknowledge the illegality of all forcible\ninterference in spiritual order, albeit in the cause of truth.\nLet her thus accept religious liberty as a law, not of religious\nsociety, but of policy, as a right not of the Christian, but of\nthe citizen. At once will the pretended incompatibility between\nmodern society and the Catholic Church disappear. The problem of\npeace between civil and religious society will be solved.\n\nThe Catholic Church can pursue this course; for all that\nreligiously constitutes it, all her spiritual order thus remains\nintact and independent: and if she so pursues it; if, while she\nfirmly upholds her principles and rights as a religious society,\nshe accepts loyally the principles of our political order and the\nreligious liberty which forms a part of it; not only will she lay\nthe foundation of peace between herself and civil society, but\nshe will assure to herself great strength and a great future.\n{21}\nChristianity has many conquests to make and to repeat. For the\nre-establishment of social order and the moral welfare of the\nsoul, she must regain much ground. Nor is it known how rapidly\nobstacles and resistance would disappear before her, if the dread\nof her old intolerance were dispelled, and respect for religious\nliberty on the part of the Catholic Church herself considered as\nassured.\n\nI would go still further, and submit to Christians another\nconsideration.\n\nThere is amongst Christians of whatever church a common faith.\nThey believe in a divine revelation contained in the gospels, and\nin Jesus Christ who came upon earth to save the world.\n\nFor Christians of whatever church there is now a common cause.\nThey have to maintain Christian faith and law against impiety and\nanarchy.\n\nThis faith and this necessity, common to all Christians, are of\ninfinitely greater moment than all the differences which separate\nthem.\n\nDo I say that they ought at all hazards to set aside those\ndifferences, and in the name of their common faith and common\ndanger undergo fusion,--to use an expression of the day,--and\nform hereafter but one and the same church?\n\n{22}\n\nI do not dream of it. The re-establishment of unity in the bosom\nof Christianity by the re-union of all Christian churches, has\nbeen the desire and the endeavour of the greatest minds, both\nCatholic and Protestant. Bossuet and Leibnitz have attempted it.\nEven now the idea is present to many noble spirits, and pious\nbishops have so expressed it to me, with a confidence by which I\nfeel profoundly honoured. I respect the sympathetic wish, but I\ndo not believe that it can be realised. Between temporal order\nand human interests, fusion, difficult as it may be, is always\npossible; for interests may be made to agree through the force\nand in the name of necessity. In spiritual order and between\nreligious beliefs, no such agreement is possible, for necessity\ncan never become truth. Faith does not admit of fusion; she\ninsists on unity.\n\nBut where the unity of the church does not exist, when the fusion\nof different churches is impossible, and when religious liberty\nis established, there is room for practical good sense and\nChristian charity. Good sense tells Christians that they are all\nin front of the same enemy, much more dangerous to them than they\ncan be to each other; for should he triumph, the blow will fall\non each. Amongst the upper classes, the war against religion\nmanifests itself only under the forms of reserved scepticism or\nrationalism; timid, often serious and polite, rather seeking to\nscreen than display itself. But at the bottom of society, and\namidst the masses, it is passionate impiety which is at work, and\nfor the sake of victory becomes subservient to the most gross and\nfurious interests. The Christian faith, in its essential and\nvital character, that is, faith and submission to supernatural\nChristian order, is alone capable of sustaining the contest.\n{23}\nLet Christians, whether Catholic or Protestant, be convinced of\nit, the loss of credit and authority on either side would redound\nto the advantage not of Protestantism or Catholicism, but of\nimpiety. It is then for all Christians, whatever their\ndifferences in their Christian sphere, an obvious interest and\nimperative duty to accept and maintain each other as natural\nallies against anti-christian impiety. It will require all their\nstrength, all their united efforts, to triumph finally in this\nwarfare, and save at once Christianity and society.\n\nWhat interest dictates to Christians, Christian charity commands.\nI use without hesitation plain words to express the ideas and\nsentiments which I feel, and even amidst the coldness of heart\nwhich is one of the most melancholy evils of my day, I feel no\nembarrassment in speaking to Christians of Christian charity.\n\nWhen religious struggles are the ruling passion and great\npractical business of an epoch,--when different creeds are\narrayed, wielding temporal as well as spiritual arms, with the\nmutual hope of subjecting if not of extirpating,--I feel that\nChristian charity is difficult to exercise. The temptations are\ntoo strong, the interests too pressing to be surmounted. The\nChancellor De L'Hopital and the President De Thou, though\nrecommending peace to Catholics and Protestants, would hardly\nhave dreamt, on the eve or the morrow of a massacre or a battle,\nof speaking to them of charity.\n\n{24}\n\nBut when material strife has ceased, when religious liberty is\nestablished in manners as well as in the laws, when in fact and\ntruth the different religious creeds are obliged to live\npeaceably one with another, why should not the desire arise of\nadorning and furthering peace by the exercise of charity? When\nthe coarser passions are powerless, why should not the more mild\nand equitable feelings develope themselves? I know the force of\ntraditions, of recollections, as well as the permanent\ndifferences which tend to support controversy, even when purely\nspeculative. Nevertheless, prolonged peace and freedom have much\ninfluence in calming the soul. At this day we have before us a\nsignal instance, and I do not hesitate to repeat that to which I\ngave utterance in the Bible Society:--\"See what is passing in\nEngland; there, doubtless, the irritation of the Protestants is\ngreat, there is a general and passionate movement in favour of a\npopular and powerful faith. The government itself associates with\nand follows this movement. English Protestantism shows itself\nstrongly inclined to seek security and satisfaction at the\nexpense of the religious liberty of the Catholics. Well! although\nmatters wear this appearance, nothing is really done; they dare\nnot; they cannot; and in the bottom of their hearts they desire\nnot to do so. Amidst this Protestant excitement, the religious\nliberty of English Catholics still remains and extends. They have\nliberty of worship; their churches are open, nay, increasing in\nnumber; their priests perform their duties without interruption:\nthey possess the liberty of the press; they publicly defend their\ncreed and their conduct, and have freedom of speech and power of\nvoting in parliament, where they strenuously uphold their cause.\"\n{25}\nA noble sight, which, after having justly filled the friends of\nreligious liberty with uneasiness, ought now to give them every\nsatisfaction. The spirit of persecution had reappeared, that of\njustice and liberty met it face to face, and in spite of\nappearances remained master of the field. May Christians,\nCatholic and Protestant, at last acknowledge it; it will be\nhereafter more natural than they imagine, to live in the exercise\nof Christian charity, for they have lost the habit, almost the\npower of efficacious oppression.\n\nA few words more, and I have done. Under a well grounded and well\nunderstood system of religious freedom, not only can different\nreligious sects live peacefully and harmoniously together, but\ncan contribute, by their pacific co-existence, to their mutual\nreligious prosperity. What has been for Catholicism in France one\nof the most glorious and pious periods? Surely, the seventeenth\ncentury. French Catholicism then flourished in the presence of\nProtestantism, which was still tolerated, and Jansenism, then in\nfull vigour. What has prevented the Anglican church from falling\ninto that apathy which has appeared more than once ready to\novercome her? What but the neighbourhood of opposing and half\nfree sects, who have always kept her in play, and forced her to\novercome her langour? There is no establishment, no power, that\nis not benefited by a sense of control, and by the necessity of\nmaking an effort to maintain its position.\n{26}\nIt is good to overcome, not to exterminate an enemy; and in\nspiritual as in temporal orders, the reign of liberty bestows on\nall their just rewards. While it preserves their rights to the\nweak, it incessantly regenerates the victorious.\n\nDoubtless, Catholicism leans on the principle of authority; but\nwithout detaching itself from this base, it can admit, and in the\ncourse of its career has often admitted, very different degrees\nof liberty. From the eleventh to the fourteenth century, while\nthe Catholic church was for civil society a great school of\nauthority, she was in her own bosom a great theatre of freedom.\nFor in her councils, her congregations, her correspondence with\nthe faithful, discussion between her chiefs was ever open and\nanimated. It is not for me to ask whether our times advise or\nwarrant a return to such methods of government; and I am rather\ndisposed to hesitate than undertake the task. But one great fact\nstrikes me; one which deserves, if I mistake not, the entire\nattention of the Catholic clergy: it is that the disposition of\nthe mind and heart of the faithful who are under their charge is\nnot always the same, and neither the same measure nor the same\nquality of religious nutriment is requisite at all times, if I\nmay so speak, for Christian souls. After the fall of the Roman\nempire, when the mission of the Catholic clergy was to convert\nthe barbarians, and to cause a little moral light to penetrate\namongst the rude conquerors, and the miserable population who\nlived under their yoke, it was above all by the firm and striking\nexercise of religious authority that the priests were enabled to\nattain their end.\n{27}\nThey found amongst the Christian population, high and low, many\npassions to repress, and but few intellectual wants to satisfy.\nThere was greater need to strike and to govern the imagination\nthan to nourish and direct mental activity. Time and individuals\nare now different. Minds are now active, varied, curious, eager.\nThe spiritual life of faithful Christians, of the most faithful\nas well as the most wavering, is infinitely more animated than it\nwas formerly. Souls so disposed require a moral rule\nproportionably animated; one which, while it guides, may give to\ntheir innate activity a greater share of satisfaction. I am\nexpressing a profound conviction,--one, I will venture to say,\nfree from any reservation or ill-will,--when I say that\nhenceforth the Catholic church, without any sacrifice of\nauthority, will be obliged, for the government of the soul, to\nadmit of more intellectual and spontaneous movement on the part\nof the faithful than was required in other times. Yet I am\nconvinced that when once the Catholic church shall herself have\nacknowledged this new moral state of Christian society, she will\nalso know how to provide for it.\n\n{28}\n\nIn a recent publication, [Footnote 1] a justly eminent stranger,\nM. Donoso Cortes, speaking of me in terms which I cannot allow\nmyself to repeat, said, \"The great mistake into which M. Guizot\nhas fallen, in his 'History of European Civilization,' is the\nhaving attempted the impossible task of explaining visible things\nby visible things, natural things by natural things; which is as\nsuperfluous as to explain a fact by itself, a thing by the thing\nitself; because all visible and natural things, considered as\nvisible and natural, are one and the same thing.\"\n\n    [Footnote 1: Essai sur le Catholicisme, le Liberalisme, et le\n    Socialisme, par M. Donoso Cortes, Marquis de Valdegamas, p.\n    99-105.]\n\nM. Donoso Cortes will be convinced, I hope, that such is not my\nidea; and that, far from resting satisfied with visible and\nnatural things, I believe in supernatural order, and in its\nnecessity to explain and govern the world. Philosophers, I think,\nwill on their side acknowledge that if I reject their doctrine, I\ndo not abandon their right. I do not say this with the view of\nseeking the frivolous honour of maintaining at the same time two\ngreat causes, but to affirm a double truth to which I yield my\nentire conviction and devotion, Christian faith and religious\nfreedom. The welfare of all nations demands these as its price.\n\n    Guizot.\n\n    Val Richer, September, 1851.\n\n\n{29}\n\n                Essay I.\n\n      On The State Of Men's Souls.\n\n{30}\n\n{31}\n\n\n      On The State Of Men's Souls.\n        (_October_, 1838.)\n\n\nThe sublimity of the gospel consists in two sentiments, which\nmanifest themselves in it simultaneously,--hatred of evil, and\ntenderness for man who does evil; horror of sin, to speak as the\ngospel speaks, and love of the sinner.\n\nHow profound a depth of judgment as well as of moral justice! How\nadmirable a knowledge of things as well as of men! For evil is\ntruly hateful both in itself and in its effects; and men, the\nbest of men, are surcharged with evil. Yet, at the same time, man\nis infinitely capable of good, infinitely worthy of affection;\nand with all his imperfections, a being to be loved beyond\nexpression.\n\nHow great, too, the knowledge displayed of the true conditions of\nmoral authority! It is not acquaintance with the nature of man,\nbut power over him, that the Gospel seeks. Yet to influence men\nmorally, it is needful both to love and reform them; to win their\nconfidence by love and their respect by severity.\n{32}\nSeverity and love are the two engines wherewith to control the\nheart of man, for men know by instinct their moral wants--those\nwhich press them down as well as those which please them. They\nare deeply troubled by the sense of their imperfections; they\nwish to be raised. Love felt and inspired is at once their\nnoblest and their most lively joy; they desire to love and be\nbeloved. Complete control over them, I mean moral control,\ninvolves these two conditions,--that much be required from them\nof virtue, much be bestowed on them of love.\n\nThe last century had thus much good; it loved mankind and men. It\nbore a really deep affection to them, and wished them well. But\nas it was a critical and reasoning age, the sentiment of love\noften disguised itself in the dress and shape of controversy and\nanalysis. Nevertheless, the feeling was there, sincere and\npowerful. That spirit of universal justice and humanity which\ncharacterized the epoch, whence did it spring if not from a\nlively sympathy with man, and a tender interest in his welfare?\n\nBut, together with this virtue, the last century certainly\nexhibited one great defect; it did not feel for evil the aversion\nit deserves. Not only as regarded certain rules of conduct and\ncertain duties, but as concerned a rule in general and the very\nprinciple of duty, the spirits of the day were victims to doubt,\nthat great corrupter of the human heart. In the moral system,\nstability and elevation go together; to waver is to descend;\nuncertainty is the sign and the cause of abasement. Not knowing\nwhere the evil existed, or even if it did exist, the eighteenth\ncentury denied or excused it when met with, instead of execrating\nand opposing it to the utmost.\n\n{33}\n\nAnd with the fixed points the long perspectives disappeared. By\nan admirable law of his nature, in order that man may hope he\nmust believe, and believe in good. Virtue alone demands an\neternity. Doubting about duty, they doubted their own future.\nMoral faith tottered; God veiled his countenance.\n\nIn such a state of mind, in an age which loved man and interested\nitself about him, man must have been an object of pity. What a\ndestiny was that of a creature thus powerful yet faltering;\nalways in motion, yet not knowing where to fix his foot firmly in\nthis world, or where to fix his gaze beyond it! To aspire so\nhigh, in order to fall low and pass away so quickly! Such\nambition without a worthy object! Such labour without any sure\nresults! What father, if he thought his child were reserved for\nsuch a lot, but would feel overwhelmed by compassion and grief?\n\nBut no! at the same time that the last century loved men it\nadmired them; and I can understand this. God and duty being\nabandoned, what remains of great and good if it be not man?\nImperfect as is human nature, a mixture of good and evil, good is\nfound there; the power of good makes itself felt. All that it\npossesses of what is elevated, rich, tender, or attractive, does\nnot necessarily vanish because the mind misunderstands its source\nand government.\n{34}\nAnd if it should happen, as it then did, that these great mental\nerrors should occur in the midst of a period of great\nintellectual developement, of a great outflowing of sympathetic\nand noble sentiments, of a great march in the condition of\nmankind; if, at the moment when man rises highest and shines with\nmost brilliancy, he loses sight of his compass, his God, how can\nhe do otherwise than admire himself? how avoid a feeling of\npride? He has no longer faith or hope on high, yet he advances,\nprospers, becomes rich, triumphs. He must believe; he must hope\nin himself; he must worship himself. Does religion fall? Then\nidolatry must arise, the idolatry of man for man. Man was the god\nof the eighteenth century, the object of worship as well as of\nlove. Thence a great and deplorable leaning to human nature, to\nits weaknesses and inclinations. It was loved, but with a blind\nand weak love, which could only approve, caress, and promise,\nhaving nothing to advise, nothing to require.\n\nThence an immoderate thirst, in the name of and for man, of\nimmediate worldly and palpable happiness. Loving man truly, and\nhaving nothing to offer him in this world superior to this\nworld's happiness, nothing better or eternal beyond, it was\nnecessary that men should be happy, that all should be happy here\nbelow; as here below their destiny and their treasure were\ncontained.\n{35}\nTo accept the imperfect condition of humanity may be the part of\nselfishness which cares for nothing, and of faith which hopes for\neverything; but he who loves men, and yet can only dispose in\ntheir favour the blessings of this life and this world, cannot\nresign himself to a lot for the most part so rude, to progress so\nslow and always so incomplete. He is compelled to find much more\nto bestow on men, to distribute something, and at once, to all.\nAnd as spirits imbued with so noble a longing do not dream of the\nimpossibility of satisfying it, they are compelled to assign to\nthe sufferings and hardships of the human state an accidental and\nfactitious cause, one which human wisdom and power can overcome.\nHence the other maxim of the last century, that, left to\nthemselves and their natural equilibrium, men and things go on\nwell; that evil proceeds not from our innate nature and state,\nbut merely from the ill regulated state of society, where the few\nhave substituted their will and interest for the wills and\ninterests of the many; that it is society and not men that need\nreformation, as the latter would not need it had not society\ncorrupted him.\n\nA maxim which has given rise, and naturally, to the sorest and\nmost plausible of modern grievances, that incurable impatience of\nwhatever is, that boundless disquiet, that insatiable thirst for\nchange in the pursuit of a social condition which shall give at\nlast to man, to every man, all the happiness to which he aspires.\n\n{36}\n\nThis is the state in which the eighteenth century has placed\nmen's souls. And I here speak of upright, honest, and sincere\nminds, not carried away by selfishness, not domineered over by\nevil passions, which think of others, and only wish for\nthemselves as well as for those others what they consider\nlegitimate.\n\nThe great mistakes and ills of any epoch are those of the good.\nThese must be looked to and provided against, for there lies the\nhidden danger. Who can struggle against ill if the good are\nthemselves infected with it?\n\nI have seen the last of the master spirits of the eighteenth\ncentury--those who had remained faithful to it. I have seen them\nemerging from our revolution after their fearful experience of\nit. The condition of their minds was a touching and instructive\nspectacle. They were sorrowful, but not discouraged; full of\nesteem and affection for mankind; full of confidence and hope\ndespite so many mistakes and reverses. The same fertility of wit,\nthe same generosity of heart, the same spirit of justice and\nprogress animated them. They accounted for their momentary\nfailure by the violence of passion, the force of old habits, the\nwant of public intelligence, the too hasty application of good\nprinciples carried to too great a length. And while their\nexplanation bore witness to their sincerity and perseverance,\nstill there was visible and perceptible in them at every step a\npersistance in the same mistakes; the same absence of moral dogma\nand religious faith; the same idolatry of man, the same\ntenderness towards him, the same pretensions for him. They had\nlost nothing of their noble ambition or tender sympathy for human\nnature, but they had learned nothing of its inward laws nor of\nthe true methods for its government.\n\n{37}\n\nThus a secret feeling of disquiet was apparent through the\nconstancy of their ideas and of their hope; and they remained\nmelancholy after their explanation, as if hardly satisfied with\nit themselves.\n\nWe are far in advance of our fathers. \"I was carried here by a\ncannon shot,\" said Danton to M. de Talleyrand, who saw him at the\nMinistere de la Justice. The same shot has carried us all a\nhundred leagues from our cradle. We have learnt much. We have\nseen novel appearances under a new light. The intelligence and\npower of man; his reason, his morality, his power of action, and\nresistance to direction and restraint in the affairs of the\nworld; all has been put to the proof, gauged, and measured. We\nknow how deeply seated and closely hidden is the evil in our\nnature, yet how readily and terribly it occasionally breaks out.\nWe know the bounds both of our spirit and of our will. We have\nbeen powerful, immensely powerful; and yet we have been unable to\naccomplish our will because it was in opposition to the laws of\neternal wisdom, and our power was shivered against them like\nglass. At this price, we have acquired a more accurate and\nprofound knowledge of ourselves and our condition. We no longer\nput ourselves off with desires or arguments, appearances or\nhopes. We see that which is. We live more than our fathers did in\nthe truth. We are wiser and more modest.\n\n{38}\n\nBut our wisdom has one grave defect. It is still, if I may so\nspeak, but an outward good, which influences our life and\nconduct, but has not yet penetrated our soul and become for us a\nmoral property, a moral wealth. It redounds to the honour and\ngreatness of man that he is not content with what _is_,\nmerely because it is. The mere fact does not suffice; he wishes\nto see more. For the fact he would discover an end, a reason. He\nwishes to attach it to the laws of his own inward nature, his own\ndestiny; to feel it in relation to and harmony with his soul.\nThen only in man's eyes does a fact assume a moral aspect and\nacquire a moral power; then only does man accept it and obey it\nwith respect as truth, instead of yielding and submitting to it\nwith pain as a necessity. Moreover, we do not yet understand all\nthe lessons of experience which we have received and recognized.\nThey have not yet assumed in our moral being the rank which\nbelongs to them. They are for us unimpeachable facts rather than\ngreat and good laws; and mistakes rather than progress. They\ndirect more than they have enlightened us, and if we conform our\nactions and thoughts to them, it is because we are subdued rather\nthan convinced.\n\nWere it not so, why this dejection, this secret disgust, this\nindifference, this bluntness, this chill which now so often\naccompany wisdom and sound sense? You say you are discouraged,\nyou do not hope, you do not dare any more to attempt aught that\nis difficult and great. What then has happened?\n{39}\nWhat has this experience, at the same time so much vaunted and so\nmournful, taught you? That duty, not interest or passion, is the\nprinciple of morality; that God has not ceased to watch over the\nworld; that he resists the proud and punishes the guilty; that\norder has her natural and inviolable laws, and avenges herself on\nthose who mistake them; that evil, always present, always at our\ndoor, in us and about us, needs to be incessantly resisted. Of\nwhat do you complain? These are advances, not mistakes; truths\nreconquered, power recovered, not hopes thrown away. It is true,\nman was carried away by an ambition beyond his strength and\nright; it must be brought down, his reason and his will must\nagree to restore what they attempted to usurp. Instead of setting\nup and adoring himself as a monarch, man here must acknowledge\nhis primitive imperfection, his definite insufficiency, and yield\nsubmission in thought and life on the bosom of liberty. But is it\nnothing that this liberty is now more firmly established than man\nhas ever known it? Is the general progress of justice and\nhappiness in the world nothing? Is there not therein a fitting\nreward for the toils and sufferings of our age? Is there not,\nafter so many mistakes, enough to satisfy the most exacting, to\nrefresh the most exhausted?\n\nLet us look higher. In return for the sacrifices required from\nour pride, in compensation for the demonstrated weakness of our\nnature and the marked bounds of our power, has nothing been given\nto us?\n{40}\nDo we not regain more than we lose? Do we not ascend more than we\nhave been forced to descend? The eighteenth century had inflated\nus with pride, yet had in reality only lowered us. In making us\nmonarchs of this world, it had at the same time confined and\nreduced us to it alone. No more immensity, no more eternity for\nthe soul; no longer a bond of kindred between God and man. We\ncame and passed over the earth like all that springs from and\nreturns to it. Our noblest ambition, our purest desires, our most\nsublime flights, all that there is in us of noble and truly\ndivine, was no more than a delusion and a burden. Not only in\nrespect of our worldly goods and joys, but of ourselves and for\never, we had to exclaim, \"vanity of vanities, all is vanity.\" We\nhave escaped; we are leaving this confined and low condition; we\nare rising; we are again about to attain our dignity, our hope,\nour futurity, our soul. We can no more parade ourselves in our\npride, but we are no longer plunged into and abandoned in misery;\nwe find again a Master here below, and also \"our Father which is\nin heaven.\"\n\nI know how much there is of the frivolous and superficial in the\nreturn of our time to religious hopes and beliefs. I know how\nmuch even serious minds are doubtful and agitated upon this\nsubject, the evils that are still at work, the problems that\nawait solution, and that perhaps a tardy one. Nevertheless, we\nhave got back to the right track. Man does not increase his\ndistance from God; he has turned towards the East; he seeks the\nlight.\n{41}\nHere we still yield rather to the force of facts than of ideas;\nand experience is credited rather than conviction. Still we\nbelieve in experience rather than in our own talent, and submit\nto facts though we hardly render a free and enlightened homage to\nthe truths of which they witness.\n\nIt is not yet adoration, but it is the fear of God, that\nbeginning of wisdom.\n\nHad we already reached the point of adoration--were the wisdom\nfor which we have so dearly paid really established amongst us,\nin the affairs of this world and in those of eternity, in\nquestions political, moral, and religious, in short, in\neverything; and were we fully satisfied as to the rational\nlawfulness and practical utility of her counsels, if she\nenlightened our understandings as she rules our conduct--we\nshould be far other than we are; more tranquil, more confiding,\nmore firm, more worthy, more exalted. We should distinguish\nfurther; we should advance higher and faster in the paths of new\nand amending progress, in which we now walk slowly and with\nbended head, as if constrained and humbled.\n\nBut, I repeat, it is needful, for this salutary transformation of\nour ideas to be accomplished, that our experience may become our\nreason. We have more good sense than enlightenment; we act better\nthan we think. Inwardly and deeply we are imbued with prejudices\nwhich fetter although they do not rule us; we are still doubtful\nabout the very truths by which we test our deeds; only doubt has\nchanged its form and language. With our fathers it was infatuated\nand bold; with us it is detracting and useless.\n{42}\nPride has turned it into contempt; and because we do not\nexperience for human nature the unbounded ambition and chimerical\nhopes which formerly prevailed, we no longer love men tenderly,\nnor think well of their nature, nor take an interest in their\ndestiny. We imagine that wisdom binds us to indifference and\nimmobility.\n\nMany, too, of the ills of the eighteenth century, which sprung\nfrom the maxims then prevalent, and which, to all appearance,\nought to have expired with them, still exist. We no longer have\nthe same tenderness for man, nor do we show greater aversion to\nevil. Indifference has not made us more strict. For though human\nnature is no longer judged with the same blind partiality, we are\nstill full of indulgence towards it, and cowardly in our\ntreatment of it; we exhibit towards it the same complaisance,\nwithout feeling the former esteem and love. Materialist and\nimpious doctrines are on the decline, but we are more than ever\ntormented by an eager thirst for immediate material happiness.\n\nIs it true then, as is said, that we are in a state of moral\ndecay? Is our age destined to continue the evil of its precursor,\nand while losing its virtues add to it its own evils?\n\nI confidently answer in the negative. Nothing would tempt me to\nflatter the age I live in, but I love it. I am struck by its\nevil; I think a remedy urgently called for, an immediate struggle\nnecessary; I also see in it much good, a good deep and fruitful\nand sufficient with the help of God to resist and conquer the\nevil.\n\n{43}\n\nI said just now that the great mistakes, the serious maladies of\nany period are those of the good. On the other side, it is in the\nsound ideas and good dispositions of the same class that the\nmoral force of an epoch and its means of safety are to be found.\nNow the general and ruling disposition of the good at the present\nday is the spirit of order, the deep desire for order after so\nmuch trouble and contest.\n\nThis is said to be merely the result of prudence, of a clear idea\nof interest, not of morality.\n\nIn my opinion this is an inconsiderate sentence; one which shows\nlittle knowledge of man and of what passes within him, of which\nhe is often himself unconscious. There is morality, true\nmorality, in the spirit of order, especially when largely\ndeveloped and hardly tried. The word _interest_ is\npronounced disdainfully, as if it implied pure selfishness, and\nexcluded virtue. Thanks be to God, who has created legitimate\ninterests. Interests inherent to legitimate situations and\nrelations are essentially moral and animated by moral impulsion.\nThe father of a family who protects his household, the labourer\nwho takes care of the fruit of his industry, act for their own\ninterest it is true, and according to the dictates of prudence.\nBut around and connected with this interest are grouped the most\npraiseworthy feelings, domestic affections, respect of the law,\ncare for the future, defence of right, fulfilment of duty,\nefforts, devotion, sacrifice.\n{44}\nWho will refuse to these the name of morality? Public instinct\nanswers this question. \"There are but two parties,\" said a man of\nsimple mind, and a stranger to all sophism, \"that of honest men\nand that of rogues.\" When it was desired to define and rally\nunder one banner the party of order in France, it was inscribed\n\"The Charter and Property.\" [Footnote 2]\n\n    [Footnote 2: \"La Charte et les gens de bien.\"]\n\nIn fact, at the present day the ideas of honesty, dignity,\nmorality, and virtue are closely allied with that of order.\nPublic morality is in the general mind the cause of order as well\nas of individual security. It is because, after so many\nconvulsions as corrupt as painful, the taste for and love of\norder are amongst us the first effect, the first symptom of\nattachment to the maxims and practice of duty.\n\nBesides, democratic societies, still so novel and mysterious, are\nlittle known and ill understood. Their virtues want the \u00e9clat,--I\nwill go further, want the finish, the charm which belong to the\nelevation of persons, the beauty of form, the influence of time,\nthe complete, varied and harmonious developement of great and\nglorious human nature. Yet they want neither virtue itself nor\nmorality. There will be found in these crowded and unknown\nmasses, in their laborious and modest lives, much uprightness,\nmuch simple justice, much active benevolence, much submission to\nlaw, much resignation to their lot, a rare power of effort and\nsacrifice, a noble and touching disposition to forgetfulness of\nself, without pretension, without noise, without reward.\n\n{45}\n\nEven the jealousy of all superiority, the passion of envy--that\npoison of democratic society,--does not always affect as much as\nmight be apprehended their moral judgment. This venom has\naffected us deeply; nevertheless, excellence is met with joy and\nwelcomed with gratitude as a service done to society, which feels\nthe necessity of being elevated and purified. Respect is more\ngenuine, taste more correct while it remains a stranger to\nsystematic opinions, to mere flights of fancy, and to all\nromantic emphasis. By a singular and very significant phenomenon,\nthe exaggeration and emphasis of the present period tend towards\nevil and disorder. The declaimer plunges into the mire. Our times\nwish good to be true, simple, sedate, and sensible. It is only\nbecause it is good, a moral good, that it is esteemed and loved.\nIt is asked to appear but what it is.\n\nWhere such a disposition prevails; where good is thus honored for\nitself, and for itself alone, there may still be much evil, and\nvery serious evil; but such can hardly be the lot of the future.\n\nWe are hardly yet advancing towards a future. As yet we have\nstruggled, and still strive to acquire from the heritage of the\nlast century a spoil that suits us; a heritage so loaded, so\nmingled, that it has plunged us in confusion. We have co-existing\nin us good and bad, true and false, in direct opposition.\n{46}\nWe bear about in ourselves the most contradictory ideas and\nsentiments. We are driven about and stagger under their varying\ninfluence. Now we try to reject all absolutely, now to forget all\nand live from day to day without thought or design. Vain efforts!\nThe problem harasses every soul, agitates or wearies it, leaves\nit in doubt or inactivity. None can elude it. A solution is\nnecessary in moral as well as in political order, for individuals\nas for the state. For this is not a purely political question,\nwhich can be settled wholly and completely by charter, law, or\ncabinet. It is a matter which comes home to each of us; one for\nwhich each of us individually has to provide. We must keep, apart\nfrom the impulse which the eighteenth century has given to the\nworld and the minds of men, that which agrees with the eternal\norder which that era often mistook for the world and the human\nmind. The new truths and laws which come to us from that date, as\nwell as the immutable truths and laws which it overlooked, must\nlive and reign together in our thoughts; we must know for a\ncertainty and unhesitatingly practice what they demand from us.\nOn this condition only shall we see the end of that mixture of\nagitation and depression, this doubting both of well and ill\nregulated minds, this barrenness of movement as of wisdom which\nare the peculiar evils of our era. Government and people\nreciprocally accuse each other of this evil, and charge on each\nother the task of applying a remedy. \"Let Power be dignified,\nfirm, active, fertile,\" says the one; \"let it sustain and\nanimate, rule and aid society; society will assist, evils will be\nremedied, good will be done; but it is for Power to take the\ninitiative and responsibility in all this.\"\n{47}\n\"How can I do it?\" replies Power. \"How undertake the\nresponsibility? It is in society itself--in the mind itself--that\nthe evil exists. They are weak, tottering, inactive; full of\ndoubts and fears. Let people ascend in the social scale; let them\nshow self-control. I do not prevent them. No one can ask me to do\nmore; I can do no more.\"\n\nThe defence of both weakness of mind and heart is bad. The\nregeneration of our time demands from all both duty and exertion.\nFrom power, because it is set on high, it sees and is seen; it\nshows the light and holds the standard. If it lowers them,\nsociety falls into darkness and disorder. From society too, from\nevery individual, for we are all infected by the evil which we\ncall upon power to cure. Yet power of itself is not able to cure,\nindividually and collectively, the evils for which we ask a\nremedy. Our active and intelligent co-operation is indispensible.\nAnd it is precisely in this coalition of public power and\nindividual will that the value and honor of free governments\nconsist. Hence they are morally and politically powerful,\nsalutary for immortal souls as for temporal occasions.\n\nThis good must be the work of all. Power or society, rulers or\nplain citizens, let us each look to our own share in the great\nwork, and perform our own part of the general duty. To him who\nshall be able the best and speediest to fulfil his, will belong\nthe glory as well as the power inherent to success.\n\n{48}\n\n{49}\n               Essay II.\n\n   On Religion In Modern Societies.\n\n{50}\n\n{51}\n\n    On Religion In Modern Societies.\n\n        (_February_, 1838.)\n\nIt is the fashion of the day loudly to lament over the condition\nof that great mass--the people. Their wants and sufferings are\nparaded. We are told of their lives so burdened and monotonous,\nso rude and precarious, so much fatigue, yet so little effect, so\nmuch danger and ennui, work so heavy, repose so slight, a future\nso uncertain.\n\nThis is true. The condition of the masses in this world is\nneither easy, cheerful, nor certain. It is impossible to\ncontemplate without deep commiseration so many human creatures\ncarrying, from their cradle to their tomb, so grievous a burden,\nand withal scarcely able to meet their wants, the wants of their\nchildren, of their father, their mother; incessantly seeking some\nnecessary of life for those most dear, yet not always finding it;\nhaving it perhaps to-day, uncertain of it tomorrow; and\ncontinually preoccupied about their material existence, scarcely\nable to give a thought to their moral being.\n{52}\nIt is painful, most painful to witness, most painful to reflect\non. Yet is much reflection necessary. It were a grievous wrong\nand a grievous danger to forget it. More or less thought has been\never given to the subject. What said they who thought the most\nthereon?\n\nThey advised those who were the fortunate of this world to\npractise justice, goodness, charity; to apply themselves to\nseeking out and relieving the unhappy. To the unfortunate they\nrecommended good conduct, moderate desires, submission to\nauthority, resignation, and hope. They explained the destiny of\nman, showed all it possesses of sadness and sublimity, the\ncompensations which are found in the different states, the\npleasures which are common to all. They tried to cure, amongst\nthe ills of men, those which men can cure; and, with regard to\nthose which are incurable here below, they strove to raise men's\neyes to the remedies in God's hands. This was the language of\nreligion. These were the words and advice she addressed to high\nand low, rich and poor, to children in her catechisms, to men in\nher sermons, from the pulpit and from the sanctuary, by the sick\nbed, to all, at all seasons, and by every means.\n\nThe means of publicity and popular movement at that time belonged\nalmost exclusively to religion. What the tribune, the press, the\npost--these trumpets of modern civilization--now are, the\nchurches, the pulpit, religious instruction, pastoral\nsuperintendence formerly were Religion then addressed the masses.\nShe never forgot the people. She was ever able to gain access\nthere.\n\n{53}\n\nAnd while she thus interested herself for them, and strove to\nlighten or partly bear the burden of life, she also sympathised\nwith men of all classes and all conditions, and with the burdens\nall bear, the blows which reach all, the wounds which all receive\nas they tread their appointed path.\n\nTo-day, while occupying ourselves much and justly with the\nmaterial sufferings and fatigue which are shared by so many, we\nforget too much the moral fatigues and sufferings of which all\npartake; the trials, the agonies of the soul, the mistakes, the\nennui, the anguish, in short, the universal lot of man--which are\nthe more poignant as the mind has more freedom and life more\nleisure.\n\nHigh or low, rich or poor, the _elite_ or the multitude, let\nus pity each other, let us pity every one. We are all, as we\nadvance in our career, \"weary and heavy laden\"; we all deserve\npity.\n\nWe deserve it now more than ever. Never, it is true, has the\ncondition of man been more equal or better. But the desires of\nmen have far outrun their progress. Never was ambition more\nimpatient and widespread. Never were so many hearts a prey to the\nthirst for wealth and pleasure. Pleasures refined and grovelling,\na thirst of material well-being and of intellectual variety, a\nspirit of activity and luxury, of adventure and idleness:\neverything appears possible, desirable, and accessible to all. It\nis not that passion is strong, or that man is disposed to take\nmuch trouble for the gratification of his desires.\n{54}\nHe wishes feebly, desires immoderately; and the great scope of\nhis desire throws him into a state of uneasiness, in which all\nthat he already possesses appears but as the drop of water\nforgotten as soon as swallowed, and which irritates thirst\ninstead of quenching it. The world has never seen such a conflict\nof imperfect desires, fancies, pretensions, exactions; never\nheard such a clamour of voices demanding together as their right\nall they have not and all that pleases them.\n\nAnd these voices are not raised to God. Ambition, is at once\nextended and debased. When the teachers of the people were\nreligious preceptors, they tried to detach the popular thought\nfrom the things of earth, and by raising desires and hopes to\nheaven, to restrain and calm them here. They knew that here, do\nwhat they might, satisfaction was impossible. The popular\nteachers of this day think otherwise and speak another language.\nIn the presence of the hard lot and burning ambition of man, at\nthe very time that they are displaying their misery and fomenting\ntheir desires, they are telling them that this earth contains\nwhat will satisfy them; and that if each be not as happy as he\nwould be, it is not in the nature of things nor of his own nature\nthat he should complain, but of the vices of society, and the\nusurpations of a certain class of men. All are placed in this\nworld to be happy; all have the same right to happiness; the\nworld can afford happiness to all.\n\nWords like these resound daily in the ears of all, knock at the\nportals of every heart, penetrate by every crevice into the most\nremote folds of society.\n\n{55}\n\nAnd then we are astonished at the deep agitation and uneasiness\nunder which nations and individuals, states and souls are\nlabouring! For myself, I wonder the uneasiness is not greater,\nthe agitation more violent, the explosion more sudden. Such ideas\nand such words are enough to set humanity astray and rouse it to\nrevolt. And the preserving care of Providence, the innate and\nspontaneous wisdom which men cannot absolutely shake off, must be\npowerful to prevent such language--unceasingly repeated and\nuniversally heard--from plunging the world again into chaos.\n\nNo, it is not true that this earth possesses that which will\nsuffice for the ambition and happiness of her inhabitants. It is\nnot true that the untoward results or vices of human institutions\nare the sole or even the principal causes of the sad and painful\nlot of so many among men. Let these institutions become daily\nmore just, more careful of the general welfare; it is the right\nof mankind. It is to the honour of our age that it adopted this\nthought and perseveres in trying to accomplish it. Former times\ntook too light a share in the sufferings of the multitude. Their\npretensions were too humble as regards justice and happiness for\nall. Ours are more extended, more lofty; and we give, with good\nreason, to our advance in this path the noble name of\ncivilization. God forbid that we should turn aside from the noble\nwork, or be discouraged about such a noble hope. But we must not\nfeed ourselves with pride and illusion, we must not promise to\nourselves that which we cannot expect to attain of ourselves and\nby our ingenuity.\n{56}\nThere is a defect in our nature and an evil in our condition\nwhich eludes all human efforts. The disorder is within ourselves,\nand were every other source dried up, would arise from ourselves\nand our own will. An inequality of suffering is amongst the\nprovidential laws of our destiny. It is at once superiority and\ninfirmity, greatness and misery. As free beings, we can create\nand do in fact without ceasing create evil. As immortal beings,\nneither the secrets of our lot nor the limits of our ambition are\non this earth, and the life we lead here is but a very short\nscene of the unknown life which awaits us. Regulate institutions\nas you will, distribute all enjoyment as you please, neither your\nwisdom nor your wealth will fill the abyss. The liberty of man is\nstronger than the institutions of society. The mind of man is\ngreater than worldly goods. There will always be found in him\nmore desires than social knowledge can regulate or satisfy, more\nsufferings than it can either prevent or cure.\n\n\"Religion, religion!\" is the cry of universal man everywhere, at\nall times, except in some day of awful extremity or shameful\ndegradation. Religion, to restrain or crown man's ambition.\nReligion, to sustain or support us in our griefs, whether\nreferring to body or soul. Let not policy the most strong, the\nmost just, flatter itself that it can effect this without\nreligion. The greater and more extensive the social movement, the\nless able is it to direct tottering humanity. A higher power than\nany on earth is needed, a longer prospect than that of this life.\nGod and eternity are necessary.\n\n{57}\n\nWe require harmony also and agreement between religion and\npolicy. Called to act on the same individual, and as a final\nattempt for the same result, how can they work together unless\npossessing a common basis of thought, sentiments, and designs?\nWhatever distance may intervene, there is an intimate connection\nbetween the earthly and religious ideas of men, between their\ndesires for time and those for eternity. Did incoherence and\ncontradiction alone exist, were our affairs, opinions, and hopes\nhere completely estranged from those beyond this world, were\nreligion capable only of improving and sustaining our actual life\nand society, their ideas, works, institutions and manners, far\nfrom serving the cause of, and mutually assisting each other\nwould reciprocally fetter and weaken one another. The world would\njest at piety, piety would take offence at the world, and that\nwhich should be upon earth the source of order and peace would\nbecome a fresh spring of anarchy and war.\n\nAnd let neither religion or policy be alarmed about its\nindependence and dignity. I do not wish that either should\npurchase by cowardly concession or costly sacrifice the harmony\nwhich ought to prevail between them. On the contrary, I wish they\nshould on all occasions act according to the pure truth of\nthings, and accomplish together their special and peculiar\nmission.\n\n{58}\n\nClever men have looked upon religion as a source of order, a sort\nof social police, a useful and even indispensable matter, but\notherwise without intrinsic value or any real and definite\nimportance to the individual, unless to afford a chimerical\nsatisfaction to certain weaknesses of the human mind and heart.\nThence arises a superficial and hypocritical respect, which\nbarely covers a disdainful coldness ill-calculated to resist any\nprolonged trial, which humiliates religion if she is content with\nit, or otherwise irritates and misleads her.\n\nGreat and religious men have in their turn looked on the world\nand the life of the world, either generally or at certain\nperiods, as an evil in itself, an essential obstacle to the\nempire of divine laws, and to the accomplishment of our moral\ndestiny. Hence the follies of ascetics and sectarians; hence,\ntoo, theocratic pretensions, pitiable mistakes of the spirit of\nreligion, which has thus entered into hostility with human\nsociety, wishing now to flee from it, now to subdue it.\n\nThe errors on both sides are great and dangerous. Religious\ncreeds seek to solve the fundamental problems of our nature and\nindividual destiny. That is their first and chief design, greater\neven in their eyes than the maintenance of order in society. For\nthis reason, and for this reason especially, respect is due to\nthem; they deal with that which is most inward, most powerful,\nand most noble in man. And the policy which does not discern\nthese facts, or discerning does not respectfully bow before them,\nshows itself futile, ignorant of the nature of man, incapable of\nguiding him at moments of importance.\n\n{59}\n\nOn the other hand, this earth is not a place of banishment where\nman lives an exile. Society is not a scene of perdition, which a\nman must go through with disgust and terror. The earth is man's\nfirst country; God has placed him here. Society is the natural\ncondition of man; God has made it for him. This world and social\nlife do not bound our destiny; but it is in this world and by\nthis social life that our destiny is begun and developed. We owe\nto society our assistance, given affectionately and respectfully,\nwhatever the form of its organisation and the difficulties of our\ntask. These forms and difficulties change with places and times,\nbut they possess only a secondary importance, and make no change\nin the general condition or fundamental duty of man.\n\nReligion, without being indifferent to what there is of true or\nfalse, good or bad, in the casual and variable part of the social\nworld, attaches herself to what is essential and permanent,\ntraining men to go straight towards heaven beneath every sky and\nby every road.\n\nIt is the glory of Christianity to have been the first to place\nreligion on this height, and in this the only religious point of\nview. And yet, neither reasons nor temptations were wanting at\nits origin, to make it denounce temporal society, and either\nseparate from or declare war against it. Still it never dreamt of\nsuch a course. At the moment when the Christian faith restored to\nman his lost dignity and raised him to his forfeited position,\nshe made herself liable for him without a murmur to slavery,\ndespotism, iniquities, inequalities, incomparable miseries.\n{60}\nNot one revolutionary intention or idea, to use a modern phrase,\nis to be traced near the cradle of Christianity. Christians in\nthe name of their faith heroically resist persecution and\ntyranny, but they do not undertake to change the state of society\nor of mankind. They share in it, they adapt themselves to it,\nwhatever its principles, forms, consequences. They do more. The\nworld is old and corrupt; they denounce and vigorously resist its\ncorruptions and vices: but they do not curse, they do not avoid\nthe world. They view it with indignation yet with affection, with\ngrief yet with hope. Rigid minds, ardent imaginations, take\nfright at the sight of the world, and fly to the deserts of the\nThebais or retreat within the walls of a cloister. Brilliant\napparitions are those who impress the minds of nations, and renew\nthe well-nigh forgotten strife between austere and impure\npassions; but these are only exceptions in the history of\nChristianity, imposing and powerful indeed, but they do not\ncharacterise the Christian religion, do not predominate in it, do\nnot constitute its essence and general tendency. Christianity has\nmade monks, yet never was a religion less monkish. Never was a\nreligion introduced into the world which entered more into it,\nmore easily accommodated itself to it, to all its phases and all\nits facts. Opposed to this day in the very country which saw its\nbirth, Christianity spreads to the east and west, to the north\nand south.\n{61}\nIt penetrates the old monarchies of Asia and the deep forests of\nGermany, the schools of Athens and of Rome, the wandering tribes\nof the desert; and nowhere does it disturb itself about\ntraditions, institutions, governments; it allies itself and lives\nin peace with the most diverse societies. It knows that\neverywhere and amidst all the variety of social forms it can\npursue its own work, that truly religious work, the regeneration\nand safety of the soul.\n\nIn later days, after a definite victory, amidst Roman ruins and\nbarbarian chaos, through necessity as well as love of power,\nChristianity has sought and exercised a more direct and\ncommanding influence over civil society; an influence sometimes\nsalutary, sometimes opposed to the nature of things, and often\ninjurious to religion itself. Yet taking things as a whole, and\nsetting aside some remarkable deviations, the Christian Church\nhas with admirable wisdom been a stranger, in her intercourse\nwith the world, to all narrow and exclusive spirit; has never\nattached to any peculiar social _regime_ her honor and\ndestiny. She has lived in kindly and intimate relation with the\nmost different governments, with social systems the most opposed,\nmonarchy, republic, aristocracy, democracy. Here on a level with\nthe state, there subordinate, elsewhere independent. Broad and\nvaried in her internal organization, as called for by her\nexternal relations; always sedulous to maintain between social\nand religious life, between the ideas and feelings by which men\nhold to earth or ascend to heaven, that harmony by which heaven\nand earth both profit.\n{62}\nIn our days, owing to the course of events and reciprocal faults,\nthis harmony has been profoundly affected. Religion and society\nhave for some time ceased to comprehend and agree with each\nother. The ideas, sentiments, and interests which now prevail in\ntemporal life are and have often been condemned and reproved in\nthe name of those which pertain to eternal life. Religion\nsometimes pronounces her anathemas upon the new world, and keeps\nherself aloof from it. The world seems ready to abide by both\nanathema and separation.\n\nThe evil is immense; it is one which aggravates all our other\nills, which takes from social order and private life their\nsecurity and dignity, their repose and hope.\n\nTo cure this evil, to bring together the spirit of Christianity\nand the spirit of the age, the old religion and new society, to\nend their hostility, and to induce a mutual understanding and\nacceptance, is the origin of a work too little known, that called\nthe \"_Universite Catholique_\" which its authors have\ncontinued for three years with the most praiseworthy\nperseverance.\n\nThanks be theirs; thanks to men so truly pious, so truly\ncatholic, who cast over new society, over constitutional France,\na glance so equitable and affectionate. This gleam of justice\ntowards our day, this hope loudly declared that it will accept\neternal truth and must not be cursed in her name, is a proof of\nhigh intelligence on their part. God forbid that with frivolous\nblindness we should soothe each other with flattery.\n{63}\nOur society has gone astray more than once on the most important\nmatters, and even while triumphant is smitten with a serious\ndisorder. And yet our time is a great time, which has done great\nthings and opened great destinies. This society, so stormy, so\nconfused, so tottering, sometimes so chimerical and arrogant,\nsometimes so material and grovelling, has nevertheless done\nhomage and lent force to that which is most elevated and divine\nwithin us, our intelligence and justice. Much truth is contained\nin the motto of her banner; and wishing that this truth might be\nefficacious; she has displayed, in order to make it penetrate\ninto deeds, an energy and ability which have astonished the world\nand drawn it after her. Such boldness of conception, such power\nof execution, such a development of mind, of passion, of\nstrength, so many results positive and visible obtained rapidly,\nthe general progress of happiness, wealth, and order, of\npractical and plain justice in social relations and affairs,--is\nthere nought here but error? Are these the symptoms of decline?\nDo we not rather recognise one of those formidable but beneficial\ncrises brought on by providence when desirous to renew the world?\nProclaim without reserve to society the evil it has done, the\nevil it is undergoing; point out in all their extent and gravity\nits errors, its faults, its omissions, its weaknesses, its\nexcesses, its crimes; but do not expect her to yield to injustice\nor wrong. She knows what she is and what she may become. The good\nshe has devised, the good she has done to mankind, she would have\nhonoured and loved. On these terms only will she redress and\ndirect.\n{64}\nShe is in the right. One must seek for, listen to, and trust\nsevere though stern friends. Confidence should never be placed in\nan enemy.\n\nI do not think that the authors of _l'Universit\u00e9 Catholique_\nrender to society all the justice it deserves; but they have no\nconcealed ill-will to it, no design against it. They understand\nand admit the essential principles upon which it is founded, and\nthey try seriously and sincerely to re-establish between these\nprinciples and catholic doctrines, a harmony which shall not be\nmerely superficial and apparent. Their plan is simple. After\nhaving traced a general outline of human sciences, together with\nthe ties which unite them either among themselves or to the\nsublime unity to which they tend, they place therein special\ncourses for each different science of material as of intellectual\norder, and try in those courses how to make religion penetrate\ninto science, how science into religion, keeping both in sight,\nso that they may recognise, approach, and unite with each other\nin their common progress; consequently their body is a dumb\nuniversity, where all science is taught by writings according to\nand in a catholic spirit, as they would be _viva voce_ at a\nreal university, where all the professors would be Catholics,\ntruly devoted to their faith and their science.\n\n{65}\n\nI have no design of entering into the scientific merits of these\ncourses, or of disputing all their assertions and ideas. Some, as\nthe \"Course of introduction to the study of Christian Truths,\" by\nM. l'Abbe Gerbet; the \"Course on Christian Art,\" by M. Rio; the\n\"Course on the General History of Hebrew Literature,\" by M. de\nCazel\u00e8s; contain real instruction, elevated and ingenious views,\nand sometimes rare talent in style, and much attraction for the\nreader. In a literary review joined to these \"Courses\" one finds\noccasional articles, amongst others those by M. le Comte de\nMontalembert, full of curious research and noble sentiments;\nwritten too with a moral earnestness which pleases and touches,\neven when it goes beyond what is true. It would be easy to\ncollect from the entire work sufficiently numerous traces of\nsuperficial science, somewhat vague philosophy, or declamatory\nliterature. I might here and there detect, and this is more\nimportant, some traces of old habits, and of that old spirit of\nhostility from which the authors of the collection have in\ngeneral tried to keep themselves clear. Possibly, had I the honor\nof seeing them, I might venture in the freedom of conversation to\nurge them to weigh carefully in this respect their sentiments and\nlanguage, to preserve constantly between their ideas and\nexpressions, agreement with the general intentions which animate\nthem and at which they aim. Let them be in this sense strict\ncensors of their own work. As for me, I cannot be one; I cannot\nseek underhand means as regards the execution of a great and just\nidea to which I wish success. I admit of incompleteness and\nimperfection, even incoherency in a human work, provided it be in\nitself good, and that good predominates in its effects as well as\nintentions. The pleasure of criticism is mean; and for my own\npart I feel none in pointing out faults which I should like to\nefface.\n\n{66}\n\nI prefer congratulating the authors of _l'Universit\u00e9\nCatholique_ on the firmness and fidelity with which they have\nremained faithful to their name and standard. In their excellent\ndesign, and on account of the conciliatory spirit which pervaded\nit, they encountered a shoal under their prow. They ran the\ndanger of being induced to become effeminate and enervated, to\npervert their own doctrines, the Catholic doctrines and spirit,\nin order to render their accommodation more in accordance with\nthe ideas and spirit of the age. More than once analogous\nattempts, conceived in the best intentions, have split on this\nrock. It is thus that we have heard applied to natural religion\nand the general spirit of religion; these maxims that the dogma\nis of little consequence, the moral only being of importance,\nthat various creeds must be brought back to those portions which\nthey hold in common, and formulas and prayers be drawn up which\nmay suit all alike: thence the desire to transform the great\nprinciples and facts of Christianity into symbols left to the\ninterpretations of philosophy; those strange efforts also to\nunite the revolutionary with the religious spirit; or, lastly,\nthose attempts to deny, or at least consign to oblivion the past\nof the Catholic church, her traditions, her customs, which ages\nand events have united with her, and substitute, under the name\nof Primitive, a newly invented Catholicism.\n{67}\nFalse conceptions, vain endeavours, from which pious feeling and\na certain knowledge of our social state have not always been\nfree, but which denote little knowledge of human nature or\nreligion, and a superficial appreciation of the means by which\ngreat institutions, whether religious or civil, are founded and\nendure. No doubt but that Catholicism has something, has much to\ndo in order to adapt itself to all that is new in the world, and\nto take in our social system the place and part suitable to it.\nBut let it be true to itself, let it not deny its origin, its\nhistory, its doctrine, its law; let it not stoop to cowardice or\nhypocrisy. It would lose its dignity which is essential to its\nstrength, it would fail in obtaining the new strength which it\nneeds. Were I not convinced that harmony may be re-established\nbetween the old religion and modern society with truth and honor\nto both, I would not counsel the attempt. God does not admit of\nthe possibility of falsehood in such high positions for such\ngreat objects.\n\nLet, then, _l'Universit\u00e9 Catholique_ proceed in its course\nof exact and scrupulous orthodoxy. It is said, I hope truly, that\nshe has many of the clergy for readers. They should be on their\nguard against attacks on these points. Sometimes, despite\nappearances of moderation, the attempts succeed, and strike a\nblow on the vital conditions of their existence. By others they\nare drawn into the very passions and pursuits from which their\nmission is mainly intended to keep mankind. Generally such have\nhitherto had but little success.\n{68}\nThe most recent example, that of M. l'Abb\u00e9 de Lamennais, has\neventuated in one of the most melancholy spectacles of error and\nfall that man can present. Surely there are here just reasons for\ndistrust and hesitation. The authors of _l'Universit\u00e9\nCatholique_ are clearly aware of it themselves; for they have\nbeen careful to keep themselves clear of these unhappy flights,\nand to remain, in their own words, \"immovably attached to the\nrock of the Church.\" They doubtless are so from conviction and\nduty. They should also be so from prudence, and attend to all the\nsentiments, scruples, and susceptibilities of the Catholic\nportion of the public. It is this public especially whom they\naddress, it is the public whom they wish to enlighten, satisfy,\nreassure, and reconcile with the true progress, the accomplished\nfacts and necessities of our time. That is really the great\nservice wanted by modern society. Let them never lose sight of\nthis essential end. And as to that part of the public which is\nruled by the spirit of the age, no doubt their language should\nreassure and quiet it also, and draw it back to religion, for it\nhas very justly its own susceptibilities and distrusts. But let\nnot the authors of _l'Universit\u00e9 Catholique_ deceive\nthemselves; they will inspire the public with the greater respect\nand confidence according as they are themselves found serious and\nfaithful. The public will be the more easily attracted to\nreligion, as she presents herself stable and lofty; for, in the\nuneasiness which is now prevalent, the public aspire to something\nfixed and elevated, despite of the passions which still keep it\nwavering and abased.\n\n{69}\n\nWhilst in Catholicism this new religious and social movement, of\nwhich _l'Universit\u00e9 Catholique_ appears to be the most\nserious manifestation, is beginning, an analogous work is going\non in the other Christian communions, and reveals itself by\nremarkable signs. For many years something fruitful and active\nhas been at work in French Protestantism. Almost immediately\nafter the establishment of peace and international relations in\n1814, the English dissenters, struck by the languid state of\nreligion in France, and animated by faith and a strong desire for\nproselytism, undertook the task of awaking amidst their\ncontinental co-religionists the religious spirit, or, more\nprecisely, Protestant Christian feelings. Journeys,\ncorrespondence, publications, sermons, pious associations--of\nwhich some, as the Bible Society, the Society for the Propagation\nof the Gospel, the Religious Tract Society, possess extent and\nnotoriety--were the instruments used to forward their design; a\ndesign which excited and still excites in French Protestantism\nsome trouble and embarrassment. The established Protestant church\nwas moved. Indifference took offence. Toleration and reason felt\nsome alarm. Impressions not altogether at first void of reason;\nfacts which deserve observation and watchfulness, but of which\nthe importance in our society, and with the guarantees of our\nlaws and customs, is, in my opinion, much less than that of the\nreligious feeling which roused them, and its character and\nresults.\n{70}\nThe Christian faith, the real and profound faith in the\nconstituent dogmas of Christianity, is springing up again amidst\nProtestants, but accompanied by that liberty and assiduous search\nwhich alter the form of unity but keep up religious vitality;\nwhich cares less for the government of men's minds than for the\ninternal life of their souls. This life has its instincts, its\nimperious and everlasting wants. There is no indifference, no\nauthority, which does or can abolish or cause to be long\nforgotten the essential and eternal problems of our nature and\ndestiny. Whence does evil spring in the world and in ourselves?\nHow is it to be escaped? Is our own liberty sufficient? Is God's\npower over and in us needed? What are the relations here below\nand hereafter between God and our souls? What lot awaits us\nbeyond this life, and how far do our resolutions and actions\ninfluence it? This is the definite and practical object of\nreligion. These the questions to which mankind has, through all\nages, in all the earth, in every condition, in the confusion of\ncontroversy, in the secret heart desired and asked an answer.\nThis is promised to him by Christianity. The dogmas of that faith\nare replies to these questions, so vital to man generally and\nindividually. These replies are contained in Christian books, and\nare succeeded by the precepts, the consolation, and the hopes\nwhich flow from them. To seek them there, to read them, to draw\ncontinually from that spring the means of opposing the evil\ninclinations, the passions, the weaknesses, the disquiet, the\nlangour of the soul, thereby sustaining it in this world and\nregenerating it for eternity; such is the Christian Protestant\nspirit, the spirit which is again animating the French\nProtestants; the spirit which has had and may again have its\nfaults, like all great ambitions and all great aspirations of the\nhuman soul, but which is nevertheless a spirit of true piety and\ntrue morality; which suffices for our most exalted intellects,\nand exercises for all, in all, the most salutary influence over\nour inward dispositions and outward actions.\n\n{71}\n\nMany periodical works, amongst them the _Semeur_, [Footnote\n3] and the _Archives of Christianity in the XIX. Century_,\nare devoted to this spirit, and seek to satisfy and spread it.\n\n    [Footnote 3: The _Semeur_ has ceased to appear.]\n\nIn them all publications, all the incidents which belong at home\nor abroad to Christian life, are examined, commented on, debated\nwith a reality and earnestness of conviction always rare, but now\nespecially so. Men of rare ability, too, and first of all M.\nVinet, professor of French literature at Lausanne, write for the\n_Semeur_, and often with the most distinguished talent. I\nmight find in these works, even without going very deeply into\nthe question of their doctrines, some traces of political\nradicalism, very injurious to religion; and also, in matters of\nreligion, traces of a severe and somewhat exclusive spirit,\nwhich, when dominant, tends to sectarianism and fanaticism. But\nclearly here as elsewhere the good spirit of the age, the spirit\nof light, of justice, and universal benevolence will every day\nmake its way; will clothe the religious spirit of ideas and\nsentiments in words which will suit them admirably, but which\nthey have not always worn.\n{72}\nAnd thus here as elsewhere I prefer dwelling on what is good to\nwhat is evil. When the movement which is good preponderates, I\nbelieve in its power; I trust to it, strenuous as may be the\nopposition, tardy as its progress may appear.\n\nHave we not besides, in liberty, liberty of conscience and\nspeech, the most certain and efficacious of guarantees against\nfanaticism and religious despotism. _L'Universit\u00e9\nCatholique_ maintains, and will unceasingly uphold the maxims,\ntraditions, and laws of Catholicism. At her side, the spirit of\nProtestantism reveals herself full of faith and vigour. And as in\nthe bosom of Protestantism the _Semeur_ and the _Archives\nof Christianity_ do not express the feelings of all, other\ncollections--the _Protestant Review_, the _Free\nEnquiry_, the _Evangelist_--labour to make clear and\nnourish another idea, more scientific, more attached to modern\nnotions and a national church, more occupied in enlightening than\ndeeply stirring the mind.\n\nI do not doubt but that, in this fresh springing up of different\nbeliefs, men interested in their success, and the different\nsections of the public whom they address, reciprocally inspire\nbut little mistrust or disquiet; that the remembrance of ancient\ndislikes, ancient animosity still lurk in many a heart, and may\nbreak out afresh. It may be occasionally discerned, with all its\nwant of reflection and its harshness. However, take it\naltogether, the spirit of antipathy and contest, which has so\nlong prevailed in the religious sphere, is becoming weaker and\nless common.\n{73}\nEach creed is more occupied about itself than about others; more\nanxious to impress the hearts that are inclined to its reception\nor have received it, than quarrel with those who maintain their\nown belief. This is the natural result of liberty, and the check\nimposed on every belief by the civil power which sustains it. It\nis also the most favourable condition for the very creeds\nthemselves, as obliging them to proceed directly towards their\ntrue object, and prevents them from turning aside to alter or\nlower themselves in despotism or rebellion.\n\nThe spirit of religion comes again into the world to conquer but\nnot to usurp. Religious creeds rise and increase together, at\nonce free and contented; free to elevate themselves, to elevate\nsouls to heaven, restrained by their mental liberty and by the\nindependence of the civil power. Let us honor the community in\nthe bosom of which such a sight is possible! It needs, it\nabsolutely needs that religion should step in to purify and\nstrengthen it; but religion can do her work there without\ndishonor or sacrifice, and when she can, it becomes her bounden\nduty to do so.\n\n{74}\n\n{75}\n\n                   Essay  III.\n\n  Catholicism, Protestantism, And Philosophy In France.\n\n{76}\n\n{77}\n\n\n\n  Catholicism, Protestantism, And Philosophy In France.\n\n                (_July_, 1838.)\n\n\nIt is of Catholicism and Protestantism, not of religion or even\nChristianity in general, that I wish to speak.\n\nI regret that I cannot find a word to suit me better than\n_Philosophy_. The nature of things forbids it. But in order\nto make myself at once and clearly understood, I hasten to say\nthat I here call _Philosophy_ every opinion which disclaims,\nunder whatever name or shape, any faith as restrictive of human\nthought, and which leaves thought, in religious matters as in all\nothers, free to believe or not to believe, and guide itself by\nits own authority.\n\nIt is also of France, and France alone, that I speak. The\ncondition of Catholicism, Protestantism, and Philosophy is not\nthe same in France and elsewhere, after our moral and social\nrevolutions, as it is in countries which have not undergone such\nchanges. I wish to say nothing but that which results from and\napplies to precise facts. The time has arrived in such matters\nfor dealing with real facts, and setting aside general terms\nwhich avoid the questions they affect to settle.\n\n{78}\n\nI am convinced that Catholicism, Protestantism, and Philosophy,\nin the bosom of the novel state of society in France under the\nCharter, can live peaceably, both as regards themselves and\nsociety; in peace not only material but moral, not only\nobligatory but voluntary,--without submission, without\nabasement,--both with truth and with honor.\n\nI wish to prove it.\n\nI repeat my first position. This peace must be established; it is\nnecessary.\n\nLook at the state of things.\n\nCatholicism, Protestantism, Philosophy, and modern French society\ncan neither destroy one another, nor change nor remodel\nthemselves as they wish.\n\nThey are facts, old, powerful, living, and indestructible from\nthe remotest times. They have resisted the longest and most\nsevere trials, ages of order and days of chaos.\n\nFor ages has new France, the France of the Charter, been forming\nitself and increasing. Every thing has opposed it, yet everything\nhas contributed to its triumph, the church, nobility, royalty,\nthe court, the greatness of Louis XIV., the inactivity of Louis\nXV., the wars of the empire, the peace after the restoration. She\nhas surmounted even her own faults, as well as the efforts of her\nenemies.\n\n{79}\n\nCatholicism was born at the same time and in the same cradle as\nmodern Europe. It has associated itself with all the labours of\nEuropean civilization. It has survived all its transformations.\nIn our own days it has sustained the most terrible shock that has\never been encountered by a creed and a church. It has been raised\nup again by the hands of the very destroyers themselves. It\nappears again. Enter the family circle, traverse the country,\nthen will be seen what the power of Catholicism is, in spite of\nthe lukewarmness of many of the faithful members--even of many of\nthe priests.\n\nThe lot of Protestantism in France has been hard. It has had\nagainst it the king and the people, the literati of the\nseventeenth, the philosophers of the eighteenth century; at one\ntime it appeared as if extirpated by Catholicism, at another as\nabsorbed by philosophy. It has yielded neither to persecution nor\nridicule. It still exists, and is no sooner restored to liberty\nthan it exhibits all its ancient fervour.\n\nAs for Philosophy, she has sustained many checks amidst her\ntriumphs. It is easy to set forth her follies and mistakes. She\nhas much to amend in what is past, but nothing to fear for the\nfuture. Most of the principles which she proclaimed have become\nrights. The rights have become facts. The new social condition to\nwhich philosophy has given rise will not be more averse to her\nthan the old one which she has overcome.\n\nThese are all clearly powers full of life, and which a long\nfuturity awaits. They have struggled roughly but in vain. They\nhave been unable to destroy each other.\n\n{80}\n\nThey will neither change or perish. No doubt they will modify\nthemselves according to their new position. They will listen to\nreason. They will bow to necessity, but without renouncing their\nprinciples or sacrificing their nature. They can make no such\nconcession. What characteristics and vitality they have must\nremain. To renounce this would be to die.\n\nThus, without metamorphosis and as God and time have made them,\nare these powers called to dwell side by side under the same\nsocial roof.\n\nWhat will happen if they do not live in peace, sincere peace?\n\nShall we again see the old wars which our fathers have seen?\n\nWar between Catholicism and Protestantism? Between religious\ncreeds and philosophy? Between the Church and the new-modelled\nState? Shall we see a revival of every fanaticism, lay and\nclerical, philosophic and religious?\n\nIt is not likely. Here and there, indeed, in books, in\nnewspapers, even in the gravest publications, hints are given of\nsuch a restoration of things: attacks by Catholics on Protestant\nimpiety, by Protestants against popish idolatry, by devotees\nagainst reason and its lights, by philosophers against faith and\nthe clergy. A war of words, often sincere, frequently cold,\nalways powerless. Doubtless, the old leaven of hatred and war,\ndeep laid in every human heart, still exists, but it will no more\narouse society. Customs as well as laws will prevent this. Even\nthe inclination will soon fail those most anxious for it.\n{81}\nThe voices which still preach this strife, passionate, radical,\nand mortal, either of Christian communities between themselves,\nor of Philosophy against Christianity, are the voices of dying\nmen, already deserted on the battle-field where they persist in\nstaying. This is rather what will happen.\n\nLiving neither in peace nor at war, forced to admit vicinity\nwithout friendship, and distrust without violence, Catholicism,\nProtestantism, Philosophy, and in their train society in general,\nwill descend, grow cold, and languish. The dignity and power\nwhich spring from truly moral communications will be equally\nwanting in all. A dry and barren spirit will prevail in relations\nwhich are purely official and matters of routine; and we should\nsee spreading and strengthening itself, becoming permanent and in\nsome sort legally consecrated, that spirit of indifference at the\nsame time disdainful yet subordinate, cold yet insecure. This is\nthe lot of societies which are kept together by the bond of\nadministrative regulations alone, void of moral life, that is, of\nfaith and devotion.\n\nWas it then to arrive at this state of things, that for ages\nhuman genius displayed itself so gloriously in our country? Was\nit to end at last in this degradation that all the great creeds,\nall the moral forces, have contended with so much eagerness and\nglory for the empire of our society?\n\nThey must save it and themselves from this disgraceful peril.\nThey must accept, respect, and loyally serve the new social\nstate; they must learn to live amicably together in its bosom.\n\n{82}\n\nI say _they must!_ It is an immense point in a great work to\nlook upon success as indispensable and vital. The feeling of\nnecessity gives to those whom that necessity pleases, much power;\nto the opposite party much resignation. A passionate desire\nsupports even more than it deceives. And here there is indeed\nroom for such a desire; for, during a long future, the honor and\nmoral repose of society are at stake. It cannot remain in this\nstate of apathy and uneasiness in which the mind languishes and\nexhausts itself. Man desires for his soul more activity and more\nsecurity, a firmer ground, a higher flight. The true agreement of\nthe great intellectual powers can alone grant him these.\n\nHow can this be accomplished?\n\nI grapple at once with the more notorious and serious of the\ndifficulties,--the nature of Catholicism and the conditions of\nits agreement with the new state of society which has attacked\nit, and been in its turn so roughly attacked.\n\nI set aside, too, without hesitation, the questions of religion,\nproperly so called; questions which concern the dealings of God\nwith man, questions about the safety of the human soul.\n\nNot that I look on them with indifference, or that their\nimportance is not now as it has always been, overwhelming and\nimmense. It ought, on the contrary, to be frequently repeated,\nfor in our day it has been too much forgotten, and it is the real\nobject, and substance, nay, the essence of religion. The moral\nquality, the rule of conduct for man in his relations with man,\nis important.\n{83}\nThe mental calm and resignation of men in the trials of life is\nimportant. The Christian religion teaches these, and thence its\ngreat position upon earth and in society. But it does more, it\ngoes far beyond human society and this world. It binds man to\nGod, it reveals to him the secret of this awful tie, it teaches\nhim what he ought to believe and do in respect to his relation to\nGod and his prospect of eternity. Imperishable things from which\nman may turn aside his gaze, but which do not disappear from his\nnature; sublime wants from which he cannot free himself, though\nhe may mistake and deny them--the law of these things, the\nsatisfying of these wants, that is to say, the dogma and its\nconsequences, constitute the Christian religion, the first which\nhas really understood and embraced its object.\n\nBut in these questions and in the dogmas which reply to them,\nnothing can now arouse between Catholicism and civil society\neither conflict or embarrassment. In this matter, the State\nproclaims not only the liberty but the right of the church, and\ndeclares itself absolutely incompetent to interfere. And here\nlies whatever truth exists in that deplorable and confused saying\nwhich has excited so much comment, \"_The law is\natheistical_.\" Surely not so. The law is not atheistical. How\nshould it be so? Is the law a real living being, a being with a\nsoul which approaches to or recedes from God, which may be lost\nor saved? \"Human societies,\" says M. Royer Collard, \"live and die\non the earth, there they fulfil their destinies.\" But they do not\ncomprehend man as an entire.\n{84}\nAfter he has bound himself to society there still remains to him\nthe noblest part of himself, the high faculties by which he\nraises himself to God, to a future life, to unknown good in an\ninvisible world. We, as individuals, as beings endowed with\nimmortality, have a different destiny from states.\n\nAnd it is on this account that the State should not interfere\nwith that other destiny. As its nature and aim are different from\nher own, as the two have nothing in common, to interfere must\nproduce confusion and usurpation.\n\nThat which the state now proclaims was taught to it by the\nChurch, the Catholic Church. During centuries when the state\nwished to interfere in matters of opinion and salvation, did not\nthe Church distinctly reject such pretensions. And how did she do\nso? By the distinction of temporal and spiritual, of terrestrial\nand eternal life, that is, by the incompetence of the state to\ndeal with the relations of the soul with God.\n\nAnd the Catholic Church was right in sustaining this principle,\nthe forgetfulness of which has cost her much. How did she lose a\nportion of her empire? How came Henry VIII. amongst others to\nseparate from her? By proclaiming the temporal power competent to\nmatters of faith and salvation. Let Catholicism go back to the\nsixteenth century, to the history of the reformation. It is by\nthe confusion of the two powers, by this religious competence of\nthe state, that she has suffered the rudest shocks.\n{85}\nThe Catholic Church has no more dangerous enemies than lay\ntheologians, whether princes or doctors.\n\nThey are the more dangerous foes because religious motives are\nnot those which alone may animate them, and lay usurpations in\nmatters of faith have often served as a veil to the most worldly\ninterests. Had the religious incompetence of the state always\nbeen acknowledged, the church would not so often have seen her\nproperty as well as her power in danger or lost.\n\nShe has henceforth nothing similar to fear. Usurpation is on both\nsides forbidden. Her kingdom belongs to herself alone; she\npossesses it completely and securely.\n\nOn this side, the great side of Christian religion in this world,\npeace is easy and may be sincere between Catholicism and the new\nsocial state.\n\nLet us see where the real difficulty exists.\n\nThe government of the Catholic Church is a power invested in her\nown domain, and in matters of faith and salvation, with the\ncharacter of infallibility.\n\nI put aside, great as they are, all secondary questions, such as\nthe knowledge of the conditions and limits in which infallibility\nexists, to whom it belongs, to the Holy Seat or to Councils, or\nto the Holy Seat and Councils united. I look to the one principle\nwhich is found in every combination and form of Catholic belief.\n\nThe principle itself is founded on the perpetuity of divine\nrevelation, faithfully preserved in the church by means of\ntradition, and renewed when needful by the inspiration of the\nHoly Spirit, which ceases not to descend on the successor of St.\nPeter who was placed at the head of the church by Jesus Christ\nhimself.\n\n{86}\n\nThis is the essential and vital principle, the base and summit,\nthe Alpha and Omega of Catholicism.\n\nAgainst a power of such a nature and origin, where it really\nmanifests itself, all discussion, resistance, and separation are\nunlawful.\n\nThe new state of society and constitutional France has its\nprinciple also, which has become that of its government.\n\nAll human power is fallible, and must be controlled and limited.\n\nEvery human society has the right of controlling and limiting,\ndirectly and indirectly, in such and such measures, and under\nsuch or such form, the power which it obeys.\n\nI do not soften the problem. I set forth the two principles. They\nare essentially different; they are said to be hostile.\n\nThey would be so indeed, could they meet and display themselves\nin the same sphere. But here I find the remedy I sought.\n\nWhen ages ago the church so loudly and vehemently insisted on the\ndistinction of the spiritual and temporal, she was acting in the\ninterest of her own dignity and founding her own liberty. She was\ndoing more. She thereby maintained the dignity of man, and laid\nthe foundations of liberty of conscience.\n\n{87}\n\nThe separation of spiritual from temporal, the doctrine of the\nchurch; and the separation of the religious and civil state, the\ndoctrine of our constitutional regime; the independence of\nreligious society in matters of faith, conquered by the church in\nthe earlier days of modern Europe; and liberty of conscience, a\nvictory achieved by modern society,--have one and the same\nprinciple at the root. The application and form may be different,\nthe origin and moral signification entirely agree.\n\nHence the means of peace and harmony between Catholicism and our\nnew society.\n\nSuppose that the two principles, the separation of spiritual and\ntemporal, of the religious and civil state, were (and it is\npossible, since at the root they agree) sincerely and completely\nallowed, respected and practised by church and state; whence\nwould the conflict spring?\n\nThe Catholic church would loudly maintain her infallibility in\nthe religious sphere, that is, as regards the connexion between\nspiritual power and the faithful. The state would insist upon\nliberty of conscience and thought in the social sphere, that is,\nin the relations of the temporal power with the citizens. Each\npower would advance according to its principles, parallel, and\nwithout collision.\n\nWhat then is the obstacle?\n\nIt is rather historical than reasonable. It arises from the\npassed deeds and ancient life of the two powers, rather than from\ntheir essential principles and actual relations.\n\n{88}\n\nThe separation of the spiritual and temporal originates in the\nchaos of the middle ages. It sprung from thence, as the sun\nappears through a dark and stormy sky. Principles and powers,\nideas and situations, all have been in our Europe wonderfully\nobscure, confused, incoherent, incomplete. There has long been a\ndepth of temporal affairs mixed with spiritual, spiritual with\ntemporal, in the existence and constitution of the church and\nstate. Hence the temptations and attempts, both frequent and\nterrible, at reciprocal usurpation. The confusion of facts and\nviolence of passions struggled incessantly against the principle\nwhich strove to restrain them.\n\nThat is the lot of truth here. It is boasted of but disdained,\ninvoked yet rejected, at once admitted and proscribed; here\nsupreme, there powerless. Man deserves no better, the world fares\nno better than that.\n\nHowever, after many efforts on certain memorable days some truth\ndoes detach itself, and rises so high that she shines brightly\nand commands respect.\n\nThe separation of the spiritual and temporal has had this\nfortune. Church and state, bishops and philosophers, opinion and\nlaw have contributed in turn to secure it for her. It is a\nprinciple now so well established amongst us, that neither\npersons nor things, neither mind nor art, could be kept long\nclear from its influence.\n\nSince the great ambitions which have disturbed the world be but\nfoolish pretensions, it behoves them carefully to avoid the last\nrisk they can run, that of becoming ridiculous squabbles.\n{89}\nLet the two powers, instead of painfully lowering themselves to\nseize though but for a few days, some fragments from the past\nconfusion, admit fully both as regards right and deed their\nmutual incompetence; let each establish itself firmly in its\nspecial sphere, let each loudly proclaim its principle--the\nCatholic church, its infallibility in religious orders; the\nState, the liberty of thought in social concerns. Not only will\nthey then live in peace, but they will respect and serve\nthemselves really in spirit and in truth, and not in a\nsuperficial appearance which is unworthy of both.\n\nI say they will respect each other in spirit and in truth, and I\nregret that I can but glance at the subject. Certainly, setting\naside all faith and law, the vital principle of Catholicism, the\nreligious infallibility of the church,--and the vital principle\nof our civil society, the liberty of conscience and\nthought,--have a right to the respect, the former of the boldest\nthinkers, the latter of the most pious and the strictest minds.\nBut I have not room here to enter suitably on such a question; I\nmay attempt it some day.\n\nAs to the practical benefits of a true pacification to the\nCatholic Church and to constitutional France, they are immense.\nWhat is the prevailing ill of our temporal society?\n\n{90}\n\nThe weakening of authority. I do not allude to that strength\nwhich insists on being obeyed. Never had power greater command of\nit; never perhaps so much. I allude to that authority recognized\nbeforehand on principle in a general way, received and felt as a\nright which is not obliged to resort to force; that authority\nbefore which the spirit bows without abasement of heart, and\nwhich speaks from on high with the influence not of constraint,\nbut nevertheless of necessity.\n\nThat is truly authority. It is not the only principle of the\nsocial state. It does not suffice for the government of men. But\nwithout it nothing will suffice; neither argument unceasingly\npersevered in, nor well-understood interest, nor the material\npreponderance of numbers. Where authority is wanting, whatever\nthe force, obedience is precarious or mean, even near the extreme\nof rebellion or of servility. Catholicism has the essence of\nauthority; it is authority itself, systematically conceived and\norganised. It lays it down in principle, and puts it in practice\nwith great firmness of teaching, and a rare intelligence of human\nnature.\n\nDid this spirit prevail in our society, or did it lean towards\nit, there would be need to seek elsewhere counterbalances and\nlimits. But the danger is clearly not there; and whilst our\ninstitutions and manners cherish in us the spirit of individual\nindependence in thought as well as life, it is a great blessing\nto society, to its morality as well as its repose, that other\ncauses, other methods of teaching maintain the principle of\nauthority and the spirit of internal submission.\n\n\"I learnt in the army what one learns no where else--respect;\"\nsaid an old retired non-commissioned officer of the Imperial\nGuard, in 1820.\n\n{91}\n\nCatholicism is the greatest, the most holy school of respect that\nthe world has ever seen. France was brought up in this school, in\nspite of the ill use which human passions have often made of her\nprecepts. The abuse is now little formidable; the benefit ought\nto be great, for we have great need of it.\n\nCatholicism itself is suffering at present from a grievous\nmalady.\n\nThis is the prevailing coldness and routine, the predominance of\nform over foundation, of external practice over internal\nfeelings.\n\nThis arises from the often hypocritical incredulity of the\neighteenth century, not very distant from the nineteenth; and\nalso from the preponderance, which has long been excessive, in\nthe church, of the government over the vital principle, of\necclesiastical authority over religious life.\n\nSome analogy existed in this respect between the church and state\nin the last century. On both sides power was afoot with its old\norganization, in the hands of its former possessors; but amongst\nthe subjects there was little faith and little love.\n\nWhat is it, nevertheless, that has saved Catholicism from\nshipwreck? It is that it was a popular religion and faith. The\nCatholic government yielded, the Catholic people survived. M. de\nMonlosier was right; in our days, too, it was the cross of wood\nwhich saved the world.\n\n{92}\n\nThe safety is yet incomplete. The church has risen, but many a\nsoul languishes. Catholicism needs faith, a more inward and\nlively faith.\n\nIt is the vague and ill-regulated feeling of this want, which has\nfor some time inspired those dreams of absolute independence, of\nrupture between church and state, those shiverings of the fever\nof democracy, which, under the name of M. l'Abb\u00e9 de Lamennais,\nhave scandalised the faithful and made the indifferent smile.\n\nMad, shameful dreams which urge Catholicism to abjure her\nprinciples and history, to hand herself over to the contagion of\nmodern evil and to dishonour while she destroys herself.\n\nIt is not in such devious ways that Catholicism will find\nreligious life. This will, on the contrary, be found by her\nremaining faithful to herself in the new position frankly\naccepted. This position is worthy, strong, favorable to the\nprogress of faith and fervour. It possesses towards the state a\nfair measure of liberty and alliance, towards the faithful the\nsuitable independence as well as the needful intimacy; no evil\nhopes, no worldly distractions, nothing which can render zeal\nimpure or even suspected; but nothing, on the other hand, which\nattacks the traditions or customs of the Church, nothing which\ntends to deprive it of the august character of elevation and\nstability. The Catholic Church is thus placed in constitutional\nFrance; and success, religious and social, belong to the use of\nproper measures, as by proper measures success is certain.\n\n{93}\n\nThe situation of Protestantism is more simple: some persons even\naffect to consider it more favourable. The general feeling which\nprevails in our days, our political and domestic alliances, the\nanalogy of principle between constitutional France and Protestant\nEngland, all seem to say that Protestantism is in favour. There\nare some even who pretend to the discovery of a plot to make\nFrance Protestant.\n\nThis does not deserve even a passing remark.\n\nThere was a time, not very distant, when Protestantism did not\nseem so well placed in France. I do not speak of the Restoration;\neven under the empire it was often said that Protestantism had a\nrepublican tendency, that her maxims were contrary to stability\nand power. The spirits of Protestantism and revolution were\nconsidered as related.\n\nThis is still repeated. It has become a party theme; and\nProtestantism is perseveringly represented as incompatible with\nsocial order, peaceful dispositions, and monarchy.\n\nHappily, Protestantism is not a thing of yesterday in Europe; it\nappeals to history and facts for a reply.\n\nIf there be any where three countries which, for fifty years,\namidst the overthrow of ideas, states, and dynasties have given\nstriking proofs of affection for their institutions and princes,\nfor the conservative and monarchical spirit, they are assuredly\nEngland, Holland, Prussia--three Protestant countries,\n_the_ three Protestant countries _par excellence_ in\nEurope; countries, too, wonderful for order, for industry, and\nfor prosperity; countries which greatly conduce to the power and\nglory of modern civilization. There can be no more decisive\nanswer to the worn out declamations of ancient party spirit, nor\ndo they deserve more ample discussion.\n\n{94}\n\nFrench Protestantism is peculiarly free from this ridiculous\nreproach. It has not been remarkable for receiving too much\nprotection or justice. It enjoys them as a new acquisition, with\nmodesty and gratitude. Never was a religious society disposed to\nevince towards the civil power greater deference and respect.\n\nProtestantism, by a singular amalgamation, has been blamed for\ntoo much deference even in this respect. It has been accused of\nlowering religion, and making the church subservient to the\nstate. This, it is said, is the consequence of the fall of the\necclesiastical hierarchy, the great governing power of the\nCatholic church, which Protestantism has attacked. Thus the\ndivision between spiritual and temporal has disappeared; the\nspiritual has fallen under the yoke of the civil power.\n\nI have already said sufficient of the separation of spiritual and\ntemporal, to avoid the suspicion of thinking ill of it. It is one\nof the most glorious forms which, in modern Europe, the\nindependence of thought and faith has assumed. It is the\nprinciple in virtue of which Catholicism must, in the midst of\nmodern institutions and ideas, assume a worthy and secure place.\n\n{95}\n\nBut in spiritual as in temporal order, it is necessary that\nliberty have but one aspect and be exclusively attached to this\nor that combination. Religion has more than one method of\npreserving her dignity and independence; God plants it and causes\nit to prosper in more than one soil, in more than one climate.\n\nIn fact, taking things together, faith has been strong, and\nconscience has displayed itself with energy in Protestant\ncountries, in spite of the doubtful lines of demarcation between\nthe two domains, and the too frequent intervention of the civil\npower in religious matters.\n\nThis is because the civil power has never made religious matters\nits chief concern. Politics, governments, properly so called,\nhave absorbed its attention and power. Sooner or later, it has\nended by leaving consciences to themselves; it has, at all\nevents, left the reins more loose and the field more free than\nhas been the case in Catholic countries, where there has been a\npower devoted to the sole task of ruling spiritual society.\n\nThus, too, there is in every society, political or religious, a\ncertain intimate and permanent tendency which gets the better of\nall forms of organization and all accidents of situation.\nProtestantism sprang from free enquiry. It is her standard. It\nhas never been abandoned by her, whatever share she may have\ntaken in the civil rule; I will go so far as to say, the civil\ndespotism. In short, human thought, in religion as in every other\nmatter, has displayed itself with infinite activity and freedom\nin Protestant countries.\n\n{96}\n\nDo we forget, besides, the first and most powerful cause of\nspiritual independence? It is that Protestantism,--she cannot\navoid it,--admits into her bosom great differences of faith and\npractice, dissents, separations, sects in short. She may have\noften condemned and persecuted them, but she has never deemed\nherself obliged to curse and extirpate them. They have lived and\nmultiplied under Protestantism, in the teeth of the national\nchurch; ill-treated, humiliated, but never forced from some last\nretreat; always, to a certain degree, protected by the spirit of\nfree enquiry, its examples and recollections. This affords a\nstrong pledge for liberty of conscience, and opens an asylum to\nall who may have been attacked or vexed on account of their faith\nby the civil power. If the Anglican church has, with some\njustice, though much exaggeration, been accused of complaisance\ntowards the temporal sovereign, the English dissenters have, on\nthe other hand, unceasingly proclaimed their haughty independence\nof her. The shield which the Catholic church has found in the\nseparation of the spiritual and temporal, has been found by\nProtestantism in the freedom, even though incomplete, of\nreligious dissent and the multiplicity of sects.\n\nAnd as a just reward for this dawn of liberty, the Protestant\nsects are not so widely severed as they appear to be from the\nnational Church and the State. Persecuted, irritated, even\nrebellious, they have nevertheless strongly adhered, with hidden\nyet deep feeling, to the common centre of belief and the public\ndestiny. An ardent Puritan was, under Queen Elizabeth, sent to\nthe pillory and condemned to have his hand cut off.\n{97}\nThe hand falls; with his left, he raises his large hat, crying\n\"God save the Queen!\" Almost invariably in critical\ncircumstances, when the vital interests of the national religion\nor of the country appeared to be compromised, the English\ndissenters have rallied round the state, and though forsaking her\nreligious banner, have still served her with exemplary devotion.\n\nI have little taste for sectarian spirit, but never should\nProtestantism when in power set up as a national church, and\ntreat dissenters with rigour or disdain; for it owes in part to\nthem the maintenance of its dignity, as well as the fervour of\nfaith and the progress of liberty of conscience. Above all, never\nshould our constitutional monarchy trouble itself about dissent,\nshould it one day arise, in French Protestantism. It could not\npossess political importance, or tend to weaken the tie which\nbinds the Protestants of France to the new social condition and\nits governing power.\n\nProtestantism, while free from political danger, has, in a purely\nreligious point of view, much good to do in France; not by\ndrawing France to her standard, by converting her, to use the\ncustomary phrase. Conversions on either side are and will\nhenceforward be few, and the importance which some persons attach\nto them as a matter of joy or regret is somewhat puerile. It is a\nstep and a most important step for the individuals, but one of no\nsocial moment. France will not become Protestant. Protestantism\nwill not become extinct in France. One reason among many is\ndecisive.\n{98}\nThe struggle of these days of ideas and empire is not between\nCatholicism and Protestantism. Impiety and immorality are the\nenemies which both have to resist. To restore the spirit of\nreligion is the work to which both are called. The work, like the\nevil, is immense. A slight probing of the wound, a short but\nserious glance at the moral state of the masses of men, whose\nminds are so fluctuating, whose hearts so empty, who desire so\nmuch and hope so little, who pass so rapidly from the excitement\nof fever to mental torpor,--and the observer will be penetrated\nwith sadness and alarm. Catholics or Protestants, priests or\nlaymen, be ye whom ye may, do not, if believers, be uneasy about\neach other; reserve that for those who believe not. There is the\nfield for work, there the harvest. The field is open to\nProtestantism as to Catholicism; work will not be wanting to\neither; each has the aptitude and peculiar qualities to enable it\nto labour with success.\n\nWe suffer from very different moral complaints.\n\nSome are above all things wearied and disgusted with the\nuncertainty and disorder of men's minds. They need a harbour\nsheltered from every point, a light which is ever steady, a\nguiding hand which never trembles. They ask from religion rather\nsupport to weakness than aliment for activity. They require her,\nwhile elevating, to sustain them; while touching their hearts, to\nkeep down their understandings; while animating their inward\nlife, to give them at the same time, and above all else, a deep\nsense of security.\n\n{99}\n\nCatholicism is wonderfully adapted to this frame of mind, now so\ncommon. She has gratifications for desires, remedies for\nsuffering. She knows how at once to subdue and to please. Her\ngrasp is strong, her prospects full of charm for the imagination.\nShe excels in occupying while soothing the soul, which she suits\nafter periods of great fatigue; for without leaving it cold or\nidle, she saves it much trouble, and undertakes for it the burden\nof responsibility.\n\nFor another class of minds, though also suffering and separated\nfrom religion, more intellectual and physical activity is\nrequired. They too feel the need of returning to God and the\nfaith; but they are used to examine everything themselves, and\nonly to receive that which they acquire by their own labour. They\nwish to shun incredulity, but liberty is dear to them; there is\nin their religious tendency more thirst than lassitude. To such,\nProtestantism may gain access, for while it speaks to them of\npiety and faith, it encourages and invites them to make use of\ntheir reason and liberty. It has been accused of coldness. That\nis a mistake. In ceaselessly appealing to free and personal\nexamination it takes deep root in the soul, and becomes easily an\ninward faith, in which the activity of the understanding keeps up\ninstead of extinguishing the fervour of the heart. And hence its\nconnexion with the modern spirit, which formerly in its youth was\nat the same time reasoning and enthusiastic, eager for conviction\nas for liberty, and which, despite its momentary quiescence, has\nretained its old nature and will infallibly resume its double\ncharacter.\n\n{100}\n\nCatholicism and Protestantism must never lose sight of our system\nof society, for it is on this that they must work. Let each of\nthem appeal to it in its own way, looking for and attending to\nthe wounds or wants for the cure or satisfaction of which they\nare best calculated. That is their true, their efficacious and\ndisinterested mission, not looking at each other and seeking a\nrenewal of controversy.\n\nIn general, I believe controversy is but of little use, and has\nlittle religious effect. In every age it has taken but a small\npart in the triumph of great moral truths. They establish\nthemselves, especially at their first appearing, by direct and\ndogmatic exposition. We have in the gospels the most remarkable\nand august example. From their earliest day, neither motive or\noccasion of controversy was wanting with Jew or pagan. Yet we\nscarcely meet with it in the preaching either of Jesus Christ or\nof the apostles. They lay down their rule of faith, their\nprecepts; they knock without ceasing at the doors of the hearts\nwhich they desire to enter. They do not trouble themselves to\nargue with their adversaries. Controversy arises later, and when\nit does, it soon disfigures the truth, for it distributes it in\nfragments among parties, sects, men; and each holds fast, with\nthe intractable blindness of self-love, to the fragment which has\nfallen to his lot, in which he wishes to see, and that others\nshould see, truth in her entirety.\n\n{101}\n\nLet them keep clear of controversy; let them attend little to\neach other, much to themselves and their task. Catholicism and\nProtestantism will then dwell peaceably, not only within its new\nstate, but together.\n\nI know that this peace will not be that spiritual unity which has\nbeen so talked of. Spiritual unity, beautiful in itself, is in\nthis world chimerical; and from chimerical it becomes tyrannical.\n\nAs finite and free beings, that is to say, incomplete and\nfallible, unity escapes us, and we constantly miss it.\n\nHarmony in liberty is the only unity to which men here below can\npretend. Or, rather, it is for them the best, the only mode of\nelevation towards that true unity which all violence, all\nconstraint,--that is, every invasion of spiritual by material\norder,--throws back and obscures, under the pretext of attaining\nit.\n\nHarmony in liberty is the spirit of Christianity. It is charity\nunited with zeal. It is also the object of philosophy, for it is\nthe true, the moral sense of the principle of toleration and\nequal protection of the rites of worship; a principle which\nimpiety has violated by trying to set it up as the standard of\nindifference and contempt for religion, but which allies itself\nwondrously with zeal and faith, for on _their_ right it is\nitself founded.\n\nThe alliance must be ratified. I say _must_ in concluding,\nas I did when beginning. Peace between religious creeds is now\nimposed on all alike by our social condition. Harmony in liberty\nis their legal condition, their charter. Let them yield to it in\nspirit as in act; let them love it while obeying it. I fear not\nthe fate of a false prophet, when I predict that religion will be\nthereby as great a gainer as society.\n\n{102}\n\nAs to Philosophy, she has in our days the glory of not having\nremained a Utopia. From discoveries she has proceeded to\nconquests. She has metamorphosed her ideas into facts and\ninstitutions; a formidable change, as it reveals not only the\nerrors of the first thought, but for a time misleads and corrupts\nit by plunging it into the vortex of human passions; nevertheless\na great glory, and one which assigns to philosophy a high\nposition in the new social state.\n\nIt is a rare privilege to be able, without embarrassment,\nworthily to acknowledge and abjure error. Philosophy can do this,\nfor, politically speaking, victory belongs to her, and not only\nvictory but power. Though much self-deceived, she has done much.\nShe has reason for pride as well as for modesty. She can afford\nto show herself just, benevolent, and respectful to her former\nadversaries. She cannot be charged with weakness or cowardice.\n\nPractically, experience has enlightened her. She knows better\nthan she did the true condition of morality and human society.\nShe knows that she herself is not all-sufficient, that she\nsuffices not entirely for souls or nations, that in human nature\nand in the general course of affairs the share due to religion is\nimmense, and that philosophy should not contest it with her.\n\n{103}\n\nTo go still deeper, philosophy herself is about to become\nseriously and sincerely religious. Like Catholicism, like\nProtestantism, she cannot change her nature, she must remain\nphilosophy, that is to say free and independant thought, whatever\nher field of action. But as regards religious questions, she sees\nthat she has often been short-sighted and hasty, that neither\nimpiety nor indifference constitutes true knowledge, that the\nproudest spirit may humble itself before God, and that there is\nphilosophy in faith itself.\n\nAll this is still very vague, and I speak but vaguely of it.\nHowever, so it is. It is on this slope that philosophy is now\nplaced, and along it that she must hereafter advance. Her future\nmust be great in the midst of that society which she has formed.\nThe future must be great for spiritual order as a whole,\nreligious and philosophical. May this destiny be accomplished!\nMay spiritual order recover her activity and renown, with a peace\nand harmony hitherto unknown. Therein consists the dignity of\nman! therein the strength of society.\n\n                   End.\n\n\n\n    [Transcriber's note: The following text is not part of the\n    originals book, but seems worthy of inclusion.\n\n      Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process.\n      Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide\n      Treatment Date: April 2005\n\n      Preservation Technologies\n\n      A World Leader In Paper Preservation\n\n      111 Thomson Park Drive\n      Cranberry Township, PA 16066\n      (724) 779-2111]","title":"Meditations and Moral Sketches","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":23396}