or rather it is absolutely the same thing under two different names....
In effect it is the same thing, _in practice_, not to be subject to
error, and not to be liable to be accused of it. Thus, even if we should
agree that no divine promise was made to the Pope, he would not be less
infallible or deemed so, as the final tribunal; for every judgment from
which you cannot appeal is and must be (_est et doit être_) held for
just in every human association, under any imaginable form of
government; and every true statesman will understand me perfectly, when
I say that the point is to ascertain not only if the Sovereign Pontiff
is, but if he must be, infallible.'[15] In another place he says
distinctly enough that the infallibility of the Church has two aspects;
in one of them it is the object of divine promise, in the other it is a
human implication, and that in the latter aspect infallibility is
supposed in the Church, just 'as we are absolutely bound to suppose it,
even in temporal sovereignties (where it does not really exist), under
pain of seeing society dissolved.' The Church only demands what other
sovereignties demand, though she has the immense superiority over them
of having her claim backed by direct promise from heaven.[16] Take away
the dogma, if you will, he says, and only consider the thing
politically, which is exactly what he really does all through the book.
The pope, from this point of view, asks for no other infallibility than
that which is attributed to all sovereigns.[17] Without either
vindicating or surrendering the supernatural side of the Papal claims,
he only insists upon the political, social, or human side of it, as an
inseparable quality of an admitted supremacy.[18] In short, from
beginning to end of this speculation, from which the best kind of
ultramontanism has drawn its defence, he evinces a deprecatory
anxiety--a very rare temper with De Maistre--not to fight on the issue
of the dogma of infallibility over which Protestants and unbelievers
have won an infinite number of cheap victories; that he leaves as a
theme more fitted for the disputations of theologians. My position, he
seems to keep saying, is that if the Pope is spiritually supreme, then
he is virtually and practically _as if he were_ infallible, just in the
same sense in which the English Parliament and monarch, and the Russian
Czar, are as if they were infallible. But let us not argue so much about
this, which is only secondary. The main question is whether without the
Pope there can be a true Christianity, 'that is to say, a Christianity,
active, powerful, converting, regenerating, conquering, perfecting.'
De Maistre was probably conducted to his theory by an analogy, which he
tacitly leaned upon more strongly than it could well bear, between
temporal organisation and spiritual organisation. In inchoate
communities, the momentary self-interest and the promptly stirred
passions of men would rend the growing society in pieces, unless they
were restrained by the strong hand of law in some shape or other,
written or unwritten, and administered by an authority, either
physically too strong to be resisted, or else set up by the common
consent seeking to further the general convenience. To divide this
authority, so that none should know where to look for a sovereign
decree, nor be able to ascertain the commands of sovereign law; to
embody it in the persons of many discordant expounders, each assuming
oracular weight and equal sanction; to leave individuals to administer
and interpret it for themselves, and to decide among themselves its
application to their own cases; what would this be but a deliberate
preparation for anarchy and dissolution? For it is one of the clear
conditions of the efficacy of the social union, that every member of it
should be able to know for certain the terms on which he belongs to it,
the compliances which it will insist upon in him, and the compliances
which it will in turn permit him to insist upon in others, and therefore
it is indispensable that there should be some definite and admitted
centre where this very essential knowledge should be accessible.
Some such reflections as these must have been at the bottom of De
Maistre's great apology for the Papal supremacy, or at any rate they may
serve to bring before our minds with greater clearness the kind of
foundations on which his scheme rested. For law substitute Christianity,
for social union spiritual union, for legal obligations the obligations
of the faith. Instead of individuals bound together by allegiance to
common political institutions, conceive communities united in the bonds
of religious brotherhood into a sort of universal republic, under the
moderate supremacy of a supreme spiritual power. As a matter of fact, it
was the intervention of this spiritual power which restrained the
anarchy, internal and external, of the ferocious and imperfectly
organised sovereignties that figure in the early history of modern
Europe. And as a matter of theory, what could be more rational and
defensible than such an intervention made systematic, with its
rightfulness and disinterestedness universally recognised? Grant
Christianity as the spiritual basis of the life and action of modern
communities; supporting both the organised structure of each of them,
and the interdependent system composed of them all; accepted by the
individual members of each, and by the integral bodies forming the
whole. But who shall declare what the Christian doctrine is, and how its
maxims bear upon special cases, and what oracles they announce in
particular sets of circumstances? Amid the turbulence of popular
passion, in face of the crushing despotism of an insensate tyrant,
between the furious hatred of jealous nations or the violent ambition of
rival sovereigns, what likelihood would there be of either party to the
contention yielding tranquilly and promptly to any presentation of
Christian teaching made by the other, or by some suspected neutral as a
decisive authority between them? Obviously there must be some supreme
and indisputable interpreter, before whose final decree the tyrant
should quail, the flood of popular lawlessness flow back within its
accustomed banks, and contending sovereigns or jealous nations
fraternally embrace. Again, in those questions of faith and discipline,
which the ill-exercised ingenuity of men is for ever raising and
pressing upon the attention of Christendom, it is just as obvious that
there must be some tribunal to pronounce an authoritative judgment.
Otherwise, each nation is torn into sects; and amid the throng of sects
where is unity? 'To maintain that a crowd of independent churches form a
church, one and universal, is to maintain in other terms that all the
political governments of Europe only form a single government, one and
universal.' There could no more be a kingdom of France without a king,
nor an empire of Russia without an emperor, than there could be one
universal church without an acknowledged head. That this head must be
the successor of St. Peter, is declared alike by the voice of tradition,
the explicit testimony of the early writers, the repeated utterances of
later theologians of all schools, and that general sentiment which
presses itself upon every conscientious reader of religious history.
The argument that the voice of the Church is to be sought in general
councils is absurd. To maintain that a council has any other function
than to assure and certify the Pope, when he chooses to strengthen his
judgment or to satisfy his doubts, is to destroy visible unity. Suppose
there to be an equal division of votes, as happened in the famous case
of Fénelon, and might as well happen in a general council, the doubt
would after all be solved by the final vote of the Pope. And 'what is
doubtful for twenty selected men is doubtful for the whole human race.
Those who suppose that by multiplying the deliberating voices doubt is
lessened, must have very little knowledge of men, and can never have sat
in a deliberative body.' Again, supposing there to present itself one of
those questions of divine metaphysics that it is absolutely necessary to
refer to the decision of the supreme tribunal. Then our interest is not
that it should be decided in such or such a manner, but that it should
be decided without delay and without appeal. Besides, the world is now
grown too vast for general councils, which seem to be made only for the
youth of Christianity. In fine, why pursue futile or mischievous
discussions as to whether the Pope is above the Council or the Council
above the Pope? In ordinary questions in which a king is conscious of
sufficient light, he decides them himself, while the others in which he
is not conscious of this light, he transfers to the States-General
presided over by himself, but he is equally sovereign in either case. So
with the Pope and the Council. Let us be content to know, in the words
of Thomassin,[19] that 'the Pope in the midst of his Council is above
himself, and that the Council decapitated of its chief is below him.'
The point so constantly dwelt upon by Bossuet, the obligation of the
canons upon the Pope, was of very little worth in De Maistre's judgment,
and he almost speaks with disrespect of the great Catholic defender for
being so prolix and pertinacious in elaborating it. Here again he finds
in Thomassin the most concise statement of what he held to be the true
view, just as he does in the controversy as to the relative superiority
of the Pope or the Council. 'There is only an apparent contradiction,'
says Thomassin, 'between saying that the Pope is above the canons, and
that he is bound by them; that he is master of the canons, or that he is
not. Those who place him above the canons or make him their master, only
pretend that he _has a dispensing power over them_; while those who deny
that he is above the canons or is their master, mean no more than that
_he can only exercise a dispensing power for the convenience and in the
necessities of the Church_.' This is an excellent illustration of the
thoroughly political temper in which De Maistre treats the whole
subject. He looks at the power of the Pope over the canons much as a
modern English statesman looks at the question of the coronation oath,
and the extent to which it binds the monarch to the maintenance of the
laws existing at the time of its imposition. In the same spirit he
banishes from all account the crowd of nonsensical objections to Papal
supremacy, drawn from imaginary possibilities. Suppose a Pope, for
example, were to abolish all the canons at a single stroke; suppose him
to become an unbeliever; suppose him to go mad; and so forth. 'Why,' De
Maistre says, 'there is not in the whole world a single power in a
condition to bear all possible and arbitrary hypotheses of this sort;
and if you judge them by what they can do, without speaking of what they
have done, they will have to be abolished every one.'[20] This, it may
be worth noticing, is one of the many passages in De Maistre's writings
which, both in the solidity of their argument and the direct force of
their expression, recall his great predecessor in the anti-revolutionary
cause, the ever-illustrious Burke.
The vigour with which De Maistre sums up all these pleas for supremacy
is very remarkable; and to the crowd of enemies and indifferents, and
especially to the statesmen who are among them, he appeals with
admirable energy. 'What do you want, then? Do you mean that the nations
should live without any religion, and do you not begin to perceive that
a religion there must be? And does not Christianity, not only by its
intrinsic worth but because it is in possession, strike you as
preferable to every other? Have you been better contented with other
attempts in this way? Peradventure the twelve apostles might please you
better than the Theophilanthropists and Martinists? Does the Sermon on
the Mount seem to you a passable code of morals? And if the entire
people were to regulate their conduct on this model, should you be
content? I fancy that I hear you reply affirmatively. Well, since the
only object now is to maintain this religion for which you thus declare
your preference, how could you have, I do not say the stupidity, but the
cruelty, to turn it into a democracy, and to place this precious deposit
in the hands of the rabble?
'You attach too much importance to the dogmatic part of this religion.
By what strange contradiction would you desire to agitate the universe
for some academic quibble, for miserable wranglings about mere words
(these are your own terms)? Is it so then that men are led? Will you
call the Bishop of Quebec and the Bishop of Luçon to interpret a line of
the Catechism? That believers should quarrel about infallibility is what
I know, for I see it; but that statesmen should quarrel in the same way
about this great privilege, is what I shall never be able to
conceive.... That all the bishops in the world should be convoked to
determine a divine truth necessary to salvation--nothing more natural,
if such a method is indispensable; for no effort, no trouble, ought to
be spared for so exalted an aim. But if the only point is the
establishment of one opinion in the place of another, then the
travelling expenses of even one single Infallible are sheer waste. If
you want to spare the two most valuable things on earth, time and money,
make all haste to write to Rome, in order to procure thence a lawful
decision which shall declare the unlawful doubt. Nothing more is needed;
policy asks no more.'[21]
Definitely, then, the influence of the Popes restored to their ancient
supremacy would be exercised in the renewal and consolidation of social
order resting on the Christian faith, somewhat after this manner. The
anarchic dogma of the sovereignty of peoples, having failed to do
anything beyond showing that the greatest evils resulting from obedience
do not equal the thousandth part of those which result from rebellion,
would be superseded by the practice of appeals to the authority of the
Holy See. Do not suppose that the Revolution is at an end, or that the
column is replaced because it is raised up from the ground. A man must
be blind not to see that all the sovereignties in Europe are growing
weak; on all sides confidence and affection are deserting them; sects
and the spirit of individualism are multiplying themselves in an
appalling manner. There are only two alternatives: you must either
purify the will of men, or else you must enchain it; the monarch who
will not do the first, must enslave his subjects or perish; servitude or
spiritual unity is the only choice open to nations. On the one hand is
the gross and unrestrained tyranny of what in modern phrase is styled
Imperialism, and on the other a wise and benevolent modification of
temporal sovereignty in the interests of all by an established and
accepted spiritual power. No middle path lies before the people of
Europe. Temporal absolutism we must have. The only question is whether
or no it shall be modified by the wise, disinterested, and moderating
counsels of the Church, as given by her consecrated chief.
* * * * *
There can be very little doubt that the effective way in which De
Maistre propounded and vindicated this theory made a deep impression on
the mind of Comte. Very early in his career this eminent man had
declared: 'De Maistre has for me the peculiar property of helping me to
estimate the philosophic capacity of people, by the repute in which they
hold him.' Among his other reasons at that time for thinking well of M.
Guizot was that, notwithstanding his transcendent Protestantism, he
complied with the test of appreciating De Maistre.[22] Comte's rapidly
assimilative intelligence perceived that here at last there was a
definite, consistent, and intelligible scheme for the reorganisation of
European society, with him the great end of philosophic endeavour. Its
principle of the division of the spiritual and temporal powers, and of
the relation that ought to subsist between the two, was the base of
Comte's own scheme.
In general form the plans of social reconstruction are identical; in
substance, it need scarcely be said, the differences are fundamental.
The temporal power, according to Comte's design, is to reside with
industrial chiefs, and the spiritual power to rest upon a doctrine
scientifically established. De Maistre, on the other hand, believed that
the old authority of kings and Christian pontiffs was divine, and any
attempt to supersede it in either case would have seemed to him as
desperate as it seemed impious. In his strange speculation on _Le
Principe Générateur des Constitutions Politiques_, he contends that all
laws in the true sense of the word (which by the way happens to be
decidedly an arbitrary and exclusive sense) are of supernatural origin,
and that the only persons whom we have any right to call legislators,
are those half-divine men who appear mysteriously in the early history
of nations, and counterparts to whom we never meet in later days.
Elsewhere he maintains to the same effect, that royal families in the
true sense of the word 'are growths of nature, and differ from others,
as a tree differs from a shrub.'
People suppose a family to be royal because it reigns; on the contrary,
it reigns because it is royal, because it has more life, _plus d'esprit
royal_--surely as mysterious and occult a force as the _virtus
dormitiva_ of opium. The common life of man is about thirty years; the
average duration of the reigns of European sovereigns, being Christian,
is at the very lowest calculation twenty. How is it possible that 'lives
should be only thirty years, and reigns from twenty-two to twenty-five,
if princes had not more common life than other men?' Mark again, the
influence of religion in the duration of sovereignties. All the
Christian reigns are longer than all the non-Christian reigns, ancient
and modern, and Catholic reigns have been longer than Protestant reigns.
The reigns in England, which averaged more than twenty-three years
before the Reformation, have only been seventeen years since that, and
those of Sweden, which were twenty-two, have fallen to the same figure
of seventeen. Denmark, however, for some unknown cause does not appear
to have undergone this law of abbreviation; so, says De Maistre with
rather unwonted restraint, let us abstain from generalising. As a matter
of fact, however, the generalisation was complete in his own mind, and
there was nothing inconsistent with his view of the government of the
universe in the fact that a Catholic prince should live longer than a
Protestant; indeed such a fact was the natural condition of his view
being true. Many differences among the people who hold to the
theological interpretation of the circumstances of life arise from the
different degrees of activity which they variously attribute to the
intervention of God, from those who explain the fall of a sparrow to the
ground by a special and direct energy of the divine will, up to those
at the opposite end of the scale, who think that direct participation
ended when the universe was once fairly launched. De Maistre was of
those who see the divine hand on every side and at all times. If, then,
Protestantism was a pernicious rebellion against the faith which God had
provided for the comfort and salvation of men, why should not God be
likely to visit princes, as offenders with the least excuse for their
backslidings, with the curse of shortness of days?
In a trenchant passage De Maistre has expounded the Protestant
confession of faith, and shown what astounding gaps it leaves as an
interpretation of the dealings of God with man. 'By virtue of a terrible
anathema,' he supposes the Protestant to say, 'inexplicable no doubt,
but much less inexplicable than incontestable, the human race lost all
its rights. Plunged in mortal darkness, it was ignorant of all, since it
was ignorant of God; and, being ignorant of him, it could not pray to
him, so that it was spiritually dead without being able to ask for life.
Arrived by rapid degradation at the last stage of debasement, it
outraged nature by its manners, its laws, even by its religions. It
consecrated all vices, it wallowed in filth, and its depravation was
such that the history of those times forms a dangerous picture, which it
is not good for all men so much as to look upon. God, however, _having
dissembled for forty centuries_, bethought him of his creation. At the
appointed moment announced from all time, he did not despise a virgin's
womb; he clothed himself in our unhappy nature, and appeared on the
earth; we saw him, we touched him, he spoke to us; he lived, he taught,
he suffered, he died for us. He arose from his tomb according to his
promise; he appeared again among us, solemnly to assure to his Church a
succour that would last as long as the world.
'But, alas, this effort of almighty benevolence was a long way from
securing all the success that had been foretold. For lack of knowledge,
or of strength, or by distraction maybe, God missed his aim, and could
not keep his word. Less sage than a chemist who should undertake to shut
up ether in canvas or paper, he only confided to men the truth that he
had brought upon the earth; it escaped, then, as one might have
foreseen, by all human pores; soon, this holy religion revealed to man
by the Man-God, became no more than an infamous idolatry, which would
remain to this very moment if Christianity after sixteen centuries had
not been suddenly brought back to its original purity by a couple of
sorry creatures.'[23]
Perhaps it would be easier than he supposed to present his own system in
an equally irrational aspect. If you measure the proceedings of
omnipotence by the uses to which a wise and benevolent man would put
such superhuman power, if we can imagine a man of this kind endowed with
it, De Maistre's theory of the extent to which a supreme being
interferes in human things, is after all only a degree less ridiculous
and illogical, less inadequate and abundantly assailable, than that
Protestantism which he so heartily despised. Would it be difficult,
after borrowing the account, which we have just read, of the tremendous
efforts made by a benign creator to shed moral and spiritual light upon
the world, to perplex the Catholic as bitterly as the Protestant, by
confronting him both with the comparatively scanty results of those
efforts, and with the too visible tendencies of all the foremost
agencies in modern civilisation to leave them out of account as forces
practically spent?
* * * * *
De Maistre has been surpassed by no thinker that we know of as a
defender of the old order. If anybody could rationalise the idea of
supernatural intervention in human affairs, the idea of a Papal
supremacy, the idea of a spiritual unity, De Maistre's acuteness and
intellectual vigour, and, above all, his keen sense of the urgent social
need of such a thing being done, would assuredly have enabled him to do
it. In 1817, when he wrote the work in which this task is attempted, the
hopelessness of such an achievement was less obvious than it is now. The
Bourbons had been restored. The Revolution lay in a deep slumber that
many persons excusably took for the quiescence of extinction. Legitimacy
and the spiritual system that was its ally in the face of the
Revolution, though mostly its rival or foe when they were left alone
together, seemed to be restored to the fulness of their power. Fifty
years have elapsed since then, and each year has seen a progressive
decay in the principles which then were triumphant. It was not,
therefore, without reason that De Maistre warned people against
believing '_que la colonne est replacée, parcequ'elle est relevée_.' The
solution which he so elaborately recommended to Europe has shown itself
desperate and impossible. Catholicism may long remain a vital creed to
millions of men, a deep source of spiritual consolation and refreshment,
and a bright lamp in perplexities of conduct and morals; but resting on
dogmas which cannot by any amount of compromise be incorporated with the
daily increasing mass of knowledge, assuming as the condition of its
existence forms of the theological hypothesis which all the
preponderating influences of contemporary thought concur directly or
indirectly in discrediting, upheld by an organisation which its history
for the last five centuries has exposed to the distrust and hatred of
men as the sworn enemy of mental freedom and growth, the pretensions of
Catholicism to renovate society are among the most pitiable and impotent
that ever devout, high-minded, and benevolent persons deluded themselves
into maintaining or accepting. Over the modern invader it is as
powerless as paganism was over the invaders of old. The barbarians of
industrialism, grasping chiefs and mutinous men, give no ear to priest
or pontiff, who speak only dead words, who confront modern issues with
blind eyes, and who stretch out a palsied hand to help. Christianity,
according to a well-known saying, has been tried and failed; the
religion of Christ remains to be tried. One would prefer to qualify the
first clause, by admitting how much Christianity has done for Europe
even with its old organisation, and to restrict the charge of failure
within the limits of the modern time. To-day its failure is too patent.
Whether in changed forms and with new supplements the teaching of its
founder is destined to be the chief inspirer of that social and human
sentiment which seems to be the only spiritual bond capable of uniting
men together again in a common and effective faith, is a question which
it is unnecessary to discuss here. '_They talk about the first centuries
of Christianity_,' said De Maistre, '_I would not be sure that they are
over yet_.' Perhaps not; only if the first centuries are not yet over,
it is certain that the Christianity of the future will have to be so
different from the Christianity of the past, as to demand or deserve
another name.