I feel a profound respect for the Catholic Church. She has b

[Transcriber's note: This production is based on

https://archive.org/details/meditationsmoral00guiz/page/n3]

{1}

Meditations And Moral Sketches.

_By M. Guizot._

Translated From The French By

John, Marquis Of Ormonde, K. P.

"M. Guizot has recently collected his essays on religion,

philosophy, and education into a single volume, under the title

of 'Meditations and Moral Studies.' This work, which at present

is scarcely known in England, deserves particular

attention."--_Quarterly Review_, No. 187,

Dublin:

Hodges And Smith, 104, Grafton Street.

1855.

{2}

Dublin:

Printed By R. D. Webb,

Gt. Brunswick-St.

{3}

_Translator's Preface._

The three following Essays, although written some time back,

appear to bear so strongly on a question daily and hourly

discussed among ourselves, that I make but one apology for

presenting them in an English form, which is to the illustrious

author, whose sentiments (notwithstanding all the attention I

have given to the task) I cannot but fear I may yet have failed

in representing.

{4}

The Translation contained in the following pages originated in

the simple desire to facilitate the access to sentiments deemed

beneficial.

He who undertook this pleasing and benevolent task, has been

removed from this earthly scene. Let it be hoped that this solemn

truth may add interest to his labours for others, and that his

earnest wishes for their benefit may be in some measure realized.

{5}

Preface.

When I collected these moral sketches, which were written at

different times and under varying circumstances, I did not think

that I needed to add anything to them. A recent event, however,

has determined me, in now publishing them, to say a few words

more.

Having been called upon on the 30th of last April to take the

chair at a meeting of the Protestant Bible Society, I expressed

myself in these terms:--

What is after all, speaking religiously, the great question,

the most important question which at present occupies the

minds of men? It is the question in debate between those who

acknowledge and those who deny a supernatural, certain, and

sovereign order of things, although inscrutable to human

reason. The question in dispute, to call things by their right

names, between supernaturalism and naturalism. On the one

side, unbelievers, pantheists, pure rationalists, and sceptics

of all kinds. On the other, Christians.

"Amongst the first, the best still allow to the statue of the

Deity, if I may make use of such an expression, a place in the

world and in the human soul; but to the statue only,--an image,

a marble. God himself is no longer there. Christians alone

possess the living God.

{6}

"It is the living God whom we need! Our present and future

safety requires that faith in supernatural order, that respect

for and submission to supernatural order should again pervade

the world and the human soul,--the greatest minds as well as

the simplest, the most elevated classes as well as the most

humble. The truly efficacious and regenerating influence of

religious belief depends on this condition. Without it, all is

superficial, almost worthless.

"We may, at this day, with safety strive to re-animate and

propagate the Christian faith; for liberty--religious and civil

liberty--is abroad to prevent faith begetting tyranny and

oppression of the conscience--another sort of impiety. The

friends of liberty of conscience may fearlessly return to the

God of the Christian; there are no longer, nor will there ever

henceforth be, captives or slaves around his altars. Let, then,

Christian faith and piety return; they will bring back in their

train neither injustice nor violence. Doubtless, much care must

be taken and many contests sustained, in order that religious

liberty may be preserved unharmed in the midst of growing

religious fervour; but this beautiful harmony will be attained,

and will do honour to our time. Between Christians of different

communions there may exist henceforth but those struggles of

free faith and piety, which alone are permitted by the law of

God, and are alone worthy of His attention."

{7}

These words have been remarked upon, and either approved of or

objected to, in very different senses, by philosophers and by

Christians.

On the day after they had been uttered, Mr. Louis Veuillot said

in _l'Univers_,--"Monsieur Guizot made a speech which we

have read with a sentiment of respect and sympathy, mingled with

some grief. It would be impossible for us to do otherwise than

highly honour the man who makes, even _a-propos_ of a

movement which we do not approve and which is far from being

good, so noble a profession of Christian faith. It would be

impossible for us not to regret deeply that so great and generous

a spirit, one so well formed to comprehend unity, and so

naturally disposed to submit himself to it, not only does not

perceive that he is out of place amidst the separated members of

the mother church, but even takes the lead in a movement which

has been and still is opposed strongly to the doctrine of that

church. What is Christianity? It is authority. What is

Protestantism? It is free inquiry; and the Protestant Bible

Society is the practice of free inquiry driven to its last and

indefinite limit."

On the same day M. Charles Gourand said in _l'Ordre_--

"Monsieur Guizot's speech breathes at once the spirit of faith in

revelation and love of religious liberty. But he must conform his

practice to his precepts.

{8}

If it is thought that there exists no serious difference between

a rationalist, however thoroughly convinced and honest he may be,

whether called Plato, Descartes, or Leibnitz, and an atheist; if

it is thought that apart from the teaching of the church all

religious belief is superficial and nearly vain; then there is no

room for hesitation, it is within the pale of the true church, of

that great Catholic Church, which from St. Paul to De Maistre,

has bent under the same discipline so many haughty spirits and

great minds, that an asylum and pardon are to be sought. For if

it be allowable to insinuate that atheism is logical rationalism,

it is still more so to say that Protestantism is but inconsistent

rationalism. In fact, either private judgment has the sway in

matters of faith; and has it entirely, for who can flatter

himself that he can take a part in free enquiry and say to it,

'Thus far shalt thou go, and no further!' or else it is authority

which bears rule. But neither can she, any more than private

judgment, do so by halves; she must have all or nothing. A

compromise between the two systems is chimerical; _fusion_

is still more hopeless, if possible, in religious than in

political systems."

I shall not discuss the matter; I shall lay aside every personal

question, every controverted point, every argument. Controversy

opens the abyss which it pretends to fill, for it adds the

obstinacy of self-love to differences of opinion. To overcome

objections raised by honourable and sincere men gives me but

little pleasure. I have a higher desire. I aspire to unite myself

with them in the truth. Two ideas fill my mind, and predominate

on this subject. I wish to set them forth in pure and bright

light. If I succeed, if I can transfuse them into other minds,

they will do their own work, and render unnecessary the

controversy from which I abstain.

{9}

It would not be worth while to live if we gathered from a long

life, no other fruit than a little experience and prudence in the

affairs of this world, against the moment of leaving it. The

prospect of human affairs, and the inward trials of the soul,

afford brighter gleams, which spread themselves over the

mysteries of nature and the destiny of man, and of this universe

in the midst of which man is placed. I have received from

practical life, deeper insight into these formidable questions,

than meditation and science have ever given me.

The first and most important is this. The world and mankind do

not explain themselves naturally and simply by themselves, by the

sole virtue of the fixed laws which preside over them, or of the

passing determinations which display themselves. Neither nature

and her power, nor man and his acts, suffice to explain the

prospect which human intellect contemplates or catches a glimpse

of.

Then, as nature and man are insufficient to explain themselves,

it follows that they are equally so to govern themselves. The

government of the universe and of the human race differs from

that aggregate of natural laws and facts which human reason

observes there, as much as from the accidental laws and facts

which human liberty introduces.

That is to say, that beyond the natural and human order which

falls under our notice, is the supernatural and superhuman order

which God directs and developes beyond the reach of our

researches.

{10}

And when man ceases to believe this to be the case, ceases to

believe in this supernatural order, and to live under the

influence of this belief, then disorder intrudes among men and

societies of men, and there commits ravages which would

infallibly lead to their destruction, did not the wise goodness

of God restrain them in their faults, and render them incapable

of absolutely withdrawing themselves from the empire of truth,

much as they may misunderstand it.

That the religious question is now fairly raised between those

who, more or less explicitly and from a variety of motives, do

not admit this supernatural order of things, that is, the greater

number of philosophers whatever their denomination; and those who

really admit it, that is, all Christians; is what no serious mind

can deny.

Do I mean then to put on a level and confound all who disallow

supernatural order, whether unbelievers or sceptics, atheists or

rationalists?

God forbid I should imagine, far less express, anything so

absurdly and heinously wicked! I know the happy inconsistencies

of the mind of man, and the clouds which, to the eyes of the most

learned, cover the paths they are treading.

{11}

Surely, between the impious man who denies God, and the

rationalist who is satisfied that, without going further than

nature leads, and taking for granted I know not what

transformation, he has found and established a God,--the interval

is immense; immense, doubtless, in the eye of divine justice, as

well as of human equity. And such is our levity and intellectual

depravity, that in this vast space eminent minds and ingenuous

hearts may, and, alas! probably always will be met, at every step

between gross materialism and pure deism. The variety and forms

of error are infinite and infinitely varied; and man, when

falling into it, makes infinite efforts to retain some fragments

of truth; and God permits him to succeed or honestly persuade

himself he has done so, which will one day prove his excuse or

else be to him a plank of safety.

I admit all distinctions, all inequalities, all sincerity. I only

affirm two things; one, that all the philosophic schools of our

day, different as may be their systems and merits, have this in

common, that they deny this supernatural order, and strive to

explain and govern man and the world without its aid; the other,

that where faith in this order does not exist, the bases of moral

and social order are deeply and increasingly shaken, man having

ceased to live in presence of the only power which really

surpasses him, and which is able at once to satisfy and direct

him.

Natural order is the field open to man's knowledge. Supernatural

order is so in degree to his faith and hope; but knowledge does

not penetrate it. In the order of nature man exercises a share of

action and power; in supernatural order he has but to submit. It

has been said in the spirit of conciliation and peace, "Religion

and Philosophy are sisters who should mutually respect and

protect each other."

{12}

The words bear the stamp of the chimæras of human pride.

Philosophy springs from man; it is the work of his mind. Religion

comes from God; man receives it, and often alters it after

reception, but he does not create it. Religion and philosophy are

not sisters. They are daughters, the one of "Our Father which is

in Heaven," the other of mere human genius. And their condition

in this world is no more equal than their origin. Authority is

the apanage of religion; liberty is that of philosophy.

I now approach the second of the dominant ideas, more than ever

essential to true order, and which I wish to bring prominently

forward.

"Christianity," says M. Veuillot, "is authority." It is true;

Christianity is authority, but it is not authority only; it is

the entire man, all his nature and all his destiny. Now, moral

obedience is the nature and destiny of man; that is, obedience in

a state of liberty. God created man to obey His laws; he created

him free that he might morally obey. Liberty, like authority, is

of divine institution; the work of man is revolt and tyranny.

In the social state, authority and liberty need protection, and

both have a right to it. There is need of control, both for the

governors and the governed, for both are men. Hence political

laws and institutions which now sustain, now limit power; that

is, which decide on what conditions and by what means authority

is to be exercised and liberty secured.

{13}

What is the measure of authority necessary for Government, what

the extent of liberty possible in human society? What are the

means of action, what the pledges to be given alike to authority

and religion? Matters depending on circumstances, variable

according to the times, the social condition, the manners, races,

and different degrees of civilization amongst nations. It belongs

to the politician to solve these questions.

When Christianity appeared in the world, appeal was first made to

liberty, the moral liberty of man. This was necessary, as it came

to abolish ancient creeds which were protected by the established

powers. In this struggle, not only did growing Christianity never

attack or question the existing authorities, but it formally

acknowledged their rights, and while respecting them herself

ordered others to respect them also. But at the same time, as

regards the relations of men towards God, she appealed to the

free consciences of men, and affirmed in principle the same

liberty which she practised. "We must obey God rather than man,"

said St. Peter. "Try the spirits whether they be of God," said

St. John. "I speak as to wise men, judge ye what I say," said St.

Paul.

At the creation God prescribed obedience to men under penalty of

death; in the day of regeneration God set man's liberty in motion

to begin the work of salvation.

{14}

There is no partiality with God, no void in his designs; when he

acts upon man he takes human nature as a whole; our inclinations,

our wants, our interests, our various rights are all before his

eyes. He at the same time provides for and satisfies all;

authority as well as liberty, liberty as well as authority. It is

a dangerous mistake to misapprehend this complete and harmonious

character of the divine work, and to mutilate it by seeking

weapons in it for our human dissensions. Christ came to save

mankind, not to give a party triumph. Christianity began by

invoking liberty and giving her action. She then overcame, and

set forth her authority. She then accommodated herself to the

various forms and degrees of authority and liberty which the

course of events brought out here and there in the world.

Associated with the destinies and deeds of the human race,

Christianity has suffered for our mistakes and faults, and has

been often altered and compromised by the waywardness of human

liberty and authority. But by her origin and essence she is

beyond the reach of their struggles, inexhaustible in her virtue

to heal contradictory evils, and always ready to afford help on

the side where danger threatens or redress is needed.

In the actual state of society and disposition, it is authority,

and with authority order, which are in danger: Christianity owes

them all her support. I know of no greater falsehood or more

gross perversion than that of the men who in this day strive to

turn the Christian religion to the promotion of that brutal and

foolish anarchy which they denominate social democracy. The

gospel and history are equally repugnant to this absurd

profanation.

{15}

The cause of civil authority and of the Christian religion is

clearly common. Divine order and human order, the State and the

Church, have common dangers and common enemies. May God grant

them common wisdom; for while at the same time each separately

and both in concert must re-establish authority in her position

and rights, they must also solve another and newer problem, and

satisfy other and pressing wants.

I have nothing to say to those men who think that for many ages

society in Europe, and especially in France, governments as well

as the minds of men, have pursued a totally wrong road, and that

there is nothing in the prevailing character and tendency of our

actual civilisation but error, corruption and decay. I understand

that, thinking thus, they deem retrograde reaction necessary as

well as legitimate, and venture upon it accordingly. As regards

such, I can but express my profound conviction; that they will

have no success. Even were they right, they would have no

success. If they were right, modern society would be condemned to

perish; we should make progress in decay; but we should not

return to what is past. But they are not right. No one is more

convinced than I am of the immense mistakes and fatal errors of

our day. No one more fears and abhors the influence which the

revolutionary spirit exercises among us, and the danger with

which that threatens us; a human Satan, at once sceptical and

fanatical, anarchical and tyrannical, eager to deny and to

destroy, incapable alike of creating aught that can live or of

allowing aught to be created and exist under its eye.

{16}

I am one of those who think it absolutely necessary to overcome

this fatal spirit, and to replace in honor and power the spirit

of order and faith, which is the spirit of life and safety. But I

do not believe that this revolutionary spirit preponderates in

modern minds. I do not believe that our civilization has been for

ages mere mistake and corruption. I do not believe in the

irremediable evil, or inevitable decay of my time and of my

country.

The characteristic, the most important part of modern

civilisation is the prodigious increase of the ambition and power

of man. Recall what has taken place in past ages and that which

now goes on, the long series and vast mass of human toil and

success of all kinds in all places, the many secrets laid bare by

science, the many monuments raised by genius, the riches created

by industry, the progress of justice, the ease introduced into

the condition of the lowly as well as the great, the weak as well

as the strong; man marching as a master over the whole space of

the earth which he inhabits, and gauging with an accurate eye the

worlds which he cannot reach; the mind spreading her discoveries

and ideas through every recess of human society; matter in its

every form subjected and made subservient to man's use; this

expansive and ascendant ardour which circulates in the whole

social body; this activity universal, incessant, and unceasingly

fruitful, which puts every thing in motion, and works for the

general good. Never has man advanced so rapidly to the conquest

and dominion of the world; never in his capacity and with the

powers of man has he exercised such a rule over nature and

society.

{17}

I know how much there is here of evil and danger, of intoxication

and miscalculation; these, however, are not the symptoms of

decline, they are those of greatness and futurity. It is with

this great fact, this enormous increase of the power and ambition

of humanity, that Church and State, Christian and civil

government have to deal henceforth. When, with the help of God

and outward circumstances, they shall have brought man back to

respect those eternal laws which he has so foolishly

misconstrued; when they shall have again placed bounds to his

power, and subdued the vanity of his pride, man will still remain

powerful and haughty, conscious of his strength and full of

desire for the rights which have excited his ambition. Where

there is strength, by natural harmony and in a certain measure,

power and liberty follow. What hereafter will be that measure?

What share of influence will man, each individual man, exercise

on his own and the public destiny? That is the problem; it may be

solved, it cannot be eluded. The spirit of liberty has entered

society in the train of the labours and progress of humanity; it

may be kept in its proper sphere, it cannot be expelled.

{18}

Everywhere civil governments are aware of this, and act

accordingly. I see the deepest injustice prevailing towards the

governments of our day. It is false that they are indifferent to

the welfare and progress of nations. It is false that they only

look to stability and tyranny. They may doubtless feel personal

passions, old errors; but whatever their form, they are all, from

motives of prudence or duty, seriously impressed with the

necessity of respecting the rights and ameliorating the condition

of men. And those most opposed to liberal appearances make every

day, in their laws and practice, a multitude of changes

favourable to justice and liberty.

I say, too, that European governments, amidst the storms of the

last sixty years, have conducted themselves, taking all into

account, with great moderation. Their dignity incessantly

insulted, their existence attacked, they have not given way,

either during the struggle or after the victory, to those

excesses of passion or power with which the history of the world

has been so long filled. They may be shewn to have been neither

foreseeing nor able in their methods, whether of resistance or

concession to the new-born spirit; but it is unjust to set them

down as its intractable adversaries. In the formidable strife of

our day between governments and revolutions, history will surely

not impute to the former the most insolent contempt of justice

and liberty. And if the spirit of revolution were as moderate in

its pretensions and acts, as governments have shown themselves

disposed to be towards the spirit of progress, the great problem

of the conciliation of order and liberty, in civil society, would

be near its solution.

{19}

The government of religious society, or to speak with greater

accuracy and freedom, the Catholic Church, has an analogous

problem to solve; the more important because if the state of the

minds of men is closely watched, it is seen that it is in the

religious order that the idea of liberty is strongest and most

deeply rooted. The right of conscience before God appears and is,

in fact, very superior to that of conscience before men. If there

be, in the life of the soul, one portion in which the

intervention of force is more than elsewhere unrighteous and

odious, it is clearly when the relation of the soul with her

Creator and Judge is in question, and when the question for her

is of eternity and salvation. Here, moreover, is a feeling which

we have all experienced, a principle to which we have all paid

homage. Christians or philosophers, Catholics or Protestants, we

have all had and still have, even amidst the most civilized

nations, need to invoke in our turn religious liberty, as that

which, of all the cries for liberty, most surely arouses in the

heart the idea of a sacred right and necessity, that which

excites the most lively susceptibility and most general sympathy.

I feel a profound respect for the Catholic Church. She has been

during centuries the Christian Church of all Europe. She is the

great Christian Church of France. I look upon her dignity, her

liberty, her moral authority, as essential to the fate of entire

Christianity; and did I believe that the Catholic church could

not, without self-abjuration, accept in the State the principle

of religious liberty, I should be silent; for above all things I

detest hypocrisy and subtlety. _But it is not so_.

{20}

Let the Catholic Church maintain fully her fundamental

principles, her permanent inspiration, her doctrinal

infallibility, her unity. Let her by her laws and internal

discipline interdict to her faithful followers all that may tend

to the injury of these; it is her right as well as her faith. But

let her at the same time fully admit, not of the separation of

the Church and State, that clumsy expedient which lowers and

weakens both under the pretext of freeing both, but of the

separation of spiritual and temporal order, of the civil and

religious state, and acknowledge the illegality of all forcible

interference in spiritual order, albeit in the cause of truth.

Let her thus accept religious liberty as a law, not of religious

society, but of policy, as a right not of the Christian, but of

the citizen. At once will the pretended incompatibility between

modern society and the Catholic Church disappear. The problem of

peace between civil and religious society will be solved.

The Catholic Church can pursue this course; for all that

religiously constitutes it, all her spiritual order thus remains

intact and independent: and if she so pursues it; if, while she

firmly upholds her principles and rights as a religious society,

she accepts loyally the principles of our political order and the

religious liberty which forms a part of it; not only will she lay

the foundation of peace between herself and civil society, but

she will assure to herself great strength and a great future.

{21}

Christianity has many conquests to make and to repeat. For the

re-establishment of social order and the moral welfare of the

soul, she must regain much ground. Nor is it known how rapidly

obstacles and resistance would disappear before her, if the dread

of her old intolerance were dispelled, and respect for religious

liberty on the part of the Catholic Church herself considered as

assured.

I would go still further, and submit to Christians another

consideration.

There is amongst Christians of whatever church a common faith.

They believe in a divine revelation contained in the gospels, and

in Jesus Christ who came upon earth to save the world.

For Christians of whatever church there is now a common cause.

They have to maintain Christian faith and law against impiety and

anarchy.

This faith and this necessity, common to all Christians, are of

infinitely greater moment than all the differences which separate

them.

Do I say that they ought at all hazards to set aside those

differences, and in the name of their common faith and common

danger undergo fusion,--to use an expression of the day,--and

form hereafter but one and the same church?

{22}

I do not dream of it. The re-establishment of unity in the bosom

of Christianity by the re-union of all Christian churches, has

been the desire and the endeavour of the greatest minds, both

Catholic and Protestant. Bossuet and Leibnitz have attempted it.

Even now the idea is present to many noble spirits, and pious

bishops have so expressed it to me, with a confidence by which I

feel profoundly honoured. I respect the sympathetic wish, but I

do not believe that it can be realised. Between temporal order

and human interests, fusion, difficult as it may be, is always

possible; for interests may be made to agree through the force

and in the name of necessity. In spiritual order and between

religious beliefs, no such agreement is possible, for necessity

can never become truth. Faith does not admit of fusion; she

insists on unity.

But where the unity of the church does not exist, when the fusion

of different churches is impossible, and when religious liberty

is established, there is room for practical good sense and

Christian charity. Good sense tells Christians that they are all

in front of the same enemy, much more dangerous to them than they

can be to each other; for should he triumph, the blow will fall

on each. Amongst the upper classes, the war against religion

manifests itself only under the forms of reserved scepticism or

rationalism; timid, often serious and polite, rather seeking to

screen than display itself. But at the bottom of society, and

amidst the masses, it is passionate impiety which is at work, and

for the sake of victory becomes subservient to the most gross and

furious interests. The Christian faith, in its essential and

vital character, that is, faith and submission to supernatural

Christian order, is alone capable of sustaining the contest.

{23}

Let Christians, whether Catholic or Protestant, be convinced of

it, the loss of credit and authority on either side would redound

to the advantage not of Protestantism or Catholicism, but of

impiety. It is then for all Christians, whatever their

differences in their Christian sphere, an obvious interest and

imperative duty to accept and maintain each other as natural

allies against anti-christian impiety. It will require all their

strength, all their united efforts, to triumph finally in this

warfare, and save at once Christianity and society.

What interest dictates to Christians, Christian charity commands.

I use without hesitation plain words to express the ideas and

sentiments which I feel, and even amidst the coldness of heart

which is one of the most melancholy evils of my day, I feel no

embarrassment in speaking to Christians of Christian charity.

When religious struggles are the ruling passion and great

practical business of an epoch,--when different creeds are

arrayed, wielding temporal as well as spiritual arms, with the

mutual hope of subjecting if not of extirpating,--I feel that

Christian charity is difficult to exercise. The temptations are

too strong, the interests too pressing to be surmounted. The

Chancellor De L'Hopital and the President De Thou, though

recommending peace to Catholics and Protestants, would hardly

have dreamt, on the eve or the morrow of a massacre or a battle,

of speaking to them of charity.

{24}

But when material strife has ceased, when religious liberty is

established in manners as well as in the laws, when in fact and

truth the different religious creeds are obliged to live

peaceably one with another, why should not the desire arise of

adorning and furthering peace by the exercise of charity? When

the coarser passions are powerless, why should not the more mild

and equitable feelings develope themselves? I know the force of

traditions, of recollections, as well as the permanent

differences which tend to support controversy, even when purely

speculative. Nevertheless, prolonged peace and freedom have much

influence in calming the soul. At this day we have before us a

signal instance, and I do not hesitate to repeat that to which I

gave utterance in the Bible Society:--"See what is passing in

England; there, doubtless, the irritation of the Protestants is

great, there is a general and passionate movement in favour of a

popular and powerful faith. The government itself associates with

and follows this movement. English Protestantism shows itself

strongly inclined to seek security and satisfaction at the

expense of the religious liberty of the Catholics. Well! although

matters wear this appearance, nothing is really done; they dare

not; they cannot; and in the bottom of their hearts they desire

not to do so. Amidst this Protestant excitement, the religious

liberty of English Catholics still remains and extends. They have

liberty of worship; their churches are open, nay, increasing in

number; their priests perform their duties without interruption:

they possess the liberty of the press; they publicly defend their

creed and their conduct, and have freedom of speech and power of

voting in parliament, where they strenuously uphold their cause."

{25}

A noble sight, which, after having justly filled the friends of

religious liberty with uneasiness, ought now to give them every

satisfaction. The spirit of persecution had reappeared, that of

justice and liberty met it face to face, and in spite of

appearances remained master of the field. May Christians,

Catholic and Protestant, at last acknowledge it; it will be

hereafter more natural than they imagine, to live in the exercise

of Christian charity, for they have lost the habit, almost the

power of efficacious oppression.

A few words more, and I have done. Under a well grounded and well

understood system of religious freedom, not only can different

religious sects live peacefully and harmoniously together, but

can contribute, by their pacific co-existence, to their mutual

religious prosperity. What has been for Catholicism in France one

of the most glorious and pious periods? Surely, the seventeenth

century. French Catholicism then flourished in the presence of

Protestantism, which was still tolerated, and Jansenism, then in

full vigour. What has prevented the Anglican church from falling

into that apathy which has appeared more than once ready to

overcome her? What but the neighbourhood of opposing and half

free sects, who have always kept her in play, and forced her to

overcome her langour? There is no establishment, no power, that

is not benefited by a sense of control, and by the necessity of

making an effort to maintain its position.

{26}

It is good to overcome, not to exterminate an enemy; and in

spiritual as in temporal orders, the reign of liberty bestows on

all their just rewards. While it preserves their rights to the

weak, it incessantly regenerates the victorious.

Doubtless, Catholicism leans on the principle of authority; but

without detaching itself from this base, it can admit, and in the

course of its career has often admitted, very different degrees

of liberty. From the eleventh to the fourteenth century, while

the Catholic church was for civil society a great school of

authority, she was in her own bosom a great theatre of freedom.

For in her councils, her congregations, her correspondence with

the faithful, discussion between her chiefs was ever open and

animated. It is not for me to ask whether our times advise or

warrant a return to such methods of government; and I am rather

disposed to hesitate than undertake the task. But one great fact

strikes me; one which deserves, if I mistake not, the entire

attention of the Catholic clergy: it is that the disposition of

the mind and heart of the faithful who are under their charge is

not always the same, and neither the same measure nor the same

quality of religious nutriment is requisite at all times, if I

may so speak, for Christian souls. After the fall of the Roman

empire, when the mission of the Catholic clergy was to convert

the barbarians, and to cause a little moral light to penetrate

amongst the rude conquerors, and the miserable population who

lived under their yoke, it was above all by the firm and striking

exercise of religious authority that the priests were enabled to

attain their end.

{27}

They found amongst the Christian population, high and low, many

passions to repress, and but few intellectual wants to satisfy.

There was greater need to strike and to govern the imagination

than to nourish and direct mental activity. Time and individuals

are now different. Minds are now active, varied, curious, eager.

The spiritual life of faithful Christians, of the most faithful

as well as the most wavering, is infinitely more animated than it

was formerly. Souls so disposed require a moral rule

proportionably animated; one which, while it guides, may give to

their innate activity a greater share of satisfaction. I am

expressing a profound conviction,--one, I will venture to say,

free from any reservation or ill-will,--when I say that

henceforth the Catholic church, without any sacrifice of

authority, will be obliged, for the government of the soul, to

admit of more intellectual and spontaneous movement on the part

of the faithful than was required in other times. Yet I am

convinced that when once the Catholic church shall herself have

acknowledged this new moral state of Christian society, she will

also know how to provide for it.

{28}

In a recent publication, [Footnote 1] a justly eminent stranger,

M. Donoso Cortes, speaking of me in terms which I cannot allow

myself to repeat, said, "The great mistake into which M. Guizot

has fallen, in his 'History of European Civilization,' is the

having attempted the impossible task of explaining visible things

by visible things, natural things by natural things; which is as

superfluous as to explain a fact by itself, a thing by the thing

itself; because all visible and natural things, considered as

visible and natural, are one and the same thing."

[Footnote 1: Essai sur le Catholicisme, le Liberalisme, et le

Socialisme, par M. Donoso Cortes, Marquis de Valdegamas, p.

99-105.]

M. Donoso Cortes will be convinced, I hope, that such is not my

idea; and that, far from resting satisfied with visible and

natural things, I believe in supernatural order, and in its

necessity to explain and govern the world. Philosophers, I think,

will on their side acknowledge that if I reject their doctrine, I

do not abandon their right. I do not say this with the view of

seeking the frivolous honour of maintaining at the same time two

great causes, but to affirm a double truth to which I yield my

entire conviction and devotion, Christian faith and religious

freedom. The welfare of all nations demands these as its price.

Guizot.

Val Richer, September, 1851.

{29}

Essay I.

On The State Of Men's Souls.

{30}

{31}

On The State Of Men's Souls.

(_October_, 1838.)

The sublimity of the gospel consists in two sentiments, which

manifest themselves in it simultaneously,--hatred of evil, and

tenderness for man who does evil; horror of sin, to speak as the

gospel speaks, and love of the sinner.

How profound a depth of judgment as well as of moral justice! How

admirable a knowledge of things as well as of men! For evil is

truly hateful both in itself and in its effects; and men, the

best of men, are surcharged with evil. Yet, at the same time, man

is infinitely capable of good, infinitely worthy of affection;

and with all his imperfections, a being to be loved beyond

expression.

How great, too, the knowledge displayed of the true conditions of

moral authority! It is not acquaintance with the nature of man,

but power over him, that the Gospel seeks. Yet to influence men

morally, it is needful both to love and reform them; to win their

confidence by love and their respect by severity.

{32}

Severity and love are the two engines wherewith to control the

heart of man, for men know by instinct their moral wants--those

which press them down as well as those which please them. They

are deeply troubled by the sense of their imperfections; they

wish to be raised. Love felt and inspired is at once their

noblest and their most lively joy; they desire to love and be

beloved. Complete control over them, I mean moral control,

involves these two conditions,--that much be required from them

of virtue, much be bestowed on them of love.

The last century had thus much good; it loved mankind and men. It

bore a really deep affection to them, and wished them well. But

as it was a critical and reasoning age, the sentiment of love

often disguised itself in the dress and shape of controversy and

analysis. Nevertheless, the feeling was there, sincere and

powerful. That spirit of universal justice and humanity which

characterized the epoch, whence did it spring if not from a

lively sympathy with man, and a tender interest in his welfare?

But, together with this virtue, the last century certainly

exhibited one great defect; it did not feel for evil the aversion

it deserves. Not only as regarded certain rules of conduct and

certain duties, but as concerned a rule in general and the very

principle of duty, the spirits of the day were victims to doubt,

that great corrupter of the human heart. In the moral system,

stability and elevation go together; to waver is to descend;

uncertainty is the sign and the cause of abasement. Not knowing

where the evil existed, or even if it did exist, the eighteenth

century denied or excused it when met with, instead of execrating

and opposing it to the utmost.

{33}

And with the fixed points the long perspectives disappeared. By

an admirable law of his nature, in order that man may hope he

must believe, and believe in good. Virtue alone demands an

eternity. Doubting about duty, they doubted their own future.

Moral faith tottered; God veiled his countenance.

In such a state of mind, in an age which loved man and interested

itself about him, man must have been an object of pity. What a

destiny was that of a creature thus powerful yet faltering;

always in motion, yet not knowing where to fix his foot firmly in

this world, or where to fix his gaze beyond it! To aspire so

high, in order to fall low and pass away so quickly! Such

ambition without a worthy object! Such labour without any sure

results! What father, if he thought his child were reserved for

such a lot, but would feel overwhelmed by compassion and grief?

But no! at the same time that the last century loved men it

admired them; and I can understand this. God and duty being

abandoned, what remains of great and good if it be not man?

Imperfect as is human nature, a mixture of good and evil, good is

found there; the power of good makes itself felt. All that it

possesses of what is elevated, rich, tender, or attractive, does

not necessarily vanish because the mind misunderstands its source

and government.

{34}

And if it should happen, as it then did, that these great mental

errors should occur in the midst of a period of great

intellectual developement, of a great outflowing of sympathetic

and noble sentiments, of a great march in the condition of

mankind; if, at the moment when man rises highest and shines with

most brilliancy, he loses sight of his compass, his God, how can

he do otherwise than admire himself? how avoid a feeling of

pride? He has no longer faith or hope on high, yet he advances,

prospers, becomes rich, triumphs. He must believe; he must hope

in himself; he must worship himself. Does religion fall? Then

idolatry must arise, the idolatry of man for man. Man was the god

of the eighteenth century, the object of worship as well as of

love. Thence a great and deplorable leaning to human nature, to

its weaknesses and inclinations. It was loved, but with a blind

and weak love, which could only approve, caress, and promise,

having nothing to advise, nothing to require.

Thence an immoderate thirst, in the name of and for man, of

immediate worldly and palpable happiness. Loving man truly, and

having nothing to offer him in this world superior to this

world's happiness, nothing better or eternal beyond, it was

necessary that men should be happy, that all should be happy here

below; as here below their destiny and their treasure were

contained.

{35}

To accept the imperfect condition of humanity may be the part of

selfishness which cares for nothing, and of faith which hopes for

everything; but he who loves men, and yet can only dispose in

their favour the blessings of this life and this world, cannot

resign himself to a lot for the most part so rude, to progress so

slow and always so incomplete. He is compelled to find much more

to bestow on men, to distribute something, and at once, to all.

And as spirits imbued with so noble a longing do not dream of the

impossibility of satisfying it, they are compelled to assign to

the sufferings and hardships of the human state an accidental and

factitious cause, one which human wisdom and power can overcome.

Hence the other maxim of the last century, that, left to

themselves and their natural equilibrium, men and things go on

well; that evil proceeds not from our innate nature and state,

but merely from the ill regulated state of society, where the few

have substituted their will and interest for the wills and

interests of the many; that it is society and not men that need

reformation, as the latter would not need it had not society

corrupted him.

A maxim which has given rise, and naturally, to the sorest and

most plausible of modern grievances, that incurable impatience of

whatever is, that boundless disquiet, that insatiable thirst for

change in the pursuit of a social condition which shall give at

last to man, to every man, all the happiness to which he aspires.

{36}

This is the state in which the eighteenth century has placed

men's souls. And I here speak of upright, honest, and sincere

minds, not carried away by selfishness, not domineered over by

evil passions, which think of others, and only wish for

themselves as well as for those others what they consider

legitimate.

The great mistakes and ills of any epoch are those of the good.

These must be looked to and provided against, for there lies the

hidden danger. Who can struggle against ill if the good are

themselves infected with it?

I have seen the last of the master spirits of the eighteenth

century--those who had remained faithful to it. I have seen them

emerging from our revolution after their fearful experience of

it. The condition of their minds was a touching and instructive

spectacle. They were sorrowful, but not discouraged; full of

esteem and affection for mankind; full of confidence and hope

despite so many mistakes and reverses. The same fertility of wit,

the same generosity of heart, the same spirit of justice and

progress animated them. They accounted for their momentary

failure by the violence of passion, the force of old habits, the

want of public intelligence, the too hasty application of good

principles carried to too great a length. And while their

explanation bore witness to their sincerity and perseverance,

still there was visible and perceptible in them at every step a

persistance in the same mistakes; the same absence of moral dogma

and religious faith; the same idolatry of man, the same

tenderness towards him, the same pretensions for him. They had

lost nothing of their noble ambition or tender sympathy for human

nature, but they had learned nothing of its inward laws nor of

the true methods for its government.

{37}

Thus a secret feeling of disquiet was apparent through the

constancy of their ideas and of their hope; and they remained

melancholy after their explanation, as if hardly satisfied with

it themselves.

We are far in advance of our fathers. "I was carried here by a

cannon shot," said Danton to M. de Talleyrand, who saw him at the

Ministere de la Justice. The same shot has carried us all a

hundred leagues from our cradle. We have learnt much. We have

seen novel appearances under a new light. The intelligence and

power of man; his reason, his morality, his power of action, and

resistance to direction and restraint in the affairs of the

world; all has been put to the proof, gauged, and measured. We

know how deeply seated and closely hidden is the evil in our

nature, yet how readily and terribly it occasionally breaks out.

We know the bounds both of our spirit and of our will. We have

been powerful, immensely powerful; and yet we have been unable to

accomplish our will because it was in opposition to the laws of

eternal wisdom, and our power was shivered against them like

glass. At this price, we have acquired a more accurate and

profound knowledge of ourselves and our condition. We no longer

put ourselves off with desires or arguments, appearances or

hopes. We see that which is. We live more than our fathers did in

the truth. We are wiser and more modest.

{38}