ePub 版

and as these are at best but human beings little removed from our own condition, the mind is able to dwell without exertion or fatigue upon them, their merits, and their works; and is excited to a fervency of devotion not attainable by the human mind from the contemplation of the sublime abstract truths of our religious belief. Our belief is the working of judgment, theirs of imagination; and this fervency of feeling is, in the construction of our mental system, more nearly allied to, and nourished and excited by imagination, than judgment. In this way we must account for the undeniably greater devotional fervour of Catholics than

of Protestants.

The elasticity of the Catholic church adapting itself to every mind, instead of raising every mind up to it, is the great cause of the advance of Catholicism in the present day, among the enlightened, as well as the ignorant classes; and the great cause of the small influence of Catholicism in raising the moral and intellectual condition of mankind, and advancing the civilisation of society. It is a cap that fits every head, for every head can stick it on in some fashion or other. Its most absurb doctrine, as that of the real presence in the elements of the Lord's Supper, is plausibly enough deduced from the plain words of scripture This is my body" - not, this is the symbol of my body - and the natural objection of the evidence of senses contradicting the supposed transubstantiation, is met by the argument of the unceasing divine power to operate a miracle even every day and hour upon every altar, the incompatibility with any rational idea of divine power, of the doctrine that the age of miracles is past, that what the divine power worked at one time it cannot or will not work at another, although the same necessity exists, and the insufficiency of our senses as a test of miracle, the disciples themselves having been blind to the miracle of the loaves and fishes, although seeing and assisting in it. This fits some heads. Others find the consubstantiation of the


Lutheran, not at all more intelligible, than the transubstantiation of the Catholic, and acquiesce in the older faith of the two. The majority believe that which requires no thinking. The French revolution left the minds of men in a rude, uneducated state more adapted to receive the material impressions of the Catholic faith, the ideas suited to a low, neglected, religious, and moral education, than to comprehend and embrace the higher and more abstract truths of Protestantism. The mili tary spirit of a generation born and bred in wars and revolutions, and accustomed to see all distinction and honour resting not upon moral worth and good principle, but upon success, promotion, and outward decoration, could, when a reaction and revival arose in religious feeling among them, more easily go over into that church in which similar merits and similar emblems are admitted, and supersede mental exertion.

The period of the French revolutionary war, undoubtedly, lowered the tone of moral and religious sentiment in Europe. In the events and present results of that vast movement, so many enterprises were successful in which all acknowledged moral and religious principles were set aside, and so many agents and participators in iniquitous events attained, and still to this day retain, all honour and social consideration, although gained in defiance of all moral principles of conduct, that wrong-doing has been kept in countenance, and success has been allowed to legalise, and cover from the judgment of posterity, the most flagitious acts of public historical personages. This is the deepest stain upon the literature of our times. Who in all wide Europe, which of the many historians of the French revolution Scott, Alison, Thiers-who, who has raised his voice in the cause of moral right and integrity? Who has applied to the test-stone of just moral principle the men and acts he is describing to posterity as great and brilliant examples of human conduct? Who has asked the French generals, marshals, and princes, the living individuals who now revel

in the eye of the world as the highest characters of the age, who has asked them, one by one, how did ye amass your immense wealth? Is it honestly come by? Is it the savings of your daily pay and allowances in your professional stations? or is it money gained by secret participation with your own contractors and commissaries, or wrung by forced gifts, requisitions, unmilitary robbery, in a word, from towns, ancient institutions, and innocent suffering individuals? Where got ye your services of gold and silver plate? your collections of Flemish, Italian, and Spanish paintings? Were these not forced, plundered from their lawful owners, without even the show of purchase? And who has asked the Buonaparte family, who are now vapouring about the world, attempting to set it on fire, how came ye to be great men? Your brother was a great soldier, but ye have neither inherited nor achieved greatness. Ye have no talents among you, either for civil or military affairs, that would be at all out of place in your original vocations upon three-legged stools, as country procurators, or behind the counter in the honest calling of grocers and drapers, in your native little town of Ajaccio? What, in the name of common sense, entitles you to be crowing upon the top of the world as princes and counts? And where got ye your immense wealth? Was it honestly earned in Ajaccio? Ye cannot even say it was military pillage and peculation. It was pilfered out of the taxes of those countries over which ye were sent to reign by your brother, like so many Sancho Panzas the most impudent mockery of national rights and public principle ever attempted among European nations. It belongs, every dollar of it, to the people of those countries. Honest Sancho came penniless away from his government of Barataria, but ye left Holland, Westphalia, and Spain with full pockets. His moral feeling told him to leave his subjects without profiting by a farthing of their revenues. Ye offered to subscribe millions to the funeral of the emperor, and have expended millions in silly attempts to kindle a

flame in Europe for your ambitious projects, while the money you are wasting belongs really, and on just, correct, moral principle, to the people from whom it was squeezed, who earned it by their industry, paid it over most grudgingly to your own or your brother's tax-gatherers for the public service, or civil list, or privy purse of their state, and to whom, individually, or collectively as a state, every shilling you have does in common honesty belong. When the great men of the earth arranged and restored at the congress of Vienna the political and territorial interests of kings and states, why did they not follow out the principle, and restore the moral interests of Europe also? Why did they not make the vultures who were gorged with the pillage of Holland, Germany, Spain, Italy, of every city from Hamburgh to Bern, and from Bern to Cadiz, and to Naples, disgorge individually their unmilitary booty, and restore the property to the countries, towns, institutions, and private persons, from whom it had been extorted contrary to all principles of civilized warfare? They were not eagles, these were but the foul birds of prey which follow the eagle to feed upon the carcass he strikes down in his flight. Political or military profligacy in high station and command is more ruinous to public morals than private vice, because it sets principle at defiance openly, and not in a corner, and showing the homage to virtue of attempting to hide itself; but braving, in high and conspicuous social positions, the control of morality and public opinion. The congress of Vienna, in restoring something like a balance of power, and a monarchical shape to the Continent, only skinned over the wound inflicted on society compensation only to kings, and some royal dynasties, not to the people; restored nothing of what is of more importance than forms of government, - nothing of the moral principle which had been pushed out of its proper place and influence in society, by the impunity, unmerited honours, and impudent assumption of dignity, permitted to the most shameless rapine that ever dis


graced the history of civilised people. M. Thiers, the late minister of France, is now in Germany, writing history, fortunately for mankind, instead of making history on the banks of the Rhine. He is visiting all the cities and localities of Germany which were the theatres of important events and memorable exploits, to collect, it is said, materials for a great historical work from the commencement of the French revolution. Has M. Thiers the moral courage to write such a history as history in this age ought to be written? Will he bring to the unerring test-stone of moral principle, every act, every character, every man he is dealing with as an historian? Will he unmask and denounce to posterity, the unprincipled adventurers, pillagers, and marauders, whom accident, good fortune, military success, and the bravery of their troops, threw up into high and conspicuous stations, and who are figuring to this day in the eye of the world, the first of men? Will he restore the moral tone to society which has been lost in France, by the unmerited success and splendour of such men? Or will he only give the world a classical work-a fine imitation of the ancient historians, brilliant descriptions of marches, battles, intrigues, causes and results of events, fine-spun, imaginary, eloquent, modelled upon the manner and style of Thucydides or Tacitus; a work of talent, but not of historical philosophic truth; a work which every body will praise, few will read, and nobody believe, or be the better for; a work, in short, of leading articles, in which every victory is unparalleled, every successful general a hero, and glory a cloak for the most infamous deeds and characters? The road is open to M. Thiers, and Germany is the country which contains much of the materials, to produce the most influential and truly philosophical history of an eventful period, which the moralist, or the historian teaching morality by example, ever had before him. Will M. Thiers have the moral courage to take this road?

The results at some future period of the singular

« 上一頁繼續 »