We have seen the account given by the French philosopher Jouffroy and the Italian poet Leopardi of their feelings on waking up to the knowledge that the faith of their childhood had passed away; let us compare one more such experience that of the German [{557}] Von Kleist. "For some time, my dear friend," he writes to the lady to whom he was affianced, "I have been employed in studying the philosophy of Kant, and I am bound to communicate to you a conclusion which I am sure will not affect you as deeply and as painfully as it has myself. It is this: we cannot be certain whether what we call truth is really the truth or only an appearance. In this last case, the truth that we sought after here below would be nothing at all after death; and it would be useless to try to acquire a treasure which it would be impossible to carry to the tomb. If this conclusion does not pierce your heart, do not laugh at a wretch whom it has deeply wounded in all that is most sacred to him. My noble, my only aim has vanished, and I have none. Since this conviction entered my mind, I have not touched my books. I have traversed my chamber, I have placed myself by an open window, I have run along the street. My interior disturbance has let me to visit smoking-rooms and cafés to get relief. I have been to the theatre and the concert to dissipate my mind. I have even played the fool. But in spite of all, in the midst of all this agitation, the one thought that occupied my whole soul and filled it with anguish was this: your aim, your noble and only aim has vanished." A few years of the repetition of this sorrowful wailing, and then, after writing to his sister, "You have done everything to save me that the power of a sister could do, everything that the power of man could do; the fact is, that nothing can help me here on earth," he escaped from doubt to pass before the Judgment-seat by his own hand.
We must give one more of the many recurring expressions of regret with which the volume abounds. We are inclined to regard Santa Rosa with even more profound compassion than the other victims, on account of the warm and tender piety of his earlier youth, and the absence in him of the arrogance and scorn that overflows in the others in the midst of their sufferings. All who knew him agreed that it was hardly possible to know him without loving him. Unfortunately, his struggles in the cause of Italy threw him into close association with many who had mistaken infidelity for liberty. Still more unfortunately, he contracted a close intimacy with M. Cousin, and soon began to love him more than truth and than God, and under the blighting influence of his teaching his own faith disappeared. M. Cousin has published his letters with frequent and large omissions, but there remains abundant evidence that he was always regretting the past. The following passage occurs after something omitted: "O my friend, how unfortunate we are in being only poor philosophers, for whom the continuance of existence after death is only a hope, an ardent desire, a fervent prayer! Would that I had the virtues and the faith of my mother! To reason is to doubt; to doubt is to suffer. Faith is a sort of miracle. When it is strong and genuine, what happiness it gives! How often in my study I raise my eyes to heaven, and beg God to reveal me to myself, but above all, to grant me immortality!" Twice in his life—when in prison in Paris with the expectation of being given up to the Piedmontese police, which would have been to be sent to the scaffold, and again when beginning a serious philosophical work—he returned to a better mind. Whether time and grace to return once more were given him, behind the Greek battery in the isle of Sphacteria, where he fell fighting bravely, we cannot tell.
Besides the implicit homage to the faith involved in such regrets of the past as we have been witnessing, the writings of most of these philosophers and poets contain many testimonies to their involuntary acknowledgment of the claims of the revealed system which they had abandoned. We will cite only one, from a discourse of Jouffroy on his usual subject, the [{558}] problem of the destiny of man: "There is a little book which children are made to learn, and on which they are questioned in church. Read this little book, which is called the Catechism; you will find in it an answer to all the questions that I hare proposed—all without exception. Ask the Christian whence the human race comes, he knows; whither it is going, he knows. Ask this poor child, who has never in his life dreamed of it, to what end he exists here below, and what he will become after death; he will give you a sublime answer, which he will not comprehend, but which is not the less admirable. Ask him how the world was produced, and for what end; why God placed animals and plants in it; how the earth was peopled, whether by one family or several; why men speak different languages; why they suffer; why they contend; what will be the end of it all—he knows. The origin of the world, the origin of the human race, the question of races, the destiny of man in this life and in the other, the relation of man to God, the duties of man to his fellows, the rights of man over creation—he is acquainted with all; and when he is grown up, he will be equally free from hesitation about natural rights, political rights, and the right of nations; for all this is the outcome and clear and spontaneous product of Christian doctrine. This is what I call a great religion; I recognize it by this sign of its not leaving unanswered any of the questions which interest humanity."
Edmond Schérer and Friedrich Schiller, as well as Lord Byron, differ from the other instances in never having known the true faith; but they show that the loss of a firm hold of those fragments of Christianity that are retained outside of the fold leads to something of the same result as the loss of the faith. The sketch of M. Schérer's life is very interesting, for it shows the inevitable result of Protestantism in a highly logical and reflective mind which refuses the alternative of submission to the Catholic Church. His installation in the chair of theology in the Evangelical Seminary of Geneva in 1844 was hailed as a triumph by all the devout adherents to the reformed religion, who looked to him as the invincible champion against the socinianism prevailing all around. He set himself to the work of proving the inspiration of Scripture without having recourse to the authority of the Catholic Church, and the result, after passing through various phases of sentimentalism and eclecticism, was to land him in such conclusions as that "the Bible has so little of a monopoly of inspiration, that there are writings not canonical the inspiration of which is much more evident than in some of the biblical writings;" and finally, that Protestantism and Catholicism, Christianity and Judaism, are only conceptions more or less exact of a common object and phases in a great movement of progressive spiritualization; that morality itself is only relative; and that absolute certainty of any kind is a dream. He may well say, as he has lately said: "Alas! blind prisoners as we are, laboring at the overthrow the past, we are engaged in a work which we do not understand. We yield to a power of which it seems at times that we are the victims as well as the instruments. The terrible logic whose formulas we wield crushes us while we are crushing others with it."
The moral of these and other such histories—the moral of Froude and Francis Newman and Clough—is that as God never made his children for perplexity and anguish, he never made them for doubt, and must have provided a secure asylum from it, not in ignorance or thoughtlessness, but in a system of divinely guaranteed authority. The lesson from the Nemesis of doubt is the conclusion of Augustine Thierry: "I have need of an infallible authority, I have need of rest for my soul. I open my eyes, and I see one only authority, that of the Catholic Church. I believe what the Catholic Church teaches; I receive her Credo."
Translated from the German
WHAT MOST REJOICES THE HEART OF MAN?
It was two days before the holy Christmas of the old year, and a very hard season when Martin (a farmer, to whom heaven had granted a rich harvest, to reward him for the faithful tillage of his land) entered the house. He had taken his grain to the market-town, and, thanks to the brisk demand, had parted with it at an unusually high price. And now, returning home with a full purse, he called his wife, and pouring out the money before her on the table, said laughingly: "Look, Agnes, that will give us a rare treat! what thinkest thou, mother? What most rejoices the heart of man? I want something that shall make me right joyful."