Page images
PDF
EPUB

apostate, like Smith, Hogan, Giustiniani, and Ciocci, is precisely what most pleases their palate. They stop not to inquire what is the character of the writer or narrator, or what are his or her claims to be received as an accredited witness; provided the story militate against the Pope and the Catholic religion, it is enough. The book is published and circulated with zeal; it is bought up and read with avidity by a certain class of the people stricken with the "no-popery" mania; and it has already done its deadly work, before its refutation can be made public. The refutation, did we

say? The refutation cannot generally be made public; that is, it cannot reach those who have been infected with the poison; the preachers and their agents will see to that; they are so fond of not keeping their people in ignorance, that they and their organs seldom, if ever, publish the refutation, how triumphant soever it may be! Their followers are thus allowed to read only on one side; poisonous error and calumny have already sped with the velocity of lightning to the remotest ends of the union, on the wings of an untiring press; and when the truth comes "slowly limping after it," these ministers of truth take special care to check or prevent its progress! How many, think you, of those hundreds of thousands who swallowed with avidity the poison of Maria Monk's obscene impostures,-known by all to be impostures, were allowed to receive the antidote? How many, think you, of the Protestant religious press published a contradiction of that wicked book? And what vast multitudes are there not even now of the ignorant haters of the Pope,of pious old ladies of both sexes,-who still devoutly believe every syllable written in that infamous book? Of course, these people are never priest-ridden !

We speak advisedly, and we know what we say. Is it not a burning shame that such things should be done in a Christian land, in the light of the nineteenth century, and by Christian ministers? And, when this course is still persisted in, in spite of all our just denunciation of its unchristian spirit and glaring injustice; when, as fast as one book of obscene horrors can be disposed of, the teeming press is in labor with another; when many heads start into existence, in place of the one which we have stricken off from this hydra of an impure bigotry; and when even Reverend preachers are the active instruments in causing all this mischief, and in pouring over this virgin hemisphere all this foul torrent of impurity, could we, we ask, have employed softer language in rebuking a spirit so unclean? We know that in doing so, we have with us the most enlightened and pure-minded of the Protestant community itself; and we feel convinced that this disgraceful method of warfare has already recoiled, and will still recoil, with terrible effect, on the heads of those same mountebanks, who are now the active leaders of the crusade against Catholicity in this country. The American people will not consent to be forever duped; there is a point beyond which even their forbearance will not go. The reaction must come, and the retribution it will bring with it, will be a fearful one for those who now seem to bask in popular favor.

We have been led into this train of reflection by perusing the work of Michelet, the title of which is given above. A more thoroughly wicked or a worse publication we have never chanced to read; and we verily believe that if Satan himself could appear upon earth, clad in bodily form, armed with the appliances of pen, ink, and paper, he could not have written a worse book; though he certainly would have composed one marked with much more ability, — blended with at least equal hatred of Rome and Catholicity. He would not have blundered nor ranted half so much, but he would have written a more logical and a more effective work; and our word for it, the Reverend leaders of the anti-catholic crusade in this country would have republished it, duly translated, if necessary, into English; after such a fashion, too, as to make it lose nothing of its malignity by the translation! When they are ready to fraternize with such unblushing infidels as Michelet, is it too much to believe that they would extend the right hand of fellowship to the evil one himself, were he visibly to step forth as a knighted "no-popery' champion? We think not, and we believe that our readers will agree with us, when we shall have told them who this Michelet is, and what is the character of his book.

Who, then, is Michelet? He is a French transcendentalist, a pantheist, and a downright infidel; a man who is even at no pains to conceal his infidelity. He is a disciple of Voltaire and Rousseau; with the bitterly scoffing spirit of both, but without the talent of either. He has somewhat of the impetuosity, the incoherency, and the extravagance of Rousseau ; but he has little of his impetuous eloquence: while he has not a particle of the genius or of the polished and effective satire of that incarnation of demonism-Voltaire. He hates religion with a satanical hatred; his hatred is blind, mad; but there is little method in his madness. He strikes about him with the malignity of a serpent, but also with its blindness. When he writes against the Catholic religion, he means to write against Christianity; when he pours out his venom against priests, he means the ministers of all denominations.

He writes against priests, just as Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, and Tom Paine wrote against them. And when the translator coolly undertakes to tell us that he meant only "French priests," and that he attacked only the Catholic religion as taught and practised in France, he takes a very narrow and most erroneous view of the scope contemplated by his author. He falls into about the same delusion into which some very cordial haters of the papacy fell, a few years ago, in the West.

The incident we allude to is both amusing and characteristic. Some years ago, a paper was announced as about to be published in New York under the captious title, "Priestcraft Unmasked." A number of elders of the Presbyterian church and other Protestants of our acquaintance, thinking from its title that it would be a first rate " no-popery" paper, subscribed for it with avidity, and paid their subscription in advance.

1 In his preface, which is a curious specimen of disingenuous special pleading.

But what was their surprise and chagrin on finding that the paper turned out to be a downright infidel concern, gotten up in the true Tom Paine style, and intended chiefly to unmask Presbyterian "priestcraft!" They found out their error when it was too late to remedy it and their acquaintances laughed heartily at their expense.

We know not who the translator of Michelet is, nor do we much care; though he should not have been ashamed to append his name, that the world might know to whom we are indebted for the appearance amongst us of this charming work in an English dress. He does not, at any rate, appear to have been much conversant with the French, and he was often sadly puzzled to get at the meaning of his author, as we may have occasion to show in the sequel. But whoever he may be, if he be a Christian at all, he should blush to have aided in palming such a work on a Christian community. He must have known and felt that Michelet was an infidel, whose work could do nothing but harm. That he had, at least, some misgivings on the subject, appears from his preface, in which he is compelled to give us, what we take to be an apology for the French infidels :

"The book written by a Frenchman, for Frenchmen, in language and thought is most thoroughly and remarkably French. The reader may be startled at the freedom with which the author approaches subjects and themes which we are accustomed to speak of only with the deepest reverence. We do not doubt his reverence; but the strange forms of expression which he uses to express equally strange turns of thought, sometimes grate more than a little harshly on our ears. The reader is to bear the history of the book in mind at all times, and nearly upon every page."

A little farther on, speaking of the French infidels, he thus shows his sympathy for them:

"Their minds revolted at the character of priestly traditions, the empty quibbles with which priests smothered the truth, the sophistry with which they belied it, and the carnal affections which led to their materialism. In a word, the brilliant French infidels could not be idolaters. In discarding what was manifestly monstrous, they threw all away; and even this was not done entirely of their own impulse. They retreated but a little way at first; they were driven to extremes by anathemas. If we see, then, an occasional indifference to Christianity in Michelet, we know to what to impute it," &c.

....

Again, who is Michelet? A man who is forever prating about the dignity of human nature, yet understands not in what its true dignity consists; a man who would fain persuade others that our nature is sound and amply competent of itself for its own guidance, and yet, when it suits his purpose, paints man as a beast and woman as a demon! His theory would seem to be, that, without religion, man and woman can live uprightly and properly, and become the ornament and support of the

1 Preface, pp 5, 6 In his History of France, b. i, ch 3. and b. iv, ch. 4, Michelet makes a hero of Pelagius, the heresiarch of the fifth century, and what, think you, is the chief title of Pelagins to our author's praise? Hear him: Pelagius, by denying original sin, RENDERED REDEMPTION USELESS, and ANNULLED CHRISTIANITY! "

family and of society; but that, with religion, the very fountains of their otherwise stainless nature are polluted, and they become pestilent members of the social circle, and totally unfit to sustain the family relation! With all his cant about the elevation and progress of man, he really places a lower estimate upon the nature of man and of woman, than the disciple of Mohammed himself. It will not do to say, that he confines his view to Frenchmen and French women, as the translator would seek to persuade his readers; he speaks of man and of woman in general. It might have been, perhaps, a better explanation of his theory in regard to human nature, to have said that he judged of others by himself. What are we to think, for instance, of his portrait of woman, in the following passage ? "Woman, the part of the world eminently worldly, surrenders her family and her fire-side her most precious possessions. Eve still betrays Adam; the woman betrays man, her husband, her son! Thus each sells her deity. Rome sells Christianity, woman her domestic religion.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The feeble souls of women, incurably spoiled by the great corruption of the sixteenth century (!), full of passions and of fear, and of bad desires crossed by remorse, eagerly seized this means of sinning with a quiet conscience, and of expiation without amendment, amelioration, or return towards God. They were happy to receive at the confessional a political order, or the direction of an intrigue as works of penance. They carried into this singular mode of expiation the same guilty passions. which they were laboring to expiate, and to atone for remaining in sin, were often guilty of crime. The female mind, inconstant in all things else, was in this sustained by the manly firmness of the mysterious hand concealed behind her." 2

[ocr errors]

He seems to be fully impressed with the thoroughly Mohammedan notion, that man and woman cannot be brought together, even in the holiest relation, whether of society or of religion, without being carried away by sinful thoughts. His principal reasoning- if reasoning it may be called against the confessional, is based upon this corrupt view. It pervades his entire work, and upon almost every page manifests itself in passages, which it may suit the purposes of our Reverend slanderers to reproduce, and to spread out before the community for the perusal of the young and innocent, but which are much too gross for our pages. Upon those whose minds and hearts are already thoroughly rotten, like his own, such impassioned tirades may produce a strong and dangerous impression ; the pure-minded will turn from their perusal with disgust unutterable.

1 Preface.

2 Pages 41-2. In another passage, Michelet pretty clearly advocates the execrable doctrine of universal concubinage! He defends it on the ground, that matrimony imposes a slavish restraint on the freedom of love! He does not, indeed, come out openly, but his principles seem to lead this way. He says that the only generous and proper love is, "to love in liberty, free to love or not." (P. 200.) He adds, that the lover should furnish the beloved with "arms even against himself. This is love, and this is faith. It is the belief that, sooner or later the EMANCIPATED being must return to the most worthy." (P. 201.) That is, according to this beautiful theory, love should be wholly untrammeled, and should be bestowed, and will be bestowed, whenever the unfortunate victim of it shall be emancipated, on the most worthy; that is, according to Michelet. "on him who would be freely loved." (Ibid.) Have not the preachers consulted well for the morality of the country. when they gave circulation to this infamous book?

What loathing, for instance, is not produced in the upright soul by reading the following passage, in which he illustrates the "excitement" awakened in the confessional, by the following flattering allusion to religious meetings in our own country!

"And why should not this excitement happen in such an interview? It is enough for persons of different sexes to pray together in the same room, to induce intoxication and burn the brain. This happens in the assemblies of excited Protestants in the United States and elsewhere. Read the witty and judicious trifle of Swift's Fragment on the Mechanical Operations of the Spirit,' especially towards the close of it” 1

[ocr errors]

And yet this man, forsooth, meant to speak only of French women, of French priests, and of the Catholic religion in France! Similar in spirit is the following passage, which still farther illustrates his theory of human

nature:

"The confessor of a young woman can boldly define himself to be envious of the husband, and his secret enemy. If there is one who is an exception to this (and I wish I could believe it), he is a hero, a saint, a martyr, a man above a man." 2

The following elegant extract proves that what we have said above, concerning the low estimate he places on woman, is not at all exaggerated:

"There is a great difference between the hardness of a man and the cruelty of a woman. What is, in your opinion, the most faithful incarnation of the devil in this world? This inquisitor, or that Jesuit? No; it is a female Jesuit; a great lady converted, who believes herself born to rule; who, among this flock of trembling females (in a convent), assumes the part of a Bonaparte, and who, more absolute than the most absolute tyrants, uses the fury of illy conquered passions in tormenting the unfortunate, defenseless ones. Far from being opposed here to the confessor, my wishes are for him. Priest, monk, Jesuit, behold me on his side. I pray him to interfere, if he can. He is still in this hell (of the convent) into which the law does not penetrate; the only person who can say a word in the cause of humanity. I know very well that this interference will create the strongest, the most dangerous attachment. The heart of the poor creature is given in advance to him who will defend her." 3

We humbly suggest that the world has witnessed far more "faithful incarnations of the devil" than the "female Jesuit" of Michelet. The French revolution, brought about and consummated in blood by precisely such men as Michelet, startled the world with a hideous array of many much more faithful incarnations." Danton, Marat, Robespierre, Barêre, Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, and many more such worthies might well claim relationship, if not consanguinity, with the foul fiend himself. And if Michelet, and his worthy compeers, Quinet, Sue, and others of the same stamp, have not already proved their claims to the same high honor; if they have not yet made France run again with blood and stand paralysed again with horror, it is surely not from any want of the will to accomplish this result. The fearful lessons of the French revolution are wholly lost on such men; they would recklessly remove the only barrier to such

1 P. 187 note.

2 P. 141.

3 P. 159.

« PreviousContinue »