|
(page 30
thru 39)
Phenomena of the most astonishing nature have,
within a few years past,
arrested the attention of mankind.
Manners, and the state of society,
have undergone a revolution
which has appeared to extinguish, in many,
every natural affection,
and to transform the most civilized and polished,
into the most ferocious of men.
The best established principles
of natural and revealed religion,
and the very foundations of moral and social duty,
obligations never before controverted,
have been attacked by an host of enemies.
A flood of infidelity has deluged
the greater part of the Christianized world,
threatening to sweep away every vestige of Christianity.
And may it not be said, almost without a metaphor,
that by an horrid Anti-Christian regeneration,
a nation of Atheists have been born in a day?
These are plain facts;
and they demand the most serious attention of mankind.
It is not by framing fanciful theories,
but by carefully tracing effects to their causes,
that we acquire useful knowledge and experience.
Some adequate cause, there must have been,
of this mighty mischief.
Whence shall we date its origin?
To what shall we ascribe its rise and progress?
In answer to these queries we presume to say,
that however accessary other causes may have been,
the principal cause is to be found
in the following historical abstract.
About the middle of the last century
there appeared three men,
leagued in the most inveterate hatred against Christianity,
VOLTAIRE the Chief,
D'Alembert, distinguished for his subtilty,
and FREDERIC II. King of Prussia;
to which number was afterwards added
DIDEROT, whom,
probably on account of his frantic impiety,
the historian characterises, the "forlorn hope."
The necessary brevity of this work will not permit us
to descend to a particular view of their several characters,
yet the first of these conspirators is so distinguished in this work,
and in the literary world,
as to justify a more particular attention.
Voltaire, the son of an ancient notary of the Chatelet,
was born at Paris, February 20, 1694.
His original name was Mary Francis Arouet,
which through vanity, he changed to Voltaire,
as more sonorous, and more conformable
to the reputation at which he aimed.
He was eminently distinguished for his abilities,
and for his thirst of dominion over the literary world.
His talents, however, were more brilliant than solid,
less fitted for deep investigation,
but eminently calculated to amuse and captivate.
He possessed all those passions which render abilities dangerous;
and unhappily, his appeared to be all early devoted
to the overthrow of religion.
While a student, he received the following prophetic rebuke from his Professor:
"Unfortunate young man, you will one day
come to be the standard bearer of infidelity." *
* Life of Voltaire, Edit. of Kell.
After leaving the College
he associated with men of abandoned morals;
and having given offence to the French government
by some satirical essays,
he sought an asylum in England.
There he first conceived the design of over-throwing religion,
by "blending Philosophy with Impiety."
Condorcet, his adept, his confident,
his historian, and panegyrist, asserts in positive terms,
"There it was that Voltaire swore to dedicate his life
to the accomplishment of that project;
and he has kept his word." *
* Life of Voltaire, Edit. of Kell.
On his return to Paris, about the year 1730,
he became so open in his designs,
and so sanguine in his hopes,
that Mr. Herault, the lieutenant of Police, remarked to him,
"You may do or write what you please,
you will never be able to destroy the Christian religion."
Voltaire, without hesitation, answered,
"That is what we shall see." +
+ Ibid.
While he yet flattered himself
with the hopes of enjoying, alone,
the whole glory of destroying the Christian religion,
(though he soon found that associates would be necessary)
"I am weary," he would say,
"of hearing people repeat,
that twelve men have been sufficient to establish Christianity,
and I will prove that one may suffice to overthrow it."++
++ Ibid.
Frederic also, dignified among the sophisters,
with the title of "the Solomon of the North,"
and by the historian with the epithet of "The Great,"
claims, even in this brief sketch, a more particular notice.
To express his contrary, and almost irreconcileable qualities,
we find him painted a double man,
exhibiting two distinct and opposite characters.
In one view of him, we see the hero,
and the father of his people,
giving life to agriculture and commerce;
in another, the sophister, the philosophical pedant, (vain scholar),
the conspirator against Christianity.
The contradictions in his character are transcribed in his letters;
at one time, extolling, in glowing terms, the morality of the gospel;
and at another, asserting, that
"Christianity yields none but poisonous weeds."
There can be no doubt, however,
that Frederic united cordially, as he did early,
with the enemies of religion.
Even at that early age, when he was only Prince-Royal,
in his correspondence with Voltaire,
he had adopted the style of the modern Philosopher;
for he thus writes,
"To speak with my usual freedom, I must naturally own,
that whatever regards the God made man,
displeases me in the mouth of a Philosopher,
who should be above popular error.
We may speak of fables, but merely as fables;
and a profound silence, in my opinion, should be kept,
concerning those fables of the Christians,
sanctified by time and the credulity of the absurd and stupid." *
* As Frederic is another of Mr. Ebeling's Christians,
who, he intimates, died in the hope of a better life,
I beg leave to introduce a short sketch of his character,
drawn by a skilful, and apparently, impartial pen.
"Most unjustly (says the writer) is he styled great;
a philosophical monarch, the most despotic, perhaps, who ever existed,
but who has contributed more to the dissolution of society,
by corrupting the principles and morals
of all within the sphere of his influence,
than any individual of his time."
See Appendix to Vol. 6, of Anti-Jacobin Review, p. 565
But what did this boasted wisdom avail?
While soaring, in imagination, far above their fellow mortals,
we see them in the same situation
in which every person will find himself,
who relinquishes the guiding light of Revelation,
wandering in the wilderness without a path,
and without a compass.
"Is there a God such as he is said to be?
A soul such as is imagined?
Is there any thing to be hoped for after this life?"
These questions,
the comfortable fruits of infidelity,
were proposed by Voltaire to D'Alembert;
to which he answers,
with the same admirable philosophic wisdom, that
"No, in metaphysics,
appeared to him not much wiser than yes;
and that non liquet (it is not clear)
was generally the only rational answer." *
* Barruel's Memoirs, Vol. I. Chap. 1.
Who would not give up the Bible
for the honor and comfort of being
so nobly and philosophically bewildered?
Sensible that the individual infidelity of these persons
did not constitute a conspiracy against Christianity,
without a union and correspondence in the attack,
the historian has furnished us with the proofs of such a confederacy,
in which their efforts, and those of their adepts,
appear combined and steadily pointed
to the accomplishment of their grand object.
To this object they directed and stimulated each other by a watchword,
strikingly expressive of their rancorous enmity to the Saviour,
"ecrasez l'infame! crush the wretch."
But could this mean Christ,
and that adorable religion
preached by him and his apostles?
What other interpretation can we annex to the phrase
in the mouth of a man, who, in his intrigues against "the wretch," exclaims,
"Could not five or six men of parts,
and who rightly understood each other,
succeed, after the examples of twelve scoundrels,
who have already succeeded?"
And who thus writes to D'Alembert,
"Both you and Demilaville must be well pleased,
to see the contempt into which "the wretch" is fallen
among the better sort of people throughout Europe.
They were all we wished for, or that were necessary.
We never pretended to enlighten the house maids, and shoe makers;
we leave them to the apostles." *
* Barruel's Memoirs, Vol. I. Chap. 2.
The apostles surely were neither Jesuits nor Jansenists;
their only crime, in Voltaire's view, doubtless was,
attachment to their master and his cause.
In the true style of conspirators,
they had also their enigmatical language,
and secret appropriate names.
The general term for the conspirators was Cacouac;
they say one is a good Cacouac,
when he can be perfectly depended on.
In their correspondence,
Frederic is called Duluc;
Voltaire, Raton;
D'Alembert, Protagoras and Bertrand;
Diderot, Plato or Tamplot.
Secrecy appears to have been considered by them
as essential to their success.
Their Chief would therefore often remind them
that in the war they waged,
"they were to act as conspirators, and not as zealots.
"Strike," he would say, "hurl the Javelin, but hide your hand."
Voltaire had long before vented his rage against Christianity,
and been the officious (dutiful) defender of every impious publication;
but, about 1752, when he returned from Berlin,
the conspiracy assumed a regular form,
and he, by his age, reputation, and genius,
naturally became the chief. *
* Barruel's Memoirs, Vol. I. Chap. 3.
|
|
