Page:Essays on Catholicism, Liberalism, and Socialism.djvu/94

them—the Catholic nature. And Catholicism was not a vain form, because it gave no form to any institution, but was, on the contrary, something intimate and essential, and for this reason imparted to them all something profound and intimate. Catholicism does not disturb forms, but it changes the substance of things; and at the same time that it leaves existing forms undisturbed and changes things in their essence, it receives indifferently from society its various forms. For example, the Catholic Church was feudal, as feudalism was Catholic; but the Church did not receive the equivalent of what she gave, as she received that which was purely exterior and non-essential, while she imparted something interior and intimate, which was to remain as essential.

It follows from this that in the common mass of European civilization, which, like all other civilizations, and in a greater measure than others, is composed of unity and variety, all the other elements combined and united only give it what it possesses of a diverse or varied character; while to the Church, and to the Church alone, it is indebted for its unity. But in its unity dwells its very essence, and that from which every institution derives what is most essential to it—its name. European civilization was not called German or Roman, absolute or feudal, but was called, and it calls itself, Catholic civilization.

Catholicism is not then merely what Mr. Guizot supposes, one among the many elements which compose this admirable civilization; it is more than this—much more; it is this civilization itself. How strange! Mr. Guizot sees all that is transient in time and circumscribed in space; and he fails to perceive that which is neither limited by time nor space. He sees that which