Thesis Apnroved

By

3 or Advisor

C ? ^ € r > ______D e a n RELIGION AND THE FRENCH CONSTITUTION OF 1791

BY

ALFRIDA JOSEPHINE HARTER, R.S.C.J.

A THESIS

Submitted to the Faculty of The Creighton University

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Master of Arts

in the Department of

History

OMAHA, 1929 Contents.

1. The Privileges of the Clergy _ Wealth of the

Church __ The Hierarchy.

2. Signs of Unrest _ General Spirit _ Philoso­

phers _ Redeeming Feature.

3. The Meeting of the Estates-General Destruc­

tion of the Monasteries_Renunciation of the

Tithe _ Declaration of the Rights of Man.

4. Spoliation of Church Property _ Confiscation

Depopulation _ The Religious Men and Women.

5. The Civil Constitution _ Rome _ The King

The Oath _ The King’s Sanction and the Pope's

Condemnation.

X The privileged classes in Prance meant the

First and Second Estates, the Clergy and the no­

bility. Theoretically, all the clergy were pri­

vileged. The Church had been part of the feudal

system; her bishops, abbots, members of cathedral

chapters, and university professors often ranked

among the feudal lords. The dominating will of

Richelieu had brought territorial possessions di­

rectly under the royal sway, but many feudal

rights were still retained by the feudal lords.

The Clergy were exempt from the jurisdiction of

the ordinary civil courts. They were exempt from

direct taxes - all, from the taille and, with the

exception of the Clergy of new Prance, from the

poll and the income tax. The exemption from the

poll and income taxes was rather an exoneration

than an exemption, since the Clergy had made

themselves free by a large gift early in the

eighteenth century, and again every ten years,

at the exaction of the royal commissioner, they

voted a subsidy to the state, under the name of

gratuitous gift. The Church also had the privi­

lege of honor and the privilege of exclusive public worship. As far back as Merovingian times, the ecclesiastical order had been preeminent, and

in the rare assemblies of the Estates General, the

Clergy had held the first rank. This primacy was

sanctioned by royal edict in 1695. Ten years be­

fore, by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes,

Louis XIV. proclaimed that the state acknowledged

the public exercise of her worship alone.

The wealth of the Church consisted of farm

land, vast open country, large forests and exten­

sive pastures. It would be difficult to estimate

the value of these domains enriched by intensive

cultivation and benefited by being parcelled out

to serfs. In addition to revenue from the land, the Church had the tithe — originally one-tenth,

later one-eighteenth of the produce.1 It was

provided for by Charlemagne, had come down through

the centuries with considerable variation accord­

ing to time and place. In certain provinces, not

only varieties of grain, but also animals were in­

cluded in this tax. The tithe was usually farmed,

and the agent of the clergy was not exempt from it,

1. Pierre de la Gorce, Histoire Religiose

de la Revolution Française Vol. I. p.ll. but he deducted his share from the collection.

How did the Church come into possession of such wealth? The archives of the great estates contain maps and detailed accounts of how these domains had become the patrimony of the Church.

Original grants had been added to and large gifts were made in thanksgiving for benefits received or for dangers averted, in fulfillment of a vow, in offerings that formed but part of the more com­ plete holocaust of the whole being in religion.

Again many a large grant was made with certain stip ulations, that worked out for the benefit of human­ ity in the form of relief for the poor, education for the children, hospitality for the traveller, health for the sick, the wounded, and in the many other forms that our present day philanthropy glories in as though it had found new fields for its efforts. In northern and eastern Prance the larger and richer ecclesiastical estates point to another craving of the human heart _ the need of expiation. The Norman lords stood before the world as plunderes and pillagers and before facing

Eternal Justice, they sought to win mercy by pay- 2

2. Ibid. I. p . 12 ing their ransom in terms of large estates to the

Church. Not only did the living benefit by such

generosity, but the dead had their share, when

great bequests kept their memory ever fresh by

prayer and by the lasting good that resulted for 3 mankind.

This double duty, of charity for the benefit

of the living and of prayer for the dead, had come

to be but imperfectly fulfilled or to be misunder­

stood in the eighteenth century. The King had

taken it on himself to put at the head of these benefices men of his own choice, or human concu­

piscence was clever enough to insinuate itself in

high places. What they wanted was honor and the

enjoyment of the revenues. They took these and

left the duties of charity and of prayer to others.

Thus there were two classes of clergy; the higher

and the lower. The bishops and the commendatory

abbots were practically all from the nobility and

so many that the bishops outnumbered the dioceses.

They had social prestige, formed part of the court,

lived in Versailles, spent their days in the sa- 3

3. Louis Madelin, The French Revolution, page 8. Ions. They governed their dioceses by agents or auxiliary bishops.'*’ They were not conspicuous for their learning, but were courteous, polite gentle­ men, often highly educated in secular matters.

They took things easy and kept just enough of the ecclesiastic in their manner and their dress to justify their title. They were humanitarian in their views and appreciations and hoped that re­ forms would work out automatically.

The revenues of the Church went unequally to the higher clergy, chiefly to the greater ones.

The cures, or country pastors,were the lowest in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, but the first in in­ fluence, for they alone were in direct, permanent and intimate contact with their flocks. They lived in their country presbyteries usually all their whole lives. The right of their appoint­ ment was not confined to their bishops, but might be exercised by right of patronage, that is, by those who created the parish, built the church or endowed it. Thus in the diocese of Boxilogne, the bishop named only sixty-nine of the two hundred 1

1. de la Gorce, op. cit. p.17 and eighty six country parish priests. The King named one and the other appointments were made by

the bishops of Saint-Omer, of Hesdin, of Saint-Pol, by the administrators of the hospital of Boulogne, by various abbots, priors or even by lay patrons.1

In neighboring dioceses, the episcopal right was more restricted still, and in five parishes the

old system of election by the parishioners had

even been maintained. In cases when the bishop

had not made the nomination, he kept the right of

"institution” of the cures and this he refused to

exercise only when points of faith or morals im­

paired the worthiness of the candidate.

The cure7 was the center of village life, and

lived in enviable independence. If he was given

a vicaire, an assistant, he had the right to

choose him. He was not only priest, but also mag­

istrate, in a way. The parish had borrowed its

unity from the religious orders: its town bell was

the Church bell, _ its forum, the Church yard,

and its meeting place, the Church Itself. The

cure kept the civil records and the royal intend-

1. de la Oorce, op. cit. p.21 ant did not hesitate to consult him on agricul­

ture, on the economic condition of the country, on

the material and moral needs of the people. He

supplied whatever statistics were required. His

Sunday announcements further revealed his double

character of shepherd of souls and of civil offi­

cer. After the feasts and fasts, he made known

the royal decrees, the bulletins of victory, the

contents of treaties. He thus instructed the ig­

norant on all lines. He even became an auxiliary

of justice when he proclaimed from the pulpit the

monitoire, or advice, to his parishioners to furnish

evidence of guilt, _ a practice that was abused

in the hands of the civil power and had to be re­

stricted to exceptional cases.

These country pastors were at the same time

humble in rank and important in their mission.

They were recruited from the middle classes of the

towns and oftener still from the sons of the far­

mers. As a rule they were good morally; in some

cases, a free life and false spirit were the re­ sult of the bad example of the higher prelates.

Some had received their training for the priestly

life by seminary professors of Jansenistic trend. 8

A relish for work was created and maintained among

the cur^s by the practice of concursus established

by their bishops. In certain parts of the

country, chiefly in the dioceses of Rouen and

Besancon, the clergy were renowned for their learn­

ing. In other parts they were more alive to the

material improvements that stirred the eighteenth

century. They were alert for the best methods of

agriculture; they distributed seed and advanced

money, when they could, for the purchase of im­

plements. They thought of the hemp that could

occupy the women during the long winter months.

Their energies went out in all lines for the well­ being and comfort of their people.1 2

. Did these rural pastors escape the subtle

influence of the philosphic teachings rampant in

the eighteenth century? Voltaire’s and Rousseau’s

spirit spead even to those who did not read them;

it was the leaven of other books. Their thoughts

flooded the atmosphere and were breathed in un-

p 1 consciously. When the cures visited the neigh­

boring manors, they found the writings of the day

1. Georges Goyau, Histoire Religieuse, p.491 2. Justin McCarthy, The French Revolution. Vol. I. P. 390 on the book shelves. At first, they took hold of

them with a certain curiosity and remorse, which

gradually gave way to the suggestion that it be­

hoved them not to be ignorant of what everyone , , 1 else knew. Further trouble was imported into the

villages by the visits of lawyers, of tax collec­

tors who retailed all that was going on in the

great outside world. The cures were touched, for

they lived too close to their parishioners not to

know what they suffered from the conditions of pre­

vailing life. As many were poor, they, too, in­

clined towards reform. Some of them had borne

their share in the unequal distribution of the tithes. No advancement was possible and they looled

with bitterness on the abundance of the sur­

rounding wealth.

The cures lived in the shadow of the abbeys, many of them vast and rich in revenues. There were

seven hundred and fifty five of these abbeys for

men, and two hundred and fifty three, for women.

By far the larger and richer abbeys were in the

north; those in Flanders and in Artois possessed 1

1. Louis Madelin, Histoire Politique, p.494 almost one third of the soil. Though the revenues

came from the abbey lands, they were not absorbed

by the abbeys. The commendatory system was the

great evil in the history of the abbey and 3 ix hundred and twenty five abbeys were in the hands

of the commendatory abbots. The right of appoint­

ing the heads of the monasteries, with approval

from Rome, was in the hands of the king or of the

nobility. Often the abbot lived far from the ab­ bey, had not even received ecclesiastical orders,

but he drew the revenues. One of the religious,

the "prieur claustral", or prior, replaced him.

The larger abbeys were reserved for the princes of

the Church and for prelates of celebrated sees.

Cluny had for its commendatory, Cardinal de la

Rochefoucauld. The more favored held the accumu­

lated benefices of several abbeys, as Cardinal de

Rohan, who held the revenues of Saint-Vaast and

of Chaise-Dieu. The Cardinal of York, the last

of the Stuarts, wa3 the commendatbry of the abbeys

of Anchin and of Saint-Amand, while Charles Edward'

daughter, the Duchess of Albany, was honorary ab­ bess of Migette.* The occasional visit of the

1. de la Gorce, op. cit. p.32 abbot, _ more often he sent his representative set the abbey astir. Due preparations were made for the expected visit, but no undue care was taken to conceal the need of repairs. Custom had sanctioned the division of the revenues into three parts: one for the commendatory abbot, one part for the subsistence of the monks, and one for the keeping up of the buildings and for charity;as a rule. Great disorders reigned, in the monasteries.

Their condition was rather that of relaxation and their fervor depended on the prieur claustral.

There were few monks. Of the two hundred and fif­ ty Cistercian abbeys, only five had more than for­ ty monks, five,more than twenty, six;more than fifteen, and sixty nine had but three or less. On the eve of the Revolution, the abbeys had on an average seven or eight religious.^ The monks have been wrongly accused of laziness. Their day was well regulated but they had grown accustomed to doing little in long periods of time. The changes in secular society had taken from them their vari­ ous occupations, one by one. They had been re-

1. Ibid, p. 34 12

nowned for their Christian hospitality _ there was

no longer need of it. They had cleared the soil, and others had come to reap the harvest. They had

been masters of science, but now they were consi­

dered as antiquated in their methods. They had

been the great dispensers of charity, but even

here, they were handicapped by the lack of money

which had fallen into other hands. They had still

the weapon of prayer, but the duties of choir had

ceased when their numbers did not suffice.

The canons were next in the ecclesiastical

hierarchy. Their homes were grouped around the

cathedrals and the chief city parishes and were

often the envy of the lowly country pastors.

Some of the chapters, notably those of Besancon,

of Strasbourg and of Lyons, were open only to the

nobility. Sometimes the duty of prayer was per­

formed by chaplains, as many of the canons lived

far away and were drawing the revenues of several

benefices. They had been appointed by the king,

by the bishop or by lay patrons, descendants of

the old founders.

Close to the cathedral stood the bishop’s

palace which in itself suggested that the bishop was also a suzerain lord. According to the con­ cordat of 1515, he had been chosen by the king without representation from either the bishops of the province or of local authorities. The king had a "ministre de la feuille" who proposed the names of the candidates, and this minister was usually himself a bishop. At the time of the ap­ proach of the French Revolution, M.de Marboeuf,

Archbishop of Lyons, had held this charge since

1777. For a long time the custom had prevailed of appointing bishops, even from lowly rank, when their talent or their moral worth fitted them for the important charge. Massillon could still write at the end of Louis XIV.’ s reign; "The Church has need of no great names but of great virtues".

But the eighteenth century excluded all who were 1 not of the nobility. The Royal Almanac of 1788 shows a list of bishops in which all the great houses of the monarchy were represented. More­ over the time and custom had added so many titles to that of bishop that the nobleman alone could bear it, for example, some were presidents des 1

1. Georges Goyau, Histoire Religieuse, p.494 14

/ etats of their provinces, others were princes of the Holy Empire. Monseigneur, the one honorary title that has come down to us, was the only one that was refused or contested.

The dioceses differed very much among them­ selves. Some were very large, some were extremely small. The diocese of Rouen had one thousand three hundred and eighty eight parishes, that of Agde but nineteen. Some of the episcopal residences were on the direct roads to Versailles, so that news was easy of access; others were far off, in solitary parts, cut off from the great bustle of the time. Some were rich, very rich Strasbourg had four hundred thousand livres, the largest an­ nual revenue of all, while the poorer ones went down as far as seven thousand livres. Soon the poorer ones came to be looked upon as means of mounting, bishoprics of passage, or ^veches crottes, as they were called at court.

On the eve of the French Revolution there were one hundred thirty archbishops and bishops, and of these about thirty did not reside in their sees.1 They were occupied in diplomatic negotia- 1

1. Ibid, p.43 tions, or in defense of ecclesiastical interest^,

or in fulfilling their charges as great almoners;

others were drawn by the wordly pleasures of court

life. Some tried to conciliate their sacred du­

ties with the attractions of Versailles, leaving

their sees at the beginning of winter under var­

ious pretexts and returning only for Easter. The

provincial assemblies had been recently re-estab­

lished, and in general, it was the bishops who

presided over them as well as over the assemblies

of the Pays d'Etat. They had the training, the breadth of view necessary to control these assem­ blies and prided themselves that their interest in

the progressive spirit of the day could shield the

Church when Voltaire and the philosophers would

charge her with archaic tendencies. They gave the

initiative to public works, industry and agricul­

ture, and made their influence felt especially in

the central and in the southern provinces.1 Man­

ufactures were encouraged, prairies were trans­

formed by irrigation, roads were made through

mountainous districts, and labor was provided to

ward off want and idleness. These secular func­

1. Georges Boyau, op. cit. p. 495 tions exercised by the bishops soon betrayed them­

selves in their spirit markedly enough, to make

the public say that there were two classes of pre­

lates, administrators of provinces and administra­

tors of the sacraments. Pour or five names are

notorious as unworthy prelates; possibly the num­ ber could be doubled. They formed a circle around

the philosophers. The rest could be divided into

exemplary bishops, three or four times more num­

erous than the unworthy ones, and the remaining,

into a mass noted for correct morals and manners,

sufficient piety and moderate virtue to show God's

ways to their flocks. They were gentle and affable,

easy going, lacked the depth and strength that the cures had a right to look for in their guides.

II

The great processions were occasions to show the large variety in the ecclesiastical ranks, the riches and splendor of the Church, the honor in which she was held in the kingdom. Her service was the only one recoginized officially. But be­ low the surface of this happy, peaceful scene a

great storm was brewing. In the midst of their

apparent power, many bishops had anxious awaken­

ings. In the assembly of the clergy, in 1762,

they deplored the weakening of faith and the li­

cense in writing, and in 1780, they begged the king to regulate the supervision of books on re­

ligion and morals.1 In 1782, M. du Lau, the Arch­ bishop of Arles, denounced the new dogma of "in­ dependence of all authority" and pointed out the baneful effect of public circulation of the entire and complete works of Voltaire and of Jean Jacques

Rousseau. In the Cahiers drawn up later for the

General Estates, the same complaints were repeated.

A leader was lacking. There were many distinguished

men among the higher clergy but no decisive or final efforts were forthcoming. This powerless­ ness was partially due to the extraordinary strength of the enemy, the philosophers. They were everywhere; they insinuated themselves every­ where. They had fashioned society according to their tenets by sixty years of labor. They had made

1. de la Gorce, op. cit. p.67 the middle classes envious of the higher clergy,

the lawyers ready to uphold whatever would appar­

ently lower the Church; the great nobles to whom

they dedicated their books smiled on them, and

harbored them, and took them under their protec­

tion. The smaller nobles delighted in upholding

them in disputes with the neighboring abbots or

the country priests. The Jansenista heartily con­

demned them in Parlement but, apparently scandal­

ized, they read them with secret delight. Liter­

ature was permeated with their tenets - they were

clever, witty, and knew how to lay their snares.

They had not yet found their equals, — the king

alone was there to oppose them, but he was weak,

undecided, distrustful of himself. The inequal­

ity of the struggle paralysed the effort, and a

certain material quiet and peace disguised the

disorder of minds. One after the other, the cre­

ators of this disorder died, and made the opti­ mists believe that their work died with them. M.

Morin, minister of foreign affairs, wrote to Car­

dinal de Bernis, ambassador at Rome, that books

against religion were hardly read any more since

the death of Voltaire, and that no more were writ­ ten. Such however was not the general opinion,

hut those who knew better had given themselves

over to a state of languor, trusting that things

would right themselves automatically.

The work of the philosophers had not died

out. Rousseau's Social Contract was to become

the textbook of the French Revolution. It was

full of emphatic statements without proof and

made a strong appeal to the masses. It asserted

"the self-sufficiency of the individual man in

the order of thought and in the order of action",

and viewed civil society as the result of a pact

between these sovereign individuals. Thus formed,

the corporate body constitutes the true soverign

and each citizen is a member of the sovereign.

The will of this sovereign people is absolute and

always right, and constitutes the law. Rulers are

simply the organs of the people and if the people, of their own accord, hand over part of their sov­

ereignty to them, the people can take it back at

their will. The majority decides the power of

the government. This theory of man and society

developed quickly in the decomposing soil into

which it was cast. The Jacobins were Rousseau's 20

truest disciples and later with Marat and Robes­ pierre as leaders, loudly proclaimed that the De­ claration of Rights, the emphatic proclamation of this sovereignty of the individual, was the best achievement of the Constitutional Assembly. "Le peuple connaît aujourd'hui sa dignité", cried

Isnard. "Il sait que d'apres la Constitution la devise de tout Français doit etre celle-ci, vivre libre, l'egal de tout, et membre du souverain.

This explains of itself the usurpation of power, even in religious matters, by the Constitutional

Assembly.

There is a bright page in the dismal his­ tory that prepared the French Revolution. It re­ veals the virtues of the religious women. They were about thirty five thousand in number, three thousand of these belonged to the abbeys or chap­ ters of canonesses. The education of girls de­ pended upon these religious found in all parts 1

1. W. s. Lilly. Chapters in European His­ tory. Vol. II. P. 133, 208, 209. W. S. Lilly. A Century of Revolution, p • 52 Shailer Matthews. The French Revolution, p. 70 Ernest Dimnet. France Herself Again, p. 179. of Prance, and children of all classes flocked to

them. In certain schools of the small towns,

chiefly in the diocesijes of Autun and Grenoble,

there were as many as fifteen or twenty nuns.1 In

almost every diocese, there was an asylum for the

orphans or the abandoned. Hospitals and homes of

every description brought help and consolation to

the afflicted. The contemplative Orders carried

out their program of prayer and when asked, later

on, in the first days of the Revolution, what was

the object of their Institute, they answered sim­

ply "Prier Dieu".

Ill

Such was the state of religion when the as­

sembly of the Estates General was announced,

Necker had doubled the representation of the Third

Estate in the lower clergy, and gave it a propor­

tionate representation. He not only doubled but

gave it a representation five times greater than

1. de la Gorce, op. cit. p. 75 that of the higher clergy. The chapter had one voice for ten canons, the religious communities had a single voice, but each parish priest, how­ ever lowly and poor, had a vote. This constitut­ ed a priestly democracy, side by side, with the lay democracy, and on its stand depended the com­

ing events. It realized its power and was tempted through its use, to rise from a poor parish to a richer one, and still higher. Pamphlets were

afloat written by parish priests to their brother

priests, which as ”Avis aux Cures” were as fuel

to the flame. Distinctions of rank had created havoc and almost unwittingly the spirit of revolt had taken possession of some of the best. The

additional misery of their villages, due to a

failure in the crops, only embittered them the more, when they saw the luxury of town life.

Their spirit of independence broke out in the

meetings. The National Archives give the in­

stance of a letter of the Bishop of Evreux to

Necker in which he complains of how all his sug­

gestions are set aside, how he is powerless since

they outnumber him, thirty to one. The Cahiers

repeal the spirit of a general discontent among the lower clergy. They ask for residence in the benefices, and decry the plurality of benefices.

All kinds of desires are expressed to stimulate

the languishing life of the religious.^- The in­

struction of the young that had been carried on by

the suppressed Jesuits should be taken up by the

religious orders. In general, the cures are res­

tive under the yoke of the ecclesiastical hier­

archy. They protest against their lot, and this

is done less with a view to their poverty than

with an eye on the riches that surround them.

When the elections for the representatives, to the

Estates General were finally concluded, of the

two hundred and ninety six ecclesiastical members

chosen, forty seven were bishops, twelve, canons;

six, grand vicars; twenty three, abbots, religious,

professors, or priests without functions and two 2 hundred and eight, country pastors.

The Estates General were opened by the so­

lemn Mass of the Holy Ghost on the fourth of May,

1789, and the first meeting took place the fol­

lowing day. The constitutional question of the 12

1. Georges Goyau, op. cit. p. 498 2. de la Gorce, op. cit. p. 104 organization of the Estates General came to the

f fore at once, and was settled only after a month,

when the Third Estate solemnly declared itself a

National Assembly. The Clergy finally voted, by

a majority of one hundred and forty nine, to meet

with the Commoners, and their leaders, the Bishops

and Archbishops of Vienne, Bordeaux, Chartres,

Coutance and Rodez and the Abbot of Premontre were

borne in triumph to the cry of "Long live the good

bishops", and were followed by one hundred and for­

ty three priests and monks.1 The fusion of demo­

cracy and of the clergy was finally completed in the Church of Saint Louis, when the Tennis Court,

as well as the General Hall, was closed to theii*

sessions.

The first blow at the privileged classes

had been struck with the abolition of the Estates.

The taking of the Bastille was the signal for the

peasants to destroy the castles and monasteries.

The Assembly was taken by surprise as messenger

after messenger came with the same reports. A

decree to the people, to be quiet and law-abiding 1

1. Louis Madelin. The French Revolution. p. 61 while awaiting reforms, was to be read by the pas­ tors to their flocks. In the meantime, the nobles saw that a complete abolition of their privileges would alone be accepted. They vied with each other in the sacrifice of their feudal rights on that memorable fourth of August. The clergy, silent up to this time, followed their example. The Bishop of Nancy, renounced the right of his order to all its benefices. The Bishop of Aix declared null and void any resuscitation of the feudal rights.

When the Archbishop of Chartres asked for the ab­ olition of sporting rights, the Duke du Chatelet retaliated by asking for the suppression of the tithe.1 Renunciation of private privileges was followed up by those of the provinces Brittany,

Languedoc, Artois, Burgundy, and Lorraine obeyed the call. The abolition of the old order was celebrated by the striking of a medal and at the suggestion of de Juigne, the Archbishop of Paris, by a grand Te Deum. On August fourth, the Clergy, with de Juigne as spokesman, renounced the tithe, trusting in the National Assembly to allow them

1. de la Gorce, op. cit. p. 121 to fulfill worthily their enumerated functions, as respectable as they were sacred: to preach the

Gospel, to celebrate divine worship with decency and dignity, to provide the churches with virtu­ ous and zealous pastors, to help the poor. The

Assembly had suppressed the tithe but declared that it would be gathered in the customary manner till other means would be found to keep up wor­ ship. The little that was left of the Church's privileges soon disappeared. On August 23, the discussion on the Declaration of the Rights of

Man ended by inserting that no one need fear for his opinions, even religious opinions.1 2 Thus there was no longer the patronage of civil power, no recourse to secular arms — the rigorous laws issued against protestants since the revocation of the Edict of Nantes would be abolished, and later on, these were indemnified for their lost goods. Equality ended by extension even to Jews.

On the sixth of October Paris received its king but lost its archbishop. Juigne had always

1. Or. John Alzoz, Universal Church History p. 635 2. A. Aulard, The French Revolution. Vol.I p. 154 been a father to his poor; when he now heard that

he was starving them, he became fearful, sought

refuge in Savoy and went later to Constance, then

to Augsburg^from there he governed his diocese as / f an emigre. He lacked the qualities of the martyr.

IV

After the eventful days of October 5th. and

6th. that saw the forcible removal of the Court

and Assembly from Versailles to Paris, three hun­

dred deputies of the nobility and of the clergy

left the Assembly, thus giving freer action to the

elements that were to be feared. Among the pre­

lates who remained was Boisgelin, the Bishop of

Aix, ready to make real and lasting reforms, to help create a new order of things. The Estates

General had been summoned as the last means to

suggest relief for the financial embarrassment of

the government of Louis XVI. The confusion <3f the early days of the Assembly had led to chaos; leg- 1

1. Justin McCarthy. The French Revolution, p. 590 28

islative decrees abolished indirect taxes and it was impossible to enforce payment of direct taxes.

When the bankers failed to make new loans, the

Assembly turned to the rich church lands to save the state from bankruptcy.1 Boisgelin had pro­ posed, as a true remedy for the financial stress, an extraordinary subsidy form the clergy. He de­ clared that the clergy had never failed to come to the help of the state when it was in real dis­ tress. Let the Assembly decide what they ought to give and they would submit. But the Assembly was carried away^the proposals initiated by Tal­ leyrand. He insinuated the confiscation of the ecclesiastical property, Mirabeau proclaimed it, and Barnave gloried in it as the right of the peo­ ple over the domain of the Church. Arguments, as dangerous as original, that had been spreading among the masses through the philosophy of the past sixty years, were brought forth by the adver­ saries of the clergy and were refuted by their de­ fenders, the Jansenist Camus, soon the cruel en­ emy of the Church, now her champion, the Abbe 1

1. Carlton Hayes, A Political and Social History of Modern Europe. Vol.I p.483 Hilaire Belloc, The French Revolution.p.236 I / 1- d'Eymar and finally the Abbe Maury. Malouet,

from Auvergne, defined ecclesiastical property as

the endowment of worship and of the poor, and in

this sense, might be considered as belonging to

the nation. He invited the Assembly to calm it­

self, to rise above passion. The contest went on

for days, was interrupted and resumed. The law­

yers came with their clear cut arguments, distin­

guishing between individual and corporative rights.

As corporations existed only through the nation

that created them, the nation could always de* stroy them. The right of suppression even became

a duty when the body no longer answered its first

end and represented only abuse, as they said the

monasteries were doing. Finally Mirabeau, by a

clever stroke, modified the wording of the decree,

so that ecclesiastical property was rather at the

disposition of the nation; and the clergy were 2 not formally expropriated. The nation would

have its hand on it. Confiscation was threatened,

but was not made an accomplished fact, by the de- 12

1. M. Poujoulat, Histoire de la Revolution Française, Tome I, p. 204 2. de la Gorce, op. cit. p. 150 cree of November 2, adopted by five hundred and

sixty eight votes against three hundred and forty six and signed by Louis XVI., and countersigned by M.de Cice, keeper of the seals and Archbishop of Bordeaux. The decree was generally viewed as indulgent and kind. The hew budget of the Church would be divided under the supervision of provin­ cial administrations composed almost everywhere of enlightened, fair-minded men, aware of the useful­ ness of religion, though sometimes tainted with the new philosophy. The far reaching results of the decree were kept from view _ not even its victims were heard. The country pastors felt that they were little concerned by the blow and the higher clergy, realizing their unpopularity, thought silence was the best policy. There was a vague presentiment, fondly fostered, that things would not come to the worst. M. de Montmorin, minister of foreign relations, informed Cardinal de Bernis, the ambassador at Rome, to reassure the pontifical government of the question. The law was simply a declaration, a law of principle, as some declared, but this very law would soon be used to proclaim, step by step, the consequences. No later than five days after it had been passed,

Talleyrand suggested that seals should be put on the charters and that inventories of personal pro­ perty should be drawn up. The suggestion met with opposition, whereupon the Assembly refused both seals and inventories, and declared itself satis­ fied with the supervision of ecclesiastical pro­ perty by the authorities. The heads of the eccle­ siastical communities were soon put under obliga­ tion to declare their possessions within two months. With the beginning of 1790 the property of the beneficiaries who had become emigres was to be sequestrated. This measure was aimed at the

Archbishop of Paris, who had taken refuge in

Savoy. In the course of this continuous progress, the Church would soon be attacked in a very vital way. Civil authorities, that is, the directors of the departments or of the districts, were to ad­ minister the ecclesiastical property and the clergy were to receive salaries paid out in money.

When through stray journals, or the decla­ mations of clubs or through passing travellers, the peasants heard that the Church property be­ longed to the nation, they entered the bois des Chanoinesses, bois des Cannes and bois des Bons-

P^res and cut down shrubs, brushwood and even huge oaks. These they used as fuel for a hard winter was just setting in. They banded together to carry on their destruction. They carried away milestones and destroyed protecting walls. The bolder ones ventured to appear before the prior or the abbot to demand the title deeds to destroy them. Some of the religious, among them the abbot of Fran- quevaux in Languedoc, took refuge in the neighbor­ ing towns and put their papers in safety. Spoli­ ation was only the first step, but it could not ruin religion, for poverty is a great power in

Christianity. Depopulation was soon joined to spoliation of convents. A decree of the 28th. of

October, had already suspensed, provisionally, the pronouncing of solemn vows in the monasteries.

This meant that the oldest and most celebrated orders of the Church could no longer receive nov­ ices and would become extinct. Those who chose a life in common would be reassembled in some few houses that would be preserved, and they could there end their days and see their Orders thus die out. Towards the beginning of March, all religious houses were ordered to fill out a ques­

tionnaire relative to their rules of solemn vows,

the object of the institution, the name and age of

all their inhabitants. The Ecclesiastical Commit­

tee entrusted, the bishop of each diocese with

this inquiry, and the statistics were freely given.

This would have enabled the historian to give the

exact number of religious at the beginning of the

French Revolution _ twenty thousand nine hundred

and seventy five men and twenty seven thousand

three hundred and ninety three women, a total of

forty eight thousand three hundred and sixty eight

persons, however the enumeration is not complete

as those of some dioceses are missing or have gone

astray. This inquisition was soon followed by a

second. In spite of Grégoire's discourse, the

Assembly had voted the release from vows. The

officials presented themselves in the monasteries

to know if the monks wanted to remain there. Of

the forty monks in the great abbey of Cluny only

two were found who declared themselves ready to

stand by the spirit of the order that had trans­ figured Europe for seven centuries. At Citeaux,

thirty out of the forty were willing to leave their monastery. The labor-loving Benedictines of

Flanders and of Artois, refused to be freed. The

"Dominicans, already greatly dimiiished, were fur­ ther depopulated by defections? but the members of the general novitiate of rue du Bac and of the rue Saint-Jacques testified their fidelity to the old spirit of the order. The Capuchins and the

Chartreux held their own, while the silence of the Trappists spoke more eloquently than words that they loved their religious life.1 The ex­ amples of extreme ardor in adhering to what they had solemnly sworn in face of heaven and earth and of extreme impatience to be freed from their bonds are but exceptions to the general tendency.

Neither fervor nor apostasy dominated, but in the case of the religious men, there was more weakness shown than constancy. They wanted religious life, but only in so far, as no serious or important inconvenience would come to them. Before answer­ ing yes or no, they wanted to know where they were to go, if they were to remain, if they would have a pension, what would be the amount of it,

1. Geroge GoyaU, op. cit. p. 502 where they would receive it, and the like. Their

arguments savored of the human, for example, the

abbot of the Premonstrafcensians* begged for the

preservation of his monastery lest one of the most

beautiful monuments in Prance should become a mag­

nificent ruin, surrounded by brushwood, and the

sad object of the curiosity of travellers. These

monks were neither heroes nor renegades, but they

cut a sorry figure when they were surprised in the

midst of their tepid existence.

The religious women present a vastly differ­ ent aspect. Many of their establishments dated

back to the seventh century. At Bourges, the

royal abbey of Saint-Laurent was established in

the eight Century for the young Saxon girls; the

Abbey du Ljrs in the diocese of Sens could go back

to St. Louis. Humbler houses, like that of the

Grey Sisters at Saint-Pol in Artois, likewise

dated their foundations back many centuries.^

They hoped that the services they had rendered,

in praising God, in caring for the sick, in in­

structing the young would win them the grace to

1. de la Gorce, op. cit. p. 175 live and die in their religious asylum, De la

Gorce tells us that neither the threatening ruin

nor the approaching dispersion inspired unworthy

supplications, for, with a keen insight into the

grandeur of religious life, he adds that the habit

of invoking God had "unaccustomed” them to implore

men, and their prayers rose up too high to come

down easily to earth. In the hour of peril many

of the religious men had thought of themselves;

the religious women thought of others. When they

had a request, It was in behalf of the poor who

depended upon them. Christian certitude was the

foundation of their answer to the test. They be­

lieved with a simple faith and put no conditions

to God. "To take us from our cloister would be

to give us death", wrote the Annunciation Sisters

of Besancon, a sentiment voiced by the great ma­

jority. They were ready to sign the protestation i with their blood, to sacrifice a thousand lives,

if they had them, to preserve their holy state,

they said. Available statistics reveal an almost unanimous fidelity. The National Archives con- » tain letters, true masterpieces in the revelation

of the spirit that animated them. The Poor Clares of Lyons begged the Assembly not to make them ac­

cept a pension or compensation to solace them for

not allowing them to receive new members.

Some of the cities had asked to maintain

their convents and many villages,to keep their

abbeys, but little action followed in this direc­

tion. It soon became evident that the populations were moved rather by the desire to keep the treas­

ures in the possession of the monks than by any real sympathy. They set to work to secure statues and reputed miraculous pictures, and the like for the parish churches. Sacred vessels and bells and chimes became objects of contention.1 Municipal libraries benefitted by receiving old books and manuscripts that formed part of the.monastic riches.

Solidarity was lacking between the outlaws and those who would soon share their fate. Every­ one was on the defensive, ready to claim except leas.

Those of foreign origin took advantage of it, as for example, the clergy of Alsace based their rights to special consideration on the treaty of

Westphalia. The Augustinians de la Place des

Petits-Peres were loud in their declarations that

t 1. Barrttel, Memoires. Tome V. p. 130 38

they had nothing in common with the other orders.

A larger pension was allowed the non-mendicant

orders and at once mendicity lost some of its fol­

lowers. There were many like points which com­

promised the general welfare of the religious for

the benefit of individuals.

After longer or shorter delays, the religious

were notified in what monasteries they would be

assembled. There were two or three such monaster­ ies in each department, where they had been promised

freedom to live according to their own rules, but

failure to keep them appart from each other, soon

made this provision impossible or very difficult.

By the autumn of 1790, placards were placed

on the walls of the monasteries and convents still

inhabited or already empty to announce the sale of

the property put up at auction. Would religious

scruples interfere with the success of the bidding?

The Pope's protest had not been made public, and

hence was unknown to the faithful. In exchange

for what it was confiscating, the State promised

to provide for public worship, for its ministers

and for the poor. The goods of the Church had

been turned aside so strangely from their end that many hardly looked upon them as a sacred patrimony and religious scruples were few. "Les biens

d'Eglise" were soon known as "les biens Nationaux".

Nationalization had succeeded so well that gradu­ ally the exempted property became subject to like laws. Those who acquired the land of the Church came from all classes of society especially from the bourgeoisie. There were lawyers, doctors, contractors, judges. The rural element was re­ presented, in the first sales, by cattle and grain merchants, millers, vine growers, lumbermen, in general, by the commercial class, practised in the art of re-dividing and re-selling. The ecclesias­ tical property became the security for the famous assignats, paper bills, a forced currency, payable in church property.'1'

V

The clergy had favored the Revolution, but nationalization dampened its ardor. In the As-

1. William Morris, The French Revolution, p. 42 sembly there were other elements that were quietly watching the progress of events that pointed to­ wards a possible revenge In their favor.1 Galileans and Jansenists saw their opportunity tb carry to the utmost limits the doctrine of the power of the

State in religious matters. Rabaut Saint-Étienne voiced the sentiments of the Protestants and helped

form the coalition of hatreds, centuries old.

In April 1790, the clergy had been voted salaries from the state. This was an easy step to making them its functionaries. Since the state was to de­ fray the expenses of the Church, and was to simpli­ fy the services by the suppression of fifty-one bishoprics, why not reorganize it throughout? The reform was to take on an evangelical appearance, to get back to the apostolic times when the faithful elected their own pastors. The departments were to impart an administrative feature by introducing more uniformity in the size of the dioceses which now varied from seventeen to one thousand four hundred parishes. The abolition of the Concordat was to give it a political phase. The Ecclesiasé tical Committee was reorganized and renewed to se-

1. Henry Eldridge Bourne, The Revolutionary Period in Europe, p. 133 41

cure adherents for the Civil Constitution of the

clergy. The Ecclesiastical Committee was com­

posed of fifteen members, among them the Bishops

of Clermont and Lucon. Six or seven of the other members sided with the bishops, and thus gave them

the preponderating influence in opposing any rash

or unorthodox measures. At Treühard's request,

the Ecclesiastical Committee was reorganized and renewed. The lawyers, headed £y Treilhard, be­ came its most important element, its leaders, and the Bishop of Clermont and his adherents gradually disappeared from the sessions. A sub-committee was named to work on the Civil Constitution of the

Clergy, which was "an application to the ecclesi­ astical domain of the revolutionary dogma of the sovereignty of the people and the omnipotence of the state, as taught in the Social Contract."

Chasset drew up a report of the reform, which was further developed by Martineau. Each department was to have a Bishop, and ten departments were to form a district under a Metropolitan. The Bishops were to exercise jurisdiction only with the consent of "episcopal Vicars." Chapters disappeared in the new order and parish boundaries were to be rearranged. 42

The commune or electoral body of each department O was to choose bishops, episcopal vicars and parish priests. The Metropolitans were to institute the

Bishops, and the Bishops, the priests. The Pope was left entirely out of the program,1

The debate in the Assembly opened and on its failure or success depended the fate of Prance, — schism or unity with the Church. Some of the As­ sembly had secretly deplored the usurpation of the ecclesiastical patrimony, but through weakness of faith or fear of ridicule refrained from committing themselves to the interests of the priests. Others, in the light of the scandals of the old order, were only, too eager to lean towards anything that savoured

of reform. This inert faith and fear of com­ promise were sorry factors to bring to the struggle.

Many deputies absented themselves from the meetings.

There was no distinctly Catholic group, but Catho­ lics were mingled in all the groups of the right and of the center. What the right lacked most was discipline. There were no leaders. As religion was the point in question it seemed most natural

1. James Robinson, Readings in European History. Vol. II. N.401, p.423. 43

that the leadership should be the clergy's. There

were several, distinguished by rank, by qualities

of mind, and by experience. The friends of M. de

Boisgelin, Archbishop of Aix, recalled his former

success in the administration of Provence, M. du

Lau, Archbishop of Arles,had exercised his power

in the Assemblies of the clergy. M.de Bonal, Bishop of Clermont was remembered on account of his sincere piety, his wise moderation, his gentle but firm speech that had often moved but never wounded. The abb! de Montesquiou's cleverness in the art of sug­ gesting conciliatory amendments had made Mirabeau say of him "beware of this little serpent for he will seduce you." These notables could be characw- terized as distinguished, rather than superior, and fitted into peaceful and not agitated times.

They lacked the genius that subjugates, the elo­ quence that carries all before it, the ardent faith that transports, the indomitable will that ensures victory. Solidarity had perished. To champion the cause there remained the abbe Maury who had defend­ ed the property of the clergy. His power of im­ provisation and of quick repartee was all the more remarkable in an age that knew only written harangue but he possessed neither gravity of manner, nor great dignity of bearing, nor austerity in his con­ versation. What he gained by force of talent he lost by insults. He had not the true ring of the ecclesiastic, but had become a priest to rise in life, rather than to be an apostle of the Gospel.

This destined him to become first among men of sec­

ond rank only. One looked in vain, too, among the seculars for leaders. There was a goodly num­

ber- of men distinguished in the art of conversa­ tion, but not experienced in public debate. Others had the sincerity and loyalty that would bring honor to any cause, but only as partisans and not as commanders.

The general discussion opened the twenty- ninth of May and the Archbishop of Aix, M. de

Boisgelin, was the first to appear in the tribune.

He was seconded by the Bishop of Clermont and the

Archbishop of Arles and granted the opportuneness of reform. To those who would point to the prim­ itive Church to recall episcopal duties, he would speak of the episcopal rights. He denied the power of the Assembly to change ecclesiastical discipline, and above all, he denounced the over­ throw of diocesan jurisdiction. His plea covered the personal cause of his colleagues, rather than that of the Church herself. He did not touch up­ on the elective system, nor upon the denial of papal rights in matters of canonical institution.

He added that if the proposition that the Gallican

Church was constituted by a national council of bishops were set aside, the bishops could no long­ er share in the debates.

The Committee had a four fo^ld class of de­ fenders: the lawyers, led by Treilhard, eager to win the cause as outlined by their own initiative

— the Jansenista, entranced at the possible in­ jury to Rome, _ the priests, who had deserted the old Church and were impatient for a new order, — and finally the left which saw in the reform of the church, a reform of politics. Treilhard, in his address brought out in relief the elective system. He enumerated the reforms and asserted boldly that the Assembly had the right to carry them.out. Instead of inviting discussion, he proceeded to declare that the spiritual jurisdic­ tion embraced only faith and dogma, whence the conclusion that all that pertained to discipline 46

was the province of temporal authority, and if a

sovereign deems a reform necessary, no one can op­

pose him. He met with a splendid applause and the

following day the Journal of Debates and Decrees

proclaimed his discourse sublime, Camus represent­

ed the Jansenists. They were ready to yield to

the secular power all of what they wanted to take

away from Rome. There were other priests in the

Assembly whose speeches were less of interest on

account of their arguments than of the suggestions

they betrayed, - Gouttes, Gobel, Massieu, Dumouchel,

future bishops of the new order.

Concessions were made in every direction by

Boisgelin, but when his motion for a national

council to adjust matters with Rome was set aside he declared that the bishops would withdraw. This

left the burden on the ecclesiastics of second rank who had but an inferior influence. The Eccle­

siastical Committee was ready to grant the Pope a primacy of honor only, for it repeated its project of refusing him the right of the canonical insti­ tution and assigning it to the metropolitan. The work of the Committee took on the aspect of a fastidious task, carried on in small sections, 47

and ever so often interrupted. The law was finally

passed on July 12 by the Assembly with retouches

that the Committee had not ventured to approach.

Arbitration in conflicts between the metropolitan

and the bishops had been centered in metropolitan

or diocesan synods. The constitution did away

with the synod, possibly out of fear that the cre­ ation of an esprit de corps might develop into an

independent spirit. The provision made for a

three-fold Veto of the King in the episcopal elec­

tions was abolished as incompatible with the plen­

itude of popular rights. A cash salary was the

only remuneration allowed the clergy and wiped

out any vestige that remained of clerical property

which might have been allowed the clergy of the

second order. The work of the Assembly was to be

final, without further appeal. It substituted

the word "Pope” for ’’Bishop of R o m e ’’ as given by

the Committee and upon the request of the abbe

Gre^oire in two different articles protested

’’un i t y of faith and of communion with the head of

the universal Church”. It looked upon the lati­

tude given the king as useless and dangerous and

declared categorically that when a decree had been passed, the king has but one duty — to ensure

its execution.

Prom the time of the convocation of the

Estates General, Cardinals, nobles, diplomats of

Rome had been watching the mails from Prance.

After he had heard of the first steps against the

Church by the abolition of privileges, Pius VI. had warned Louis XVI. in a confidential letter to watch over the deposit of faith and not to allow error to invade the sanctuary. The King’s answer, full of pious assurances and of deep sadness in­

spired by pity inclined the Pope to moderation.

With the coming of Autumn came the French emigres to Rome to set the city astir with their talk of the ’’se r m o n of Providence” preached to kings, as

M. de Maistre put it. But they brought with them all the remnants of their ancient luxury and their winter was full of feasting, as if jealous to pro­ long the prestige of their King. Pius VI. no longer had true repose. In March 1790, the Church was attacked by the law against monastic vows and the suppression of religious orders, while Rome was given over to the carnival festivals. The

Pope aware of the gravity of the French situation 49

remained perplexed between a silence that seemed

inertness and a protestation that might exasper­ ate. Many of the cardinals.counselled a public act, while Cardinal de Bernis in a long interview put before the Pope the state of Prance, the ex­ citability of its parties and the opportuneness of temporizing. Pius VI. answered that he was in honor and in conscience bound to protest against the violations of the laws of the Church and of the rights of the Holy See. Bernis enumerated point by point all the reasons for postponing the clash. The Pope dismissed him without a pro­ mise but let him understand that his conduct would be dictated by love for Louis and by solicitude for Prance. In a secret consistory the Holy Father showed that he was not blind nor inert as to the rights of the Church, but as he hushed any noise made by his protests, Bernis could point to the longanimity of the Pope. Attributing all to his own influence, the cardinal wrote further that he hoped that the King and his minister would be pleased. He could not hope for another success of the kind, as he called it, and advised that he could not answer for persevering patience on the 50

part of the Pope, if the Church in Prance continued

to be treated so harshly.

When Bernis communicated to his court the first warning of the Holy Father, the Ecclesiasti­

cal Committee was giving the final touches to the

Civil Constitution. Home followed up closely the reports about the coming innovations. All were eager to find out Bernis' own thought in the matter.

He masked his anxiety under a feigned assurance.

What disquieted him most was the silence of the court. His dispatches from de Montmorin, the min­ ister of foreign affairs, were short and rare, and did not mention the Civil Constitution of the

Clergy. Anxiety increased at the Vatican, for Mgr.

Dugnani, the papal delegate in Paris, was not bet­ ter informed than Bernis, but the little he re* ported could only disquiet. He perceived, in gen­ eral, discouraging impressions among the Bishops, who with increased pressure urged upon him the need of yielding much. They repeated that His

Holiness would have to cane to the rescue of the

Church at the cost of the greatest sacrifices, unity excepted. As a friend of Prance, the nun­ cio's information could hardly be disparaging. 51

Peeling that the crisis was near and inevitable,

Pius VI, ordered special prayers to be said dur­

ing Pentecost week in St. Peter's, St. Mary Major's,

and St. John Lateran's* Montmorin took umbrage at

this, whereupon, when the Pope learned of this ex­

treme circumspection, he replied to Cardinal de

Bernis, "May it please God that His very Christian

Majesty incur no danger other than our prayers".

Bernis could guess all of what his government

failed to inform him. The papers and correspon­

dence made clear the attacks on the Church in

Prance. He again risked giving his advice to M.

de MoUtmorin _ that the sanction of such decrees

as were embodied in the Civil Constitution could

not be made without the reflection of consulted

bishops, doctors, theologians and the best in­

structed canonists. Such a sanction especially

interested the royal conscience. It could entail

schism if not conformable to canons, to councils,

to the principles established in the kingdom. He

would consider it a failure in duty not to warn

of the danger of legislating lightly in a matter

of such importance.1

1. de la Gorce, op. cit. p. 280 The King forsaw the passing of the law and

was filled with anguish of mind. The Ecclesias­

tical Committee, eager to set the seal to its work,

urged the royal sanction. Louis was counselled by

the two prelates, M. Lefranc de Pompignan, the old

Archbishop of Vienne, and M. Champion de Cice, the

Archbishop of Bordeaux, who thought it wiser to

try to manage the Assembly than to irritate it by

a veto. Both were of the same mind in view of the needs of the time and of the imminent danger of a

schism. Some of the aristocracy advised acceptance and then negotiations with the Pope.1 The King promised his sanction but added he would suspend

its promulgation till communication with Rome would allow the execution of the new decrees. This de­ ceptive expedient was the policy of the weak. The nuncio Dugnani handed Louis a papal letter dated

Julÿ 10, in which Pius VI. warned the King in ex­ press terms that if he approved the decrees rela­ tive to the clergy he would lead his entire nation into schism, and that though he had made great sacrifices for the good of his people, he had no

1. Georges Goyafc, op. cit. p. 505 right to alienate it any way nor to abandon what

was due to God and to the Church. The Pope point­

ed out the Archbishops of Bordeaux and Vienne as

capable counsellors. Louis felt that the remon­

strance was grave. He had already taken counsel from the two Archbishops, who were in accord with the prevalent idea of concessions that were claimed

to be but provisional. The promulgation was declared imperative and the changes were enumer­ ated for the Pope’s immediate approval. The ap­ peal was insistent and went so far as not only to suggest that the Pope would not oppose the measures, but that he would lend his patronage to the Civil

Constitution. His intervention to secure the ex­ ecution of the decrees was to be stamped with a provisional character. These instructions were sent by Montmorin to Bernis with an added request to hasten their execution. The Assembly was ex­ ercising a strong and urgent pressure on the King, and his counsellers adopted a like attitude to­ ward the Pope which left Louis waiting in anguish for permission to capitulate without sin. The necessary time for the coming and going of the messengers, the time for Bernis to deliver his instructions, the time for the Pope to reflect on the question had all bee^n carefully computed. The messenger arrived duly in Rome, on the 11th of

August^ and Bernis read and re-read the memorandum.

His impression was one of general stupor, and after his regrets about the long silence of Paris, he now had regret3 that Paris had spoken. Reflec­ tion only added to his perplexity. Here were un­ heard of requests and unheard of haste which re­ fused any delay as answer. The ambassador was received on the 13th bv the Holy Father, who al­ ready knew of the sanction and could view the per­ spective of some future final negotiation as only a slight solace for his sorrow. He expressed his readiness to do all that conscience and honor would allow to prevent a schism, but declared that in so important a decision he needed to consult the cardinals. In an accent of gentle blame, he regretted that the King had been led to sanction the decrees before coming to an agreement with him, as this very deed would hamper his action. The

French messenger left Rome on the 18th to commu­ nicate the results of M. de Bernis' interview to

M. d$ Montmorin, and to take a letter from the Pope to the King. Pius VI. exhorted the King to

patience and asked him to impose it on those around

him, while the cardinals would be called to a re­

union to consider affairs. He also left no doubts

as to the inalienable sovereignty of the Church in

spiritual matters.

The decisive word in Paris did not wait for

the judgment of the Holy See. The royal perplexity had served to irritate the Assembly, which was so

infatuated with its omnipotence and its wisdom that

it brooked no delay nor even conceived the need of

revision of its decisions. The twenty-fourth of

August, even before the return of the messenger

from Rome, the Civil Constitution was published

and passed among the laws of the state, The Feast

of St. Louis was celebrated in Rome with all pomp

to overshadow the rumor that was spreading of an

imminent rupture between Paris and Rome. Bernis

was his old self once more, seeking to deceive

others and to deceive himself, in the display of

ease of a great lord, half worldly and half re­

ligious, of a prince of the Church who is cele­

brating the feast of his Christian King.

Montmorin shortly after wrote to the ambas­ sador that ”hi s Majesty had done what his religion inspired him to d o ”. The King himself announced to Pius VI. the definitive promulgation. The heart of the Holy Father was cut to the quick. His coun­ sel had been asked without intention, apparently, to wait for it. The consistory of the cardinals took place and its only hope now lay in mitigation of the evil. There was no question of accepting the Constitution. They would not condemn it for fear of the schism, and for the spark of confi­ dence in some final arrangement. The venerable congregation counselled the Pope to write two briefs, the one to the King, the other to the

French episcopate exhorting its members to propose the most efficacious measures to calm consciences and to avoid new troubles. The final decision remained with the Pope. He knew clearly tiiat he did not want the decrees about the clergy; he did not want to be entrapped in the snare of a pro­ visional approbation. But his perplexity turned to anguish when it came to the point of formulat­ ing something more than a negation. He read and re-read the written opinion of the cardinals with­ out receiving the light he looked for. The Assem- 57

bly lost no opportunity, in the meantime, to show

its contempt and disdain of the Holy See. Bernis

with a rare spirit of conciliation, multiplied his

counsels to his government to avoid a schism at any cost. He pointed to the Pope’s great kindness

in looking always to the good and the peace of

Prance. Other Popes would have already destroyed everything. Again PiusVI. in an audience with

Bernis told him of the unanimous judgment of the cardinals, that the decrees about the clergy would not be approved such as they were without a mortal blow to Catholicity. He was ready however to dis­ cuss any projects of change that his conscience ✓ would allow, no matter what sacrifices they entailed.

Even in this audience the Holy Father alluded to messages that had already come to him from

Angers, Boulogne, and announced the imminent de*- struction of the chapters. The information was correct. The execution of the fatal Constitution had begun and there were indications of the re­ ligious struggle that was to last for ten years.

During September and October, the Civil

1. de la Gorce, op. cit. p. 300 Constitution was proclaimed in the provinces. The bishops were notified that their power and their

jurisdiction were overthrown, and the members of

chapters, that they ceased to exist. In general,

the approach of danger inspired virile thoughts in

the provinces. There were learned refutations, for example that of the Bishop of Boulogne, M.Asseline, whose vigorous pastoral letter was spread by forty bishops among their flocks. When the old Bishop of senez saw the Civil Constitution placarded on the walls of his little cathedral, his heart over­ flowed, as he said, that he could as little give up the spiritual contract that bound him to his

Church as he could give up his baptismal promises.

He belonged to his flock in life and in death.

It became the duty of the Bishops who were members of the Assembly to explain the character of the law that had been passed in spite of them and against them. A complete refutation was published in October under the title "Exposition des Princi- pes sur la Constitution Civile du Clerge," drawn up by Boisgelin and signed at first by the thirty prelates, then deputies in Paris, then by ninety- eight pastors, and finally by all the Bishops. This marked a new effort to let the Assembly know that Catholic consciences were susceptible and to

persuade the Holy See of the necessity of study­

ing the possible concessions with a view to main­

taining the faith and the unity of the Church.

This duty accomplished, they took a passive atti­

tude of resistance; they did not fight the law

violently, but settled down to a sort of negative

rebellion, and they pretended to ignore it. They

continued their charges as though nothing had happened. The dissolution of the chapters showed that the execution of the law would meet with op­

position, and as the administrators showed them­

selves powerless, the Assembly had recourse to a

further measure. What persuasion had failed to

accomplish, force would carry out. Voidel re­

ported to the Assembly that the Committee was in

favor of an oath, that ’’wh e n the public will is

expressed, individuals are bound to obey.” The

oath was to be taken by all ecclesiastical public

functionaries Sunday after High Mass during the

course of the eight days after publication. The

ecclesiastics that were members of the Assembly

would take it there within the eight days. 'The 60

formula declared fidelity to the nation and to the

King and^keeping the. Constitution decreed by the

national Assembly and accepted by the King. Though

the Civil Constitution of the clergy was not spec­

ified in so many words, in the mind of the legisla­

tor it was included in the general word constitution

and no one questioned the interpretation. Refusal

of the oath would mean renunciation of office and l the person would be replaced. Those who continued

the exercise of their functions without the oath

would be considered disturbers of peace, would lose

all rights of active citizenship. Any attempt to

organize an opposition was subject to like penalty.

The conflict had dragged on for some months, but

Voidel’s proposition led to a climax. M. de Bonal,

Bishop of Clermont, claimed for the church of

Prance the right to assemble in council and to pass regulations concerning its spiritual authority.

After many interruptions he was followed shortly by the abbe de Montesquiou who did not meet with a better hearing. Violence and confusion marked the whole debate. Mirabeau and the abbe Maury were the only orators that forced attention. The former attempted to save the King from giving his sanction to the new law by "proposing to get it thrown out by dint of outbidding", but when he saw the impassiveness of the right, he became fired and his passionate arguments provoked Maury to in­ tervene. November 27th finally saw the passing of the law. It meant the break between the Church and the Revolution.

A messenger was again dispatched to Rome with pleadings that the Holy Father would consent to both laws. Bernis had too much experience as diplomat and too much knowledge and light as priest to dare hope for the success of the mission con­ fided to him. He knew that affairs must have come to the very worst if some one as great as Boisgelin advised extraordinary sacrifices to save the situ­ ation. He knew that these extraordinary sacrifices were undeard of, but he encouraged himself to dare to present them because the situation was without a precedent in history. The Pope again called a council of twelve cardinals for deliberation, as he was ready to give his life to save France from schism and to prevent the persecution that threat­ ened the clergy. The answer was not entirely ne­ gative, for the Pope and his counsellors were again 62

ready to tell the French episcopate that they would

receive the proposal of any articles it believed

absolutely necessary and admissible.

In the meantime France had witnessed the meet­

ing of electors to provide for the newly erected bishoprics of Ardennes and Mayenne, and to take measures against bishops that continued in their

charges in spite^heir refusal to take the oath. A The general opinion held that the priests would

take the oath, and on December 20th the decree was put before Louis for his sanction. Louis had twice asked the Pope's advice and twice he refused to abide the time of a reply. Under pressure of his present distress he turned to Boisgelin, who coun­

selled acceptance but under the appearance of a forced sanction. When his old friend Saint-Priest was of the same mind, Louis submitted and sanctioned

the law.

It was generally believed that the clergy would take the oath, but this hope proved false.

All eyes were fixed on the clergy in the Assembly to set the example. On the 27th of December the / / Abbe Gregoire was the first to appear. He did not approve of the Civil Constitution, but satisfied I 1 that dogma remained untouched, he considered sub­

mission the wiser action and ended by taking the

oath. Sixty two priests followed him, as the ex­

pectant audience in the tribunes whis^pered their

names, among them Gouttes, formerly president of

the Assembly, Dumouchel, rector of the University

of Paris, Expilly, recejly named Bishop of Quim-

per. The minutes of the meeting recorded that no

bishop was found among the jurors. The session

of the following day had hardly begun when M. de

Talleyrand appeared in full insignia, wearing his

pectoral cross, ready to take the oath before the

Assembly should be present to witness it. Some

days later, Gobel, Bishop of Lydda, coadjutor of

Bale, also appeared in the Tribune with his pec­

toral cross, and as though to quiet his own con­

science before he took the oath, he gave a pre­

amble on the rights of spiritual jurisdiction and

expressed his assurance that the Assembly did not want to decide anything detrimental to the salva­

tion of souls. As the 4th of January the last

day of grace was nearing, tension increased and

the Revolution mobilized its troops. Cries of

death were vociferated against those who would 64

refuse to conform to the law. Mercenary bands

were stationed in the meeting hall of the Assembly

and empty places in the tribunes were fast filled with members of the clubs who would make it their

business to disconcert the resistances and to ap­

plaud the defections. Crowds had gathered in the

garden of the Tuileries, and become tumultuous in

their waiting, as reports from the hall reached

them. When the decisive moment came, they shouted:

The rebels to the lampposts!- To the lamppost those

who will not take the oath! The weaker among the

clergy had already succumbed, and the strong were

mutually encouraging each other not to yield. The

roll call was opened by the name of Bonnac, the

Bishop of Agen, who briefly declared that he could

not take the oath. When his example was followed

by the others called, the Assembly lost patience

and decided on a collective call. The president

appealed to the ecclesiastical functionaries who

had not yet taken the oath, to mount the tribune

and conform to the decrees. No one stirred, ex­

cept four unfortunate priests. This constancy on

the part of the clergy re-awakened the courage of

the right and made a great impression on the coun- try. The clergy had shown that they were willing

to sacrifice their possessions to the Revolution

but not their religious fidelity. The vote of the

4th of January inaugurated the ostracism of the

clergy of Prance. Among the forty four bishops

and archbishops, only two were jurors, among the

priests, ninety-one. The following day some twen­

ty retracted, which brought the mxmber of the

faithful ones to two thirds of the ecclesiastical

representatives.^

The clergy of Paris were next submitted to

the test. They were to take the oath at the High

Kass on January 9th. Every means, the press, the theater, caricatures of the Pope, of the Bishops, of the Abbots, of the parish priests, were used to conquer all resistance. Saint-Sulpice was picked out for special attack. It was served by a com­ munity of more than forty priests, renowned for learning and for virtue. "If St-Sulprice succumbs, all will succumb." The vast church was crowded and in one corner was massed a detachment of the

National Guard, The cure, M. de Pancemont, mount-

1. Georges Goyato, op. cit. p. 507 66

ed the pulpit, after the Gospel, while the priests

and seminarists took their places close to him

right and left. After ending the announcements,

in apparently great calmness, he was going to re­

turn to the altar when the cry was heard: The

oath! the oath! Raising his arm to silence the crowd, he declared his refusal and his priests

joined in his resolution. Disorder and confusion broke out and the National Guards came forward to

secure safe conduct for M. de Pancemont to the sacristy, and the Holy Sacrifice was ended in a relative calm. Like scenes took place in other parishes of Paris; in some, all the clergy were jurors. The Assembly watched closely the execu­ tion of its decrees, for it apprehended the dif­ ficulty of securing substitutes for the faithful priests. To over-'come these difficulties, it was ready to make concessions with regard to require­ ments. Finally the new decree was put before the pastors in the departments. They had been pre­ pared a long time for this issue, and its friends had used all possible means to win over the clergy.

When the great day came, there were few pure and simple refusals. The clergy used subterfuges. 67

They swore to respect the Constitution as t-o the

temporal, to keep the Civil Constitution as far as the Church would allow it, to adhere to all the articles compatible with the Catholic religion, to except the spiritual government of souls of which the Assembly had declared itself incompetent and so on. In the large centers, fidelity, was the rule, and the towns of central Prance were as a rule firmer than those of the North; for example, only three priests submitted at Bordeaux, none at

Montpellier. At Orleans, the clergy followed the bad example of Jarente, their Bishop. On the whole about half of the clergy consented, but as soon as the Pope’s condemnation of the Civil Con­ stitution was made public, many retracted.1

As only four Bishops took the oath, the places of the non-juring Bishops, no longer recognized by the Assembly, had to be filled. The new electoral system set to work to elect successors in the var­ ious sees, and nineteen of these were both priests and deputies. The consecration fell to Talleyrand, as Brienne, Jarente and Savine refused. The Church

1. Mgr. Bseeurrard, Histoire de la Venerable Mere Madeléine Sophie Barat, p. 12 68

of the Oratory was chosen for the ceremony and

Talleyrand laid hands on Expilly and Marolles, who were thus validly consecrated. The consecration over, Talleyrand divested himself for ever of the sacred vestments and had only the one desire of leaving the constitutional Church which he saw would lead to nothing. He dreamt of no longer be­ ing bishop, while Gobel, his assistant dreamt of being bishop of Paris, The great abstacle had been surmounted and Expilly and Marolles in their turn, consecrated others. Eighty assemblies, some of which were under the influence of Paris, gave out eighty mitres, so that Boisgelin could say that there was no parallel to such a revolution. Nine hundred and thirteen electors, of whom twenty one were priests, made Gobel archbishop of Paris, who was to become the scandal of the constitutional church, and in addition, two thousand ordinations were performed during two years.1

The non-juring priests continued to exercise their functions side by side with the others. They numbered from fifty to fifty five percent,of the total, and in certain parts they formed centers

1. Georges Goyau, op. cit. p. 508 of resistance. In the meantime the non-juring

bishops circulated in great secret pastoral letters

protesting against the nomination of their succes­

sors. They nobly passed over the loss of their

riches; they were ready to give up their sees upon

papal order and for the good of the Church, but

not upon command from incompetent authority. Trou­

bles were already arising, but the hour had not yet come for violence.* Requests were sent on to

the National Assembly, and the town of Bedarieux had four hundred of its active citizens appeal for a referendum on the religious question.

On January 19th, Pius VI. received the news that the law had been sanctioned, but his briefs, the one to the signatory bishops of the Exposition of Principles and the other to the King, the Bish­

ops, the priests and people of Prance, were writ­ ten only in March and in April to make known what everyone knew would have to be his stand. He de­ clared the Civil Constitution schismatical and suspended all the juring clergy who would not re­ tract within forty days. The episcopal elections 1

1. Bernard Mallet: Mallet du Pan and the French Revolution, p. 117 were declared null and void and the consecrations,

sacrilegious. The publication of the briefs was

prohibited in Prance, but they were secretly print­

ed and secretly circulated, and many retractations were made. Religion became more and more divided

into two camps. Two words passed into the language to express the opposing elements _ the intruder and the refractory. The intruder appeared as excommu­ nicated by the spiritual law and the refractory was outside the civil law. The schismatic went from bad to worse, from schism to heresy or to apostasy, while those that clung to the Church were but be­ ginning the chapter of the French Revolution that brought its martyrs and confessors to the Church in Prance, and its missionaries and apostles to many other parts of the world. 71

Bibliography.

Alison, Archibald. History of Europe 12 Vols.

Blackwood and Sons. 1853

Alzog, Dr. John. Universal Church History. 3 Vols.

Robt. Clarke Co. 1874

Aulard, A. The French Revolution. 4 Vols.

Scribner, 1910.

Baunard, Mgr. Histoire de la Venerable jlere Made­

leine Sophie Barat. 2 Vols.

Librairie Ch. Foussielgue,1900

Barruel, M.l'Abbé. Mémoires. 6 Vols. A.Hambourg,1799

Belloc, Hilaire. The French Revolution.

Henry Holt & Co. 1911.

Bourne, Henry Eldredge. The French Revolutionary

Period in Europe. Century Co. 1914

Catholic Encyclopedia. 16 Vols. Appleton Co. 1909.

Dimnet, Ernest. France Herself Again. G.P.Putman's

Sons. 1914 de la Gorce, Pierre. Histoire Religieuse de la

Révolution Française 5 Vols. Plon- - Nourrit. 1925.

Goyau, Georges. Histoire Relieuse Vol. 6 of

Histoire de la Nation Française 72

Gabriel Hanotaux. Plon-Nourrit. 1922

Guizot, M. The History of France. 8 Vols.

John B. Alden. 1885.

Hayes Carlton J. H. A Political and Social History

of Modem Europe. 2 Vols.

Macmillan. 1925. Lilly, W. s. A Century of Revolution.

Chapman & Hall. 1889.

Lilly, W. S. Chapters in European History.

Vols. 2 Chapman & Hal}, 1886.

Madelin, Louis. Histoire Politique. Vol; 4 of

Histoire de la Nation Française - j Gabriel Hanotaux. Plon-Nourrit. 1924

Madelin, Louis. The French Revolution. Putnam,1928

Mallet, Bernard, Mallet de Pan and the French

Revolution. Longmans Green. 1902

Mathews, Shailer. The French Revolution.

Longmans. 1927

McCaffrey, Rev. James. Catholic Church in the 19th

Century. 2 Vols. O'Shea Co. 1865.

McCarthy, Justin H. The French Revolution.

2 Vols. Harper Bros. 1890.

Morris, William. The French Revolution.

Scribner. 1908 Parsons, Reuben. Studies in Church History.

6 Vols. Pustet. 1896.

Poujoulat, Histoire de la Revolution Française. ------1------2 Vols. A. Marne & Cie. 1848

Robinson, James. Readings in European History,

2 Vols. Ginn. 1904

de Saint-Amand, Imbert. Marie Antoinette at the

Tuileries. Scribner. 1891.

Stephens, H. Morse. The French Revolution.

2 Vols Scribner. 1902