THE STRUGGLE OVER ROMAN
CATHOLIC ORTHODOXY IN

RANGE. 1789-1794

Thesis for the Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE
Charles Michael White

1949

1vEfl<

This is to certifg that the

thesis entitled

'I‘HT STRUGGLE OVER ROLIAN CATHOLIC ORTHODOXY

_.J

IN FRANCE, 1789 - 1794

presented in]

Charles Michael White

has been accepted towards tuliillmornt

oi the. requirements {0r

M. A. dapfl,m History

 
 

hiiljur l’trtdcssur

ltate Wi—

 

 

 

THE STRUGGLE OVER ROMAN CATHOLIC ORTHODOXY

IN FRANCE, 1789-1791;

By
Charles Michael White

A THESIS

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of'Hichigan
State College of.Agriculture and.Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

lflLSTER OF ARTS

Department of History

19h9

Acknowledgement

The writer wishes to thank Doctor John B.
Harrison for his criticism and advice. The
writer also wishes to thank his wife and Persia

Cole fer typing and proofreading.

812391.338

TABIE OF CONTENTS
ChaEter Page
I. The Church Prior to 1789 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II. Attitudes Toward the Church
Revealedinthecahiers...o....... 21

111. First Acts of the Revolution
ConcerningtheCIerhoooooooooeoo 28

IV. The Civil Constitution of the Clergy
andItSConsequenceS........ooooo 118

V. The New Religion 0 o o o o o e o e e o o e o o o 0 75
VI. Same Typical Roman Catholic Reactions . . . . . . . 91
VII. 00110111310113 0 o e o o o o o o e o o o o e o e o o o 116

B ibliography O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 120

I. The Church Prior to 1789

b'or' centuries the dominant historical force in France has been
the Roman Catholic Church. During much of the history of France the
Church has not only directed the people of France in their strictly
spiritual relations, but has also been a dominant force in political
and economic matters. High offices of state have been consistently
filled with members of the Clara, and, even when the clergy did not
actually occupy these offices, their influence as confessors and
advisers to the rulers was extremely large. A cursory examination
of French political history would give one the impression that
'Cardinal' is a title of a high French political office. This Church,
which has had and does have such an enormous influence over the life
of France, was an international body, directed by a non-Frenchman
whose capital was established at Rome. In the history of the French
Catholic Church, the fact that the whole Church is directed from Home
has been the basic factor in determining the conflicts, attitudes,
and progress of the Church. The fights on doctrinal principles have
been, in the main, revolts from Papal authority, and the temporal
squabbles were likewise caused by the fact that the Pope lived in
another country.

This dominance on the part of the Church over practically all
phases of human life has not gone unchallenged. In opposition to it
there have been several major upheavals. In point of time Gallicanism
was the first. It was a challenge to the power of the Church, not to

its dogna. The second was the combined assaults of Protestantism and

Jansenism, which challenged dogma and not power. A third.major assault
was that of the philosophes and rationalists, who would have done away
with both doctrine and power. A fourth powerful force, one which has
as much significance, but not such a colorful history as the other
challenges, was indifference.

Any significant degree of nationalism cannot tolerate dominance
of the Church over affairs of state when this church is directed by
an exterior force. Hence, when the first flickers of nationalism
began to kindle France, the French clergy began slowly to fermulate
a new doctrine in keeping with their new nationalism: This doctrine
is called "Gallicanism". Its earliest beginnings may go back to the
twelfth century, although indications are that the records of the
earliest sanctions are spurious.1 The very name "pragmatic" sanction,
however, seems to indicate that the sanction was given to previously
accomplished acts. Whenever usages which are termed "Gallican" first
began, it is certain that "The Gallican Church was older than the
French‘Monarchy".2 What is this Gallicaniam? A. Cobille gives a
very good statement of it,

In short, Gallicanism, as it appeared then [during the Schism] , still
confused, is a conception.of the life of the Church opposed to the
Papal conception, which is absolutism; it is the idea that the govern-
ment of the Universal Church belongs to itself, and that, within the
Universal Church, there exist national churches, which have a certain
right to govern themselves; it is also a protest against Roman finan—
cial laws, through'which the beneficiaries were injured in their
material interests. It is, then, a reaction against every advancement
of Pa a1 power, a wish to return to the old days in the church, where

[they supposed that all things were passed according to the canonical
rules, being a great fallaqy.

l. E. Lavisse, Histoire de France, illustrée (Paris, 1911),
1112, 61;.

2. Gazette nationals ou le Moniteur universel, une Introduction
historique, (Paris, An.IV), p. h.

3. E. Lavisse, Histoire de France, 1V1, 360.61,

I
d

 

During the Schism, the principle of the superiority of the Councils
over the Papacy was introduced into the doctrine. At this time, the
proponents of Gallicanism gained the support of the Councillers of
Parlement, who saw in the Callican attempt a.monarchical church. The
Pope first recognized Gallicanism in.lh07 when.Alexander V, after the
council of Bale, granted some illusory concessions.’4 During the next
few years, the Popes used their powers to cooperate with the King, and,
through judicious appointment of cardinals, by 1hl9 all former ordinp
ances had been annuled. The pressure of the new nationalism was too
great fer the Papal authority to withstand, however, and on July 7,
lh38 the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges was promulgated by Bossuet.
The preamble of this document struck out at the abuses committed or
tolerated'by Papal sanction. It proclaimed the superiority of councils
and provided for general councils every ten years. Other articles
provided that bishops and abbeys be elected, restricted the Pope's
control over benefices and candidates, prevented him.from reserving
for himself the collation of benefices, and suppressed annates,
although the Pope did receive one fifth of the taxes previously
collected. It was thus a highky successful Gallicanization document,
and in addition it chastized the Church severely for lapses in
spiritualism and in their duties toward their flocks.S By the
Concordat of 1516 the right of electing prelates was lost, the Pope
giving the nomination of bishoprics and certain other benefices to

the king. He kept a veto on the appointments, however, and invoked

h. Ibid., Ivl, 360—61.
5. $21.4. 1V2. 267.

his 'apostolic mandate' permitting him to designate some collative
seats.6 In 1682 the Assembly of the Church of France promulgated
four points,
(1) God has given to Saint Peter and his successors no power, direct
or indirect, over temporal affairs.
(2) Ecumenical councils are superior to the Pope in spiritual matters.
(3) The rules, usages and statutes admitted by the kingdom and the
Clmrch of France must remain inviolate.
(h) In matters of faith, decisions of the Sovereign Pontiff are
irrevocable only after having received the consent of the Church.7
These propositions reflected the nationalism of the age of Louis XIV,
but while it is true that Anti-Papal feeling in the Church was still
strong in the eighteenth century, it was probably not in full accord
with the principles of 1682.8
This long-continuing movement away from Papal jurisdiction had a
great deal to do with the inability of the Pope to stem the tide that
turned violently against the Church after 1789. Even though the Pope
could do nothing to contradict the actions of the revolutionists, the
roots of the Saint-Siege in France were deep enough to allow him to
ride the storm and to return in glory in 1801. Another aspect of
Gallicanism which was to have a great effect on the revolution was the
inability of the nationalist clergy to maintain any principles in the
face of desertion by their new master, the. national state. The Church
in France, as of 1789, had succeeded in gaining for itself a place
almost unknown among national churches. Yet its independence did not

lead to strength. The assault of Gallicanism on the Church was generally

60 Ibido, v1, 253-5140

7. E. J. Lowell, The Eve of the French Revolution (Boston, 1892),
p. 380

8. Ibid., p. 38.

 

successful, and the other assaults, those of Protestantism, Jansenism,
Philosophism, and Indifference were directed as much against the Gallican
Church as against the Church universal.

The advent and growth of Protestantism are well known. Those of
Jansenism are more obscure. Both, however, seem to have drawn heavily
on the writings and teachings of St. Augustine. After its original
flurry, Protestantism was not a great force in France. But it has
always been, in France, a cult of the bourgeois; hence it okays held
more power than it would deserve on more force of members. Most of
the Protestants in France were Huguenots, followers of John Calvin.
Originally they were persecuted rigorously but in 1598 Henry IV issued
the Edict of Nantes, giving them some civil and full religious liberty.
After Henry's death, the rights of the Protestants were gradually
reduced, their city of La Rochelle being taken by force in 1628. But
as yet their position was not too bad. The treaty of peace, although
withholding military and political rights, did grant civil rights and
religious freedom. Under the leadership of Cardinals Richelieu and
Mazarin, however, the Protestants gradually lost ground, and by the
seventeen-eighties open force was being used to suppress them. In
1685 came the open revocation of the Edict of Nantes. After this
revocation the remaining Huguenots fled, were converted, or remained
quiescent - but faithful to their belief. During most of the ‘
eighteenth century, they were not persecuted, and by the time of the
Revolution a persecution taking place on religious grounds was rare

indeed.9

9. E. Lowell, Eve of the Revolution, p. ‘43.

Louis XIV's zeal did not stop with the Huguenots. A second group
upon whom Louis vented his anger were the Jansenists. This sect did
not wish to break away from the Church, but onl;r to reform the Roman
Church, to give it a more puritanical nature. They believed, after
Augustine, that men are saved only by the grace of God. Jansenism
differs from Calvinism in that it accepts the authority of the Church
and has faith in the Eucharist. By closing consents and rigid super-
vision Louis had, by 1700, successfully eliminated most of the
organized Jansenists. Working under the influence of and in conjunc-
tion with the high clerg, who had early taken a stand against the
Jansenists, Louis XIV accepted the Bull Unigenitus decreed by Pope
Clement XI in 1713. This Bull denounced Jansenism as heresy, and,
even though there were no real organized Jansenists at that time,
stirred up one of the most violent arguments France has ever seen.
When the Bull was promulgated, the Cardinal de Noailles and seven
other prelates refused to submit to it, and serrt a protest to the
Holy See}0 Although the division in theological questions was very
absorbing and very real, the hnndreds of pamphlets which flooded
France were only background for another longstanding problem: the
state versus the Church. On the one hand were those who believed in
the complete ascendency of the Roman Church on all ecclesiastical
matters. on the other, ardent nationalists who believed in state

control of all things within its boundaries, including beliefs.n

10.“ Casimir Stryienski, The Eighteenth Century (N.Y., n.d.), p. 123.
11. E. Lowell, Eve of the Revolution, p. 105.

The argument was resolved somewhat in the suppression of the Jesuits
in 1761:, and the demand that eat-Jesuits leave the country in 1767.
While the Jesuits were always the greatest rallying-place for Jansenism,
the suppression of the order came from the other fadtors as much as
from Jansenism, among them being a growing nationalism and a growing
rationalistic spirit. 8

It was in the suppression of both groups (Protestants and Jansenists)
that we see most clearly their influence on the French Revolution.
These suppressions lost for France that thing most needed to combat
for France the fanaticism of the terror: Moderation. 0f the
Protestants, Andrew White says,
".. . had that vast body of Hugenots (sic) who were driven by the bigotry
of Louis XIV into those countries EU. 3., Germany and England] been allowed
to remain in their own, the Jacobin phase of the French Revolution and
all.the.ruin and misery which that and the various def-potisms following
it inflicted upon Trance would have been impossn.b1e."
As a positive force, then, Protestantism in the eighteenth century must
be discounted. D'Argenson writes of the Jansenist suppression that
"The Bull Unigenitus, ... and not the philosophy imported from England,
is the cause of the present hatred of the'priesthood."13 He based such
a claim on the disgust of the people at machinations of the arguers.
He believed that the endless arguments served only to increase the
incredulity of the populace in regard to Church matters. Although

both of these assaults against the doctrine of the Church failed,

 

12. Andrew White, "The Statesmanship of Target", Atlantic
Ikionthly, v. 97 (February, 1906), p. 188.

13. Lord Acton and others, eds., The Cambridge 15godern History
(Cambridge, England, 1928), VIII, 9.

both served to weaken the Church greatly by driving the wedge between
the high and low clergy even deeper. It had this effect because the
high clergy, when the Church was assaulted, wrapped itself in the Papal
cloak.lh The lower clergy relied on its good will with the populace.
In the eighteenth century came the first attack which was to
assault both the power and the doctrines of the Church. It was a
manifestation of the rationalistic spirit which brought forth in France
that bochr of men called the philosophes. A mere listing of the names
of the men considered as within this group will give one a reasonably
accurate picture of all the men of letters ‘of the period. Of them all,
Voltaire is at once the most violent and the most influential. His
polemics against the Church were widely read and discussed, and his
slogan, "Destroy the infamous thing" was well known. Into his writings
Voltaire packs more sarcasm than almost any writer. In most of his
works, there is a constant battering at the foundations of the Church.
It was maintained that Voltaire was against only the abuses and power
of the Church, but even a cursory examination of his works will show
one that Voltaire was rejecting the basic doctrines of the Church.
And such rejection was imbedded deeply and continually in his writings.
An incident from the French Revolution serves to illustrate the point,
and proves that the people of the day also knew the ultimate goal of
Voltaire's ideas.
Palissot, a celebrated writer, dedicated to the Nation a new edition
of Voltaire's works ...

. * A. mmbér of- the.clerg remarked that the clergy could not receive the
gift of Voltaire's work, which are, he said, tarnished with impurities.

11;. E. Lavisse, Histoire de Frange, 1X1, 169.

M. de Sillery replied that Palissot had announced that everything
which attacked religion and morals had been abridged from the work ...

Henri Gregoire said that it is useless to take up the question of
acceptance before they knew whether the edition was purged or not.

The Archbishop of 1’ aris ... adhered to Grégoire's proposition, and
finished by saying that an edition of Voltaire's works, purged of
all that cofid be detrimental to the human mind, would not be very
profitable.

The greatness of Voltaire's work comes not from his writing as
divorced from the time, but from the fact that his works were, in great
measure, a reflection of the growing spirit among the French people
themselves. If Voltaire was a leader in the movement away from the
Church, he was also a follower.16

It was Voltaire's Letters on the English which most consistently

 

attacked the Church. In his letter on the Anglican Church he says,
when these [English clergy] are told that in France young fellows
famous for their dissoluteness, and raised to the highest dignities

of the Church by female intrigues, address the fair publicly in an
amorous way, amuse themselves in writing tender love songs, entertain
their friends very splendidly every night at their own houses, and
after the banquet is ended withdraw to invoke the assistance of the
Holy Ghost, and call themselves boldly the ficcessors of the Apostles,
they bless God for their being Protestants.

His letters on the Quakers bring all the usages and doctrines of the
Church to the forefront. Through the lips of the Quakers, he questions
baptism, communion, and the other sacraments. In one passage the old
Quaker said, "Hiend, ... swear not; we are Christians, and endeavour
to be good Christians, but we are not of the opinion that the sprink-

ling water on a. child's head makes him a Christian. "18 Although Voltaire

15'. Moniteur, du 23 au 25 septembre, 1789; no. 623 p. 255-6.
16. E. Lowell, Eve of the Revolutigl, p. 56.

17. Francois Voltaire, "Letters on the English", Harvard Classics,
XXXIV (N.Y., 1910), 81-2.

18. lbid., p. 66.

used one religion to ridicule another, he himself had no preference
among the religions, and believed that all religions were sources of
tyranny; that things divine were generally abominable. ”or the masses,
Voltaire thought that perhaps belief in God was necessary, but for the
’one in one hundred who are not beasts,‘ such as himself, such belief
was a worn-out Shibboleth which could only result in hand.

The supreme power in this system was nature, and it is the laws
of nature which must be obeyed if people are to attain peace and
happiness. Science was supreme and rationalism was the cult. The
scientific spirit was praised above all, and that which could not be
understood through the use of scientific method was either worthless
or it did not exist.

There were others who joined with Voltaire in this campaign for
rationalism. Diderot led a group in making the Encyclopedia, a work
whose chief purpose was to discredit the Old Regime and the Church.
This was done through the explanatory notes and explanations which
accompanied the main articles. Always the group was destructive,
always "they refused, to admit that reason and tradition can occupy
.. . the same citadel together" ,19 and always they demanded the des-
truction of tradition and the upholding of reason.

One other member of the assaulting forces, Jean-Jacques Rousseau,
deserves comment. He became the political idol of the Revolution, and,
as idol, his religious ideas were looked to and respected. The seeds
of a religion which is a nationalism, which has its saints and its

altars, are definitely present in Rousseau’s works. The Roman Church,

 

l9. Hippolyte Taine, The Ancient Regime, (Durand Translation),
(N.Y., 1876), p. 217.

10

he believed, was a.masterpiece of politics. 1'he binding force within

it, he asserted, was communion and excommunication. The greatest of

all good things, according to Rousseau, was tolerance, but his tolerance

was conceived in such a way that, if the state Judged that an.institution

'was inimical to its interest, they would drive it out.20
The Church fought back against these philosophes as well as she

was able. But in their rationalism and skepticism.the philosophes had

enlisted the aid of nationalism and had capitalized on the fights against

both Jansenism and Protestantism. In.l758 the Encyclopedia'was suppressed,

and "the clergy feted the suppression ... as they had féted the Revocation

of the Edict of Nantes".21 Voltaire’s works were generally banned also,

yet these measures did not stop the writers. Voltaire's works continued

to be sold and read, even though castigated, and subsequent volumes of

the Encyclopedia kept coming regularly from the printers. Times had

already changed. No longer could the Church dictate the attitudes of

the nation. She was as yet strong enough to have her decrees made into

law, but not powerful enough to compel the laws to be obeyed. The

French public had adopted as their own the ideas of the French philo-

sOphes. The Church refused to compromise in any'way from its tradi-

tional ferns. The result was to have dire consequences in the French

Revolution. Even though the people as a whole did embrace the philo-

sophical doctrines, there was a nonpreligious reaction against them

by some of the people.22

 

20. E. Lowell, Eve of the Revolutign, p. 300-01.

 

l. Anon. "Religion Under the French Revolution", Edinburgh
RevieW’ V. 203 {January, 1906), p. 35.

22. Francois V. A. Aulard, Christianity and the French Revolution,
(trans. by Lady Frazer, Boston, 1927), p. 32.

 

ll

The men of the eighteenth century, impressed by the progress of
science, didn't wish to admit any other methods than the scientific
method, nor hear any 'reason other than those that reason alone
knows'. However the century of the philosophes has bequeathed its
part to the superstition, to the illusion and to the dream; it has
had its fllminés and its Charlatans, of whom history gives an
appendix to a chapter on the sciences, since they there find an
indirect protest against the arrogance and the intolerance of the
scientific spirit. 3

One other factor which tended to weaken the influence of the Church
in the eighteenth century (as well as ever before) was indifference.
The people of Frame, as in most countries, were burdened with their
own cares, and if duty or interest in the Church was not regarded by
them as requisite, we cannot judge or blame them. Aulard puts forth
the the sis that the French people were always predominantly indifferent,
if not plainly impious. "Even if we retrace French history to the very
heart of the Middle Ages we shall not succeed in finding a period in
which piety was general, solid, profound, embracing the whole of both
the individual and the nation."2h Although indifference may have been
great when it came to actual precepts of the faith, most of the people
in France were at least nominal Catholics. Even though they may take
no interest in a question whatever, they cannot help but feel and reflect
the Catholic viewpoint. Seen in this light, indifference becomes a force
on the side of status quo, and if such status is dominated by Catholics,
the large body of indifferent people are Catholics. This lack of a
positive philosophy, however, created a weak spot in the armor of

Catholicism. When the Church is challenged by Jansenism or Protestantism

or Rationalism, it is relatively easy for these people to forget their

 

23. E. Lavisse, Histoire de France, 1X1, 298-99.
21;. F. Aulard, Chiistianity and the Revolution, p. hl.

12

reflected doctrines and adopt the new system. But, generally, such
people are as indifferent under one cult as under another. When.the
thinking populace (contrary to many 'educated persons', most people

do have ideas, and opinions to back them.up) adopts a philosophy,

most of these 'indifferent' people will endorse that philosophy.
Aulard insists, however, that even "on the eve of the Revolution there
was (sicj in France, even in the country, a small minority of un-
believers and a large majority of indifferent people".25

The effect of these assaults on the power or dogma of the Church
is hard to judge. It is immediately apparent that the ones directed
toward the restriction of the power of the Church'were generally
successful, while those that dealth with.dogma were less successful.
Only fUture history will tell whether or not the Church was spiritually'
'weakened. The history of these assaults against the Chureh'waS'well
known by the leaders of the French Revolution. In their own fight
against the Church during their effort to enthrone the ideas of the
philosophes, they were to borrow freely from the ideas which these
former attacking groups had used.

In spite of the onslaughts against it, the Church had held up
remarkably well. In 1789 the Church was still by far the dominant
ferce in.France. It was the first estate of the country, and as
such it carried with it social and political ferce, as well as many
privileges. At the end of the Ancient Regime, France was divided into
135 bishoprics and archbishoprics, among whom were divided, according

to the

 

25. F. Aulard, Christianity and the Revolution, p. 37.

13

Royal Almanac of 1789, 3h,658 cures; but it seems that the number of
cures would have been considerably more. It has been computed that
the cures and the vicars numbered 60,000; the prelates, coadjutors,
general vicars, and canons of cathedrals numbered 2800; that there
'were 5600 canons of collegiate churches and 3000 ecclesiasgics with-
out benefices. In all, more than 71,000 secular priests.
Cares based the above figures mainly on Taine. As to the regular
clergy, Taine gives 23,000 monks and 38,000 nuns. His totals thus
agree'with.fiohean's, who estimated that there were 130,000 in the
kingdom.27
These 130,000 had control of vast wealth. In a report made by
Deputy Treilhard for the Ecclesiastical Committee in December, 1789,
he reported that the Church possessed four billions of francs, the
income from which amounted to eighty or one hundred.millions. In
addition the tithes amounted to 123,000,000 francs per year, giving
a total of over 200,000,000 francs.28 In spite of this tremendous
income, the clergy in France were not required to pay taxes. From
time to time, the French clergy, in.its Assemblies, voted the King
a ’free gift' to cover government expenses. Although the royal
ministers usually ordered the amount necessary, the Church.of£times
would attach conditions to their 'gift'. For instance, in 1785 the
suppression of Voltaire's works were required as terms before the

grant would be given.29 Occasionally the assembly would refuse to

grant the King's request entirely, and they always maintained this

26. E. Lavisse, Histoire de France, 1X1, th.

 

27. H. Taine, Ancient Regine, p. hob.
280 Ibido’ P. 113..
29. E. Lowell, Eve of the Revolution, p. 28.

1h

right, though seldom using it. The Assembly meeting in 1725 passed on
this question, declaring, "Our gifts [free gifts) are permitted only
as long as they are free and voluntary."30 The Wee gifts' n-om 1772
to 1778 averaged 5,100,000 livres per year. From 1782 on, however, the
king had returned a subsidy of 2,500,000 livres per year. In addition
to the 'i‘ree gift' of the French Glory, the foreign clergy in France
paid sane regular taxes, amounting to about 1,300,000 livres per year.
This foreign clergy consisted of the ecclesiastics in the lands which
had been added to the kingdom since 1516. Thus the Church actually
furnished a little over h,000,000 livres per year to the state.31 The
clergy, in spite of its exemption from taxes, its subsidies from the
government, and its huge income, was in serious financial trouble.
They had developed a habit of paying the free gift and other expenses
out of money raised by loans. By 1789 this debt appeared to be
13h,ooo,ooo livres.32 The Church could pile up such a debt, for with
such vast resources, her credit was always good.

With such riches, it would seem that all the clergmen would have
comfortable livings. This is not at all the case. The higher clerg
received enormous incomes; most of the cures received next to nothing.
A bill was introduced during the Revolution to assure rural cures of a
salary of at least 1200 livres. In a large number of cases, the cures
had received much less, some of them being entirely dependent on the

goodness of their flocks. Conversely, many of the high clergy had

 

30. Moniteur, Introduction, p. 138.
31. E. Lavisse, Histoire de France, 1X1, 11:6.

32. E. Lowell, Eve of the Revolution, p. 28.

15

been given benefices they had never seen, with resulting enormous
incomes. The Cardinal de Rohan, for example, received more than
1,000,000 livres.33 hioreover, many of the high clergy had huge
outside holdings, as they were almost without exception recruited
from the nobility. The offices could always be bought, and in some
cases were given away for other consideration. Jacques Necker, a
Calvinist, finance minister from 1777 to 1781, demanded from the king
liberty to address the council and explain his financial policies.

In consequence, "after long and profound deliberation" the court

promised him what he asked, provided he would solemnly abjure Calvinism

and accept the post of cardinal in the Roman Church.3h

Insofar as the position of the clergy was disadvantageous in 1789,

it was so because of its excesses in the previous years. This was not

only true because of the sale of benefices and rights within the Cl'mrch,

but also because of unjust methods of dealing with their parishioners.
Although the writers in the Moniteur were very biased against the
Church, we can glean some statements from the paper which will give an
indication of the state to which the church in general had descended.

A tradition, very widespread, of the second coming of Jesus Christ one
thousand years after his ascension, and of the approaching end of the
earth was announced in all the pulpits of truth and caused a universal
terror. They were instructed to collect treasures for the other life,
by making gifts to the Church of goods henceforth useless: a ro in
nmndi termino, said all the contracts of donation. However, the end
of the earth did not come, and all the goods deuurred to the Clerg.35

 

33. H. Taine, Ancient Regime, p. 15.
3h. Monitenr, Introduction, p. 3.

35. Moniteur, du 9 an novembre, 1789; no. 87; p. 35h.

l6

te

In the same article we find

When the Franks, becoming masters of the Gauls, embraced Christianity,
the priests soon found means of entering into partnership with the
conquerors and of themselves making the awards of the best spoils.

They thought, in those uncivilized centuries, that avarice was
the first attribute of divinity, and that the saints dealth with men
for their own favor and protection. From this came the witticism of
Clovis that Saint 1'I’iartin didn't serve his friends badly-but he Jansed
them to pay dearly for his trouble.

The priests didn't fail to propagate this doctrine by dint of
holding under the eyes of the power13% and the rich the harshness of
God's judgements in the other World.

 

Operating on such a basis, it was inevitable that the Church
should align itself with the forces of wealth and power in the state.
After securing its rights against. the crown, the Church turned to an
alliance with it. "The clergy believed in the indissoluble union of
the throne and the altar. It guarded this 'second religion', very near
relation of the first, which the bishops of the seventeenth century
preached, for the royalty."37

The cahiers of 1789, when dealing with religious questions, do not
ask for sweeping reforms, or even for secularization of the civil
states.38 This seems strange when the evidence indicates almost
unbelievable corruption. The reason seems to be that the authors of
the cahiers were more concerned with cures than with bishops, and the
bulk of the infection lay in the ranks of the higher clerg. The
cahiers, while they generally left religious questions (even toleration)
alone, still often times did mention the degradation and uselessness of

the regular clerg. For many years the position of the regulars had
36. Moniteur, du 9 au 10 novembre, 1789; no. 87; p. 35h.
37. E. Lavisse, 1X1, 170.

38. F. Aulard, Christianity and the Revolution, p. 141.

17

been constantly degrading. Harv monasteries had been forced to close
their doors, and others were subsisting on very meagre memberships.
As compared with the 130,000 clergy in 1789, it was estimated that there
were 19h,000 in 1762. The drop had taken place mainly in the ranks of
the regulars. In 1765 the throne issued an edict closing all monasteries
which had less than ten monks, and over four hundred were closed in the
twenty-four years preceeding the Revolution. Yet even after these
closings, cahiers referred to 'unpeopled monasteries'.39 On June 7,
1778, the Archbishop of Tours, worried over the state of the regulars,
wrote to Brienne, "The Franciscan course is, in this province, in a
state of degradation. The bishops complain of the vulgar and disorderly
conduct of these rriars."h°

Seeing this corruption, the Church had made several abortive efforts
at reform. In the middle of the eighteenth century the Pope had proposed
some meetings looking toward reform, but the Church had rejected them as
infringements upon its Gallican liberties. In 1766 the government
”instituted a Reform Commission, composed of five prelates and five
ministers of state", which functioned until 1789. This cormission took
action on some of the weak points of the Church, reducing the number of
monks from 26,671; in 17714 to 17,500 in 1790.,41 Unfortunately, the
hierarchical system of the Church necessitated that members of the high
clery be chosen to lead the reform movements. Thus they were faced

with one of the most difficult of humanproblems, that of removing the

 

39. Cambridge Modern History, VIII, 53.
to. E. Lavisse, Histoire de France, 1X1, 115.

hi. Ibid., 1X1, 1146.

18

mote. from their own eyes. The Catholic viewpoint on the Reform
Commission is interesting, and, while grossly overstated, contains
some essential truth. They explain that the president of the Reform
Commission, Loménie de Brianne, Archbishop of Tours, was a secret
adherent of the philosophes and a close friend of d'Alembert. In such
a position Loménie was in a position to work for the organized plan of
Choiseul (minister in the French government) to destroy the Church and
substitute rationalism.)42
In spite of the large amount of corruption and avarice found in
the Church, the lower clerg (cures and vicars) carried on their work
tolerably well. On their salaries they did not have the occasion to
become materially minded, and it is doubtful whether they would have
been corrupted even if the opportunity had presented itself. Taine,
in speaking of the cure’, said
He welcomes the unfortunate, feeds then, sets them to work, and unites
them in matrimony; beggars, vagabonds, and fugitive peasants gather
around the sanctuary ... To food for the body add food for the soul,
not less essential ... Down to the middle of the thirteenth century
the clerg stands almost alone in furnishing this.1L3
Although Taine is somewhat sarcastic, it is nonetheless true that the
great majority of cures carried on in this tradition until the
Revolution of 1789, and since, for that matter. Long before the
Revolution the low clergy had aligned themselves with the common
people against the nobility. Hence the lower clergy was extremely

popular among the peoples of France. "Its charity, its intellectual

culture in a world of ignorance (that; shown brightly even when it was

 

I42 . Donat Sampson, 'Pius VI and the French Revolution: American
Catholic Quarterly Review, XXXI, no. 122 (April, 1906), p. 226 (taken
from Barruel, Historie du Jacobinisme)

1130 He Taine, AnCient Régiglg, p. )4.

l9

slender,"hh both of these served to endear the lower clergy to the
people.

Although the high clergy never abrogated their union'with the
nobles, there were indications that the views of some of the high
clergy were changing, even as were those of a few of the second estate.
Approaching closer to the Revolution, one can see that new ideas had
penetrated into the high clergy. Some bishops spoke like liberals,
some like nationalists. They wished the monarchy to be a constitutional
kingdom. They maintained that, in the matter of taxes, the nation
has always insisted on its consent and its free will, and, consequently,

the French people are not taxable at will. They ashgd Louis XVI ...
to be not 'King of France, but 1“ing of the French'.

EH. F. Aulard, Christianity and the Revolution, p. 35.

hS. E. Lavisse, Histoire de France, 1X1, 170.

20

II. Attitudes Toward the Church Revealed
in the Cahiers

Historians are extremely fortunate in the wealth of material that
is available on the conditions in France in 1789. Almost every
bailliage and sénéchausée in all of France similtaneously drew up a
cahier for presentation to the States-General containing the grievances
which they-wished adjudicated. Originally, the States-General had
traded taxing power for the correction of grievances. In 1789 when
the States-General met, it was for the first time in 175 years, and
the interest in France at its meeting was tremendous. The cahiers,
coming as they did from every area and from every economic and social
strata in all of France, contain descriptions of anything anywhere that
should happen to meet with disapproval.’ Nearly three fourths of all
the cahiers from the bailliages are reproduced in the Archives
Elementaires} Oddly enough, historians did not use these sources
extensively for almost one hundred years, the first good compilations
of cahiers being published in 1886. Because of their nature, that is,
grievances, cahiers are likely to be largely negative in their
composition. Things which the authors regarded as all right receive
scant attention, if any, and, as a result, cahiers must be used with

care. Many cahiers failed to mention either the clergy or the Church.2

1. Edme Champion, La France d'apres les Cahiers du 1789 (5th ed.),
(Paris, 1921) p. 7.

2. lhid., p. 177.

21

This is not to say that they were not influenced by it or felt that it
'was not important. If anything, it may be taken as a tribute to the
clergy in these districts, for in those districts the ministers had
done their jOb so well cht all groups were satisfied. It is further
to the credit of the Church that the third estate of Beauvais could
express the general sentiment of the majority of the cahiers when it
said, "It is without contradiction the body'mcst interested in the
public good. All the statesmen have recognized its influence on the
happiness of society ... A people without religion is soon a people
without morals."3

The cahiers show that Catholicism, in spite of the assaults made
on it and the popularity of the works of the philosophes, was in a
heavy majority nearly everywhere in France. Although a few cahiers
asked for minority rights, none except one, that of the seneschal of
Nines asked for full freedom.for Protestants. Other cahiers which
mentioned it asked only fer 'civil freedom'.h' One might think that
the seat of French radicalism, Paris, would appear for a full toleration
of all sects and perhaps a separation of church and state; but the Paris
cahier resembles many others in feeling that while toleration is fine,
"the public order can tolerate but one established religion."S Some of
the cahiers took a still stronger position. The cahier of the first
estate of Blois, for instance, deplored the extension of religious

liberty to noanatholics and were alarmed at the growing freedom of the

3. Ibid., p. 178.
h. F. Aulard, Christianity and the Revolutign, p. hl-2.

S. Moniteur, Introduction, p. 218.

22

press.6 Notwithstanding the overwhelming approval of the Church as an
institution, there were many cahiers‘ sections which.mentioned the
impiety of the clergyman, the inefficiency of the hierarchy, the
comparative uselessness of the regular clergy, and the exaggerated
wealth of the Church. They were criticising what they felt were abuses
'within the Church which were against the official practice of the
organization. The first estate of Alencon recommended "that the States-
General look for means to return to religion the vigor of the discipline."7
There was general feeling that the maldistribution of the wealth of the
clergy should be corrected. It'was obvious to all in France that the
cures and vicars were sadly underpaid while the bishops were greatly
overpaid. "The great majority of the low clergy, {and even some of the
high] insisted on the necessity of finding, in a new and more just
distribution of goods, means of furnishing a reasonable income for
priests."8 The nebility of Blois, facing the same problem, devised a
concrete answer. "The augmentation, out of'fUnds of the clergy, of the
salary of the_parish priests with minimum.dotation, the greater part of
whom are in a state bordering so close upon.poverty that they often
share in the misery of the country people, without being able to relieve
it."9

There were practices other than distribution of salaries which

came under the fire of the cahiers. The majority of the grievances

6. .Merrick'Whitcomb, (ed.) Tlpical Cahiers of 1782 (Revised),
(Philadelphia, 1901), p. 2.

7. E. Champion, France en.l789 n., 2, p. 181.
8. Ibid., p. 186.

9. N; Whitcomb, Typical Cahierp, p. 20.

23

mentioned one or*more of the common.ma1practices such as plural benefices
or sale of benefices. Articles 93 to 98 of the cahier of the third
estate at Versailles recommended that all holders of benefices receive
adequate pay, to be paid by the provincial estates. The state would
sell ecclesiastical property to cover this expense, and in this manner
the clergyman was to be relieved of all 'material"worry. Till the
provincial estate actually took over, no clergyman could hold more

than one benefice. They wanted to require the closing of all commendary
abbacies (those abbacies which bestow their income upon one beneficiary)
and useless convents, the money from the sale of which was to be added
to the salaries of the parish priests. They demanded that there be no
non-resident clergymen, and the limitation applied to either the high

or low clergy. There were to be age limits for entry into a religious
order or convent, and resignations, either from the regulars or seculars,
were not to be permitted.10 As similar criticisms came from all of
France, it is apparent that many of the clergy were living highly from
their benefices, turning their fUll attention to the economic position
which they occupied. The habit of using the Church for a soujourn of

a few years was also prevalent, as the rule on age and on resigning are
both intended to prevent the practice.

The people of France strongly'disapproved of the Church's activities
in the temporal area. It was berated for materialism, and even the
provisions against excessive wealth are based on a supposed preoccupation
of the clergy with economic matters in order to accumulate it. The

cahier of Paris, while it may be a little more radical than.many, gives

10. Ibido, p0 3h.50

2h

an accurate vieW'as to the climate of the people on this count, in
addition showing the absence of complete toleration and the bent
toward Gallicanism:

II Religion is welcomed freaky in the state,'without committing any
offense to its constitution. It is established by persuasion, never
by constraint.

III Christian religion embraces civil tolerance. Every citizen ought
to enjoy full liberty of conscience; the public order allows but one
established religion.

IV The Catholic religion is the established religion.in France, it
has not been established there only according to the purity of its
primitive maxims; that establishment is the foundation of the
liberties of the Gallican Church.

VI Ecclesiastical jurisdiction does not extend, in any way, to the
temporal; its outside affairs are governed by the laws of the state.11

A dominant characteristic of nearly all the cahiers was the
embracing of and the wish for extension of Gallicanism. Almost as a
body, they declared against annates, the Concordat, and any other ties
which joined the French Church to the Pope. The first estate at Blois
even went so far as to point out the great damage done to France by the
huge sums which left the monarchy bound for the Holy See.12 The indications
are that this great interest in Gallicanism was recent, and had not had,
by 1789, many practical manifestations. “Hanuals and usage in the
seminaries of France remained silent on the question of infallibility"
and so were not strong on Gallicanism.13 The emphasis on it in the
cahiers was perhaps indicative of the extreme anti-Romanism'which was
to come. In keeping with the pattern, the third estate at Versaille

recommended

11. moniteur, Introduction, p. 218.

12. E. Champion, France en 1783, p. 181-2; M. Whitcomb, Typical
Cahiers, p.

13. E. Lavisse, Histoire de France, IX, 169 — One book, however,
La Theologie, published in Lyon by mentazet, taught that infallibiliby
'was false and that ecumenical councils were above the Pope.

25

Art. 99 That it be forbidden to go to the Roman Curia fer provisions,
nominations, bulls and dispensations of all kinds; and each bishop in
his diocese shall have full power in these matters.

Art. 100 That the right of the pope to grant livings in France be
suppressed.

Art. 101 That the Concordat be revoke and all intervention on the
part of the Roman Curia made to cease.

One of the more unusual aspects of the cahiers of the upper two
estates was their willingness to sacrifice their long—held privileges
and rights. The clergy of Blois asked the Aing to cease the patents
of the nebility except as a reward for meritorious service to the state.
It requested the abolition of the rights of chase, open warren, and
pasture.15 The nobility of Blois wrote
The free and voluntary renunciation which the order of the nobility is
about to make of its pecuniary privileges gives it the right to demand
that no exemption whatsoever shall be retained in favor of any class of
citizens. 'We have no doubt that the clergy will voluntarily consent to
bear all taxes in common with $28 citizens of other orders, in propor-
tion to their possessions ...

The nobility was correct; the clergy of the bailliage of Blois saying
"that for the future they desire to sustain the burden of taxation in
common with other subjects of the King."17 'And such a statement was
typical of’many cahiers of the clergy.

The attitudes of the clergy toward many strictly temporal affairs
can also be garnered through the cahiers. They were in favor of
monarchical rule, believing that either the nation or the king had the
power to propose or reject laws. The nation was represented in the

States-General, which they'believed should meet at least every five

years and which should vote by order only, with all orders having

1h» M. Whitcomb, Typical Cahiers, p. 35.
15. Ibid., p. 6.
160 Ibido, P0 1h.

17. lbido, P. 3.15..
26

equal power. They realized the necessity of shifting the main tax
burden upward, and recommended the abolition of the gabelles and the
aides. No tax was to be levied except by the States-General, and all
were to be laid for a limited time only. They asked for personal
liberty, a limitation on the seigneruial court with right of counsel
by all; the establishment of a justice of the peace and the codification
of the national laws. They did not object to different rules in different
sections, however, if such rules were just. They requested legal
recognition of provincial estates as a brance of administration,
organized on the basis of orders. They desired the subsidization of
education by the state, making it absolutely free to all, to be taught
under supervision of the regular clergy.18

Although the foregoing evidence would indicate that there was a
considerable movement for the suppression of privileges, C. H. Lincoln,
after a careful study, has said that the cahiers of the third estate
do not ask to abolish the privileges of the upper two estates, but
that "frequently the king and the upper orders are assumed to be ignorant
of the evils of the time and the faith is expressed that, were they aware
of the conditions, remedies would be effected."19 it is to be noted that
the privileges of the orders lasted less than three months after the

States-General convened.

18. Ibido, p0 13728.85ij

19. C. H. Lincoln, "The Cahiers of 1789 as an Evidence of
Compromise Spirit", American Historical Review (January, 1897), II, 226.

n 27

III. First Acts of the Revolution
Concerning the Church

Toward nine o'clock in the morning of Kay 5, 1789, the embers
elected to the States-General called by Louis XVI began to assemble.
By quarter to tvelve they were seated by order, the clergy occupying
the rigmt side of the hall and being closest to the throne. After the
original charge by the king and a speech by Necker, the deputies
retired to deliberate by order. The first question taken up by the
clergy concerned the method of verifying the powers of the States-
General. Under the leadership of the Archbishops of Vienne and
Bordeaux (Jean—Georges Ponpdgnan and Champion de Gicfi) it was decided
133 to 1114 to verify powers by order} For nearly a month the clergy
was preoccupied With debate on this question. Twice it was moved
to discuss the question of deliberation by head or by order, and both
times the motion was heavily rejected.2 Meanwhile the communes, or
third estate, had been attempting to have a States-General which Iould
deliberate in common. On May 25 they had passed a resolution keeping
the seats for the clery and the nobles vacant, thus providing for
union at any tine.3 On the tenth of June several curés remarked that
the declaration for verification by order, and the results which were
obtained with the royal comnssioners, were not to invalidate an
action which miglt be taken by verification in cannon, or by the

 

l. loniteur; du 6 an 11; nai 1789; no.2; p. 11;.
2. Ibid; du 30 mi au 6 juin, 1789; no. 5; p. 25.
3. Ibid; du 23 an 30 nai, 16:89; no. h; p. 21.

28

order united.h On the twelfth of June the conunes sent delegations

to the other orders asking th- to meet in canon. Jean Siffrsn llaury
led a heated debate in opposition to the nave, and no action was tenths
but thenertdaythreeparishpriestsfrouPoitouleftthefirst
estate and took their places in on the benches reserved for the c1ergy.6
On the fourteenth six more clerglen deserted the first estate for a
joint nee-bu, among them being Henri Gregoire, cure of nnhereeenu,
the leading left wing clergnan of the Revolution.7 amazon-e was the
leading liberal churchmen of the Revolution, and led the republican
forces in the clerg. The main body of the clergy kept up its delib-
erations on the question, and discussion filled several days, with no
votes being taken. On June nineteenth, two days after the third estate
had declarediteelf thelationalmgm, avotewas taken,
with the result that there were 135 votes for verification by order,
127 for verification in common, and 12 who asked for verification

in col-son with reservations. The 127 asked the twelve to change to

a non-restricted vote, but were refused. The 127 then adapted a new
standu'd acceptable to the middle dozen: ”The plurality of the clergy
assubled is of the opinion that final verification of powers should
be done in general assembly, under the reserve of the distinction of
orders." One hunched and twaty-two numbers aimed the resolution
mediately, and majority was secured when 22 more signed later at the
house of the ArchbishOp of Viennc. Later five more signed, the total

 

h. lbid; du 6 m 10 juillet, 1789; no. 6; p. 32 (the date line
on this paper was in error, the correct month being June).

5° 93.9.3 dn 10 an 15 3m. 1789; no. 7; 1). 3h.
7. Ibid; du 10 an 15 juin, 1789; no. 7; p.35.

29

thus reaching 1149. Two archbishops, Vienna and Bordeaux, and three
bishops, Rhodes, Contances, and Chartres were nong the nsg‘lority.8
The minority did nd’recognise this decree as binding, and continued
to deliberate separately. Of the majority saw W with the common
after the tapestuous royal session of June 23. The next du the
Doubly voiced its approval of the move by the clery by applmding
the five bishops and the sures. Jallet (first to go over) and Gr‘goire.9
KingLoruisXVIgaveintotheduandsofthethirdestateandco-anded
theorderstoneetjointlyinthellationslnsubly; thefirstleeting
washeldonthe27thofJune. Therewasnoprejudiceagainstawof
the clerical nubers in this new assnbly, and they assented to clergy
being represented on all conudttees.1°

Very end: after the initial nesting of the States-General, it
was proposed, in the first estate, that the "chamber renounce, in the
nale of the clergy, all pecuniary eruptions°2‘privneges .. There
-wasadebateandavoicevote. Thedecisionwasindoubt, andthe
nesting adJonrned. The next day, lay 20, when the question was revived,
itwns ruledout of orderss pro-stereos thepowers of theissefih
hadnotbeendsternined. Therens astrmgmoughOpinioninfavor
of the proposal, however, to pass a resolution which said, in effect,
that individnal deputies would talk with the other orders and assure
theathat thefirst estatehadafirnbeliefinthe equalityoftans

8. :_r_bi_g.; du16au203uin,l7893 no. 9; p. his.

9. £1.33 dn 20 an 21; Jun, 1789; no. 10; p.148.

10. £333; du 214 an 27 juin, 1789: no. 11; p. 52.

30

over all citisens.n Apparently the clery was sincere in this, for,
on the Honorable night of August 1;, 1789, they Joined with the nobles
in overthrowing the ancient regime by voluntarily giving up their
privileges. The Bishops of Nancy and Chartres were the first spokesun
for the clergy;
Bishop of Nancy [de Lafare ...‘I rise to express, in the name of
the clergy, the vow of fins ice, of religion and humanity: I move
for the sale of the ecclesiastical g:>ods;.12 and I move that the
profit go not to the ecclesiastical lords, but that it be lads useful
in payments for the poor '

Bishop of Chartres Enter-sac] , representing the emclusive right
of chase as a scourge of the country, ruining it for more than one
year, moved for the abolition of this right, and abandoned it for
hisself. He was happy, he said, to be able to give to the other prOp-
rietors of the monarchy this lesson of humanity and Justice.
The idea quickly caught fire, and went to such lengths that "several
cures asked that they be permitted to sacrifice their surplice fees.
At these words, a noble de-anded, for this precious class of clery,
an increase in the mrtion confine . The portion congrue was the salary
of an ecclesiastic at a post where someone else was the beneficiary.
This beneficiary received all income from the post, either tithe or
stipend, and paid the ecclesiastic a straight salary, which was often
the official minim wage or below. Applause redoubled on the part
of the citisens of all orders.“ Everyone seued caught in a violent
outburst, the object of which was to better your fellow men in hunanity
and self sacrifice.

Later, when the excitement and heat of battle was gone, new

11. _Ib_i_.g; du 11: an 23 nai, 17893 no. 3; p. 19.

12. The French word fonds is translated "goods" throudiout.
13. lloniteur; du 14 an S aodt, 1789; p. 1142; no. 3h.

1h. Egg; du 14 au 5 aoi’it, 1789; no. 3h; p. 1&2-3.

31

probably pondered what they had done and why. The overthrow of
an established system is a move which takes thought and planning
to be concluded successfully, and the hidit of August 1; contained
reither. lhen the nesting was finished, at 2 A. n., the deputies
had abolished serfdon, abolished all pecuniary privileges and
inuuities, suppressed the right or deport and vscst,15 suppressed
annates, denied plural benefices, and abolished the dines, sub-
stituting a money ten.16 unset immediately a reaction set in
along the clergy. By the sixth of August we find thus questioning
the suppression of the files. All of the acconplishments of the
fourth relative to the clergy were reconsidered except the pro-
hibition of annates, and new were modified and changed. The
suppression of dines brougit out the greatest controversy, and
elicited the greatest defense on the part of the ecclesiastical
members. On the tenth of August article sevm (relative to the
dines) was rephrased so that all feudal dines, together with
landed incomes, were redeasble in a manner that the 1”.ny
should rule. Gregoire attacked the decree on the grounds of
faulty wording, but added that the cures ilproved the property

of their parishes immensely, and that the dines went solely to
aid their necks.” The Bishop of Langres (Laluseune) went such
further in defense of the church's ridits:

The ecclesiastical dine is a sacred property, authorised by law
and by all the States-Generals. If it is abusive, why aren't

the laic dines? If they are, why shouldn't they too be redsaed?
Are the ecclesiastics proprietors, or is the Nation? To whom were

 

15. The French right of déport is that of self-withdrawal
from a charge; mat is the holding of a benefice in absentia.

l6. Moniteurs du h an S aofit, 1789; no. 318 P. lhh.
17. Ibid., du 9 au 10 aofit, 1789; no. 395 p. 163.

32

the dines given? Is it the Nation? No, beyond doubt; they hare
not been given to the nation.nor through it. (There arise rumblings
in the room, several voices cry 'order'.)

In suppressing the.» to whom.will they go? To the Nation.
g::.;s§;;iig has only aunoral aristence, it is not capable of
JLangres concluded that the rights of the dime could not be isolated.
Two days later, on the eleventh, the National Assembly passed the
last of nineteen articles which evolved from the night of the
fourth. The article on dines, though suppressing then, allowed
the continuance of those dbsolutely'necessary for the naintainence
of ministers or people nursing the sick, as well as those which
‘were turned over to the poor. Article VI abolished all other
perpefiual-inoomes based on land. Article VIII suppressed the right
of surplice fees for the country priests, to take effect after
the pgrtion conggge had'been raised. Article 11 took off all
restrictions as to qualifications for ecclesiastical service.19
Article XIII abolished, for all ecclesiastics, the rights of
deport, vacat, quit-rent, and all similar rights. article In
denied plural benefices or pensions, or a conbination of either,
from which the insane was 3000 line or more. 20 In a little over
three months, then, the Church has sustained great losses. All
of its feudal characteristics were gone. But the assault had
been.largely against its temporal relations. Dogma.had.not'besn

questioned. The clergy, caught in.a.refornwwave, did.not protest

 

18. Ibid., do 9 an 10 aofit, 1789; no. 39; p. 163.

19. In.the Ancient‘Regine nable birth was regarded as an
indispensable qualification for all bishoprics except five, which
here known as ”lackey‘bishoprics".

20. noniteur, du 10 an 11; aofit, 1789; no. to; p. 166-7.

33

too strenuously at these first actions, feeling, perhaps, that
the Church had expanded her temporal powers too greatly. As yet,
no decree had adversely affected a cure. is the curse outnumbered
all other types of clergnen in the Assembly, 205 to 10131the
reaction was comparatively mild.

As the mention of the decrees approached, however, the clery
showed increasing unrest. On Sept-aber 2hth, abb’e22 llaury, char-
acterized as the ' sealous defender of the clerg' , pointed out the
injustice of surrendering the Church goods at that tine when the
salary payments to the clerg would not begin for six months. In
addition he moved that the state take over the clerical debt. 23
The next day a member of the left wing spoke for the Church,
GrSgoire making a notion that the pgrtion £29.22 be non-taxable.
It was approved by the isseablyfih By September 28th the clergy
as a whole was beginning to worry, for on that date they disavowed
the stand of the ArchbishOp of Paris, who had sanctioned the decree
which confiscated for the state nany Church valuables.

The communes began to oppose the clerg's reasonings. The clsrg
replied with the authorities of Saint-Ambroise and Saint-Augustine.
They maintained the money of the Church is the inheritance of the
cures; the conmnes rejected these quotations. The clerg, seeing

its defeat inninent, defended itself only with a tumult which node
discussion impossible. ...

A member of the commas moved adjormnent; the clergy moved
the previous question; tho were going to pass on it, and the
money would have rnained always in the Church, if some of the

 

21. C. H. Lincoln, "Cahiers of 1789", Atlantic Mon
(Jan., 1897): II. 228. Of the 101, there were 52 Me or canons,
h2 prelates, and 7 monks. For a couplets list, see the Introduction
to Lg Honiteur, p. 236-38.

22. ibbé, in French, is a term applied to all law clermen.
Haul-y was a prieur.

23. loniteur, du 23 au 25 septabre, 1789; no. 62; p. 255.
21;. Moniteur, du 23 an 25 septenbre, 1789; no. 683 p. 256.

3b

communes [and the quorum) hadn' t retired. The glory, then ranaining
alone in-the hall, were forced to retire also.2

The next day the decree was executed, and the wishes of the clergy
were again floated. Although the low clerg were the keenest
objectors to the decree, it must be remubered that the confiscation
of monies would hurt the high clerg' more than then, and their
defense probably suffered correspondingly.

On October 11, Talleyrand, the Bishop of Autun, prOposed the
nationalisation of all church property. The measure was not conceived
as an assmlt against organised religion; it was simply recognised
that the Church had enormous holdings while the state was deeply
in debt. Iirabeau, the most respected leader in the Assembly,
gave a long and cogent speech favoring Talleyrand' s motion. This
time the clergy was more perturbed, thong: the left wing was still
not. ready to put forth full efforts for their Church. Grégoire,
leader of the left wing faction, simply moved that the motion
be sent back to comaittee. His motion carried. 26 Entry, right
wing leader, was incensed. He correctly sensed that, though this
action enbraced the tmoral, it would place the Church in entire
subservience to the state because of economic forces. In one of
the best speeches which he gave in the Assubly, he foretold the
future [with accuracy.

The absolute ruin of the secular and regular clerg seas to be
decided upon in this Assembly, but if it is the strength of reasoning
which it must combat, we do not have to give up hope for our cmse.
Iou have placed the credits of the state under the shield of the

honor of the nation. Religion is itself the shield of the hpire.
The credits of the state are proprietary, their property is sacred;

 

25. Ibid., du 28 an 29 septmbre, 17895 no. 61;; p. 263
26. lloniteur, du 12 octobre, 1789; no. 72; p. 296.

35

I place in your hands this profession of solutes faith. You wish
the reestablishnent of national credit, that you boast without
stopping, but it is this emnense credit which has ruined you,
it is with it that you have eaten up the subsistence of future
generations, it is with this that you have made so mam wars,
often as hat-Inn to the peOple as advantageous to the politicians. 27
He assured the Assembly that the seizure of Church property. would
not add awthing to the gazeral welfare of the country, but that
those lands would ultimately pass into the hands of a few greedy
capitalists, 2She would be less generous with the spoils than the
clergy were.
He then attempted to prove his point by historical argunent, and
resinded then that only eight days ago they recognized Church
property (in debates on usury). He clinaxed his speech with What
property is assured, if today, gentlnen, that which we have acquirid
‘ and cared for can be taken from us?"29

Ialonet replied for: the Nationalists to llaury's speech and,
while his arguments were neither as well formed nor as cogent as
llaury' s, the applause that he received clearly showed that the
property would be nationalised. His principle argument was that
the state could distribute the clerical incomes for the "pressing
needs of state" .30 He made several notions, which stated that
the state would pay clerical salaries from the income on confiscated
land, and that the surplus would enrigh the treasury.

Gregoire attanpted to straddle the issue on the 23rd of October,
maintaining that the nation was not the proprietor of all lands.

He also questioned if, after the confiscation, the'state would

 

28. Henry Walsh, The Concordat of 1801: A Stu? of the Problem
ofllationa‘lsnintheR onso e as or, ,
P. In]:

29. loniteur, du 12 an 13 octobre, 1789; no. 73; p. 300.

.30. Ibid., du 13 m 15 octobre, 1789; no. 7h; p. 301.

36

have enough to pay the local debts of the clergy. it the sue tine,
he said that the state could reclaim any land and change its node
of administration.”-

In the week that followed Henry and Mirabeau were on the floor
aanytines insednglynortal coebat. Iaurycane tobeinterrupted
nore and nore, while Iirabean was increasingly applauded. One
sentence of laury's speeches is very worthy of note, "The nost
terrible despotisn is that which wears the nest of liberty“ .32
The vote was taken on Hovuber 2nd. It was 568 for nationalisation,
3h6 against, with 110 abstainers. The decree stood:

That it be declared that all ecclesiastical goods are at the
disposition of the state; to the expense of providing, in a suitable
nanner, for the expenses of the cult, for the maintainence of

its ministers and the relief of the poor, under the surveillance
and according to the instructions of the provinces. Secondly,

that in the regulations to be made for the naintainence of the
ministers of religion, it would be assumed that no living will

be less than 1200 lines a year, not counting house and garden.”

Phrhaps the setting of a minim wage provision did gain sons
votes for the plan, and, the provisions relative to 'suitable'
naintainence nay have allay-ed the fears of such ecclesiastics as
Gregoire, but the vote reflects the actual standing of the Church.
Haury's speeches had nade the very existence of the Church the
central issue, and the votes against the notion would seas to be
a fair indication of the strength of the party who wished the Church
unblemished. Anlard cements:

To the inferior clerg this opened a vista of real confort conpard
with their present poverty. To the superior clergy it neant a reduction

 

31. Ibid., du 22 an 26 octobre, 1789; no. 773 P. 315.
32. Ibid., dn 30 octobre an 2 novelbre, 1789; no. 813 p. 329.
33. Ibid., dn 2 an 3 novabre, 1789; no. 82; p. 335.

37

of income which would deprive then of their luxury and, as they
thought, of their prestige. Iron that tine onwards they set
themselves almost as one body against the Revolution. It was that
1"; €1,133” til: vii-5?. .g.3 of the civil political-religious war
Anlard is there, perhaps, too ready to admit the purely economic
motive in the lower clerg. The leadership of llaury and the support
by Gouttes show that many of the lower clergy remained ads-ant
against this restriction on the church. And, conversely, it was

a bishop, Talleyrand, who first proposed the article. The economic
factor should here also be questioned, as preletes were nearly
always nobles who had incone other than their ecclesiastical
earnings.

During the first six months of the Assembly, the body took
several other actions which concerned the Church either directly
or indirectly. On July 23rd Grigoire proposed that the priests
of the kingdom be used to quiet the people, by using the priests

to publicise its decrees. Gregoire said that the people would
then listen with "peace and confidence in the works of the National
issuably" .35

Onthethirdof October, Yilleneuvenovedtorepeal allusury
laws, the object being to stinulate comes and agriculture. In
his action he pointed out that the "Court of has is not opposed“
andthatusurywas permittedeveninoertainparts ofrrance.

Here was a proposal which was not attacking the temporal relations
of the Church as such, but was actually assaulting the doctrine.
In this argument both Harry and Couttes upheld the notion, the

at. r. Lulard, Christianity and the Revolution, p. 52.

35. loniteur, du 23 an 211 Juillet, 1789; no. 233 P. 99.

 

38

Letter on a pragaatic basis, and because of necessity for co-aerce,
the forner distinguishing between loans for charity and loans of
commerce. Only one man, abbfi Vermont, rose to defend the interests
of the Church, and he was interrupted and shonted down. One other
cur‘, unknown to the record, naintained that it was a question
of norals and religion and could not be treated upon in a political
body.36

There were several attempts to have the National Aseubly
declare itself a Catholic, Roman, and apostolic body. Iithout
specifically rejecting than, the humbly, until April 13, 1790,
nanaged to by-pass all such issues. One of the nest colorful of
these rejected notions was that of a rustic priest whose name is
unknown. He spoke on August 3, 1789.
I request the indulgence of the Assenbly for a timid debutant
who speaks for the first tine and perhaps for the last. It
[the Assasbly] nust not glance higher than his shoes, and I an
going to speak about a concern of w trade. (Langlter)

Before a nesting of the orders, ought not an altar be set
up in the chapel of the Rational usably? D11 To what god
should it be consecrated: Should it be an unknown Cod, deo i to?

(Laughter) No, we are always the true children of the 03550 c
Church, apostolic and Ronan.

The president called the cure to order, reminding hin thnt
questions of religion were not to be discussed. The cure then watt
on, affirming that the II ional Assembly is and ought to be Catholic}
apoltolic, and Roles ... He preposed] a chaplain for the gathering. 7
The president again declared the neeting out of order, and it was
shortly adjourned with no action taken.

On April 12, however, Don Gerles, after a heated debate on
the disposition of Church goods, said that “it must be decreed

that the Catholic reliuon, apostolic and Roman, is and shall

36.Ibid., du ler au 5 octobre, 1789, no. 6?: p. 2711-75.
37.Ibid., du 1er au 3 sent, 17893 no. 32; p. 135.

39

remain always the religion of the nation, and the only authorized one. "
The clergy later applauded an amendment which promised that "the non-
Catholic citizens will enjoy all rights which they have been accorded
in preceeding decrees." When the motion was about to come to a vote,
several deputies moved postponment till the following day. A doubtful.
voice vote was taken on this motion. After a second voice vote, the
president announced postponement and most of the deputies left their
places. The president and the secretaries left the tribune, with the
deputies of the right still demanding a vote on Dom Gerles' motion.
Finally they left, a few at a time.38 The next day Dom Gerles himself
acceded to a substitute motion, which, after restatement by Mirabeau,
said, 39

The National Assembly, considering that it neither has nor can have
any power over the conscience or over religious opinions, and that
the majesty of religion and the profound respect due to it forbid

its becmg a subject of discussion; considering that the attachment
of the assembly to the Catholic, apostolic and Roman religion camot
be called in question at a time when the expenses of this religion
are being given first place in the budget, and when, with a unanimmls
sentiment of respect, it has expressed its feelings in the only way
befitting the dignity of religion and the character of the National

Assembly; it decrees that it cannot, and ought not to, deliberate on
the motion proposed, and that ifiowill proceed with the order of the

day concerning Church property.

About 300 deputies, supposedly those in favor of the original motion of
Don Gerles, voted against this decree. A better indication of the true
division came earlier on a vote to stop debate. In that vote, the

minority rose to hOO, as against h95 supporting the watered down version}1

 

38. Ibid., 13 avril, 1790; no. 103; p. 1:22.
39. Ibid., 111 avril, 1790; no. 101;; p. 1425.

10. F. Aulard, Christianity and the Revolution, p. 53.

 

bl. Moniteur, 11; avril, 1790; no. 101;; p. 1125.

ho

This vote was a victory for the philosophes over the forces of
religion, although the margin was small. To attain the victory, they
had modified their poSition, making it sea as though it was obvious
that they were for Catholicism, although not admitting it. The
voluntary retreat of Dom Gerles also would adversely effect the cause
of the defenders of the faith. During the remainder of that meeting,
abb’e Rainy kept trying, always in vain, to renew the original motion
of the dam. In answer to the question, "Will abb’e Eaury be heard or
not?", the Assembly voted not. Mirabeau, in excellent sarcasm, repeated
that it was not necessary to hear him, for if he proposed anything other
than "the Catholic religion is the national religion" they "would all
drop dead in their seats".h2 In less than a year, the Church in France
had declined from a place of preeminence to a position in which even
its 'zealous defenders' were denied the right to speak in the National
Assembly. Later Maury began to offer a rider such as Mirabeau had
described to the Church goods bill. He was declared out of order six
consecutive times and finally, on his seventh try, he said, "This is
an insult to the good faith of this assembly; I am defending 11w opinion,
and I am not stepping down; they pretend to be religious by embracing
fanaticism. ... " After having been told to leave the platfom he
shouted " There is no longer liberty, there is no longer authority in
the Assembly. "’43 The rationalism of the philosophes did not have full
sway as yet, for the next day, when abbe Maury arrived, the right side
of the assembly applauded, and priests embraced himm‘

1:2. £922., 11; avril, 1790; no. 10h; 1). ms.

16. $13.51.” 11; avril, 1790; no. 10h; P. 1426.

m. _I_b_:_L_d_., 15 avril, 1790; no. 105; p. h28.
bl

The cahiers were overwhelming in their assurances in the belief in
the canplete RomanCatholic Church. In one year, the sentiment had
noticeably turned against it. From whence did this new feeling arise?
It was the writings of the philosophes of the eighteenth century put 7
into practice. There were in France during the ancient regime, 'thought
clubs' which devoted much time to the works of the philoSOphes and who
had, in some cases, a rudimentary political. organization. At the time
of the States-General nary of these were transformed into 'Societies of
the Friends of the Revolution'. These clubs were made up of about two
thirds bourgeois and one quarter proletariat};S About 2 per cent of
their personnel were clergy'menjt6 In 1789, according to Barreul’s
Histoire du Jacobinisme, they had 689 lodges in France, of which 150

were in Paris. The number of people enrolled was about 500,000.”

 

These organizations operated as pressure groups for republican ideas.
They were not adverse to using violent methods, and accomplished a
great deal, especially in Paris, through the use of extralegal force.
The Jacobins, as the societies were called, were republican from the
outset. We can trace the Assembly's actions against the Church in
large part directly to pressure from the J acobins.
After the events of October 5th and 6th, when the Paris mob

marched to Versailles, it was proposed to move the National Assembly

to Paris. This brought a discussion as to the dangers inherent in such

 

{6. Crane Brinton, The Jacobins: an Essayjn the New History
(N.Y., 1930), p. 51.

 

1:6. Crane Brinton, "The Membership of J acobin Clubs " , American
Historical Review (July, 1929), mm, 71.0. ""“"""

1:7. Donat Sampson, Pius VI and the French Revolution (published
serially) American Catholic Earterlz Review, MI (July, 1906), 601-2.

142

a course. Even the staunch partisan of the left, Gr‘égoire, had misgivings
about the movement. Although he voted for the move, he questioned, with
sarcasm, the wisdom of sending the clerical deputies into Paris "into
the mercy of a ’beloved' people, there to brave for sure the outrages
and the persecutions of which they are menaced?"l~‘8 The irony in Grégoire's
voice suggests that perhaps he wished to see the clergy of the right
subjected to the menacings of the Paris populace. But his mention of
the state of affairs suggests much truth in the statements. On July 13,
in the movement which culminated in the storming of the Bastille, a
monastery had been attacked, and although it was not for religious
reasons, it was a violation of Church property.

The desire of the philosophes to combat the Church had been further
fortified by the lack of a resisting spirit in the Church in the decade
Just preceding the Revolution. Harv of the clergy themselves adopted
wholeheartedly the ideas of the philOSOphes. Abbé Raynal said, in 1780
The state, it seems to me, is not made for religion, but religion is
made for the state: that is the first principle. The general interest
is the rule to determine everything that should exist in the state,
that is the second principle. The people ... alone has the right to
judge whether any instifi191tion conforms to the general interest. That
is the third principle.

After the passage of the nationalization decree, there was a flm‘zy
of reaction on the part of a substantial number of clergy. The debates
of the Assembly contain some of this, but it is the existence of a
feature article in the Moniteur of 10 November, 1789, which confirms

the broadness of the reaction. It speaks of "the intrigues of bishops,

 

148. Moniteur, du 5 an 8 octobre, 1789; no. 68; p. 280.
19. 1". Aulard, Christianity and the Revolution, p. 39.

-

P.
a

1:3

nobles, and parlements against the decree which nationalized the
Church goods". It characterized the three groups as feeling "that
this combat will be a combat unto death".5° One of the most
interesting reactions was in Toulouse, where "eighty nobles and a

large group of parlement members ... invited the order of the clerq

 

and the order of the third estate (for it was thus that they still

insolently called the communes) to unite with them and to take all

measures necessary for restoring to religign its useful influence".51

Eaury, of course, continued to give battle on the basis of the decrees
of November 2, but his rashness made his appeal ineffective. One of

his abler opponents during this time was Robespierre, who would often

52

answer Maury argument for argument. Following the excesses of July

and August on the part of much of the peasantry, many of the nobles
and higher clergy had left the country. One of them, de la Place,
published a small tract shortly after the November decree. In it he
declared five points

1. It is the Day of Death, 2 No‘vember, 1789 ... There was in Paris
an ecclipse of the moon.

2. It is a prelate who made this famous motion against his own order.
3. It is Camus, president of the National Assembly, and champion of
the clergy, who was president then.

1;. it is in the hall of the Archbishopric of Paris that the motion
was published.

5. Finally (and the thing which is not perhaps least shocking) that
it is to a Protestant minister that are owed the convocation and
organization of this venerable assembly to which this beautiful
oppressed nation is going to owe its renaissance and its glory.53

50. Moniteur, du 10 novembre, 1789; no. 88; p. 357.
51. Ibid., du 10 novembre, 1789; no. 88; p. 357.

52. For an example, see Le Moniteur, du 18 au 20 novembre, 1789;
no. 92; p. 375.

53. Honiteur, 2 décembre, 1789; no. 102; p. Ills.

bl;

 

The Assembly'ordered the sale of h00,000,000 livres of Church property
on December 29.

On.0ct0ber 28, 1789, the Assembly adopted a.motion.which,
suprisingly, met with.but feeble resistance. The complete suppression
of vows, after discussion, was abandoned, but it was decreed with no
opposition.that all vows were to be temporarily suspended. The motion
for suppression came up fer final adoption on the twelfth of Fabruary,
1790. Treilhard, a member of the ecclesiastical committee, presented
three questions:

1. Shall the religious orders be abolished?

2. What shall be done about the religious who do not wish to remain
in the monastery and in the garb of their order?

3. What shall be done with ose who wish to remain in their
monasteries and in the garb?

Cardinal Rochcfoucauld was among those supporting suppression, the
Bishop of Nancy leading the forces of opposition. The latter said,

"I am far from the belief that you wish to destroy, but it must be
acknowledged that all that you have done until now would.be proper to
assure to success of such an enterprise."SS ‘Maury, as usual, disregarded
the bishop's mild approach and, interrupting one of the speeches, cried
out 'Blasphemy‘. He again moved that the Assembhy "recognize that the
apostolic religion, Catholic and Roman, is the national religion".

The motion failed.S6 Gregoire, as in the battle over nationalization,
attempted to compromise. He began, "I begin my profession of faith.

I do not believe that religious establishments ought to be abolished

 

51;. Ibid., 13 février, 1790; no. M43 p. 175.
55. Ibid., 13 février, 1790; no. hh; p. 176.

56. Ibid., 1h février, 1790; no. h53 Po 179.

hS

entirely ... There are not enough secular priests, it is necessary to

guard the auxiliary troops. " He advocated new restrictions and some
97

repressions. The decree was passed as follows:

I. ... the law no longer recognizes the solemn and monastic vows of
either sex; it declares, consequently, that the orders and congregations
of both sexes are and shall continue to be suppressed in France, without
being able, in the future, to establish others.

II. The individuals of either sex in monasteries shall be able to
leave upon making their declaration to the municipality in the locality.
III. There is no change, for the present, in regard to orders charged
with education or nursing, until the Assembly passes an order on that
subject. _ 8

IV. Nuns will be able to stay where they are at present.5

After the sale of all Church property, it was necessary for the
state to pay the curés or to see to it that they were paid. Although
the <11is of the low clergy were excepted in the general order, many
of the clergy had none, and, when the dime‘s to the beneficiary of the
parish stopped, the mrtion congr_ue was also cut down. Even where the
priest did receive some pay from his own flock, he was often deprived
of it because of the attitude taken by the public after the suppression
of the dimes, which was simply not to pay. Hence, Guillaume, on
December 30, 1789, proclaimed
The tithe-owners are no longer paying the salaries of the cures and
vicars. The pastors will revolt, and it is feared, that by this
example, the flock will revolt. ...

The abb’e Maury applauds his views, saying :
I move, in order to stop these calamaties, that it be immediately
dedreed that the tithe-owners shall continue to pay the mrtions

cages as in the past.
amus: It is absolutely necessary to discgss and not deliberate
without discussion ... I move for postponement. 9

57. Ibid., 13 révrier, 1790; no. it; p. 176.

58. Ibid., 11. révrier, 1790; p0. 1453 p. 180.
59. Ibid., 30 decenbre, 1789; no. 130; p. 528.

16

The decision was for Camus. The affair came up again in April, and
this time we find Gregoire doing the battle for the Church. The
proposition in.Apri1 was to end all dimes completely; Gregoire
opposed it, saying

I move ... that the cures and vicars shall continue to enjoy the
income of land attached to their benefices for their subsistence
... The curés and.vicard shall be endowed as soon as it shall be
possible, in land rights, at least up 68 one half of the pensions
which will be set for their'benefices.

Deputy Camus, a lawyer from Paris, topped off a.year of assault
against the Church when he re-echoed Raynal'S'words: "The Church is
in the state, the state is not in the Church. ... We are a national
convention, we assuredly have the power to alter religion; but we
shall not do it; we are not able to abandon it without crime."61 The
stage was thus set for the complete domination of the Church by the
state. It was with Camus"words in their ears that the deputies began

work on a Civil Constitution for the Clergy.

60. Ibid., 12 avril, 1790; 1100 1023 pe 14170

61. Ibid., 2 Juin, 1790; no. 153; p. 621.

h?

IV. The Civil Constitution of the Clergy
and Its Consequences

On February 6, 1790, the National Assembly adopted a motion posed
by Treilhard, a member of the ecclesiastical committee. It decreed
"That our ecclesiastical committee be charged with presenting at once
(1) a constitutional'plan on the organization of the dlergy (2) its
views on the salaries to pay to actual titularies."1 Having received
this duty, the committee labored for four months, and debate on the
plan opened on the 29th of May. Boisgelin, Archbishop of Aix, gave
the first speech. It is a carefully worked out talk, and led straight
to the basic point. .

Does the Ecclesiastical Committee know what is the useful influence of
religion on its citizens? It is a bridle which stops the wicked, it is
the encouragement of virtuous men. Religion is the shield of the
Declaration which assures to man his rights and his liberty; it is
inalterable in its dogma; its moral cannot change, and its doctrine
will ever be the same. The committee wants to bring the ecclesiastics
back to the purity of the primitive Church. This is not that of the
bishops, successors to the apostles. This is not that of the pastors,
charged with preaching the Bible, who can reject this method; but

since the committee assigns us our duty, it will permit us to keep
memories of our rights and of the sacred principles of ecclesiastical
power. ... The mission which you have received through the voice of
ordination and consecration had its origins in the apostles.
They propose to you today to destroy a part of the ministers, to
divide their jurisdiction; it has been established and del' l ted by
the apostles; any human power has not the right to touch i .

This was the clearest statement that had been made in many months by a

backer of the Church. The state had taken away its possessions, had

1. Moniteur, 8 février, 1790; no. 39; p. 155.

2. Ibid., 30 mai, 1790; no. 1503 P. 6100

148

closed its orders, had restricted its pay and persecuted its members.
The Church had shrugged its shoulders and gone on with its duties.
Mary of its own members were in enemy ranks, and it was increasingly
difficult to hold its remaining strength. The challenge was at last
considered great enough - the Church was going to strike back. The
archbishop ended his speech with a warning and a suggestion:

If you do not consult the authority of the Church, you will not again
know that catholic unity which forms the Constitution of the Empire.
We are not able, in any case, to renounce the forms prescribed by the
Councils. We ask you to consult the Gallican Church in a National
Council. It is there that the power resides ... We ask ... the King
and the National Assembly to permit the convocation of a National
Council. If this proposition is not adopted, we declare that we will
not be able to participate in the deliberation.

Deputy Treilhard, one of the five originators of the Civil Constitution
of the Clerg, introduced it to the Assembly. Very wisely, he took
long quotes from Christ, the Bible, and the Church fathers in
establishing the need and the correctness for his plan. He traced
the development of Church history and tried to prove that the plan
offered no inconsistencies with the past. The applause was greater
than was usual, and there was considerable noise and commotion when
the speech was finished.h The debates that took place on the bills
were seemingly endless, and every speaker seemed to wish to prove his
point through precedent. Cur’e Jallet, the first member of the clerg
to join with the communes, moved that the plan be adopted "as entirely
conforming to the ancient maxims of the Church". Coulard, cure of

Roanne, warned that to make a schismatic church is soon to make a

3. Ibid., 30 mai, 1790; no. 150; p. 610.

LL. Ibid., 31 mai, 1790; nOe 151; p. 613-1’4.

119

heretic church.5 The.lssembly'began to take up the Constitution,
article by article, oanay 31. During the period of debate on the.
measure as a whole, eight ecclesiastics voiced opinions, only one of
which, that of Jallet, was favorable, while five very definiteLy
condemned the Constitution. At this time Mirabeau was absent from
the Assembly; Lanjuinais, Camus, Martineau, and Robespierre, the
first three being members of the ecclesiastical committee, held up
the argument fer the Constitutionalists, while there were none of
the clergy who consistently spoke. Those who did speak, however,
‘were aggressive. Title one was completed by June 8, two by June 1h.
The third title concerned, among other things, the minimum stipends
fer the clergymen, and its debate lasted fer nearly a month.

In the entire proceedings, the clergy showed.much.more unity than
it had in any previous discussions. inany influential members such as
Gouttes, who were heretofore in the center, switched to the right side
and fought well against the Civil Constitution. Some of the priests
of the left remained there, and at one time several
members of the clergy got together to state their sentiments, 'we
adhere with respect and submission to your decrees; our one hand will
be holding the Bible, the other the constitution; we shall draw from
the two sources justice and good.morals; they will be to teach us to
render ugto God that which is of God, and to the nation what is of the
nation’. .

The first article reorganized the dioceses so that they corresponded
exactly to the departments, and did parallel organization for the lower

divisions. It passed by a very large majority. In the debate on the

5. Ibid., 1er juin, 1790; no. 152; p. 617.

6. Ibid., h juin, 1790; no. 155; p. 633.

50

second article Gregoire warned that while it is all right to resist
the Pope, one should be tactml about it. It passed in the following
form
It is forbidden for any church or parish in the French Empire, and for
any French citizen, to recognize, in any way and under whatever pretext
it may be, the authority of bishops or metropOlitans whose Sees were
established under foreign domination nor those of its representatives,
reading in France or elsewhere.
The great curtailment of I’apal power in this article brought life into
some of the clergy. An amendment was offered, and, strangely enough,
it passed. It proclaimed for the unity of the faith and of the
"communion which will have been taken with the visible head of the
Church".8

The third article sets up metropolitans and their synods, who
were henceforth to commission and ordain the bishops. the Committee's
draft was rejected by the Assembly and a new article written, but the
controversy had no bearing on doctrinal points. The fourth article
elaborated the third. Gregoire thought that both the third and fourth
articles carried serious omissions, in that archpriests should be
established in each district. In this he was joined by Gouttes, who
felt it was necessary to have such an office for the many things which
cannot go to the bishop.9 Whether or not this amendment is the result
of a true democratic spirit in Gregoire is difficult to determine. The

amendment was sent back to committee, where it was buried.
7. Ibid., 3 juin, 1790; no. 15h; p. 62b.
8. Ibid., 3 juin, 1790; no. 151;; p. 625.

9. Ibid., 7 juin, 1790; no. 159; p. 6h9.

51

Articles five and six defined metropolitans and bishops and their
jurisdictions and promised a full survey into parishes in order to
divide them equitably. Articles seven and eight, at Gr'égoire's
insistence, were indefinitely postponed. They concerned the duties
of cures and vicars. The point at issue concerned who should be the
bishop's aides, curés or vicars. Article nine provided that there
would be only one seminary per diocese for the preparation to the
orders, but that, for the present, the schools already established
could remain.10

Articles ten through fifteen gave details as to the government
of the seminaries, and installed vicars in most places. A reconstituted
article seven made the cathedral priests vicars. The fifteenth article
created the council of the bishop, which was to consist of the vicars
of the cathedral church and the top two vicars of the seminary. The
bishop was obligated to discuss measures with them before taking any
action, either seminarial or diocesan. Article fifteen came in for
criticism from the left. Henri Gregoire denounced it as too autocratic,
maintaining that the curés ought to have more voice in the diocese
between elections or councils. He moved that curés be represented on
the bishops council, but the motion lost};L

Articles sixteen through twenty concerned parishes and tried to
weed out unnecessary parishes and join together those which had small
flocks. A town which had less than Six thousand people was not to have

more than one parish. In the country, all small parishes within three-

10. Ibid., 7 juin, 1790; no. 159; p. 619.
ll. Ibid., 9 juin, 1790; no. 160; p. 653.

S2

fourths leagues of each other were to be combined. One article was
added from the floor which abolished all titles except those defined.
in the Civil Constitution.12

Title two of the instrument excited perhaps the most controversy,
but the clerical opposition was quickly overridden. The first articles
provided for the election of all officials of the French Church.
Elections were to be by majority vote, and the entire electorate was
to vote .. J'1: was assumed, then, that everyone in France was Catholic,
and the elections were to take place on Sunday immediately after mass.
The theory here is again that non-Catholics will not be at mass. The
clergy from left to right instituted alarm at the proposal. Henri
Gregoire offered an amendment "by which, in the number of electors,
one does not count the non-Catholics". Arguments of the committee
prevailed, and the original article passed.l3 A bishop, before being
confirmed, was to give an oath to be loyal to the as yet non-existent
constitution of France. The middle articles provide for the oath and
for these elections, with details as to confirmation. Article eighteen
gives the doctrine of extreme Gallicanism, saying that "The new bishop
cannot address himself to the Pope to obtain any confirmation; but he
shall write to him as visible chief of the universal Church, and in
testimony of the unity of faith and communion that he ought to sustain
it

with him". Both the left and the center supported this proposal,

with the cure Gouttes giving the most support and the cure Goulard

12. Ibid., 9 juin, 1790; no. 160; p. 651;.
13. Ibid., 9 juin, 1790; no. 161p p. 658.

11" E3220: 15 5115-11, 1790; no. 167; p. 679,

53

incompetently defending Papal authority. The Moniteur's reporter
changes his usual style of "it is adopted by a.majority" to "Article
eighteen was adopted.by a very great majority".

The third title concerns the salaries to be paid to ecclesiastics.
The range proposed was from.50,000 livres to 700 livres. The division
of opinion on the articles did not divide itself clearly into left and
right, as had most of the previous discussions. In the final act
bishops were to receive 12,000, 20k000, or 50,000 livres, depending
on the population of the diocese, the largest amount going only to the
bishop of Paris. Parisian vicars were to get 3,000 to 6,000 livres,
while six other classes of city vicars ranged from 2,000 to h,000.
Cures were divided into eight classes, a cure in Paris receiving 6,000;
one in a city of 50,000 or more h,000; decreasing to a parish priest
who had less than a thousand in his flock getting 1200 livres.ls The
individual church vicars, that is, those subordinate to cures (comparable
to the English Curates), were to get from 700 to 21m livres, with the
top stipend outside of Paris being 800 livres. Gregoire strenuously
Objected to this provision, asking that the salaries of the Paris
vicars be reduced in order to raise the salaries of the country vicars.
But Vicar Gibert urged passage, saying that the article was all right
as written, as he had.been around over ten.years at 250 livres per

year.

 

15. Ibid., 17 juin, 1790; no. 168; p. 688.

16. Ibid., 18 juin, 1790; no. 169; p. 690-91.

Sh

Thus was constructed the instrument upon which the future
persecution of the Church was to be based. The Assembly approved of
all the articles taken in total, and it was decreed that there would
be no changes made.17 That decree did not, however, stop the endless
debate which was to go on for many years. Even before the final
passage of the Constitution, several important statements were issued
which were to affect its situation later. One of these-was Talleyrand's
letter to his diocesan chapter. In this he discusses one of the basic
points of difference fer the years to come. Concerned was "the manner
in which.the assembly pronounced that the Catholic religion is the
national religion".l One group felt that the document declared
Catholicism national, and thus the only authorized religion. A second
group received the impression that, as national, it would.be under the
charge of the nation, while the other religionsweren't.18 A second
significant speech was the opening talk of Archbishop Boisgelin.
Because of the extralegal character which he ascribed to the document,
many clergy went on, insofar as possible, in accordance with his
doctrine, and completely ignored the entire work.

On July 1h, 1790 it was decreed that all ecclesiastics were to
swear an oath "to be faithful to the nation and to the law, and to
maintain.to the utmost of ... their power the Constitution.decreed
by the Assembly and accepted by the king". The left side of the
clerical party accepted this and wholeheartedly gave their allegiance.

The center took a strange position. Their spokesman, Jacques-Andres

17. Ibid., 13 juillet, 1790; no. 19h; p. 797.
18. Ibid., 11 juin, 1790; no. 162; p. 661.

55

Emery, superior of the Seminary of Saint-Sulpice in Paris, concluded

that the 'constitution' mentioned in the oath was not the Civil

Constitution of the Clergy, for it did not yet have the signature of

the King.19
The Civil Constitution marked a complete break with the Concordat

of Francis I without am sanction on. the part of the Pope. King Louis,

before signing it into law, attempted negociation with Home, but on

August 2h the king sanctioned the Civil Constitution, even though no

word had come from Rome. Very few were the clergy, who, even after

the King's signature, would give credence to the Civil Constitution.

Of all the Bench bishops, only six adhered to these new principles.

They were Ioménie de Brienne, Cardinal Archbishop of Sens, Bishop

de Jarente of Orleans, Lafoqt de Savines, Bishop of Viviers, Talleyrand,

Bishop of Autun, Bishop Gobel of Lydda, Mirondart of Babylon, and

Loménie de Brienne (nephew of the Cardinal Archbishop) of Trajanopolis.2O
Inasmuch as mary, following Fmery's advice, had taken the oath

while repudiating the Civil Constitution, it remained a subject of

debate for the National Assembly. It was brought up in September and

October, and several times in connection with pensions, and, on

November 27, 1790, after strong arguments by Camus and Mirabeau, a

new oath was passed which affected all public ecclesiastical function-

aries. The unceremonius and tactless Maury was again the chief defender

of the rightist position. He showed bad judgment in attacking the

problem, however, for he said "The nation has given you the right to

 

19. H. Walsh, Concordat of 1801, p. 23-h.

20. H. Morse Stephens, A History of the French Revolution, 1
(N.Y., 1886), 302-3.

56

make decrees, but not to regulate my conclusions. I conclude in this
manner. I move that we adjourn discussion until the response of the
21 . . . .
Pope". Maury may have been expressmg his own views, but it was no
way to permade anyone. 1'he struggle was no longer whether the Pope
would have control, it was a question of whether or not the Church
in France was to be completely subjugated by the state. The Assembly
was more apt to listen to Péthion say "Theology is to religion what
chicanery is to justice".22 In the end, it was Mirabeau's brillant
speaking which overwhelmed the group.
The decree of November 27th was a stringent one. Article one and two
announced that all public functionaries will be held, if they haven't
done it, to taking the oath ... They will swear to watch with care
over the faithful .. . which are confided to them, to be faithful to

the nation, the laws, the king, and of maintaining with all their
power the constijz'gtion decreed by the National Assembly and accepted

by the King ...

They had one week in which to comply if in their diocese, one month

if in another section of ance, two months if in a foreign country.
The second two articles dealt with methods of juring. Article five
state that those "who will not have sworn in the time prescribed ...
will be considered having renounced their office, and their replacement
will be provided". Article six cautioned that if they take it and
refuse "to obey decrees of Assembly" or excite "opposition to their
execution" they were to be treated as rebels and punished "by
forfeiture of their salaries and loss of citizenship rights". The

last two articles expanded the classes eligible for punishment.2h

21. Moniteur, 29 novembre, 1790; no. 333; p. 1377.

22. £233., 29 novembre, 1790; no. 3333 P. 1377.

23. 292d” 29 novembre, 1790; no. 3333 p. 1378.

2h. 21333., 29 novembre, 1790; no. 333; n. 1378.
57

The King signed the decree on December 26th. Henry GrEgoire, the
next day,'was the first to take the oath, and, as he is one of the few
devout thinkers of the left, his short speech may be quoted in full.
"we swear the vows most ardently in order that all our brothers of the
empire, losing their fears, pressing eagerly to fulfill a duty of
patriotism so necessary to insure peade in the kingdom, and in order to
cement the union between.pastor and flock."25 Gregoire's reasons were
twofold. The first reason, to insure peace, may have been a sincere
' wish, or the peace he wanted to secure1may have been a bettering of
relations between Church and state by a temporary subjection to the
state. His second reason, to cement the union of pastor and flock,
is certainly genuine, and signifies a desire, on his part, to end the
disturbances between the revolutionaries and the peasants. The oath
that Gregoire swore was that of July'with the addition of "and
especially to the decrees relative to the Civil Constitution of the
Clergy“.26

Following Gregoire fifty-eight ecclesiastics took the oath, most
of them cures and none of them prelates. The next day Talleyrand,
together with three cures, swore the oath. Seven.more took it on the
3lst, four on the 2nd, twentybeur on the 3rd, tWo on the hth (one
driven by the rashness oflfiaury), none of whom were prelates. GObel,
Bishop of Lydda, a philosophe and prObably'a skeptic, took it on

January 2nd, and the Bishop of Babylon also jured. Thus of the near

25. Ibid., 28 décembre, 1790; no. 362; p. 1&93.

26. Ibid., 28 décembre, 1790; np. 362; p. 1&93.

58

three hundred in the National Assembly, one hundred two swore the oath.27

The Bishop of Clermont wished to take the oath, though with
restrictions. His statement was
We have always rendered homage to the civil power. We have recognized
and we shall acknowledge always that we have received from it great
political advantages; but it is not from it that we draw our powers
in.the spiritual order. we are compegéed, as ministers of religion,
to defend and teach our doctrine ...

The bishop was ruled out of order, and the motion was adopted that
decrees must be sworn simply and as written.

What was true in the Assembly was even more true in the nation.
From.a11 parts of France came reports of violation, indifference, or
rejection of the decree. It was reported that in Paris only forty in
all took the oath, and twenty-six of these were in Saint-Sulpice.29
Figures at the end of the first half of 1791 indicate that there were,
in fortyathree departments, 1h,0h7 juring and 10,395 nonpjuring. The
percentage of jurors varied in different departments from.8 per cent
in the Bas-Rhin to 96 per cent in the Var.30 Some figures are quoted
that make it appear somewhat differently, saying that, in the

Department of Doubs, only four of h90 took the oath, and in the District

27. Ibid., Issues of: 28 décembre, 1790; no. 362; p. 1193.
"'" 29 décembre, 1790; no._363; p. 1h97.
1 janwier, 1791; no. 1; p. 3.
3 janvier, 1791; no. 3; p. 10.
h janvier, 1791; no. h; p. 13.
S janvier, 1791; no. 5; p. 18 and 20.

28. Ibid., 3 janvier, 1791; no. 3; p. 10.

29. Jean F. E. Rebinet, Le Mouvement religieux a Paris pendant
la.R€volution (Paris, 1896-8), 1, 387; indirectly quoted in.Anon.,

"Religion Under the French Revolution", Edinburgh Review, CCIII
(January, 1906), to.

30. F. Aulard, Religion and the Revolution, p. 72-3.

59

Valenciennes only four of 130.31 Both sources agree that there were
only five juring prelates.

The resistance of the clergy took many forms, ranging from
peaceable arguments to threats and inciting armed resistance. "Hany
priests, according to an official report from ilileaux, told women that
it was better to strangle their babies at birth than to let them be
baptised by a 'juracier'."32 Whether true or not, and it probably
was, it is but an example of the bitterness with which all France
was rent. Because of this dissention, the vexing matter appeared
on the Assembly order frequently. At first the reports were that
everyone was juring. The Assembly applauded for each, and recommended
that the town or group be given honorable mention. A typical session
is that of January 15, 1791.

... A cure ... who announces that he has sworn the curate's oath,
to the great satisfaction of the people, and in the middle of all the
regular and secular clergy of his parish; it contains truly patriotic
sentiments, and conforms to the true spirit of religion.

(Violent murmurs arise on the right side. The ecclesiastical
members of the minority move for the order of the day. The assemblg
orders the recording of the speech, which receives much applause.)

As seen as adverse reports came in, the right gained hope and began
once again to bring up the subject. The abb’e Haury gave a long speech
on the let of January. After proving, to his satisfaction, that the

oath touched on the spiritual, he said,

31. L. Sciout, Constitution civile du Clerge/ (Paris), II, 93,
indirectly quoted in Anon. , "fieligion Under the French Revolution", p. h6.

 

32. J. Robinet, Mouvement religieux a Paris, II, 131, indirectly
quoted in Anon. , "ReligionTnder theTrench Evolution", p. 149.

 

33. Moniteur, 17 janvier, 1791; no. 18; p. 71;. (Dateline on paper
is in erro'f. Ea'i't'ion was for January 18.)

6O

Yen say that you haven't encroached on the spiritual jurisdiction.

That is your perception, but it is not ours ... (Murmurs on the left).
Look at us then, for our life is going; the people take us for public
enemies. Listen to the unhappy’mengthat speak to yfiu only until the
moment when there are some martyrs in the kingdom.

The continual defeats which.maury received heightened this feeling of
martyrdom. When he later went to Rome, it was to increase his ineffect-
tiveness in dealing with subsequent events in the Revolution.

On January 27 the priests of Amiens were accused of having changed
the formula on the decree before publishing it. The Assembly, over the
resistance of'Kaury, gave the tribunal in that place administrative
power to deal with the situation and ordered the directory of hmiens
to denounce the ecclesiastics there.35

Economic forces necessitated the nationalization of Church goods.
To enforce this nationalization in the face of opposition, the Civil
Constitution was promulgated. In the same manner, opposition to the
Civil Constitution brought up the question of equalitarian religious
toleration. It was necessary, when the principle of a juring Church
was established, to create a hierarchy. The Church had only five
bishops, needing perhaps a hundred. Consequently, it was Talleyrand,
assisted by Gobel and.hirondet, the latter Bishop of Babylon, who
consecrated two priests as Bishops of Guimper and Soissons. ... One
hundred twenty of such constitutional bishops were to be elected and
16

consecrated in the next ten.years.“

 

3h. Ibid., 23 janvier, 1791; no. 23; p. 95.
35. Ibid., 27 janvier, 1791; no. 27; p. 111.

36. D. Sampson, "Pius VI and the French Revolution, American
Catholic Quarterly Review, Kiri, (October, 1906), 609.

61

One of these men, Cobel, whose character was open to reproach from
every side, was the first to become a metropolitan, the office created
by the Civil Constitution for the consecration and governing of bishops.
The election results were learned on fiarch 1h in the Assembly, and
Gobel emerged with three bishoprics! (One of the three was Haut-Rhin,
'which voted h00 to 52 in favor of Gobel. Bas-Rhin was a center of
opposition to the Civil Constitution, but “ant-Rhin one of its

37 He immediately

stronger supporters.) Gobel chose that of Paris.
started to constitutionalize his diocese. It resembled a war chest
drive; we want 100 per cent jurors in this district; A pastoral
letter of April 16th "feared for religion because of the trials"
created by this split in the clergy. But he knew all would turn out
correctly.
The enemies of the Constitution are seeking to inspire doubts on the
legality of ecclesiastical elections. ... They dare to advance the
theory that ecclesiastical functionaries, constitutionally elected,
are interlopers, schismatics, &. Those unfortunates, blinded by hate,
do not perceive that their foolish assertions reflect only on them-
selves. 8
Gobel's pastoral letter failed in its purpose, for a little over a
week later we find him.beseeching the Assembly to carry out the decrees
against the non-juring clergy. He assures them that he is carrying
out his duties with a zeal.39
The opposition to the decree of December 26th was so widespread

that the government (not the Church) soon found itself with an extremely

serious shortage of clergymen. To alleviate this shortage, it was

37. inoniteur, lh.mars, 1791; no. 7h; p. 300.

38. Ibid., 18 avril, 1791; no. 108° p. hh3. (Page number on
paper is in error. Correct page is hhS.S

39. Ibid., 26 avril, 1791; no. 116; p. h76.
62

necessary to relax the laws. 0n.March 25 Lanjuinais, in the name of
the ecclesiastical committee, moved that vicars "who have been or will
be suppressed" for failure to take the oath, will be given top
precedence at their old job if they decide to take the oath.LLO

On May 7, 1791, the inevitable results of the Civil Constitution
(with state salaries) became apparent in Paris. A decree of the
Municipal directory insured.full religious freedom to all congregations.
It could not be properly carried out, but in a little over a year such
a program was to become the law of France)‘1 The first open.move in
such a direction for the nation was on the following November 29th.

One of the deputies addressed the ecclesiastical committee:

Fbr a long time you have been drawing up the decree about the troubles
excited by the nonyjuring priests. ... 'We are accused of being hard
in the name of tolerance and of indifference by those who suffer so I
want immediate action ...

M. Paganel ... [Quoting Rousseau] 'It is absurd to tolerate those
‘who do not tolerate society itself.’ I propose, then, barring from
the liberty of worship not only the ministers of these cults, but
everyone who shall have refused to take the civic oath. ... He went
on to propose substitution of 'priest' for'minister', to put all
religions on exactly the same basis.

The idea of complete equality of religions in France then lay
quiescent for a time, but it was a professed reality already in Paris,
though not an actual one. The next Hay, a Paris curé, amméafioy of
Saint Laurent, held the floor, saying, "All the religious divisions

seem to me to spring from the great error of the National Assembly

in having made a Civil Constitution of the Clergy. "10 By such a

ho. Ibid., 26 mars, 1791; no. 85; p. 3&7.

hl. F. Aulard, Christianity and the Revolution, p. 77-8.

 

h2. Moniteur, 30 novembre, 1791; no. 33h; P. 1395.
h3. Ibid., 18 mai, 1792; no. 139; p. 57h.
63

system, he said, they must execute and obey all laws, even the bad ones,
which clergymen, upright in their duty, cannot do. He proposed seven
principles to govern clerical relations, among which were (1) election
by cult members only, (2) salaries shall not be paid by the state, (3)
'constitutional' shall be dropped from titles, as a religious man cannot
exercise functions delegated by the constitution, but only by God. The
seventh principle was that "priests and ministers, of whatever religion
they may be, not being public functionaries, not even being obliged to.
be French citizens, will not be subdued in the future, in their
capacity of priest or minister, by any special oath". This did not
mean that one could sabotage the nation, for abbé May provided in
article six that "all priests convicted of having professed or preached
maxims contrary to the constitution will be banished from the kingdom."m‘
There are basically, two principles in abbé Boy's proposals. The first
is a true understanding of the basic principles of religion, that it is
not a temporal function and could not conceivably be regulated by laws
which are not in the same area. A nation is always temporal, a church
is always spiritual. But in article six Moy seems to condone on
occasion, the use of state control over religion. The solution is that
to abbé Moy an ecclesiastic, not being concerned with the temporal,
could say nothing that concerned a constitution. His speech was
applauded by a great majority, but its passage was prevented by
parliamentary maneuvers of Ramond, Chalots, and Ducos. Chalots proposed

an amendment and this and the reaction of war time (France had declared

hh. Ibid., 18 mai, 1792; no. 139; p. 57h.

6h

war on April 20th) ruined its excellent chances of passing.15
Chalots' amendment proposed that if twenty citizens wished, they
could, by applying to their department, have a priest banished. If the
priest did not go, he was subject to ten years in prison. The law was
passed on gay 27th, but failed of the king's sanction}l6 The pressure
of the war caused demands for a still more stringent measure, and, on
August 26th, 1792, Benoiston presented a decree which passed with
almost no opposition. "All ecclesiastics, who, having been compelled
by the law of 26 December, 1790, ... have not sworn it ... , or have
retracted" (after a series of Papal briefs in 1791, many retracted),
are to be deported. It gave them travel money and required them out
of the country in fifteen days. All left at the end of the period
were subject to ten years in French Guiana. Article six of the decree
provided that anyone was eligible for the same rules of deportment on
the petition of six citizens, or on the petition of the administrationJ"7
One of the last acts by the National Legislative Assembly, taken
on September 20, 1792, was of prime importance to the idea of
separation of church and-state. This measure was the secularization of
the civil register. Marriage, birth, death, and contract records of all
kinds all became civil records, and the divorce records were instituted.
It was, strange to say, the papal Catholics, the party who had exercised
these rights for so many years, who secured their passage. Not wishing

to confide in constitutional clergy, they were forced into asking {gr
passage of a civil status to obviate the necessity of seeing them. '

 

15. Ibid., 18 mai, 1792; no. 139; p. 571;.
’46. F. Aulard, Christianity: and the Revolution, p. 88.
1:7. Honiteur, 28 aofit, 1792; no. 21.1; p. 1020.

1:8. F. Aulard, Christianity and the Revolution, p. 91.

 

65

it was Cambon, both in the Legislative Assembly and in the National
Convention, who continually stood forth for separation of state and Church.
In the discussion of a motion on August 13, 1792, he brought up the
question that all religions should be treated a1ike.h9 Again on
November 2, 1792, he introduced a.motion providing that all sects pay
their own'wa .50 Finally on September 18, l79h Camson's motion, in
the name of the committee on finances, was passed. It decreed that
the state "would no longer pay the expenses or salaries of any cult".
The decree put all religions on their own, though it did provide for
small pensions and adjustments in some cases to prevent injustice.51
Simultaneously with the SIOW'movement which was to end in virtual
separation of Church and state, the suppression of the nonpjuring was
continued. OnfMay'l6, 1792, Vergniaux introduced a proposal which
‘would have put an.obligation on all priests to swear the civic oath on
the pain of losing their salary, and'which would deport all priests
who were the instigators of religious trouble. He was answered that
the oath gave religious liberty. How, then, could the second point
(on deportation) be justified? It was in answer to this speech that
abbé Hey gave his principles;2 0n.August 15, 1792, the Assembly
substituted the liberty and equality oath for the old Constitutional

one. It was a simple statement, "I swear to be faithful to the nation,

L9. Moniteur, 15 aofit, 1792; no. 228; p. 956.
50. Ibid., 3 novembre, 1792; no. 302; p. 1307.
51. Ibid., h sanculottide, an 2; no. 36h; p. 1h96.

52. Ibid., 18 mai, 1792; no. 139; p. SYB-h.

66

to uphold liberty and equality and to die at my post".53

The days of September 2 and 3, 1792, were memorable in the darkest
side of the Revolution. There are hundreds of accounts of the murders
of the nights of the 2nd and 3rd, but very few do a dispassionate job.
1t is probable that the massacres were primarily directed against the
clergy or religion. Yet it is probable that the Paris populace, who
sat idly by and condoned the entire proceedings, would just as soon
that the victims be priests. The movement which spread into the
provinces, however, was nearly all anti-religious. The massacres,
although not strictly spontaneous, were not planned. The actual
number of ecclesiastics killed in Paris varies in different sources,
but was probably slightly under two hundred.5h' Host or the accounts
point up one characteristic about the ecclesiastics. "They want, to
their death as if going to a wedding,"55 with no fear and with some
calm. An interesting Catholic version of the story of the Carmelita
nuns illustrates this calmness. The Carmelit‘s were imprisoned for
refusing to take the oath of August 15. This was in spite of the fact
that the Pope had not condemned it (it had been submitted to hint,
Emery had pronounced it harmless, and both their chaplain and superior

were of like opinion.

53. Barbara de Courson, "Some Recently Beatified Hartyfl',
American Catholic Quarterly, X2011 (April, 1907) , 31,.7.

514. James P. Co , "In Red September, 1792", Catholic World,
CXXVII (September, 1928 , 727.

55. Ibid., p. 729.

67

But although the oath had not been formally condemned, they had been
lately informed that it was blamed by the Bishop of Soissons and that
in the South of France it was universally regarded as schismatical.
The case was a.complex one, and H. Emery on the one hadd, the Bishop
of Soissons on the other, were equally in good faith; but the Carmelites
disregarded these subtle arguments and went straight to what was the
most perfect and.most perilous lége of conduct - the uncompromising
rejection of a doubtful formula.

This is a very'unusual situation: the rejection, by a Catholic, of
the Pope's verdict in favor of that of a bishop even though the Pope's
pronouncement was not in official form. In addition, the bishop had
no connection whatever with the nuns. The martyr complex that Maury
had was also present, to a very high degree, in those nuns. It
apparently is not true of all the nonpjuring Catholics, however, for
Emery, as devout to the dogma as anyone, certainly had no great amount
of it. He did have the calm and assurance of a.man of his convictions
- or of his religion - however. The Carmelite incident also illustrates
one other point on which a partial generalization can be made. They
did not analyze the oath themselves, but accepted something from the
hierarchy. Here again, although Emery differs considerably, we find
some of this spirit in.Maury.

The insurrections that the central government had to deal with
were the cause of decrees which, while not always levied directly at
the priests, were used against them.as a.group;. On March 18, 1793
Lanjuinais, noting that the "emigrées and their valets, the non-

juring priests", were the center of counter-revolution, suggested

that measures be taken.57 Danton talked in favor, and Cambacéres

 

56. B. de Courson, "Recently Beatifiedeartyrs", American
Catholic Quartergy, null (April, 1907), 31.8.

57. Eoniteur, 19 mars, 1793; no. 78; p. 352-3.

68

presented the decree. The action taken suspended all rights to anyone
acting in a rebellious‘way, gave them.a military trial of five people,
and established the death penalty. Article six decreed that "the
priests ... who have provoked or’maintain someone revolting will suffer
pain of death".58 The decree was to take effect in twentybfour hours.
This decree, while against the nonpjurors, was dictated by military
necessity, not by anti-religious feelings. The nonejuring priests,
by continuing their campaigns in the country, were forcing the
Convention to take 'religion' and 'counter-revolution' as the same
term. That this was meant only for use in the Vendée and such regions
is shown'by the later decree of April 23, which.merely subjected all
non-juring priests to deportation to Guiana immediately.59

The events of the second to the fourth of June, 1793, completely
changed the picture as far as the Constitutional Church was concerned.
The Church had aligned itself with the Girondist party. Even before
the Girondists fell, there were rumors of the suppression of all
religion, or at least of complete indifference while they upheld the
new religion.

Soon after the Jacobins came to power the distinction, for most
purposes, between constitutional and nonpjuring began to disappear.
To be sure, there was always a difference. At first the Jacobins
seemed only concerned with marriage of clergy and the war. On October

21 and 22, 1793, it was decreed that

58. Ibid., 21 mars, 1793; no. 80; p. 362.

59. F..kulard, Christianity and the Revolution, p. 98.

 

69

Priests communicating with the enemies of the nation ... anywhere
were to be put to death within twentyafour hours after being found
.guilty, by a military commission, of bearing arms; and the fact will
be deemed proved either by a written declaration with two signatures,
or by one signature vouched for by one witness, or by oral statements
of two witnesses, if they agree. As for such priests as had returned
to France, they should be put to d th if tw0'witnesses agreed they
had been sentenced to deportation.
The same decree made all priests subject to deportation if they were
denounced for lack of patriotism, even if they had taken the oath.
Six citizens could accuse priests, after which, the directory would
try them.
The constitutionals, like the nonpjurorS'before them, were driven
underground if they were to survive. The new regime was establishing
its own religion, and wished no competition. GrEgoire reports that in
Iniarchtmd April of l79h there were still about one hundred fifty parishes
functioning in the rituals of the Constitutional Church. In July of
that year there was active Catholicism in at least two districts.61
There was no more aggressive action against the Church after the
death of Rebespierre on July 27, 179h. But the Church, at that time,
lay helpless, being trampled under the feet of the new French Philosophism.
It is to Gregoire that the credit must be given for lifting up the Church,
for he, on December 23, l79h, in sacerdotal garb, gave one of the most
brilliant speeches of his career. He con rasted the fanaticism.of a

philosophical religion with the inward and spiritual grace of Catholicism.

Facing a hostile government, Grégeire subduedit almost single—handedly.

60. Honiteur, 2 du 28 mois, an II; no. 32; p. 128-29.

61. F. Aulard, Christianity and the Revolution, p. 119-20.

 

7O

Catholic by conviction, priest by choice, I have been elected to be a
bishop by the people; but it is neither from them nor you I hold my
mission. I consented to the burden of the episcopate in a time when
it was surrounded with thorns; I was plagued to accept it; today I am
urged to the point of force to an abdication to which I shall never
yield. Acting according to sacred principles which were dear to me
and which I defy you to steal from me, I have a task to fulfill for
the well-being of'my diocese; I remgin a bishop in order to complete
it; I demand liberty for the cults. 2

The Convention was not ready to take Grégoire's advice. But the next
'week Gregoire opened the churches in his district. He was to assume
leadership of the French Church, and in contrast to Henry, to lead
Catholicism toward a spiritual and tenable position.

Concurrent with the struggle over the Civil Constitution of the
Clergy, the fight over nationalization continued to flourish. All of
the perpetual goods and income of some houses being taken away, the
ecclesiastics were destitute. As a result, some embezzlement had taken
place. A debate in the Assembly on September 8, 1790 concerned the
subject. Abbé'flaury'was in favor of beginning payments immediately
to the dispossessed clergy rather than on January 1, as the law called
for. He cited an example where the nuns had little or nothing, and
the collector demanding the tax. "When'we decided to put ecclesiastical
goods at the disposal of the nation," he said, "we took upon ourselves
the keep of'those who lived from them." Maury'was oversimplifying.

The nation's promise was to keep the locum teneng (priest who actually
performed the duties) but not to keep the cure primitif (titulary of
the benefice). Maury, of course, held barge holdings as a cure primitif.

Although his logic was good, he gave away his own position when he moved

62. H. Walsh, Concordat of 1801, p. 128.

 

"that it be ordained to the farmers to pay the salaries, and pay the
surplus into the bank of the districts. ... Not only do the municipalities
retain their revenues, but still they force u_s_ (italics minea to pay
63

the portion congrues". Maury, as the Honiteur is quick to point out,
received a very substantial sum from holdings which he had. Haury's
motion failed.

Serious resistance met the decrees of the Assembly in the rural
areas. In Alsace, the decree nationalizing Church lands, when translated
into German, had been altered, persumably by priests, so that it excepted
vast areas of land in the province. Custine tried to relieve the Church
of responsibility, saying that they _were probably ingorant of the
translation change. Maury justified the title-holders of i'dsace in
not giving up the goods to the state. The problem was complicated by
the fact that Alsatian Lutheran lands were not touched.6h (There were
220,000 Lutherans and 150,000 Catholics in the province, and they both
enjoyed full religious freedom.)65 Haury ended his argument with "I
demand that the ecclesiastical committee or anti-ecclesiastical 00—"

He was called to order before he could insult the committee.66

Following up the decree abolishing orders, Charlier proposed on
August )4, 1792 that all monks and nuns be evacuated immediately so that

the houses can be sold.67 The measure met with no resistance on the

63. Honiteur, 9 septembre, 1790; no. 252; p. 101:1.

61;. £333., 18 octobre, 1790; no. 291; p. 1207.

65. F. Aulard, Christianity and the Revolution, p. 26.
66. Moniteur, 18 octobre, 1790; no. 291; p. 1207.

67. Ibid., h aofit, 1792; no. 218; p. 917.

72

part of the clergy, except to assure the evicted suitable pensions.

The pensions finally decreed were ample, being 500 livres if under to
years old, 600 livres if hO-60, and 700 livres if over 60.68 The order
'was put into effect on September 10th, and generally enforced on the
29th.

The story of the Constitutional Church in Paris is an interesting
one. 0n.Apri1 11, 1790 the Paris Directory adopted the Talleyrand
report, the object of which was religious liberty. Talleyrand "called
the Catholic religion true, ... but went on to say ... that we should
assure its triumph 'by leaving to it nothing but the means of persuasion

69 The

and showing that it has nothing to fear from rival sects'".
decree named guards called '1aic supervisors' who will prevent "any
ecclesiastical function from being exercised in the Church ... other
than by" juring priests. It decreed further that any sect, if it
placed a description of itself over the door, could hold religious
meetings. Any church which didn't agree to this toleration was to be
closed in twentyhfour hours.70 In accordance with this law, Pancemont
moved into the Church of Theatins. .An inscription "Building consecrated
to the religious cult, by a private society: peace and liberty" was

71

placed over the door. Pancemont's group met here from time to time,
and it consisted.mainly of nonpjuring clergy. .At one of the first

regular meetings on June 3rd the Paris crowd, supposedly instigated

 

68. Ibid., 7 aofit, 1792; no. 228; p. 958.

69. F. Aulard, Christianity and the Revolution, p. 76.

 

70. Honiteur, 15 avril, 1791; no. 105; p. h31.

71. Ibid., 20 avril, 1791; no. 110; p. hso.

73

by abbe Latyl, picketed the meeting and reported that refractory priests
were giving communion, a public function. LaFayette and the national
guard were called in, and restored order. The Paris authorities upheli
the decree of April 11th.72 Because of the popular menace, however,
most nonpjuring Catholics, after this, met only in secret. Impressing
the public with their stand on toleration, on October 12, 1791 they
reaffirmed the April 11th position, and declared it to be for true
tolerance.73 One week later it was ruled that " ... All citizens,

all societies, all groups, or religious or secular orders will be able
to open any church ... to the exercise of a religious cult" with none
other than police protection for the public order.7)4 The situation
remained thus until May 2, 1792, when, due somewhat to the war scare,
all congregations except jurors were suppressed, and they were rigidly

watched. It was a move foreshadowing the new religion.

72. Ibid., h juin, 1791; no. 155; p. 6&3.
73. Ibid., 17 octobre, 1791; no. 290; p. 1027.

7h. Ibid., 23 octobre, 1791; no. 296; p. 1233.

7h

V. The New Religion

The division of the clergy by the state into jurors and non-jurors
is cited as a cause of the new rationalistic religion which bloomed in
France during and after Robespierre's reign. It was a cause only in
that it was an agent, allowing those who tended to scoff at religion
and adopt philosophism an excuse to ply their trade. Men like Gregoire
or Gouttes did not do this; atheists or skeptics who had found their
way into the Church, such as Lomenie de Brienne and Gobel, did. When
the latter swore the oath, they were not swearing to a national
Catholicism, but to a national philosophism, an ardent rationalism.
The. roots of these were based much deeper than the split on the Civil
Constitution, going back directly to Voltaire and the Eighteenth
Century writers.

To establish this new religion, it was necessary to extirpate
Catholicism and put something in its place. The impetus to this
movement was greatest during the Convention, when power was the most
concentrated, which would seem to indicate that the leaders were not
so much interested in 'Destroy the infamous thing' as they were in
assuring their continued dominance. Putting words into the mouths of
Frenchmen, Vandam has stated one of the basic reasons for the 'new
religion'.

"Why can't I make a national god, seeing that the abbe b‘ieyes is
making a national religion', stutters Camille Desmoulins ...

Why indeed?" echo ... others to whom the idea appeals, not

as the deathblow to Catholicism, but as the gem and means of a
theocracy likely to benefit the autocrats of the Revolution.

1. Albert D. Vandam, "1793-1893", Fortnightly Review, LIV (n.s.)
(September, 1893), 382.

75

Before the Civil Constitution was completed there were some
indications of what was coming. on June 16, 1790 there was at
Strasbourg a unique baptismal service. Two infants were baptised,
one Catholic and one Protestant, each with one Protestant and one
Catholic godparent. Following these services there was a civil
baptism, in which the godfathers, in the name of the infants, took
the civil oath under the flag of the district federation.2

The accent upon this new religion came with the advent of the
Convention. When the Girondists were in power, it centered on
changing the standards of the constitutional clergy, until they were
no longer a Catholic or apostolic group. With some, very little
changing had to be done. They began by approving marriage, and made
moves which would give married priests more rights and privileges
than the bachelors. The impetus may have come from the Jacdbins, for
in the first part of the Convention, it merely seems to be condoned,
not sanctioned. In large measure, the Church fell with the Girondists.
Lanjuinais had refused to give permission for.Abbe'Bruyere to marry
another priest on august 10, 1791.3 Immediately after the Jacdbins
reached full power, the Convention began.to restrict the Communes
in regard to their power over married priests. On June 19, 1793, a
cure appeared before the convention, asking "justice against his

parishioniers who have refused to recognize him, because he married

a woman of less than fifty years". The Assembhy promised that his

2. F. Aulard, Christianity;and the Revolution, p. 67.

3' EQEQR: P0 630

76

salary would continue to be paid.h

On July 19, this decision was put in a decree.5 On.August 12
Julien gave a long talk, to which no one even tried to reply, which
forbade the "destitution of a Catholic minister because of’marriage
to individuals" to whom he is attached. If such a priest is let go,
he was "authorized to return to his functions".6 On September 22,
the Bishop de la Dordogue presented his wife to the convention.
Introducing her as poor in fortune but rich in virtue, he moved that
the Convention act especially to safeguard such priestly marriages.
His wife and president Cambon embraced. Then Julien.moved "for the
encouragement of priests to follow the example which.Bishop Pontard
has just shown". He advocated high pensions for such ecclesiastics.7
On November 15, the Convention capped their work off by declaring that
if a commune should fire a cure because he is married, that community
should continue to pay his salary, and that the priest should be able
to do what he wishes with the money.8 Admittedly, a condonation of
‘marriage does not mean that one is seriously questioning the authority
of the religion. But when added to the attitude and other measures
taken, it falls into a definite scheme for the complete rationalization
of Catholicism. Henri Gregoire was the only one of the churchmen who

'was able and ready to challenge the wisdom of the assents to marriage,

h. imoniteur, 22 juin, 1793; no. 173; p. 7h7.

S. F. Aulard, Christianity and the Revolution, p. 101.

 

6. Moniteur, 1h aofit, 1793; no. 226; p. 961.
7. Ibid., 2h septembre, 1793; no. 267; p. 1133.

8. F. Aulard, Christianity and the Revolution, p. 102.

 

77

but, while he doubted the wisdom, he was tolerant of things which he
considered did not affect the 'inward grace' of man.

Another movement which was not directed at Catholicism was that
in which all church metal except the bare necessities was stripped to
be used in the war effort. on August 121, 1792 a delegation appeared
before the National Legislative Assembly and rendered an account of
destroying a statue of Henry IV (probably this particular king only
because of proximity to the statue) and erecting in its place a tablet
containing the rights of man.

M. Thuriot moved that the demolished statue be made into cannon.

M. Lacroix I propose consecrating to the same destination all the bronze
monuments which are in the churches.

M. Thuriot It is not in Paris alone that this useful reform is needed:
it is needed in all parts of the Empire ...

Thus by pure coincidence the state found a good means of alleviating
finances and war shortages. If it incidentally had an adverse effect

on the Church, it could not be helped. Still, Lacroix only thought of
churches, not of kings’ palaces and nobles' belongings, as they later
did. The first thing to be crossed out in a Frenchman's mind, apparently,
was the Church. The idea was carried out at several different times.
Many of the provinces at various times raised funds by this method.
After stripping the churches several times and accustoning the people

to taking the goods of the Church, the final climax came on July 23,
1793, when $0.1 bells but one were taken from each parish.lo

The organized campaign for the reduction of the Catholic religion

also got under way early. In a debate in the Constituent Assembly 6n

w

9. Honiteur, 16 aofit, 1792; no. 229; p. 962.

10. F. Aulard, Christianity and the Revolution, p. 101.

78

January 7, l79l.maury‘was defending a felloW'member who was absent
because he wished to attend religious rites. Charles Lameth ridiculed
such a thing, and, while not saying anything against worship as such,
did debase the position it should occupy to a point beneath that of
the politicians.11

Cn.march 2h, 1791, a trial was ended at which Gobel, the
constitutional bishop-elect of Paris, was given temporal possession
of the diocese. Two important points were made clear in the decision
of the trial. (1) Bishops recognized the legitimate right of persons
elected to canonical office under the Civil Constitution of the Clergy.
(2) They recognized that the laws decreed by the Assembly and sanctioned
by the king had binding force on an ecclesiastical institution.12

on the occasion of Mirabeau's funeral, the Assembly turned the
Church of Sainte-Genevieve into a civil Pantheon. In a gesture to the
great man, they decreed that "the new building of Sainte-Genevieve
will be destined ... to hold the ashes of great men who commemorate
the era of French liberty". Above it they put the inscription Wig
Great Ken;gThe Thankful Country".13 Although this tended to lower the
prestige of the Church, it was a mere nothing compared to the moving of
Voltaire's ashes to the Church onIan 30.114 To see such a.man.enshrined
for worship in a building confiscated from the CatholiC'worship was one

factor which determined.many of the nonpjuring never to become constitutional,

11. Moniteur, 8 janvier, 1791; no. 8; p. 31.
12. Ibid., 26 mars, 1791; no. 85; p. 3h5.
13. Ibid., 5 avril, 1791; no. 95; p. 390.

lb. F. Aulard, Christianity and the Revolution, p. 75-6.

79

even after the oath had been changed to the liberty and equality oath.
The struggle between the constitutional and non-juring clergy
offered an excellent opportunity for the opponents of religion to make
headway. Each side in that struggle was Catholic, and the struggle
'was in.many places so intense that they would accuse each other of
any calumny whatsoever. Neither side realized that each of their
accusations and actions, no matter how directed, was a reflection on
Catholicism itself. There are many instances of nonpjuring priests
being 'oeported so many leagues' from their parishes, and of jurors
being ostracized from certain communities. E. Perronet Thompson has
given a thumbnail characterization of the situation in 1792:
... an anxious peasant is assured that he will not be eternally lost
for having replaced his SS. Peter and Paul by pictures of Voltaire and
Rousseau; and equal joy is displayed at the marriage of nuns or at their
good works in the hospitals. ... only a jarring note where the key of
:eligious bitterness is struck by'denouncingssome show miracle, said
0 be wrought by or for nonpjuring priests.
Thompson here is overpainting the acceptance of the peasant. He was
more apt to be strenuously'opposed, and.most certainly he questioned
the new innovations which.might be made in his district, not the least
of which would be the marrying of a nun. It is at least certain that
during the struggle many things were said which, for the sake of piety,
should have been left unsaid.
In.August, 1792, before the Legislative Assembly adjourned, it
took a far reaching step toward destroying all religion. on the 13th,

the "Assembly decreed that the religious ecclesiastical costumes ...,

 

15. E. Perronet Thompson, "A French Protestant During the
Revolution: Rabaut Saint-Etienne", Littel's Living_Ag§, v. 185
(April 12, 1890), 106.

80

'were abolished and prohibited". A punishment article was added to the
decree which provided loss of salary for Catholics, and criminal action
for other cults. For a non-Catholic‘s second offense, he was to be
deported.16 There was no opposition on this plan whatsoever. Only
Cambon, a backer of separation (and not of destruction) questioned
whether it was right to differentiate among the religions.

In spite of all centuries of Gallicanism could do, the French
populace continued to think of the Catholic religion in connection
'with the Pope. It was a great significance, therefore, when Basseville,
the French secretary of the legation at Naples, was murdered on
January 13, 1793 at Rome. It was looked upon evenywhere as a crime
perpetrated by the Pope himself. In the Convention, it was called
'an atrocious crime' and an 'outrage on national security'. Letters
were shown in the Convention which 'established', beyond a doubt' the
guilt of the Pope.17 The reflections were greater on the nonpjuring
clergy than on the constitutional, but it also was mirrored in the
attitude of the people as a whole toward Catholicism as a religion.

Danton, more moderate than some of his felloW'men, on several
occasions assured the people that the "Convention never intended to
deprive the citizens of the ministrations of religion, which the Civil
Constitution of the Clergy had given them".18 The existence of the
words 'never intended to deprive' is indicative of the results of the

government program. It was a suppression of Catholicism through.

 

16. Moniteur, 15 aofit, 1792; no. 228; p. 956.
17. Ibid., 11 fevrier, 1793; no. 35; p. 166.

' 18. F. Aulard, Christianity and the Revolution, p. 95 - see also
honiteur, 13 janvier, 1793; no. 13; p. 35}

 

81

inability to pay, though a very acute shortage of priests, and by the
actual intentions of the administrators. On January 13, 1793, forty
communes of Eura, Orne, and Eure et Loir sent a delegation to the
Convention. They said "we have been delegated to you to demand the
pure conservation of the Catholic religion, its free worship, and to
maintain the pensions of our ministers. Our petition cannot fail to
be welcqmed.because you have not been elected by atheists."l9 It was
evident, then, in spite of Danton's periodic assurances, that the
‘worship of Catholicism under the state control was being severeLy
hindered.

During the last half of 1793, the organized campaign to erase
Catholicism.and substitute a nationalistic religion had full sway.
The first place to be vitally changed was Paris. Here on October 1h,
1793, Chaumette,
the procurer of the commune, took the floor. He made a list of the
charlatanisms of priests ... He pointed out the immorality of the
public exercise of religion; he moved that instructions be drawn.up
on the matter of recording births and giving the dead their last rites.

The council-general ... decreed that it'would be prohibited to
ministers of all cults to exercise their functions outside the house
designated. ... 20
Two days later the work had.been done on Chaumette's motion:
Considering that the French people
can recognize no other cult than that of universal morality; no other

dogma than that of its sovereignty and its power ... decrees that which
follows:

 

19. Moniteur, 13 janvier, 1793; no. 133 p. 58.

20. Ibid., le 25 du Ier mois; l'an II; no. 25; p. 99.

82

1. All worship of any religion cannot be exercised except in its
respective temples.

2. The Republic recognizes no established religion ...

3. It is forbidden for any minister to appear in public ... in
religious costumes.

h. All dead citizens of whatever religion ... are to be buried in
common ... covered by a funeral veil on which will be printed 'Sleep' ...
5. There will be a statue of sleep in all cemeteries.

6. Gate of the cemetery will read "Death is eternal sleep".

7. All dead who were 'meritorious' will have a stone figure crowned
in oak.21

The monument was apparently to be inscribed with the rights of man.
Thus by the end of 1793, the Catholic Church was dead in Paris, except
for a few underground groups. Chaumette continued to be the most
important member on this subject, and on November 23 , because so many
priests were in the 'counter—revolutionary' movement, he moved that
all churches and temples of faith be closed. In addition, all priests
and ministers of any kind were to be individually responsible for all
trouble of which the source could be religious opinion. Serious
penalties including deportation were involved.22 The measure passed
almost unanimously, in part because of the war, in part because people
were, by this time, being terrorized by the government, and in part
because the people of Paris, as a whole, had already rejected
Christianity and, as they called it, 'superstition’. This was not
Chaumette's real aim, however, for on the 28th, he put forth a new
motion:

I move that in order to fraternize all citizens, there be at the end
of each month a reunion of the citizens of all sections, in the Temple

of Reason [Notre Dame, converted on November 10, 1793] , where there
will be a sunnnary of all the interesting news; they will celebrate the

 

21. Ibid., 1e 27 du Ier mois; an 119; no. 27; p. 107.

22. Ibid., 6 frimaire, an II; no. 66; p. 265.

83

brave actions of the defenders of the country; there will be chanted

some patrggtic hymns, and some discourses on republican morals will
be given.

Much of the same type of action was taking place in the provinces.
At Nevers, F ouché in September had moved "to substitute the religion
of the Republic and natural morality for the superstitions and
hypocritical cults to which the people are still so unfortunately
devoted". "At Rochefort, Laignelot [Cotober 3i} turned the parish
church into a 'Temple of Truth', which ... witnessed a grand ceremomr -
namely, the abdication of eight Catholic priests and one Protestant
minister".2’4
What was true in Paris and the provinces was also true in the
Convention. Marie-Joseph Chénier was the spokesman for the movement"
in that body, and once again there was no opposition. Not even
Gregoire, though he Obviously disapproved, said anything to the
Convention. Sometime in August, 179 3, presumably on the 10th, in
honor of the reduction of royalty, the Statue of Nature had received
libations. Chénier on October 2 consecrated the movement of Descartes‘s
ashes into the Pantheon, praising him as a man who "rendered a great
public service by leading men to examine and.not to believe".25 One
month later, on fiber )4, he gave a stirring speech before the
Convention:
~Wrench . .. the sons of the Republic from the yoke of theocracy which
now weighs upon them ... then, freed from prejudice and worthy to
represent the French nation, you will be able; on the ruins of fallen

superstitions, to found the one universal religion, which has neither
secrets nor mysteries, whose one dogma is equality, whose orators are

23. Ibid., 11 frimaire, an.II; no. 71; p. 286.
214. F. Aulard, Christianity and the Revolutign, p. 102.

25. Ibid., p. 1.03.

8h

the laws, whose pontiffs are the magistrates, which asks no incense
from the great human family to burn gave before the altar of our
country, our mother, and our diety.2

Three days later Catholicism, which had been faltering badly
during the last few months, fell with a thud. It took place when

Gobel, preceeded by Pache, mayor of Paris, Chaumette, ... and other
functionaries, and accompanied by several of his clergy, appeared
before the Convention wearing the red cap and carrying in his hand
his mitre, his crozier and his ring. These he laid down in the
presence of the Assembly and declared that he and his curates
renounced their ecclesiastical functions, gave up their ordination
letters, ... and that henceforth the nation?! religion should be
simply the worship of liberty and equality.

This service was barely over when Henri Gregoire arrived at the
Convention. Immediately he was told the news, and the J acobins began
to chant for Crrégoire to come forth and follow Gobel’ s noble example.
Grégoire was in a serious predicament. The Terror had already started
and the guillotine was as likely (or perhaps even more so) to fall on
old friends' necks than on those of long-standing enemies. But here
Crrégoire stood firm. He slowly mounted the tribune and gave a very
Short talk.

I have just this moment arrived in the assembly, and I have just
learned that several bishops have abdicated. Is this to renounce
fanaticism? Such cannot concern me; I have always combatted it.
Proof of it is in my writings, which all breathe hate of kings and
of superstition. What do the functions of a bishop mean? I accepted
them in difficult times, and I am disposed to abandon them when times
will it ...

Thuriot. Grégoire consults his conscience, in order to see if

superstition is useful to the progress of liberty and equalagy.
It is this superstition which has given birth to despotism.

26. Ibid., p. lot.

27. Donat Sampson, Pius VI and the French Revolution (published
serially), American Catholic ChiaFterlyTeview, XXXI (October, 1906), 617.

 

 

28. Moniteur, nonodi 2e decade de brumaire, an II; no. ’49; p. 200.

85

Later he again defended his position, this time in full sacerdotal robes
in front of the Convention! If he had to soften his barb for his own
safety in his first defense, he made no concession in his second:
Catholic by conviction, priest by choice, I have been elected to be a
bishop by the people; but it is neither from them nor you I hold my
mission. I consented to the burden of the episcopate in a time when
it was surrounded by thorns; I was plagued to accept it; today I am
urged to the point of force to an abdication to which I shall never
yield. Acting according to sacred principles which are dear to me,

I have a task to fulfill for the well-being of my diocese; I remaég
a bishop in order to complete it; I demand liberty for the cults.

By his firm stand, Gregoire somehow avoided both the Terror and
the sacrifice of his principles. It is Thuriot's rejoinder which gives
one the key to the spirit of the rulers of France at the time. The
Jacobins not only accepted Thuriot's definition, but they expanded it
till religion, or superstition, was synonymous with fanaticism. One
of the Carmelites who was condemned in June, 1791:, "for having kept
up fanatical correspondence" and for "anti-revolutionary meetings"
questioned the use of the word 'fanatic'. The judge replied that he
meant "your attachment to childish superstitions, to silly practices
of religion".30 Although the judge's opinion may have been correct
in this case, he was using it as a generalization, making fanaticism,
religion, and superstition one and the same. The judge was too close
to the events of the day to add another to the list: Jacobinism.

It was inevitable that Gregoire would break with the party. The

rebellious attitude he took in refusing to marry was enough to ostracize

him. On November 13, 1793, there is a reference to Cre’goire as having

29. H. Walsh, Concordat of 1801, p. 128.

30. B. de Courson, "Recently Beatified Martyrs", American
Catholic Quarterly Review, mo: (April, 1907), 351.

86

been a Jacobin, but "he is no longer", but the sentiment expressed is
not strongly against him.31

The example of Cobel and others like him spread rapidly, and in
the fall of 1793 the sight of a priest or bishop relinquishing his
duties and rejecting religion was very common. On a single day,
November 15, the Convention received notice of four ceremonies of
apostacizing (and to send notice was purely voluntary). Two of these
show the general spirit:
‘ 1. The citizen Doche, heretofore episcopal vicar in Strasbourg, who
has chosen a wise and virtuous mate, renounces his salary and returns
his commissioning letters. 'I have glanced through them only with
indignation', he writes, 'since the day that man has been permitted
to think'o
2. Duharan reads a letter which announced that reason has the greatest
success in the department of Gers: Many priests have renounced priest-
hood; the cross has been shattered, fanaticism and superstition are
erased. 2

The laws became increasingly more stringent against the priests.
On October 21, 1793, what would seem to be the culmination in laws was
passed. All clerg who were subject to deportation or who had been in
enemy territory were to suffer death within twenty-four hours after
being declared guilty. If a priest returned, after having been exiled,
he was subject to death in twenty-four hours. The same was true for
one who didn't have both oaths correct, or who retracted either one.
There was a reward offered (100 livres) for information leading to the
arrest of counter-revolutionary priests. Any priest, even though his

oaths be right, who was denounced by six citizens was subject to

deportation if a tribunal found him guilty. Furthermore, anyone who

31. Moniteur, 27 brumaire, II; no. 57; p. 229.

32. Ibid., 28 brumaire, II; no. 58; p. 2314.

87

aided any priest under any sentence was subject to the sentence levied
against the priest.33

From time to time the Revolutionary govermnent, in an effort to
build a 'new' culture, had authorized fetes to be held commemorating
events of the struggle. The fete on August 10, 1793 very definitely
had a new cast. The worship of Nature, which had been thought of in
the provinces at intervals, received its official boost when Hérault
de Séchelles spoke "0 Nature, receive the expression of all Frenchmen
to thy laws."3h But Worship of Reason was only one of many cults
brealdng out all over France. Others that attained some prominence
were the Religion Naturelle, the Culte Social, and the Culte des
Adorateurs. The last of the three was a 'messiah' religion.

on December 6, 1793, the government repudiated all religions,
including the Worship of Reason, demanding full religious toleration.
And toleration was received for all of the new cults - but not for any
priest.35 The state, it should be remembered, kept on paying the
salaries of Catholic priests who had not fled, had taken the oath,
had not been denounced by their flock; or had not voluntarily given
up. There were very few such men.

This situation did not last long. Robespierre, on May 7, 17914,
introduced a bill:
(l) The French people recognize the existence of the Supreme Being

and the Mortality of the soul; (2) They declare that the best
service of the Supreme Being is the practice of the rights of man;

 

33. Ibid., 1e 2 du 2'3 mois, lie; no. 32; p.128-29.

314. H. M. Stephens, French Revolution, II, 353.

 

35. F. Aulard, Christianity and the Revolution, p. 111;.

 

88

(3) In the first rank of those duties they place hatred of treachery
and tyranny, the punishment of tyrants and traitors, succour of the
unfortunate, respect for the weak, defense of the oppressed, doing all
the good one can and not being unjust to anyone.36
In accordance with this new ritual the fete of the Supreme Being was
held on June 8. Almost five years before, Martineau, of the
Ecclesiastical Committee, had said that "institutions must be
founded on the sacred basis of religion, ... without religion, an
oath is but an empty word. "37 The fé‘te of the Supreme Being held
on June 8 was a gala affair in which Robespierre, assumed the office
of diety of the new religion. He delivered a speech in the Tuileries,
in which he proclaimed against atheism. In so doing, he burned Atheism,
Discord, and selfishness, and out of their ashes arose Wisdom, slightly
blackened by smoke. A procession then formed, going to the Champ de
liars, where the Convention, seated on a man-made mountain, sang
patriotic stanzas with the populace in Homeric fashion. Much.grumbling
Beuld'be heard at the antics of the ceremony throughout the fate, and
the smoky Wisdom was the object of many taunts. Robespierre was called
"Tyrant" and many people declared against him. Perhaps this failure
'was the basic cause of Robespierre's downfall.38
The story of the assault against the Catholic Church ended shortly
after Robespierre's fall on July 26, 179h. On September 18th, Cambon's

motion providing that the state shall no longer pay the expenses or

 

36. Ibid., p. 127.
37. F. Aulard, Christianity and the Revolution, p. 58-9.

38. Louis Adolphe Thiers, The History of the French Revolution
(trans. by Frederick Shobel; 3rd kmerican ed.), III (Philadelphia, 18h7), 5h_5.

salary of any cult was passed.39 Religious liberty'was assured, and
the Catholic Church was free to make the long uphill struggle back to
recognition. There was to be a Culte decadaire, but it was but a
presage to a return to Catholicism. This cult was the worship instituted
for the "Sunday", or Mpf the republican calendar. It was made a
compulsory state religion under the Directory, but never secured a

firm foothold. The Theophilanthropist cult was to receive many members,
and for a time, exert some pressure on France. Theophilanthropy is a
kind of free-thinking naturalism which takes as gods such peOple
(supposed!) strong on morality) as Socrates, Rousseau, and George
Washington. It was generally restricted to an aristocratic membership,
containing both Deists and Atheists.ho There are still some of this
cult, but their influence by 1800 was small. of the freethinkers there
were many. The story of their assault is not yet over.

Churches began to reopen by January, 1795. On May 30 of that year
some churches were opened to both constituents and non-jurors. The
Church was coming back, although she was still weak. On November 19,
1795, religion was banished from all schools and replaced by a study
of the Constitution and the Declaration of Rights.hl On July 1, 1797
the Council of Five Hundred repealed almost all laws aginst priests
within the country and put emigrant priests into a class by themselves.
on August 214 the Council of Ancients approved their action. On 0ctober

20, 1800, priests' names were removed from the lists of emigrants.’42

 

39. Moniteur, )4 sanscullottides de l'an 2; no. 361;; p. 11496.
ho. F. Aulard, Chinistianifl and the Revolution, p. 152—57, passim.
hl. Ibid., p. 137.

’42. Ibid., Po 135’h6’ E83311“.

9O

VI. Sane Typical Roman Catholic Reactions

The attitude of the French olerg to the acts of the French
Revolution was so heterogeneous that it defies clear description.

The best an author can do is to make groupings, two or three very
broad ones, and try to discern any trends that may have taken place.
In doing so, the author is limited by sources available. Undoubtedly
J ecquei-André My, one of the nest noted theologians of France at
that tine, played s. most important part in holding and directing the
activities of the time. But he was a umber of no Assembly, of no
Commune, of no legislative, administrative, or Judicial bodies, of

no group the records of which the history abounds. The difficulty in
using the Ioniteur, chief source of this paper, is that you know that.
happened to the Church, but you can only surmise from this what happened
to religion.

One man stands out above all others in musing a constant course,
maintaining throughout the conflict his central belief in the goodness
of Catholicism as he see it, that men being Henri Gre’goire. Something
hesalreedybeenseidofhielife,buthieinportsnceissuchesto _
demand 0. more complete study. In the attitudes and actions of Grégoire,
we have on record the course of the school which we have desioleted
es 'left' . Unfortunately, there is no such character available for
the 'right' . Those where of the extreme right had fled during the
months of July and August in the first year of the Revolution and
as :1 result their influence, while significant, was generally not one
which commended e large following within the country. There wee one
man outside the country who did escort e powerful influmce. That men

91

was the Pope. As for the attitudes and actions of the rightists in
France, we have to rely on Maury. It is unfortunately true that
laury's role was not consistent and that he allowed his personal
interests to color his opinions. But it is true that many of the
rightist clergy had personal interests similar to Henry's, and thus
Henry is a fairly typical mle. A an who represents the center
betwem the extra-ea of Gregoire and Maury was Jean Louis Gouttee.
Insofar as possible, his stands will be considered with one or the
other ofthenaincharactere. Thenenwillbe takenupinthe order
of first, the Pope, then Maury, and last, Gregoire.

The Pope at this tine was Pius VI, who waselected in 1775 and
was tohold the papacyuntil 1799. Pine VIwas aprudmtnan, and
certainly would have tried aw compro-iee with the Revolution to a
degree consistent with his faith and position.1 The papacy was ex-
tremely cautious in taking action on the acts of the Revolution, but
was hampered in its actions by the poor character of its representatives
in Paris. The papacy possessed, temporally, the small states in
Avignon and Contat-Venaiesin in southern France. In February, 1768,
Louis XV had occupied the province; later he withdrew the troops.
The relation between the papacy and the nation of France at the out-
break of the Revolution was that established by the Concordat of
1516, as modified by the pramatic of 1682 (though the Pope never
recognized this).

At no tine did the Paps seriously protest at the breaking of this
Concordat. He apparently took it as a nutter of course that the

Concordat would be broken, and tried to get the best solution possible.

 

1. F. Aulard, Christianity and the Revolution, p. 55.

92

The first official action taken by the papacy of aw importance

was a decree issued in November, 1789. A congregation of cardinals
had been examining the decrees of the National Assembly relative to the
suppression of annates. The result was a resolution, ”after long
debate, ... consenting to the suppression by a feral brief, but
with this clause, 'for the present'."2 The Pope's course was certainly
the wisest he could have taken. The annates had been lost before,

and the suppression of then was deeply embedded in the rigmts of the
Gallican Church. Pius VI was interested in preserving the peace,

if possible, and if it were to be ruptured by him, he would wait

for a stronger basis from which to launch his attack. Even the clerg
of the left, such men as Grégoire, could endorse such a move as Pius
had made. Unfortunately for the peace of the Pope, it was not long
before actions in France forced him to take a positive stand. It is
unfortunate for Pius that the issue was first broached over Avignon
and Contat-Venaiesin. Here his influence was temporal as well as
spiritual, and it becmne apparent that the disorders in those provinces
were directly traceable to the new spirit in France. If left to continue,
these disturbances would have resulted in loss of the provinces. It
was one of the greatest errors of Pius VI in the Revolution. He was

an able and farseeing Pope, as his first decree on annates had shown,
and am sort of parallel thinking would have shown him that he was _
as bound to lose the provinces as he had the annates. On March 29, 1790
he issued a statement which denounced the French people as a bow for

 

2e Honiteur, 2h novubreg 1789; me 9h; Pe 381a

93

being seduced by the philosophes.3 .

During the summer nonths of 1790, while the Assembly worked on
its civil constitution, the Paps waited and watched, while urging
Louis to withhold sanction of the act. Louis, anxious for bar-ow
within his country and actually trying to carry out the will ,of the
people if he thouait it at all feasible, sanctioned the document
on August 21;, without the approval of the Pope. Pius VI did not
take an action for several months. It was true, certainly, that
he could not officially sanction a dominant which contained provisions
for selection of prelates with no consent of the Pope. But they had
been selected by Frenchmen before, and were selected by the King Just
prior to the Revolution. If the constitution was merely ratifying
an act which was all ready in practice, wiry not ratify it? The reason
was that formerly the officials had been selected by the King, now
they were. to be selected by the people. . The King and the Pope were
close together, both wishing for the old regime when their power
prevailed. Oddly enough, it was the clerg of France, so proud oftheir

Gallican liberties, who forced the Pope to take a stand on the issue.
The Cardinal de la Rochefoucauld, an able and devout nan, together

with twenty-nine other ecclesiastics, sent an "hposition of the
Principles of the Civil Constitution of the Clary“ to 111:. The
principle argunent was that "civil power cannot by itself alter the
constitution of the Church; it needs the co-operation of the Church
and therefore of the Pope."h Previously, in Novenber of 1789, when
a weak or non-existent protest had been needed, the Pope had given

 

3. F. Aulard, Christianity and the Revolution, p. 57.
bani-do, p. 69.

9h

a strong one. How, the following October, when he midit have been
able to act with both decision and success, he hesitated. Uhile he
hesitated hunch‘eds of priests took the oath without knowing the position
of Bone, and with each during priest the decision was harder to naken
On March 10, 1791, he took the best course he could at that late date. On
the point only did he take a definite stand against the French action,
declaring that the election of bishops was a sacrilege. On this he
was Joined by both the right and the left of the French clery.
Before making my general pronouncements, however, 1 he asked the advice
of all the French bishops, not just thirty of than, stating that he
wanted then to suggest means of conciliation which should not contra-
vone either doctrine or discipline.5 Unfortunately for the Pope,
his nuncio in Paris was lgr. Louis de Salanon, who, even at this tine,
was slinking around in secret. luch more could be acconplished in
the open, even though hated, and if Salanon had spoken out, as did
laury, there is a possibility that schisn could have been avoided.
Salanon was born at Carpentras, near Avignon, in papal territory.
Throuai a special dispensation, he had been granted the orders at, the
age of 22. Two years later, in 1781;, he entered into the Paris Parlsnent.
It is significant of his character that he is the only member of that
Perle-ant to live through the Terror.5 He received his job as papal
nuncio through contact with Zelada, the Pepe'e prine minister. Salmon
was in prison at the tine of the Septenber second massacres and watched
with nascent the piety and calmness with which the others waited for

5. Ibid., p. 70-1.
6. Barbara de Courson, "The Story of a Papal hivoy Durin

the ‘
Red. of Terror", Anerican Catholic guy-jerk Review, 111111, fJanuary,
190?)l 65 pgsin.

95

their doon, but even thong: he felt he should, he did not have “the
sentinents of piety with which we ought to he possessed when our last
hour cones."7 lhen he was before the trial board he deliberately
misrepresented hinself by assuming

the offensive, and, without waiting to be spoken to, he put forward

his profession as a lawyer, kept silence on his ecclesiastical character,
spoke boldly and fluently in his own defense, and quoted, eonewhat
grhafirgidhgemgcggwgn-m Revolutionists who, he said,
He acconplished his escape by this ruse, and after the restoration he
becane bishop of Saint Flu‘zr.

The Pope's chances for a successful settlement, in spite of any
wise courses he personally could take, were severely hampered by such
a nuncio. Salanon delivered a second decree by the Pope in April.
Dated April 12, 1791, it voided Talleyrand's and de Iménie's appoint-
ments because they excluded the oath to the Pope and professions of
faith» He also wished for exanination of elected persons. He asked
that the clerg not take the oath, but provided no penalties or con-
dunation 1: they did.9 881m was called to none at the end of lay,
and thus the break between Rome and Paris was complete. Ihen he cane
back it was no longer as official nuncio, though he maintained his
contacts with the Pope. On October 6 of the same year he demanded
liberty of conscience for Catholics in France, but did not press the
issue. 7 a.

By. the Pope‘ s decrees he had taken his stand against the Revolution
by larch, 1790, although being circumspect enough to allow a wavering

“

7e Anon., ”R911 on under the W Revolution“, ma Betta,
CCCIII (January, 1 ) 52-3.

8. B. de Courson, A Papal navel, p. 70.
9. loniteur, 1 mi, 17913 no. 121; p. 1495.

96

center room to declare for both Revolution and Paps. In lay, Pius VI
was burned in effigy in Paris, holding the decrees which he had ieened.1°
During the next three years he was to reinforce his stand against the
acts of‘ the Revolution several times.

On August 23, 1790: he sent a very strongly worded letter to the
court, in which he bewailed the "lanes of independence and of un-
restricted liberty that inspires and propagates the eta-lies of religion."
Such, he claimed, were ruining the peace of Avignon. His point was
that for centuries the Avignon had enjoyed noderate government of the
Apostolic See, and now they were letting themselves be duped by false .
notions. He asked the very Christian King to help out in this respect.”-
There followed the censure of Talleyrand and Gobel, which nest clerics
took to be a condemnation of the Civil Constitution.

On January 13, 1793, there occurred the Basseville nurder at
Rene, attributed to the Pope.12 This deed caused the complete eclipse
of am great Papal power left in France, and the Pope was not to regain
his status until Napoleon' e Concordat in 1801.

One of the Papa's etaunchest defenders in France was Jean Siffren
laury. Like Salanon, Maury was born in papal territory, in Cantat-
Venaiesin in 1756. He was in this Roman Catholic territory because
his lineage was protestant, and had moved there from Dauphin‘ with
the revocation of the Idiot of Nantes. He was educated at St. Charles
in Avignon, but at twenty went to Paris to seek his fortune. An incident

 

10. Anon. , "Religion Under the French Revolution" Edinburgh Review
CCCIII (January, 1906) p. 147. . _

11- M: at ”at. 1790; no. 2363 p. 973.

12. Ibid., 1. février, 1793; no. 35; p. 166 and 21 fevrier, 17933
no. 52; 5:156.

97

said to have taken place on the trip is very indicative of his nature.
Riding with two other young men, they were giving the future of their
lives. The other two, according to the story Portal and Treilhard,
cast their horoscopes nearly correctly. The future abbé cast his
one hundred percent by saying, I‘I shall be teacher of religion to
the king and a member of the ”new.” He early began writing and
was elected to the acaduw in 1772, his greatest work being m
2 _e_ei__n_§ Vincent 2! gain; (1785). He wrote and worked with abb‘ Boiemont,
and when the abbe died Maury received his benefices, worth about 20,000
livres annually. He enjoyed several other benefices which he had
acquired by his ambition, and in 1789 he, a prior from Lion, was
elected to the States-General by the bailliage of Perrone. He uttered
another true prophesy in making this trip, saying "I shall be there
inperilorIshall gainthehatofaCardinal".1h As areligious
orator he had few equals: and when he gained the floor in the States-
Oeneral it was seen that his political oratory was going to surpass
his religious. He was to become perhaps the greatest of the defenders
of the old régine, in a period when its defenders were most lacking.15
He quickly was aligned against three opponents, Péthion, Barnave, and
Mirabeau. Only the last of the three was aw match for him, and even
he could not, at times, answer laury's argumults. "His speeches were...
delivered in an acrimonious tone .and he succeeded in arousing in his
opponents a most violent and bitter hatred against himself personally. '15
His influence with the Assembly was severely damaged from the

 

13. This, and nest of the events of laury's life, are taken from
Pierre Luousse, Grand Dictionure Universal 1, (Paris, n.d., preface,

1865) 1365.
11.. Ibid., 1, 1365;
15. H. Walsh. The Concordat of 1801, p. 101..

98

very start. On July 27, 1789 the Assembly received a.letter from
officials in Peronne announcing the arrest of lhury, who 6
the National Assembly found out his intentions.
The sbbé Iaury wrote also to the president, in order to instruct him
on the motives for his Journey? He claimed he was soliciting new
powers from.his constituents.
The detention of Henry alarmed several of the rightists delegates over
the security of their own persons, and a.decree was quickly issued
reaffirming the inviolability of the deputies, to apply in laury'e
case. Ilsury'wus fortunate that the Assembly'saved.hime for’he.had
hired a post-horse (one of a series of horses used for long trips)
instead of going to the Assembly of directors. He was clearly guildy,
and.lirabeau was not one to pass over the incident when the time for
needling and belittling cane.18

A.considerable faction of the extreme right voted with leury'
on all issues. Politically, he was a staunch defender of the old
regime. Due to the incarceration in the Peronne Jail, he was not
present lit the historic meeting of August 1;. We have, therefore no
arguments on his attitude toward.feudalismh In.his arguments presented
later on nationalization of Church.funds, he several times mentions
the inviolability of some of the feudal rights, but anyone, and especially
Ilaury, is apt to use arguments not in full accord.with his principles
when.he is seeking to conyince. In his first speech in.the Assembly

on August 23 he spoke on the basic system of government saying that

 

17. loniteur, du 25 au 27 Juillet, 1789; no. 25; p. 106.
18. Ibid., du 29 an 30 Juillet, 1789; no. 29; p. 122.

99

"he knew of no greater monstrous despotism than the confusion of the
executive power and the legislative. The counts de Mirabean replied. ..
that his scruples were the more delicate, for the executive power of
the Assubly had been advantageous to hil."19 It is probable, that
without llirabeau's biting sarcasm to his sojourn to Peronne, that
some of Iaury's ideas would have been accepted by the Assembly.
Because of the abb6's rashness in fleeing, however, it established a
precedent in the Assablyx that which the abbe laury supports shall
be voted down. He did not make clear to Just who]: the legislative
power should be given, but from his avid defense of the parlanents,

it can be assumed that it was a body similar to those in the ancient
regime. .
On January 11, 1790: Henry talked for over an hour and a half,
Justifying the Province of Bretagne and the Parlanent of Rennes in
disregarding certain acts of the National Assembly. His arguments were

based on (1) Bretagne had rights previous to the bench lonerchy, and
the French kings have recognized this. Therefore she still has thu.

(2) The Parlements are old established institutions which do not lose
their rights simply by the calling of a States-General. Henry claimed
thus to be supporting a notion of Gasales, but Casales quickly denied
such, saying that Hairy's speech contained “several inuactitudes in
fact, frequent insults, and some violent protests against the preceding
decrees of the National Assembly." Cagdes's charges were all true,
but the president, being fair, gave a sumary of Henry's harangue,
“Bretagne has rights of which the parlement is the depository. These

 

19. Ibid., du 23 an 26 am’it, 1789; no. M; p. 189.

100

rights go on entire” to the province unless it consents to losing than.
The vote was against Henry and his small band of clerical rightists.”
He had previously defended the Parlunents of llarseille and Provence

on substantially the same arguments, but there, showing typical incong-
sistency, he had also included a man, Bournissac, prévfit of larseille,
in his action against the Assmbly. The grounds were simply, in his
case, that Maury didn't like the decree, thong), excellent speaker

as he alwws was, he constructed a semi-reasonable argument.”-

The Assembly, after a very fiery debate about the préth, had
censured Henry from further debate on the tapic, In January he mounted
the tribune to speak. A veritable how]. of protest arose. The reporter
for the Honiteur gave an emceflent account of the scene: _

Imagine yourself in the middle of this astonishing confusion, the abbe
llaury at first strangely disconcerted, then putting back the ironic

smile on his lips and jumping into several silly gestures, then finally
demanding, thigual the mouth of l. Lavie, that a reading be made of

his proposal. ,
There were nary other occasions on which Henry was hooted down,

ofttimes with cries of the left being answered with inpiety. Once
when Maury thought to persuade his audience by characterizing himself
as 'llinister of Altsrs' he was greeted with lauals. The right wing,
under the Bishop of Rimes, answered with cries of "misty“. To which
a voice from the left answered "We respect the Ministers it is the
minister at when we laugh."23 The incident shows one more character-
istic of llaury, as well as, to a lesser degree, the entire clery; he

would employ any argument to gain his cause.

 

20. log” 13 janvier, 1790; no. 13; p. 51.

21. I_[_b_:_l__d_.., dn lO novembre, 1789; no. 88; p-353
22. Ibid., 25 janvier, 1790; no. 25; ,p. 100.
23. £313., 12 aoflt, 1790; no. 221;; p. 925.

101

Henry was surprised only once in his legislative career. 0n
llarch 21;, 1790, he spoke in favor of a hospital, apparently to be
public and not under religious supervision. This last was a rare
stand for the abbe, and he was rewarded by applause and passage
of the act.2h ,

The abbé' s position, in the political realm, was perhaps strongest
when he was speaking on economics. He Opposed the nationalization of
the goods of the Church on more than one basis, but one of his best
and most telling was his attitude toward capitalists. Once again he
made ansomewhat accurate prophesy when he told the Assmbly that the
seizure would add nothing to the "welfare of the country, but that
those lands would ultimately pass into the hands of a few greedy capitalists
who would be less generous with their spoils than the clergy were."25
It is an interesting side-note to history that this debate was answered
by Dupont de Nuours. From todw's viewpoint it seems strange that
the extreme riglt declares against the capitalists, but when the period
is considered, it is not strange that the privileged should challenge .
the new bourgeois who were rising to supplant then. lost of the riglt,
althougl probably not clearly understanding Maury' s argument, for it
took as its basis future events, supported him nevertheless.

llaury and his rightist clergy stood firmly on the side of continued
nobility. In the debate above he pointed out that, in relation to
the nationalisation of goods, "The people . . . will exercise on you all
the rights that you are now exercising upon us; it will also assert

#

2h. Ibid., 26 mars, 1790; no. 85; p. 3116-7.

25. H. Walsh, Concordat of 1801, p. 10h; see also Moniteur,
20 decembre, 1789; mm; p. 1:88.

102

that it is the nation."26g Maury had thus drawn the line between
bourgeois and proletariat, and, in recomiaing that they were not the
populace, he haped the bourgeois would realize that the nobility (of
which Maury fancied himself) was also an entity whose riglts had to
be respected. He went on to warn than that it was dangerous to make
martyrs, for the ' good bloold would out' and the bourgeois would learn
the superiority of the nobles. It must have been heartbreaking for this
man to be snubbed by royalty because of his low birth when he was later
in exile from the excesses of the Revolution. 27

Henry and the right had definite and constructive ideas as to '
the solution of the state debt. Naturally enough for the noble class,
they wished the abolition of the right of entrée (customs within the
country) and of aides (a tax on producer and consumer of wines and ciders)
which hampered the comerce of the country, and favored making up the
difference by increasing octrois (taxes levied on goods coming into
town). Overlooking this last inconsistency llaury's proposals were
generally sound. Describing them he says, ”I don't propose to do what
has been done so often, to destroy without replacing; I propose, on
the contrary, replacing the abolished land tax with a tax on 1u1nry."28

llaury and the clerical right were extremely insistent on the
riglts of the king. He, from his history, concluded that executive and
Judicial powers were combined. As only the Judicial power, and not
the executive, were under the scope of the National Assembly, he advocated
that the people elect three judges, one of whom would be chosen by the

 

26. Mgr. Ricard, Corres ndence di omati e et [wires inedits
du Cardinal 17 - e, I, p. x-vi - x-vii as
quoted inlr. s , oncor t of 1801, p. 101;.

27. He Walsh, Concordat of 1801; p. 1.05.

28. loniteur, 20 janvier, 1790; no. 133 P. 79.

103

king. "This choice ought to be a means of ”game the people from
its own errors."29 Haury argued, or at least used the ornament, whether
from his convictions or not, that the King ought to have an absolute
veto. His reasoning maintained that the King and Assmnbly were co-
legislators, and that the Legislature had a veto in that they didn't
have to initiate a decree. In order to prevent tyramw, therefore, »
the King should also have such absolute veto power. "I think; I say,
thatitisyourinterest, becauseitisnotthecause ofthekingthat
I defend; it is yours; it is mine; it is to your interest that the
absolute veto be left with the king. "30

As regards minority rights Maury, supported by the riglt, was far
from tolerant. All non-Catholics were to be given nearly complete
freedom on motions by Brunet and Duport on Decuber 23, 1789. The
motion was defeated has to hos.”- Thus Hairy could not be with his
accustomed small minority. laury in January, 1790, tried to mend a
motion that carried full rights for Jews in certain areas by inserting
the word 'provisionally'. This was one of the cases where he came into
debate with Grégoire, who ammded the same motion to include many more
Jews in the freedom-receiving areas. Both amendments failed.32 Iaury's
principlfl emouse was, and he was backed up, in general, by the ridlt,
that the Jews were not a sect, but a nation, and as such, they could
not be French. He also called them poor soldiers, here bringing
religious holidays as his chief argument.” As to the Neg-see, Maury

 

29. gig“ 7 mai, 1790; no. 127; p. 512.

30. $351., du 2 an 3 septembre, 1789; no. 50; p. 208.
31. 31113., 2h décenbre, 1789; no. 121:; p. 501;.

32. Ibid., 30 janvier, 1790; no. 30; p. 119.

33. Ibid., 23 dice-bra, 1789; no. 123; p. 500.

1011.

suggested making them allies, not subjects. They were to be counted
in the censuse3"

a motion (Gregoire's) was up to require all holders of benefices
to be either French or naturalised and a citizen for at least ten
months. It was amended so that archbishops and bishops who did not
choose to remain at their posts would be suspended. Maury rashly
stormed all over the tribune, and shouted about the deadly work of
suspending bishops and archbishops.35 As was said before, lam-y took

his stand fimly against am kind of republican oath. When he was
called on to swear the oath to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy he

proposed an amendment which had two objects.

The first to maintain the peace; the second to stop this slander of
people which, instead of getting the authors in trouble, gets its
victims into it. In order to accomplish these two objects, I move
that the National Assembly decree that this decree Swuring of the
oath be executed only after sixty years.

The state, on November 7, 1789 had ordered an inventory of all Church
goods that were to be taken by the decree. Maury pointed out that
it would be useless, for “no one is any longer interested in the con-
servation of our lands , the titutaries of which are today dependent on
”1313'?

Grégoire and Maury did ages on one thing, the state should not
lower its ecclesiastical pensions. llaury voted that the state was
not to touch pensions at all.38 Later he protested because the state
had not paid for the goods they had confiscated some time before. In
neither case did he amass his entire ideas, being interrupted by the
catcalls from the left.”

 

Bite 1533., 29 mars, 1790; no. 833 Po 362.

35. Ibid., du 7 an 9 novembre, 1789; no. 86; p. 352.
36. gig” 6 janvier, 1791; no. 6, p. 22.

37. Ibid., do 7 an 9 novembre; 1789; no. 86; p. 350.
38. REL, l janvier, 1790; no. 1; p. h.

39. Ibid., 9 senteubre. 1790: no. 252: o. 101:1.

[Henry's later life was spent fellowing a course evenhmore devious
than in the Revolution. He went to Home, where he stayed till 1796,
then leaving because of the French War. He was appointed Cardinal-
ArchbishOp of Nicea,in;partibus. when.he left Home, it was to go to
Venice, disguised as a cart-driver. He was against Napoleon.from.his
first moment of power, and‘became known.as the "Pope's ambassador to
the pretended king of France.” Sensing, however, that Napoleon was
tobe thenext god, andnotLouis XVIII, in180hhewrotehimacon-
ciliatory letter. Napoleon had.bim made a cardinal and appointedihhm
first chaplain to Jerome. French society, however, refused to recognize
him. In 1810 Napoleon secured for him the Archbishopric of Paris.

This man who had cried so loudly against the Civil Constitution
accepted it without the Pope's sanction. In.1815, seeing that his
protector was to tumble, Maury crawled to Home and.tried to justify
himself. But his ambition had caught up with bin. He was convicted
brtthe junta, and spent the rest of his life writing.ho

This sketch is inadequate for drawing llaury's religious convictions.
It can only be surmised what his ideas were. From.this sketch, however,
it is possible to see what the right'ling of the Catholic Church was
in the first period of the Revolution.

Henri Grégoire, of whom Larousse says "constituent, Conventional
montagnard, constitutional bishOp of Blois, erudite, maber of the
Institute, born at Veho, near Lunéviue December 1.. 1750. died in 1831,""1
was the outstanding religious figure of the Revolution. Gregoire was
from a very poor family, and.he early showed a scholastic bent. He

 

m. P. Larousse, Grands Dictionnaire Universel, I, 1366.
Us Ibid., VIII, 1051.

106

became a professor at the college of Pont-a'dlonsson, where he was
found often to be delving into the boobs. In 1772 he was rewarded

by the Acadw of Nancy for his M 93 3.3 295.2. Shortly thereafter
he was appointed cure of hbermesnil, and he spent his time at his
duties or studying. In 1788 he published Egg-a; _s_u__r _l_._§ reg ration
m 93 525113 EM’ in which he deplored the place of the

Jews in Europe and established himself as one of the Church's leading
liberal thinkers. The scan won for him another academic palm, this

time from the Academy of lets. He early became noted for his liberalism,
as well as his knowledge and philanthropy. He was elected to the
States-General from his home bailliage. Once there, his first act

was to assist in the formation of the tennis court oath.“2 Mary of
Grégoire's ideas have been taken up when dealing with the events of

the Revolution. These will not be repeated emcept where they are

extremely important. . a. ,1 . M , _

If Maury started on the wrong foot with the Assembly immediately,
Grégoire was certainly off to a good start. After assisting in the
Tennis Court oath, Gregoire was among the very first priests who
voluntarily acceded to the danands of the third estate and who took
his place among them. First and format among the tenets of the,
Church of Gregoire was nationalsn. At times this went so far that it
seued the Church was France but Gregoire, in time of stress, held
very firm to his puritanical religious ideas.

On July 1h, 1789 he recomended "that a committee be formd to
find out and reveal. all the ministerial crimes, in order to denounce

m

’42. Ibid., VIII, 1501
)5. Moniteur, du 13 au 15 juillet, 1789; no. 18; p. 79.

107

to France the authors of the ill which was afflicting the country,

and then to set up Judicial forms in order to deliver the guilty to the
rigors of the land-‘3 This early-expressed nationalism was with bill
throughout his stay in the National Assubly and. the Convention, and
was to be his peculiar quality in the Council of Five-hundred, the
Legislative Corps and in the Senate of the hpire. In the Convention
we find Grégoire praising various acts of patriotism, saying that all
types of patriotism are but different types of virtue. A. comittee

was created to list all the types of virtue that the J acobine had
shown, and Gregoire was put at its headem‘

It was early in the Constituhnt Assaubly that Gregoire began to
show up as a thinking leader, and not just an absolute revolutionist.
On the night of August 14 Grégoire ruained the most level-headed,
an amazing fact when one realized what a republican this man was.

He offered a nation that niglt to abolish the systan of priisogenitnre.
But his greatest work on the fourth was to remind the people who were
proclaiming a bill of riglts in great ecstasy that there could be no
rights without duties, that one must go with the other, and the balance
in equilibrium“; He reiterated this two weeks later, saying,

Man has not been thrown into his corner of the earth which he occupies
by chance. If he has riglts, we must speak of those which he has; if
he has duties it is necessary to recall those which are prescribed

for him. What we more august, more great could we place at the head
of the declaration than that of the divinity, this name which is

retained in all nature, in every heart, that we find fitten on file
earth, and that our eyes fix upon ever in the heavens.

Grégoire' s position on issues of retirasent and salary would have
10. Honiteur, du 13 an 15 juillet, 1789; no. 18; p. 79.

Mi. Ibid., 29 septembre, 1793; no 2723 p. 1151;.

15. Ibid., dn 3 on u soi’it, 1789; no. 33; p. 138-9.

1:6. Ibid., du 17 an 19 seat, 1789; no 1.2; p. 175.

108

made even a modern trade uniozdst happy. He moved that after twenty-
five years service, an ecclesiastic ougit to be able to retire on full
pay. His motion was lost, the feeling being that a clergyman ouglt not
to quit his functions till absolutely unable to continue.” In the
salary debate, a member had said that cures could not lead a 'good
life if favored with fortune' such as the 1200 livres ainim would
give than. Grégoire hastened to say that “the curse disavow what has
Just been said." He and Gouttes then campaigned for a raise in the p . .
country parish stipend, especially for those with very few parishioniers; ,
as their parishes were the most spread out. But the Revolution was
not yet ready for unionism - nor for the rights of priestth8

Grégoire, and the thinking left or center clergy, such as Gouttes,
felt very bad about the peasant insurrections which were to go on
througlout the Revolution. They seemed to feel that to succeed, the
Revolution met establish democracy, and to establish it meant cooperation
of both the peasants and the proletariat. The means taken on February 9,
1790: by the Assenbly to combat these rebellions were (1) That the
King give the necessary executive orders to carry out the decree of
10 August 1789. (This ratified the changes made on the fourth.)

(2) That the president write to municipalities that force will be .
used to quell agitation. Gregoire felt that this was too harsh and

would only stir up more trouble. He took the floor saying:

It would seen to me useful to engage the curés, numbers of this asseably,
to write to their brethern, in order that the country cures will know
the true interpretation of the decrees of the Assmbly. They may then
persuade the papulace to execute these decrees by all 1:35 confidences
which they, as sacred ministers, have invested in then. .

 

has Ibid., 22 3m, 17903 nos 1733 P0 Two
1'30 Ibid., 18 jun: 717903 00- 1693 De 690-91e
We Ibide, 9 tamer, 17”; We ’42; PO 1670

109

Althougi the abbe Maury voted against Gregoire' s anendnent, he was not
in favor of the Assenbly' s measures, but more stringent ones against
the peasants. A
Grégoire' s proposals for pulling France from the economic hole
she was in were to simplify the laws and educate the people. He
favored putting up a nodel farm in each department, to be mm with

scientific methods, as an example and an aid to the farmer's desperate
plight.50 On August 7, 1793, Gr‘goire, then minister of education,

moved for the abolition of all literary societies. His notion stated
that they were 'useless institutions' and that all of then would be
reorganized. Unfortunately, only the suppression section of his act
passed the Convention.51 . '

To the riglts of the king, Gregoire, Gouttes, Jallet, and the
entire left clerg were always entirely opposed. Even spealdng of
history, Crégoire could take none of the power of goodness of kings.
When Barrere, in a talk on royalty in August, 1793, called Louis III
the "father of the people“ Gregoire imediately said such a statement
about a lung nest be untrue and should be eliminated from the record. 52
Orégoire considered it dangerous even to have a 'king' s nemoire' read

to an assaubly. He felt that it miglt influence the opinion of the
Assembly, and to do that was undemocratic and tyrannical. 53

It has been mentioned that Grégoire and Mary were unalterably
apposed on the Jewish question. Perhaps being in Alsace, where the

Jews had some liberty, but were being constantly persecuted, gave
Grégoire his liberal view. However he acquired it, it was a deep

”

50. Ibid., Octodi, decade de brunaire, II; no. be; p. 196.
51. Ibid., 9 aofit, 1793; no. 221; 1). 91¢.

52. Ibid., 3 aofit, 1793; no. 2153 p. 917.
53. Ibid., du 8 an 12 septembre, 1789; no. 55; p. 227.

110

conviction. Speaking on August 3 of the first year of the Revolution:
Ltheabbseregoirepronounoedthevimoftbeeuresofhisbanliage;
he made a list of the terrible persecutions which had Just been mind
towards the Jews in Alsace; he said that, as minister of a religion
which regards all men as brothers, he met demand the intervention of

the power of the Assembly in favor of a people so proscribed and so
unfortunate.

He also went further than laury on the Negro question, declaring that

all Negroes should be equal citizens. One of his worlm was 2e; _l_£_l
litterature _d_eg m (1808).55 _

He was very short with the ecclesiastics who left the country,
disposing of then in one sentence: "The abbé Grdgoire demands the
impounding of the revenues of all beneficiaries who are absent from
the kingdom without sufficient reason. .. 55

Gregoire Joined the Jacobin Party shortly after coming to Paris.
He was a republican then and he remained so until the end of his life.
Instead of trasbling in obedience to despots, he said, “We ouglt to
reclain with courage all the progatives of the sovereignty of the
people, when that sovereignty is found again. All men are not yet
philosophic enough, instructed enough in order to know their. ridnts,
it is necessary that the custom of each day be sent to then."57
In other words, Grdgoire was so democratic that he was willing to
foist desocracy upon a peOple who were not yet reach to receive it. But
in training the people to receive it, he did not believe in dictator-
ship or oppression, as did his party, and as the Terror became more

stringent Grégoire withdrew from the active ranks of the J acobins ,

 

Sh. Ib___i__d., du 1 er en 3 aout, 1789; no. 32, p. 135.

55. For an exposition of Gregoire's ideas on Negroes, see Le Honiteur,
19 Jmerg 1790, me 19; Fe 750

56. Honiteur, 1 Janvier, 1790; no. 1; p. h. .
57. Ibid., 30 decembre, 17893 no. 130; p. 528.

111

though remaining on the left. ‘

The act of Gregoire of wearing full sacerdotal robes on the
tribune of the Convention and refusing to surrender his hishopric‘s
seat is as stirring a tale as can ever be told. Compared with De , .

Salmon's lies and Maury's voluntary exile, it stands as a beacon for
those wishing to honor their religion. But it must be rusembered that

there were new in the papal party and in the extreme right who did
not run, and who lost their heads for staying in France. After he

had left the Jacobin Party, one of the members said about a measure
preposed by Grégoire, "the demand is excellent, but it is irritating

to see it made by a nan who wished to Christianise the Revolution,
and who pretended that Jesus Christ had prephesied that there would
be Jacqbins."58

Gregoire was perfectly willing to let the Church lose its temporal
privileges, but the persons of the clerg were not to be at all suppressed.
He, at the first sign of popular animosity to the clergy, came to the
defense of his profession. He held out the example of the clergy
working in their flocks - the format constructive force in France.
He asked, for the success of the Revolution, that the "Assembly take
precautions to place in safety the deputies of the alarm of whom you
have declared the person to be inviolable and sacred."59

The Civil Constitution bestowed the governing of' a diocese upon
a council composed of the bishop and a few around bin, chosen because.

of their offices. Gregoire, always loyal to democracy, and trusting in
it explicitly, maintained that cures ouglt to have a strong voice

58. Ibid., 27 brunaire, II; no. 573 p. 229.
59. Ibid., du 5 an 8 octobre, 1789; no. 68; p. 280.

112

in the goverment of the diocese. He asked that the four cure/s who
were to be on the council be elected by a vote of the cures in the district.60
On July 1, 1793: he expressed somewhat the same idea by asking that

episcopal vicars (those in a church in the city where the bishop was
located) be suppressed, and their places on the council be taken by

cards. This suppression was needed because of the very great need for
cures. Even though Gregoire was a bishOp at that time, he realised
the greatest force for good in the country was the cures.“-

0n the date of the abolition of orders, February 12, 1790,
Gregoire came to the defense of the brotherhoods. He stated that

although the monks are not absolutely necessary for agriculture and

‘ science, they certainly were useful to it. He concluded that "it
would be impossible and dangerous to suppress entirely the ecclesiastical
establishments."62 In the debates on the nationalisation of Church
lands, Gregoire gave some leads as to his notions regarding Church
versus state. He opened his arguments by refuting Maury, who had
claimed that church goods were irredeuable, by saying

The clerg is not preprietary, it is only dispensational: if it takes
more than is necessary, it is a real sacrilege against the canons.

But the nation is not proprietary over all goods ... it cannot dispose
... of those of families ... of the parishes ... of the provinces.

... However, in spite of these observations, the principle is always

that the nation can reclaim the goods to their true destination, and
change the method of their administration. But if it is necess to

take the revenues in the coffers of the provinces, who shall pay e
13:11. 222:: Eirtfliefii’fiiefi‘é‘d” '1“ “n“ “ W °‘ mm
In the first meeting of the Convention, Gregoire voted in favor
of the motion to abolish royalty. “Kings are in the moral order what
monsters are in the physical; the courts are the workshops of crime,
60. Ibid., 9 juin, 1790; no. 160; p. 653.
61. Ibid., 2 Juillet, 1793; no.183; p. 789,
62. £213., 13 février, 1790; no. 1th; p. 176.

63. Ibid., dn 22 au 26 octobre, 1789; no. 77; p. 315.

113

the foyer of corruption; the history of kings is the martyrdom of

mtions."6h When the vote was taken Gregoire was 'on mission' , but
he erased the words ' to death', in connection with the punishment of

Louis.65 He was later accused of having voted for the death of the
king. He repudiated the entire letter as a forgery, however.66

is he had defied the Jacobins in the Convention, later defied A
Napoleon by voting against the establishment of the imperial govern-
ment. He was alone in the Senate against the re-establishment of
nobility. Grégoire once said to the Due do Richelieu, “I a as granite,
they may break me, but they can never bond no.“_ He was called "Head of
Iron" by Michelet. In 1822 he renounced his title of 'Comander of ‘

the Legion of Honor' which he had received in the hpire. The accept-
ance of this title is the only record we have of a violation of

Gr‘goire's strict conscience. .
When he was ready to receive absolution on his deathbed, the
ArchbishoP of Paris refused it unless he should recent and disavow
the oath he had taken to support the Civil constitution of the olergv.67
Gregoire, who had said, "By the grace of God I shall die a good
Catholic and a good republican,"68 did not recant. Abbi Guillon dis-
obeyed the prelate, but GrEgoire was not buried in the Church. After
the July Revolution, however, a service was held for Iii-.69 .
Grégoire' s theology seemed to embody a return to primitive Christianity,
without the accunllated doctrines of the Church. Grégoire believed
that he was the modern spirit of J ansenisn. But against the Pope,

 

61;. P. Larousse, Grands Dictionnaire Universal, VIII, 1502.

65. William Gibson, "The Abbé Gregoire and the French Revolution”,
Nineteenth Century, HIIV (August, 1893) p. 278.

66. H. Walsh, The Concordat of 1801, p. 127.

67. P. Larousse, Grands Dictionnaire Universal, VIII, 1502.
68. H. Walsh, Concordat of 1801, p. 126.

69. P. Larousse, Grands Dictionnaire Universal, VIII, 1502.

he went too far by completely repudiating him, while the Jansenists

of the Revolution (Jabineau) never would nullify the right of Rome
to govern the Church temporally. Thus these who considered themselves

Jansenists in the Revolution were split badly. arégoirets following
failed to live up to Revolutionary J ansenisn in one other wm While

the original Jansenists were. against both Pope and King on theological
principles, the Church of arégoire aligned itself with the state and

accepted nationalism as one of its doctrines.70

 

70. H. Walsh, Concordat of 1801, p. 123.15 2a_ssim.

115

VII Conclusions

The movement from Roman Catholic Supremacy on May 5, 1789 to
the Worship of the Supreme Being on June 8, 1791: is one of the most
interesting sections of all religious history. How could such a
change take place? One possible solution is that of Lulard, who
feels that the French people, including the peasants, were never
really religious. To arrive at such a conclusion, it would sen
he had started with a preconceived fact: The Catholic Church .was
eliminated in five years. From such a basis he discovers that the
hold of Catholicism was not deeply imbedded in the French people.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The French peasants were
thoroughly Catholic, and the rebellion against the suppression of
their curés is proof enough of such a position. It is true the _
peasants did allow certain actions to be taken in the suppression of
the Church of France in 1789. But what were they: (1) Suppression
of Church dines and similar oppressive taxes, (2) Nationalization of
Church goods and lands, (3) Suppression of annates and the limitation
of papal authority, (h) Augnentation of the portion congrue.

A cursory listing of these changes reveals the fact that not
one was in any way destructive of the Catholic religion. They were,
to the contrary, measures which any good GaJlican Catholic could, and
perhaps should, support. With the exception of the limitation of
papal authority, none of them even touches on dogma, and all of then
result in greater well-being for the peasants and the cores. The
curs held the heard of the peasant, the bishop did not. Whal measures

which did not affect dogma were enacted, and when those measures were
directed against the high clergy, the peasants did not object.

The real cause of the fall of Catholicism was the bishops and the
other hierarchy. They had for years been responsible for the condition
of the Church in France, corrupted and temporal. And these same bishops
were the leaders in the fight against the suppression of the temporal
power in Hence. The lower clerg and, through them, the French people,
were not alarmed, and were probably glad, that the first steps toward
the elimination of graft and inequality had been taken. It was the
existence of the hierarchy which allowed the high clergyr to incite the
lower and the people to rebellion against the acts of state, and there
was no significant religious revolt until 1791 after the promulgation
of the Civil Constitution.

Gregoire believed that these rebellions came in ignorance of the
decrees of the national Assembly,1 and, if the people had understood
the decrees, no rebellion would have matured. The upper 'clergy were
not defending Catholicism, but the corrupted hierarchy of which they
were a part. If the French peasants did not completely support their
bishops, it was not because they were not Catholic, but because they
realized that the hierarchial system was not necessary to the Catholic
religion, but only to the Catholic Church.

It is this that caused the severe cleft in the Church. Maury was
supporting the bishops in their temporal and hierarchial glory, while
Gregoire was supporting a Catholic theology in which temporal possessions
were not necessary. It was not realized, however, that by instituting

the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, a new Church pattererned upon

 

1. H. M. Stephens, French Revolution, I, 1176.

117

Grégoire's ideas could come into existence; the Civil Constitution was
looked on only as a means of controlling a Church such as Henry's. The
resistance against the Civil Constitution assured the eclipse of‘

both factions.

Even spiritually, both factions came near to dbliteration, for the
Gre/goires were far fewer than the Cobels in the constitutional Church,
and the haurys outnumbered the nnerys in the non-juring branch. Napo-
leon was to revive Maury's Church and set it working. Gregoire's
Church.has nct'yet been reconstituted, but the spirit is'by no means
dead. ‘ ,

Gregoire 's adaptation of the Catholic Church was that it should be
a Church'with its original pure doctrines. He then believed that it
'would.be possible to translate these doctrines into actions by'mcdern
methods without succumbing to the religion of rationalism. The great
faith in democracy that Gregoire had did not come because of the theories
of Voltaire, Diderot, or Rousseau. That faith came as a result of the
knowledge, to Gregoire, that a democratic government is the way in
'which the pure doctrines of Christianity, if applied to eighteenth
century France, would.be worked out. I

Our intellectual and religious history since the French Revolution
has been one of this broad fight between rationalism and Christianity.
The outcome, as yet, is clouded in darkness and in the distant future.
The weakness of the Church in.taking the part of Christianity stems from
two reasons: (1) It has adopted the policy of’Maury, or (2) It has
adopted the policy of the citizen Doche2 (who abjured religion for
'thcught') or Gdbel. The strength of the Church, as the defender of

 

2. See above, p. 87.

118

Christianity, lies in its adoption of the policies of Gre’goire.

In the Hench Revolution, then, it would seem that it was not
the indifference of the peasantry which caused the lack of resistance,
but the complete lack of ability, on the part of the prelates and
leaders, to reconcile modern times to the Christian doctrine. There
were no prelates who followed Gregoire into the Civil Constitution of
the Glory except the five men of Cobel's type. The rest, refusing
to recognise that the Church's temporal possessions and power are not
her strength, but her weakness, rallied to the defense or the rights
of the Church which were twporally given and temporally held.

119

1.

Bl BLIOGRAPHI

Primary Sources.

Gazette Nationals on Is Moniteur universel. This daily newspaper,
published in Faris,fihas been the chief source of this paper.
It contains daily proceedings of the National Assemblies
(including Conventions). It is not a proces-verbal, and the
views of the author can frequently be found in the debates.
It is a pro-Revolutionary paper, being on the far left
throughout the turmoil. Its first issue was published on
November 214, 1789, but has since reconstructed papers in
the same style dating back to May S, 1789. In the year IV,
a 250 page Introduction historicLue was added. It is
invaluable for background and events leading to the Revolution.

 

‘u‘arhitcomb, Merrick, ed., Typical Cahiers of 1789 (3rd ed.,
Philadelphia, 1901) is number five of volume four of the
series Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources
of European History published by the History ITepariznent o?-
the University of Pennsylvania. It contains the first and
second estate chhiers of Blois, and third estate cahier of
versaineSe

 

 

Secondary Works and Background Material.
Prior to the Revolution

Champion, Lame, La France d'apres les Cahiers de 1789, (cinquieme
edition, Paris,71.97217. Champion used the Aral-hes parlementare
as his source of cahiers. His chapter on religion, although
valuable, is not integrated or digested by the author.

 

 

Lavisse, Ernest, ed., Histoire de France, Illustree depius les
origines sqp'd E revolution (Paris, 191D. 's seventeen
volume war is invaluable to an understanding of the development
in France. The style is easy and the material is concisely
stated. It has an excellent index volume.

 

Lowell, Edward J., The Eve of the French Revolution (Boston, 1920).
This work, first published in1392, is the best short account
of the events bearing on the Revolution that is available .

 

Stryienski, Casimir, The Eighteenth Century (New York, n. d.).

 

This book was not valuable to the study.

Taine, Hippolyte Ado he, The Ancient Regime (trans. by John Durand,
New York, 1876 . Taine has a huge storehouse of facts available,
though sometimes hidden behind the narrative expository style.
His is, somewhat, a glorifyer of the ancient regime, but that
does not keep him from being critical of the Church.

120

Voltaire, Francois Marie, Letters on the English, contained in
Harvard Classics, vol. 3h: French aniEnglish Philosophers
(New York, 1910), 63-162. Voltaire in these ‘Letters' was
at his best in anti-Catholic thought.

 

"n'z‘hite, Andrew, "The Statesmanship of Turgot", Atlantic Monthl
vol. 97 (February and March, 1906), 176 and 350.

Background in the Revolution.

Adam, Adolphe, "The Feast of the Supreme Being, 1791i", Littel's
LiE'gg Age, vol. 112 (August 23, 1879), h7o.

Binsse, Henry B. , "Martyrs of the French Revolution", Catholic
World, vol. 126 (November, 1927), 17s. This is a s'to'ry of
the September 2, 1792 massacres.

Brinton, Clarence Crane, The Jacobins= an Essay in the New History
(New York, 1930).

Brinton, Clarence Crane, "The Membership of Jacobin Clubs",
American Historical Review, vol. 31; (July, 1929), 7&0.

Brinton, Clarence Crane, A Decade of Revolution (New York, 1931;).
Brinton's work is part—03'r Wfllimeger‘s Rise of Modern
Euroge. It contains an excellent bibliographical essay on
the rench Revolution.

Conry, Names P., "In 'Red' September, 1792", Catholic World, vol. 126
(September, 1928), 727. The story of the September massacres.

 

de Courson, Barbara, "The French Clergy During the Reign of Terror",
American Catholic cunt-tog Review, vol. 32 (October, 1907), 577.
This article concernsfithe persecutions sustained by the clergy.

Lincoln, C. H. , "The Cahiers of 1789 as an Evidence of a C romise
Spirit", American Historical Review, II (January, 1897 , 225.

Hadelin, 001113, The French Revolution (translator not given, New
York, 1926). One of T‘unch-Brentano's The National History
of Frame, it has valuable bibliography at the end of each
chapter.

 

Stephens, H. Horse, 1} mstory of the French Revolution, vols. I and II
(New York, 1886). Stephens goes into the social and cultural
history more than do most historians of the period. His book
is particularly good because of his attention to the person-
alities with whom he is dealing.

 

Tame, Hippolyte Adolphe, The French Revolution, 2 volumes (trans.
by Hahn Durand, New Ydrk, 1878).

 

121

 

Thiers Louis Adopphe, The History of the French Revolution, h vols.
(trans. by Frederick ShEEerl, 3rdemerican ed., Philadelphia,
18h? .

Thompson, E. Perronet, "A French Protestant During the Revolution:
Rabant Saint—Etienne", Littel's Living Age, vol. 185 (April 12,
1890), 102.

 

 

vandam_ Albert D. "1793-1893", Fortnightly Review, vol. Sh (n.s.)
(September 1, 1893), 377.

Catholicism in the Revolution.

Anon., "Religion Under the French Revolution", Edinburgh Review
vol. 203 (January, 1906), 33. Good treatment of the Ci$ii”
Constitution and its consequences through the use of selected
French source books.

Aulard Francois V. A., Christianitygand the French Revolution
trans. by Lady Frazer, Boston, 1927). AfilardTEere attempts
to show that there is no strong adherence to Christianity in
France. His sketch of the religious events of the Revolution
is very complete.

 

 

de Courson, Barbara. "Some Recently Beatified Martyrs", American
Catholic Quarterly'Review; vol. 32 (April, 1907), 3 .
Provides insight into the Papal Catholics' attitude through
the Carmelite nuns.

de Courson, Barbara, "The Story of a Papal Envoy During the Reign
of Terror", American Catholic Quarterly Review, vol. 33
(January, 1908), 65.

Gibson, William, "The Abbe Gregoire and the French Revolution",
Nineteenth Century, vol. 3h.(August, 1893), 272. A
sympathétic treatment of the constitutional clergyman.

 

Robinson, James H., Review of Sebastien Charléty, Departement du
Rhone, Documents relatifs a la vente des Biens nationaug,
American historical Review, XII (January, 1907), 373.

 

Sampson, Donat, Pius VI and the French Revolution, Published serially,
American Catholig‘QuafterEy.Review, vols. 31 and 32 (1906-1907),
first part vol. 31, p. 220.

 

Walsh, Henry H., The Concordat of 1801: a Studymof the Problem.of
Nationalism.in.the Relations offChurch and’State (New York,
1933). This woflc contained valuable FKapters on both Liaury
and GrégOireo

 

122