French Revolution

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

The last thirty years have given us a new version of the history of the French Revolution, the most diverse and hostileschools having contributed to it. Thephilosopher, Taine, drew attention to the affinity between the revolutionary and what he calls the classic spirit, that is, the spirit of abstraction which gave rise toCartesianism and produced certain masterpieces of French literature. Moreover he admirably demonstrated the mechanism of the local revolutionary committees and showed how a daring Jacobin minority was able to enforce its will as that of "the people". Following up this line of researchM. Augustin Cochin has quite recently studied the mechanism of thesociétés de pensée in which the revolutionarydoctrine was developed and in which were formed men quite prepared to put thisdoctrine into execution.

The influence offreemasonry in the French Revolution proclaimed by Louis Blanc and byfreemasonry itself isproved by the researches ofM. Cochin. Sorel has brought out the connection between the diplomacy of the Revolution and that of the old regime. His works prove that the Revolution did not mark a break in the continuity of the foreign policy ofFrance. The radically inclined historicalschool, founded and led by M. Aulard, has published numerous useful documents as well as the review, "La Révolution Française". Two years since, aschism occured in thisschool, M. Mathiez undertaking opposition to M. Aulard the defence of Robespierre, in consequence of which he founded a new review "Les Annales Révolutionaires". The "Société d'histoire contemporaine", founded underCatholic auspices, has published a series of texts bearing on revolutionary history. Lastly the works of Abbé Sicard have revealed in theclergy who remained faithful toRome various tendencies, some legitimist, others more favourable to the new political forms, a new side of the history of the Frenchclergy being thus developed.

Such are the most recent additions to the history of the French Revolution. This article, however, will emphasize more especially the relations between the Revolution and theChurch (seeF).

Meeting of the estates

The starting point of the French Revolution was the convocation of the States General by Louis XVI. They comprised three orders, nobility,clergy, and the third estate, the last named being permitted to have as many members as the two other orders together. The electoral regulation of 24 January, 1789, assured theparochialclergy a large majority in the meetings of thebailliages which were to electclerical representatives to the States General. While chapters were to send to these meetings only a single delegate for ten canons, and eachconvent only one of its members, all the curés were permitted to vote. The number of the "order" ofclergy at the States General exceeded 300, among whom were 44prelates, 208 curés, 50 canons and commendatoryabbots, and somemonks. Theclergy advocated almost as forcibly as did the Third Estate the establishment of a constitutional government based on the separation of the powers, the periodical convocation of the States General, their supremacy in financial matters, the responsibility ofministers, and the regular guarantee of individual liberty. Thus thetrue and great reforms tending to the establishment of liberty were advocated by theclergy on the eve of the Revolution. When the Estates assembled 5 May, 1789, the Third Estate demanded that the verification of powers should be made in common by the three orders, the object being that the Estates should form but one assembly in which the distinction between the "orders" should disappear and where every member was to have a vote. Scarcely a fourth of theclergy advocated this reform, but from the opening of the Estates it was evident that the desired individual voting which would give the members of the Third Estate, the advocates of reform, an effectual preponderance.

As early as 23 May, 1789, the curés at the house of theArchbishop ofBordeaux were of the opinion that the power of the deputies should be verified in the general assembly of the Estates, and when on 17 June the members of the Third Estate proclaimed themselves the "National Assembly", the majority of theclergy decided (19 June) to join them. As the higherclergy and the nobility still held out, the king caused the hall where the meetings of the Third Estate were held to be closed (20 June), whereupon the deputies, with their president, Bailly, repaired to the Jeu de Paume and anoath was taken not to disband till they had providedFrance with a constitution. After Mirabeau's thundering speech (23 June) addressed to the Marquis de Dreux-Brézé, master-of-ceremonies to Louis XVI, the king himself (27 June) invited the nobility to join the Third Estate. Louis XVI's dismissal of the reforming minister, Necker, and the concentration of the royal army aboutParis, brought about the insurrection of 14 July, and the capture of the Bastille. M. Funck-Brentano has destroyed the legends which rapidly arose in connection with the celebrated fortress. There was no risingen masse of the people ofParis, and the number of the besiegers was but a thousand at most; only sevenprisoners were found at the Bastille, four of whom were forgers, one a young man guilty of monstrous crimes and who for the sake of hisfamily was kept at the Bastille that he might escape thedeath penalty, and two insaneprisoners. But in the public opinion the Bastille symbolized royal absolutism and the capture of this fortress was regarded as the overthrow of the whole regime, and foreign nations attached great importance to the event. Louis XVI yielded before this agitation; Necker was recalled; Bailly became Mayor ofParis; Lafayette, commander of the national militia; the tri-colour was adopted, and Louis XVI consented to recognize the title of "National Constituent Assembly". Te Deums and processions celebrated the taking of the Bastille; in thepulpits the Abbé Fauchet preached the harmony of religion and liberty. As a result of the establishment of the "vote by order" the political privileges of theclergy may be considered to have ceased to exist.

During the night of 4 August, 1789, at the instance of the Vicomte de Noailles, the Assembly voted with extraordinary enthusiasm the abolition of all privileges andfeudalrights and the equality of allFrenchmen. A blow was thereby struck at the wealth of theclergy, but thechurchmen were the first to give an example of sacrifice. Plurality ofbenefices and annates was abolished and theredemption oftithes was agreed upon, but two days later, the higherclergy becoming uneasy, demanded another discussion of the vote which had carried theredemption. The result was the abolition, pure and simple, oftithes withoutredemption. In the course of the discussion Buzot declared that theproperty of theclergy belonged to the nation. Louis XVI'sconscience began to be alarmed. He temporized for five weeks, then merely published the decrees as general principles, reserving theright to approve or reject the measures which the Assembly would take to enforce them.

Declaration of the rights of man. Catholicism ceases to be the religion of the state

Before givingFrance a constitution the Assembly judged itnecessary to draw up a "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen", which should form a preamble to the Constitution. Camus's suggestion that to the declaration of therights of man should be added a declaration of hisduties, was rejected. The Declaration of Rights mentions in its preamble that it is made in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, but out of three of the articles proposed by theclergy, guaranteeing the respect due to religion and public worship, two were rejected after speeches by theProtestant, Rabaut Saint-Etienne, and Mirabeau, and the only article relating to religion was worded as follows: "No one shall be disturbed for his opinions, even religious, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established bylaw." In fact it was the wish of the Assembly thatCatholicism should cease to be the religion of the State and that liberty of worship should be established. It subsequently declaredProtestants eligible to all offices (24 Dec., 1789), restored to their possessions and status asFrenchmen the heirs ofProtestant refugees (10 July and 9 Dec., 1790), and took measures in favour of theJews (28 January, 26 July, 16 Aug., 1790). But it soon became evident in the discussions relating to the Civil Constitution of theclergy that the Assembly desired that theCatholicChurch, to which the majority of the French people belonged, should be subject to the State and really organized by the State.

The rumours that Louis XVI sought to fly to Metz and place himself under the protection of the army of Bouillé in order to organize a counter-revolutionary movement and his refusal topromulgate the Declaration of the Rights of Man, brought about an uprising inParis. The mob set out toVersailles, and amid insults brought back the king and queen toParis (6 Oct., 1789). Thenceforth the Assembly sat atParis, first at thearchiepiscopal residence, then at the Tuileries. At this moment theidea of taking possession of the goods of theclergy in order to meet financial exigencies began to appear in a number of journals and pamphlets. The plan of confiscating thisproperty, which had been suggested as early as 8 August by the Marquis de Lacoste, was resumed (24 Sept.) by theeconomist, Dupont de Nemours, and on 10 October was supported in the name of the Committee of Finances in a report which causedscandal by Talleyrand,Bishop ofAutun, who under the old regime had been one of the two "general agents" charged with defending the financial interests of the Frenchclergy. On 12 October Mirabeau requested the Assembly todecree (1) that the ownership of thechurch property belonged to the nation that it might provide for the support of the priests; (2) that the salary of each curé should not be less than 1200 livres. The plan was discussed from 13 October to 2 November. It was opposed the Abbé de Montesquieu, and the Abbé Maury, who contended that theclergy being a moralperson could be an owner, disputed the estimates placed upon the wealth of theclergy, and suggested that their possessions should simply serve as a guarantee for a loan of 400,000,000 livres to the nation. The advocates of confiscation maintained that theclergy no longer existed as an order, that theproperty was like an escheated succession, and that the State had aright to claim it, that moreover the Royal Government had never expressly recognized theclergy as a proprietor, that in 1749 Louis XV had forbidden theclergy to receive anything without the authority of the State, and that he had confiscated theproperty of theSociety of Jesus. Malouet took an intermediate stand and demanded that the State should confiscate only superfluousecclesiastical possessions, but that theparochialclergy should be endowed with land. Finally, on 2 November, 1789, the Assembly decided that the possessions of theclergy be "placed at the disposal" of the nation. The results of this vote were not long in following. The first was Treilhard's motion (17 December), demanding in the name of theecclesiastical committee of the Assembly, the closing of uselessconvents, and decreeing that the State should permit the religious to release themselves from theirmonasticvows.

The discussion of this project began in February, 1790, after the Assembly by the creation of assemblies of departments, districts, and commons, had proceeded to the administrative reorganization ofFrance. The discussion was again very violent. On 13 February, 1790, the Assembly, swayed by the more radical suggestions of Barnave and Thouret, decreed as a "constitutional article" that not only should thelaw no longer recognizemonasticvows, but thatreligious orders and congregations were and should remain suppressed inFrance, and that no others should be established in the future. After having planned a partial suppression of monastic orders the Assembly voted for their total suppression. The proposal of Cazalès (17 February) calling for the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, and the rightful efforts, made by the higherclergy to preventCatholics from purchasing the confiscated goods of theChurch provoked reprisals. On 17 March, 1790, the Assembly decided that the 400,000,000 livres worth of alienatedecclesiastical properties should be sold to municipalities which in turn should sell them to private buyers. On 14 April it decided that the maintenance ofCatholic worship should be provided for without recourse to the revenues of formerecclesiastical property and that a sufficient sum, fixed at more than 133,000,000 livres for the first year, should be entered in the budget for the allowances to be made to theclergy; on 17 April thedecree was passed dealing with theassignats, the papers issued by the Government paying interest at 5 per cent, and which were to be accepted as money in payment for theecclesial property, thenceforth called nationalproperty; finally, on 9 July, it was decreed that all thisproperty should be put up for sale.

Civil constitution of the clergy

On 6 February, 1790, the Assembly charged itsecclesiastical committee, appointed 20 Aug., 1789, and composed of fifteen members to prepare the reorganization of theclergy. Fifteen new members were added to the committee on 7 February. The "constituents" were disciples of the eighteenth centuryphilosophes who subordinated religion to the State; moreover, to understand their standpoint it is well to bear in mind that many of them were jurists imbued with Gallican and Josephistideas. Finally Taine hasproved that in many respects their religious policy merely followed in the footsteps of the old regime, but while the old regime protected theCatholicChurch and made it the church exclusive, recognized, the constituents planned to enslave it after having stripped it of its privileges. Furthermore they did not take into account that there are mixed matters that can only be regulated after an agreement withecclesiastical authority. They were especially incensed against theclergy after the consistorial address in whichPius VI (22 March, 1790) reproved some of the measures already taken by the Constituent Assembly, and by the news received from the West and South where the just dissatisfaction ofCatholic consciences had provoked disturbances; in particular the election of theProtestant Rabaut Saint-Etienne to the presidency of the National Assembly brought about commotions atToulouse andNîmes. Under the influence of these disturbances the Civil Constitution of the Clergy was developed. On 29 May, 1790, it was laid before the Assembly.Bonal,Bishop ofClermont, and some members of the Right requested that the project should be submitted to a national council or to thepope. But the Assembly proceeded; it discussed the Civil Constitution of the Clergy from 1 June to 12 July, 1790, on which date it was passed.

This Constitution comprised four titles.

Title I, Ecclesiastical Offices: Diocesan boundaries were to agree with those of departments, 57episcopal sees being thus suppressed. The title ofarchbishop was abolished; out of 83 remainingbishoprics 10 were calledmetropolitanbishoprics and givenjurisdiction over the neighbouringdioceses. No section of French territory should recognize the authority of abishop living abroad, or of his delegates, and this, adds the Constitution, "without prejudice to the unity offaith and the communion which shall be maintained with the head of the Universal Church".Canonries,prebends, andpriories were abolished. There should no longer be anysacerdotal posts especially devoted to fulfilling the conditions of Mass foundations. All appeals toRome were forbidden.

Title II, Appointment toBenefice: Bishops should be appointed by the Electoral Assembly of the department; they should be invested andconsecrated by themetropolitan and take anoath of fidelity to the nation, the King, the Law, and the Constitution; they should not seek any confirmation from thepope. Parishpriests should be elected by the electoral assemblies of the districts. Thus all citizens, evenProtestants,Jews, and nominalCatholics, might name titulars toecclesiastical offices, and the firstobligation ofpriests andbishops was to take anoath of fidelity to the Constitution which denied to theHoly See any effective power over theChurch.

Title III, Salary ofministers of Religion: The Constitution fixed the salary of theBishop ofParis at 51,000 livres (about $10,200), that ofbishops of towns whose population exceeded 50,000souls at 20,000 livres (about $4000), that of otherbishops at 12,000 livres (about $2400), that of curés at a sum ranging from 6000 (about $1200) to 1200 livres (about $240). For the lowerclergy this was a betterment of their material condition, especially as the real value of these sums was two and one-half times the present amount.

Title IV, dealing with residence, made very severe conditions regarding the absences ofbishops andpriests.

At the festival of the Federation (14 July, 1790) Talleyrand and three hundredpriests officiating at the altar of the nation erected on the Champs-de-Mars wore the tri-colored girdle above theirpriestly vestments and besought the blessing ofGod on the Revolution. Deputations were present from the towns ofFrance, and there was inaugurated a sort of cult, of the Fatherland, the remote origin of all the "Revolutionary cults". On 10 July, 1790, in a confidentialBrief to Louis XVI,Pius VI expressed the alarm with which the project under discussion filled him. He commissioned twoecclesiastics who wereministers of Louis XVI, Champion de Cicé and Lefranc de Pompignan, to urge the king not to sign the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. On 28 July, in a letter to thepope, Louis XVI replied that he would be compelled, "with death in his soul", topromulgate the Constitution, that he would reserve theright to broach as soon as possible the matter of some concession, but that if he refused, his life and the lives of hisfamily would be endangered.

Thepope replied (17 August) that he still held the same opinion of the Constitution, but that he would make no public declaration on the subject until he consulted with theSacred College. On 24 August the kingpromulgated the Constitution, for which he was blamed by thepope in a confidentialBrief on 22 September. M. Mathiez claims to haveproved that the hesitancy ofPius VI was due to temporal rather than to spiritual considerations, to his serious fears about the affairs ofAvignon and the Comtat Venaissin, where certain popular parties were clamoring for French troops, but thetruth is thatPius VI, who had made known his opinion of the Constitution to twoFrenchprelates, was awaiting some manifestation on the part of the French episcopate. Indeed thebishops spoke before thepope had spoken publicly. At the end of October, 1790, they published an "Exposition des principes sur la constitution civile du clergé", compiled by Boisgelin,Archbishop ofAix in which they rejected the Constitution and called upon thefaithful to do the same. This publication marks the beginning of a violent conflict between the episcopate and the Constitution. On 27 November, 1790, after a speech by Mirabeau, adecree stipulated that allbishops andpriests should within a week, under penalty of losing their offices, take theoath to the Constitution, that all who refused and who nevertheless continued to discharge theirpriestly functions should be prosecuted as disturbers of the public peace. The king, who was much disturbed by thisdecree, eventually sanctioned it (26 December, 1790) in order to avoid a rising.

Hitherto a large section of the lesserclergy had shown a certain amount of sympathy for the Revolution, but when it was seen that the episcopal members of the Assembly refused to take theoath, thus sacrificing their sees, a number of thepriests followed this disinterested example. It may be said that from the end of 1790 the higherclergy and the trulyorthodox elements of the lowerclergy were united against the revolutionary measures. Thenceforth there were two classes, the non-juring or refractorypriests, who were faithful toRome and refused theoath, and the jurors, sworn, or Constitutionalpriests, who had consented to take theoath. M. de la Gorce has recently sought to estimate the exact proportion of thepriests who took theoath. Out of 125bishops there were only four, Talleyrand ofAutun, Brienne ofSens, Jarente ofOrléans, and Lafond de Savine, ofViviers; three coadjutors orbishopsin partibus, Gobel, CoadjutorBishop of Bâle; Martial de Brienne, Coadjutor ofSens; and Dubourg-Miraudet,Bishop of Babylon. In the important towns most of thepriests refused to take theoath. Statistics for the small boroughs and the country are more difficult to obtain. The national archives preserve the complete dockets of 42 departments which were sent to the Constituent Assembly by thecivil authorities. This shows that in these 42 departments, of 23,093priests called upon to swear, 13,118 took theoath. There would be therefore out of 100priests, 56 to 57 jurors against 43 to 44 non-jurors. M. de la Gorce gives serious reasons for contesting these statistics, which were compiled byzealous bureaucrats anxious to please the central administrators. He asserts on the other hand that theschism had little hold in fifteen departments and concludes that in 1791 the number ofpriests faithful toRome was 52 to 55 out of 100; this is a small enough majority, but one which M. de la Gorce considers authentic.

On 5 February, 1791, the Constituent Assembly forbade every non-juringpriest to preach in public. In March the elections to provide for the vacantepiscopal sees andparishes took place. Disorder grew in theChurch ofFrance; young and ambitiouspriests, better known for their political than for their religiouszeal, were candidates, and in many places owing to the opposition of goodCatholics those elected had much difficulty in taking possession of their churches. At this juncture, seeing the Constitutional Church thus setup inFrance against the legitimate Church,Pius VI wrote two letters, one to thebishops and one to Louis XVI, to inquire if there remained any means to preventschism; and finally, on 13 April, 1791, he issued a solemn condemnation of the Civil Constitution in a solemnBrief to theclergy and the people. On 2 May, 1791, the annexation of the Comtat Venaissin and the city ofAvignon by the French troops marked the rupture of diplomatic relations betweenFrance and theHoly See. From May, 1791, there was no longer an ambassador fromFrance atRome or anuncio atParis. TheBrief ofPius VI encouraged the resistance of theCatholics. The Masses celebrated by non-juringpriests attracted crowds of thefaithful. Then mobs gathered and beat and outragednuns and otherpiouswomen. On 7 May, 1791, the Assembly decided that the non-juringpriests asprêtres habitués might continue to sayMass inparochial churches or conduct their services in other churches on condition that they would respect thelaws and not stir up revolt against the Civil Constitution. The Constitutionalpriests became more and more unpopular with goodCatholics; Sciout's works go to show that the "departmental directories" had to spend their time in organizing regular police expeditions to protect the Constitutionalpriests against the opposition of goodCatholics, or to prosecute the non-juringpriests who heroically persisted in remaining at their posts. Finally on 9 June, 1791, the Assembly forbade the publication of allBulls or Decrees of the Court ofRome, at least until they had been submitted to the legislative body and their publication authorized. Thus RevolutionaryFrance not only broke withRome, but wished to place a barrier betweenRome and theCatholics ofFrance

The king's tormentingconscience was the chief reason for his attempted flight (20-21 June, 1791). Before fleeing he had addressed to the Assembly a declaration of his dissatisfaction with the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, and once more protested against the moralviolence which had compelled him to accept such a document. Halted at Varennes, Louis XVI was brought back on 25 June, and was suspended from his functions till the completion of the Constitution, to which he took theoath 13 Sept., 1791. On 30 Sept., 1791, the Constituent Assembly dissolved, to make way for the Legislative Assembly, in which none of the members of the Constituent Assembly could sit. The Constituent Assembly had passed 2500laws and reorganized the whole French administration. Its chieferror from a social standpoint, whichAnatole Leroy-Beaulieu calls a capital one, was to pass the ChapelierDecree (15 June, 1791), which forbade working people to band together and form associations "for their so-called common interest". Led astray by their spirit ofindividualism and theirhatred for certain abuses of the old corporations, the Constituents did not understand that the world of labour should be organized. They were responsible for theeconomicanarchy which reigned during the nineteenth century, and the present syndicate movement as well as the efforts of the socialCatholics in conformity with theEncyclical"Rerum novarum" marks a deep and decisive reaction against the work of the Constituent Assembly.

The legislative assembly

When the Constituent Assembly disbanded (30 Sept., 1791),France all was aflame concerning the religious question. More than half the French people did not want the new Church, the factitious creation of thelaw; the oldChurch was ruined, demolished, hunted down, and the general amnesty decreed by the Constituent Assembly before disbanding could do nothing towards restoring peace in the country where that Assembly's bungling work had unsettled the consciences ofindividuals. The parties in the Legislative Assembly were soon irreconcilable. TheFeuillants, on the Right, saw nosalvation save in the Constitution; the Girondins on the Left, and the Montagnards on the Extreme Left, made ready for the Republic. There were men who, like the poet André Chénier, dreamed of a complete Separation ofChurch and State. "The priests", he wrote in a letter to the "Moniteur" (22 October, 1791), "will not trouble the Estates when no one is concerned about them, and they will always trouble them while anyone is concerned about them as at present." But the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly had sat in the departmental or district assemblies; they had fought against the non-juringpriests and brought violent passions and a hostile spirit to the Legislative Assembly. A report from Gensonné and Gallois to the Legislative Assembly (9 October, 1791) on the condition of the provinces of the West denounced the non-juringpriests as exciting the populace to rebellion and called for measures against them. It accused them of complicity with the émigrésbishops. AtAvignon the Revolutionary Lécuyer, having been slain in a church, some citizens reputed to be partisans of thepope were thrown into the ancientpapal castle and strangled (16-17 Oct., 1791). Calvados was also the scene of serious disturbances.

The Legislative Assembly, instead of repairing the tremendouserrors of the Constituent Assembly, took up the question of the non-juringpriests. On 29 November, on the proposal of François de Neufchâteau, it decided that if within eight days they did not take the civiloath they should be deprived of all salary, that they should be place under the surveillance of the authorities, that if troubles arose where they resided they should be sent away, that they should beimprisoned for a year if they persisted in remaining and for two years if they were convicted of having provoked disobedience to the king. Finally it forbade non-juringpriests the legal exercise of worship. It also requested from the departmental directories lists of the jurors and non-jurors, that it might, as it said, "stamp out the rebellion which disguises itself under the pretended dissidence in the exercise of theCatholic religion". Thus itsdecree ended in a threat. But thisdecree was the object of a sharp conflict between Louis XVI and the Assembly. On 9 Dec., 1791, the king made his veto known officially. Parties began to form. On one side were the king and theCatholics faithful toRome, on the other the Assembly and thepriests who had taken theoath. The legislative power was on one side, the executive on the other. In March, 1792, the Assembly accused theministers of Louis XVI; the king replaced them by a Girondin ministry headed by Dumouriez, with Roland, Servan, and Clavière among its members. They had a double policy: abroad,war withAustria, and at home, measures against the non-juringpriests. Louis XVI, surrounded by dangers, was also accused of duplicity; his secret negotiations with foreign courts made it possible for his enemies to say that he had already conspired againstFrance.

Apapal Brief of 19 March, 1792, renewed the condemnation of the Civil Constitution and visited with majorexcommunication all juringpriests who after sixty days should not have retracted, and allCatholics who remained faithful to thesepriests. The Assembly replied by theDecree of 27 May, 1792, declaring that all non-juringpriests might be deported by the directory of their department at the request of twenty citizens, and if they should return after expulsion they would be liable to ten years ofimprisonment. Louis vetoed thisdecree. Thus arose a struggle not only between Louis XVI and the Assembly, but between the king and his ministry. On 3 June 1792, the Assembly decreed the formation of a camp nearParis of 20,600 volunteers to guard the king. At the ministerial council Roland read an insulting letter to Louis, in which he called upon him to sanction the decrees of November and May against the non-juringpriests. He was dismissed, whereupon the populace ofParis arose and invaded the Tuileries (20 June, 1792), and for several hours the king and hisfamily were the objects of all manner of outrages. After the public manifesto of the Duke of Brunswick in the name of the powers in coalition againstFrance (25 July, 1792) and the Assembly's declaration of "Fatherland in danger" there came petitions for the deposition of the king, who was accused of being in communication with foreign rulers. On 10 August, Santerre, Westermann, and Fournier l'Américain at the head of the national guard attacked the Tuileries defended by 800Swiss. Louis refused to defend himself, and with hisfamily sought refuge in the Legislative Assembly. The Assembly passed adecree which suspended the king's powers, drew up a plan ofeducation for the dauphin, and convoked a national convention. Louis XVI wasimprisoned in the Temple by order of the insurrectionary Commune ofParis.

Madness spread throughFrance caused by the threatened danger from without; arrests of non-juringpriests multiplied. In an effort to make them give way. The Assembly decided (15 August) that theoath should consist only of the promise to uphold with all one's might liberty, equality, and the execution of thelaw, or to die at one's post". But the non-juringpriests remained firm and refused even this secondoath. On 26 August the Assembly decreed that within fifteen days they should be expelled from the kingdom, that those who remained or returned toFrance should be deported toGuiana, or should be liable to ten yearsimprisonment. It then extended this threat to thepriests, who, having no publicly recognizedpriestlyduties, had hitherto been dispensed from theoath, declaring that they also might be expelled if they were convicted of having provoked disturbances. This was the signal for a real civilwar. The peasants armed in La Vendée, Deux Sèvres, Loire Inférieure,Maine and Loire, Ile and Vilaine. This news and that of the invasion of Champagne by thePrussian army caused hidden influences to arouse theParisian populaces hence the September massacres. In theprisons of La Force, the Conciergerie, and the Abbaye Saint Germain, at least 1500 Women,priests and soldiers fell under the axe or the club. The celebrated tribune, Danton, cannot be entirely acquitted of complicity in these massacres. The Legislative Assembly terminated its career by two measures against theChurch: it deprivedpriests of theright to register births etc., and authorizedivorce. Laicizing the civil state was not in the minds of the Constituents, but was the result of the blocking of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. The Legislative Assembly was induced to enact it because theCatholics faithful toRome would not have recourse to Constitutionalpriests for registering of births,baptisms, and deaths.

The convention; the Republic; the Reign of Terror

The opening of the National Convention (21 Sept., 1792) took place the day following Dumouriez's victory at Valmy over thePrussian troops. The constitutionalbishop, Grégoire, proclaimed the republic at the first session; he was surrounded in the assembly by fifteen constitutionalbishops and twenty-eight constitutionalpriests. But the time was at hand when the constitutionalclergy in turn was to be under suspicion, the majority of the Convention being hostile toChristianity itself. As early as 16 November, 1792, Cambon demanded that the salaries of thepriests be suppressed and that thenceforth no religion be subsidized by the State, but the motion was rejected for the time being. Henceforth the Convention enacted all manner of arbitrary political measures: it undertook the trial of Louis XVI, and on 2 January, 1799, "hurled a kings head atEurope". But from a religious standpoint it was more timid; it feared to disturb the people ofSavoy andBelgium, which its armies were annexing toFrance. From 10 to 15 March, 1793, formidable insurrections broke out in La Vendée, Anjou, and a part of Brittany. At the same time Dumouriez, having been defeated at Neerwinden, sought to turn his army against the Convention, and he himself went over to the Austrians. The Convention took fright; it instituted a Revolutionary Tribunal on 9 March and on 6 April the Committee of Public Safety, formidable powers, was established.

Increasingly severe measures were taken chiefly against the non-juringclergy. On 18 Feb., 1793, the Convention voted a prize one hundred livres to whomsoever should denounce apriest liable to deportation and who remained inFrance despite thelaw. On 1 March theémigrés were sentenced to perpetual banishment and theirproperty confiscated. On 18 March it was decreed that anyémigré or deportedpriest arrested on French soil should be executed within twenty-four hours. On 23 April it was enacted that allecclesiastics,priests ormonks, who had not taken theoath prescribed by theDecree of 15 August, 1792, should be transported to Guiana; even thepriests who had taken theoath should be treated likewise if six citizens should denounce them for lack of citizenship. But despite all these measures the non-juringpriests remained faithful toRome. Thepope had maintained inFrance an official internuncio, the Abbé de Salamon, who kept himself in hiding and performed hisduties at the risk of his life, gave information concerning current events, and transmitted orders. The proconsuls of the Convention, Fréron and Barras atMarseilles and Toulon, Tallien atBordeaux, Carrier atNantes, perpetuated abominable massacres. InParis the Revolutionary Tribunal, carrying out the proposals of the public accuser, Foquier-Tinville, inaugurated the Reign of Terror. The proscription of the Girondins by the Montagnards (2 June, 1793), marked a progress in demagogy. The assassination of the bloodthirsty in demagogue Marat, by Charlotte Corday 913 July 1793) gave rise to extravagant manifestations inhonour of Marat. But the provinces did not follow this policy. News came of insurrections in Caen,Marseilles,Lyons, and Toulon; and at the same time theSpaniards were in Roussillon, thePiedmontese inSavoy, the Austrians in Valenciennes, and the Vendeans defeated Kleber at Torfou (Sept., 1793). The crazed Convention decreed a rising en masse; the heroic resistance of Valenciennes andMainz gave Carnot time to organize new armies. At the same time the Convention passed the Law of Suspects. (17 Sept., 1793), which authorized theimprisonment of almost anyone and as a consequence of which 30,000 wereimprisoned. Informing became a trade inFrance.Queen Marie Antoinette was beheaded 16 October, 1793. FourteenCarmelites who were executed 17 July, 1794, were declared Venerable byLeo XIII in 1902.

From a religious point of view a new feature arose at this period — the constitutionalclergy, accused of sympathy with the Girondins, came to be suspected almost as much as the non-juringpriests. Numerous conflicts arose between the constitutionalpriests and thecivil authorities with regard to thedecree of the Convention which did not permit thepriests to ask those intending to marry if they werebaptized, had been to confession, or weredivorced. The constitutionalbishops would not submit to the Convention when it required them to giveapostatepriests the nuptial blessing. Despite the example of the constitutionalbishop, Thomas Lindet, a member of the Convention, who won the applause of the Assembly by ann his marriage, despite thescandal given by Gobel,Bishop ofParis, in appointing a marriedpriest to a post inParis the majority of constitutionalbishops remained hostile to the marriage ofpriests. The conflict between them and the Convention becamenotorious when, on 19 July, 1793, adecree of the Convention decided that thebishops who directly or indirectly offered any obstacle to the marriage ofpriests should be deported and replaced. In October the Convention declared that the constitutionalpriests themselves should be deported if they were found wanting in citizenship. The measures taken by the Convention to substitute the Revolutionary calendar for the oldChristian calendar, and the decrees ordering the municipalities to seize and melt down the bells and treasures of the churches,proved that certain currents prevailed tending to the dechristianization ofFrance. On the one hand the rest ofdécadi, every tenth day, replaced the Sunday rest; on the other the Convention commissioned Leonard Bourdon (19 Sept., 1793) to compile a collection of the heroic actions of Republicans to replace the lives of thesaints in theschools. The "missionary representatives", sent to the provinces, closed churches, hunted down citizens suspected of religious practices, endeavoured to constrainpriests tomarry, and threatened with deportation for lack of citizenshippriests who refused to abandon their posts. Persecution of all religiousideas began. At the request of the Paris Commune, Gobel,Bishop ofParis, and thirteen of his vicars resigned at the bar of the Convention (7 November) and their example was followed by several constitutionalbishops.

The Montagnards who considered worshipnecessary replaced theCatholic Sunday Mass by the civil mass ofdécadi. Having failed to reform and nationalizeCatholicism they endeavoured to form a sort of civil cult, a development of the worship of the fatherland which had been inaugurated at the feast of the Federation. TheChurch of Notre-Dame-de-Paris became atemple of Reason, and the feast of Reason was celebrated on 10 November. The Goddesses of Reason and Liberty were not always the daughters of low people; they frequently came of the middle classes. Recent research has thrown new light on the history of these cults. M. Aulard was the first to recognize that theidea of honouring the fatherland, which had its origin in the festival of the Federation in 1790 gave rise to successive cults. Going deeper M. Mathiez developed the theory that confronted by the blocking of the Civil Constitution, the Conventionals, who had witnessed in the successive feasts of the Federation the power of formulas on the minds of the masses, wanted to create a realculte de la patrie, a sanction offaith in the fatherland. On 23 November, 1793, Chaumette passed a law alienating all churches in the capital. This example was followed in the provinces, where all city churches and a number of those in the country were closed toCatholic worship. The Convention offered a prize for theabjuration ofpriests by passing adecree which assured a pension to Priests whoabjured, and the most painful day of that sad period was 20 November, 1793, when men,women, and children dressed in Priestly garments taken from the Church of St. Germain des Prés marched through the hall of the Convention. Laloi, who presided, congratulated them, saying they had "wiped out eighteen centuries oferror". Despite the part played by Chaumette and the Commune ofParis in the work of violent dechristianization, M. Mathiez hasproved that it is not correct to lay on the Commune and theExagérés, they were called, the entire responsibility, and that a Moderate, an Indulgent, namely Thuriot, the friend of Danton, was one of the most violent instigators. It is thus clear why Robespierre who desired a reaction against these excesses, should attack bothExagérés and Indulgents.

Indeed a reactionary movement was soon evident. As early as 21 November, 1793, Robespierre complained of the "madmen who could only revive fanaticism". On 5 December he caused the Convention to adopt the text of a manifesto to the nations ofEurope in which the members declared that they sought to protect the liberty of all creeds; on 7 December, he supported the motion of the committee of public safety which reported the bad effect in the provinces of the intolerantviolence of the missionary representatives, and which forbade in the future all threats orviolence contrary to liberty of worship. These decrees were the cause ofwarfare between Robespierre an enthusiasts such as Hébert and Clootz. At first Robespierre sent his enemies to the scaffold; Hébert and Clootz were beheaded in March, 1794, Chaumette and Bishop Gobel in April. But in this same month of April Robespierre sent to the scaffold the Moderates, Desmoulins and Danton, who wanted to stop the Terror, and became the master ofFrance with his lieutenants Couthon and Saint-Just. M. Aulard regards Robespierre as having been hostile to the dechristianization for religious and political motives; he explains that Robespierre shared the admiration for Christ felt by Rousseau's VicarSavoyard and that he feared theevil effect on the powers ofEurope of the Convention's anti-religious policy. M. Mathiez on the other hand considers that Robespierre did not condemn the dechristianization in principle; that heknew the common hostility to the Committee of Public Safety of Moderates such as Thuriot and enthusiasts like Hébert; and that on the information of Basire and Chabot he suspected both parties of having furthered the fanatical measures of dechristianization only to discredit the Convention abroad and thus more easily to plot with the powers hostile toFrance. Robespierre'strue intentions are still an historical problem. On 6 April, 1794, he commissioned Couthon to propose in the name of the Committee of Public Safety that a feast be instituted inhonour of the Supreme Being, and on 7 May Robespierre himself outlined in a long speech the plan of the new religion. He explained that from the religious and Republican standpoint theidea of a Supreme Being was advantageous to the State, that religion should dispense with apriesthood, and thatpriests were to religion what charlatans were to medicine, and that thetruepriest of the Supreme Being was Nature. The Convention desired to have this speech translated into all languages and adopted adecree of which the first article was: "The French people recognize the existence of a Supreme Being and theimmortality of thesoul". The samedecree states that freedom of worship is maintained but adds that in the case of disturbances caused by the exercise of a religion those who "excite them by fanatical preaching or by counter Revolutionary innovations", shall be punished according to the rigour of thelaw. Thus the condition of theCatholicChurch remained equally precarious and the first festival of the Supreme Being was celebrated throughoutFrance on 8 June, 1794, with aggressive splendour. Whereas theExagérés wished simply to destroyCatholicism, and in thetemples of Reason political rather than moral doctrines were taught. Robespierre desired that the civic religion should have amoral code which he based on the twodogmas ofGod and theimmortality of thesoul. He was of the opinion that theidea ofGod had a social value, that public morality depended on it and thatCatholics would more readily support the republic under the auspices of a Supreme Being.

The victories of the Republican armies, especially that of Fleurus (July, 1794), reassured the patriots of the Convention; those of Cholet,Mans, and Savenay, marked the checking of the Vendean insurrection. Lyons and Toulon were recaptured, Alsace was delivered, and the victory of Fleurus (26 June, 1794) gaveBelgium toFrance. While danger from abroad was decreasing, Robespierre made the mistake of putting to vote in June the terrible law of22 Prairial, which still further shortened the summary procedure of the Revolutionary tribunal and allowed sentence to be passed almost without trial even on the members of the Convention. The Convention took fright and the next day struck out this last clause. Montagnards like Tallien, Billaud-Varenne, and Collot d'Herbois, threatened by Robespierre, joined with such Moderates as Boissy d'Anglas and Durand Maillane to bring about thecoup d'état of 9 Thermidor (27 July, 1794). Robespierre and his partisans were executed, and the Thermidorian reaction began. The Commune of Paris was suppressed, the Jacobin Club closed, the Revolutionary tribunal disappeared after having sent to the scaffold the public accuser Fouquier-tinville and the Terrorist, Carrier, the author of thenoyades (drownings) ofNantes. The death of Robespierre was the signal for a change of policy whichproved of advantage to theChurch; manyimprisonedpriests were released and manyémigrépriests returned. Not a single law hostile toCatholicism was repealed, but the application of them was greatly relaxed. The religious policy of the Convention became indecisive and changeable. On 21 December 1794, a speech of the constitutionalbishop, Grégoire, claiming effective liberty of worship, aroused violent murmurings in the Convention, but was applauded by the people; and when in Feb., 1795, the generals and commissaries of the Convention in their negotiations with the Vendeans promised them the restoration of their religious liberties, the Convention returned to theidea supported by Grégoire, and at the suggestion of theProtestant, Boissy d'Anglas, it passed the Law of 3Ventôse (21 Feb., 1795), which marked the enfranchisement of theCatholicChurch. This law enacted that the republic should pay salaries to theministers of no religion, and that no churches should be reopened, but it declared that the exercise of religion should not be disturbed, and prescribed penalties for disturbers. Immediately the constitutionalbishops issued anEncyclical for the Establishment ofCatholic worship, but their credit was shaken. The confidence of the faithful was given instead to the non-juringpriests who were returning by degrees. Thesepriests were soon so numerous that in April, 1795, the Convention ordered them to depart within the month under pain of death. This was a fresh outbreak of anti-Catholicism. With the fluctuation which thenceforth characterized it the Convention soon made a counter-movement. On 20 May, 1795, the assembly hall was invaded by the mob and the deputy Féraud assassinated. These violences of the Extremists gave some influence to the Moderates, and 30 May, at the suggestion of theCatholic, Lanjuinais, the Convention decreed that (Law of 11Prairial) the churches not confiscated should be place at the disposal of citizens for the exercise of their religion, but that everypriest who wished to officiate in these churches should previously take anoath of submission to thelaws; those who refused might legally hold services in private houses. Thisoath of submission to thelaws was much less serious than theoaths formerly prescribed by the Revolutionary authorities, and the Abbé Sicard has shown how Emery, Superior General of St. Sulpice, Bausset,Bishop of Alais and otherecclesiastics were inclined to a policy of pacification and to think that such anoath might be taken.

While it seemed to be favouring a more tolerant policy the Convention met with diplomatic successes, the reward of the military victories: the treaties ofParis withTuscany, of the Hague with theBatavian Republic, of Basle withSpain, gave toFrance as boundaries the Alps, the Rhine, and the Meuse. But the policy of religious pacification was not lasting. Certain periods of the history of the Convention justify M. Champion's theory that certain religious measures taken by the Revolutionists were forced upon them by circumstances. The descent of theémigrés on the Breton coasts, to be checked by Hoche at Quiberon, aroused fresh attacks on thepriests. On 6 Sept., 1795 (Law of 20Fructidor), the Convention exacted theoath of submission to thelaws even ofpriests who officiated in private houses. The Royalist insurrection of 13Vendémiaire, put down byBonaparte, provoked a very severedecree against deportedpriests who should be found on French territory; they were to be sentenced to perpetual banishment. Thus at the time when the Convention was disbanding, churches were separated from the State. In theory worship was free; the Law of 29 Sept., 1795 (7Vendémiaire), on the religious policy, though still far from satisfactory to theclergy, was nevertheless an improvement on thelaws of the Terror, butanarchy and the spirit ofpersecution still disturbed the whole country. NeverthelessFrance owes to the Convention a number of lasting creations: the Ledger of the Public Debt, the Ecole Polytechnique, the Conservatory of Arts and Crafts, the Bureau of Longitudes, the Institute ofFrance, and the adoption of the decimal system of weights and measures. The vast projects drawn up with regard to primary, secondary and highereducation had almost no results.

The directory

In virtue of the so-called "Constitution of the year III",promulgated by the Convention 23 Sept., 1795, a Directory of five members (27 Oct., 1795) became the executive, and the Councils of Five Hundred and of the Ancients, the legislative power. At this time the public treasuries were empty, which was one reason why the people came by degrees to feel the necessity of a strong restorative power. The Directors Carnot, Barras, Letourneur, Rewbell, La Reveillière-Lépeaux were averse toChristianity, and in the separation ofChurch and State saw only a means of annihilating theChurch. They wished that even the Constitutional episcopate, though they could not deny its attachment to the new regime, should become extinct by degrees, and when the constitutionalbishops died they sought to prevent the election of successors, and multiplied measures against the non-juringpriests. TheDecree of 16 April, 1796, which made death the penalty for, provoking any attempt to overthrow the Republican government was a threat held perpetually over the heads of the non-juringpriests. That the Directors really wished to throw difficulties in the way of all kinds of religion, despite theoretical declarations affirming liberty of worship isproved by the Law of 11 April, 1796, which forbade the use of bells and all sorts of public convocation for the exercise of religion, under penalty of a year inprison, and, in case of a second offense of deportation. The Directory having ascertained that despite police interference some non-juringbishops were officiating publicly inParis, and that before the end of 1796 more than thirty churches ororatories had been opened to non-juringpriests inParis, laid before the Five Hundred a plan which, after twenty days, allowed the expulsion from French soil, without admission to theoath prescribed by the Law of Vendémiaire, allpriests who had not taken the Constitutional Oath prescribed in 1790, or the Oath of Liberty and Equality prescribed in 1792; those who after such time should be found inFrance would beput to death. But amid the discussions to which this project gave rise, the revolutionary Socialist conspiracy of Babeuf was discovered, which showed that danger lay on the Left; and on 5 Aug., 1796, the dreadful project which had only been passed with much difficulty by the Five Hundred was rejected by the Ancients.

The Directory began to feel that its policy of religiouspersecution was no longer followed by the Councils. It learned also thatBonaparte, who inItaly led the armies of the Directory from victory to victory, displayed consideration for thepope. Furthermore, the electors themselves showed that they desired a change of policy. The elections of 20 may, 1797, caused the majority of Councils to pass from the Left to the Right. Pichegru became president of the Five Hundred, a Royalist, Barthélemy, became one of the Five Directors. Violent discussions which took place from 26 June to 18 July, in whichRoyer-Collard distinguished himself, brought to the vote the proposal of the deputy Dubruel for the abolition of alllaws against non-juringpriests passed since 1791. The Directors, alarmed by what they considered a reactionary movement, commissioned General Augereau to effect thecoup d'état of 18 Fructidor (4 Sept., 1797); the elections of 49 departments were quashed, two Directors, Carnot and Barthélemy, proscribed, 53 deputies deported, andlaws against the émigré and non-juringpriests restored to their vigour. Organized hunting for thesepriests took place throughoutFrance; the Directory cast hundreds of them on the unhealthy shore of Sinnamary,Guiana, where they died. At the same time the Directory commissioned Berthier to make the attack on thePapal States and thepope, from whichBonaparte had refrained. The Roman Republic was proclaimed in 1798 andPius VI was takenprisoner toValence. An especially odiouspersecution was renewed inFrance against the ancientChristian customs; it was known as thedécadairepersecution. Officials and municipalities were called upon to overwhelm with vexations the partisans of Sunday and to restore the observance ofdécadi. The rest of that day became compulsory not only for administrations andschools, but also for business and industry. Marriages could only be celebrated ondécadi at the chief town of each canton.

Another religious venture of this period was that ofTheophilanthropists, who wished to create a spiritualist church withoutdogmas,miracles,priesthood orsacraments, a sort of vague religiosity, similar to the "ethicalsocieties of theUnited States." Contrary to what has been asserted for one hundred years, M. Mathiez hasproved thatTheophilanthropism was not founded by the director La Réveillière-Lépeaux. It was the private initiative of a former Girondin, the librarian Chemin Dupontés, which gave rise to this cult; Valentine Hauy, instructor of the blind and former Terrorist, and thephysiocrat, Dupont de Nemours, collaborated with him. During its early existence, the new Church waspersecuted by agents of Cochon, Minister of Police, who was the tool of Camot, and it was only for a short time, after thecoup d'état of 18 Fructidor, that the Theophanthropists benefited by the protection of La Réveillière. In proportion to the efforts of the Directory for theculte décadaire, theTheophilanthropists suffered and werepersecuted; inParis, they were sometimes treated even worse than theCatholics,Catholicpriests being at times permitted to occupy the buildings connected with certain churches while theTheophilanthropists were driven out. On a curious memoir written after18 Fructidor entitled "Des circonstances actuelles qui peuvent terminer la Revolution et des principes qui doivent fonder la Républic en France", the famous Madame de Stael, who was aProtestant, declared herself againstTheophilanthropy; like manyProtestants, she hoped thatProtestantism would become the State religion of the Republic. Through its clumsy and odious religious policy the Directory exposed itself to serious difficulties. Disturbed by the anti-religious innovations, theBelgian provinces revolted; 6000Belgianpriests were proscribed. Brittany, Anjou. and Maine again revolted, winning over Normandy. Abroad the prestige of the French armies was upheld by were upheld byBonaparte inEgypt, but they werehated on the Continent, and in 1799 were compelled to evacuate most ofItaly.Bonaparte's return and thecoup d'état of 18 Brumaire (10 November 1799) werenecessary to strengthen the glory of the French armies and to restore peace to the country and to consciences.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT