Orme:

^.evofufion A

"I give tfyfe Books ¦
foj~ the fou,*idin$ of a. Coll y , i , r' "

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

RELIGION

REIGN OF TERROR;

THE CHURCH DURING THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

PREPARED FROM THE FRENCH OY
i
M. EDMOND DE PRESSENSE,
Author of " Histoire dea trois premiers siecles de I'Eglise Chretienne," ""Je'sus-Christ,
son temps, sa vie, son ceuvre ; " " Le Pays de l'Evangile," and Editor
of "La Revue Chretienne."

By Rev. JOHN P. LACROIX, A.M.

God is as necessary as liberty to the French people — Mibabead.
Free Church— free State.— Oatoue.

NEW YORK :
CARLTON & LANAHAN.
CINCINNATI I
HITCHCOCK & WALDEN.
1869.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1868, by
OARLTON & LANAHAN,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the
Southern District of New Xork.

LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION.
[TRANSLATION.]

Paris, November 30, 1866.
Pbofessok John P. Lackoix :
Mt dbak Sib, — I give you with true pleasure the authoriza
tion which you ask of me for translating my book entitled
" The Church and the Kevolution." *
Sincerely yours in Christ, E. db Pbessbnse.
* The full title of the work is L'Eglise et La Eevolution francaise ;
Histoire des Relations de I'Eglise et de l'Etat de 1789 a 1802.

PEEFACE TO THE ABRIDGMENT.

The book here presented to the American reader is, in
the main, an abridgment of a work, recently published
in Paris, by the distinguished Protestant divine M. Ed
mond de Pressense, the object of which is to describe,
from an enlightened Christian stand-point, the vicissitudes"
of religion and its relations to the civil power in France,
during the eventful years from 1789 to 1802. Some of the
motives which have influenced me in its preparation in.
English are the following : The intrinsic general interest
of the subject ; its special interest for Americans ; the
peculiar stand-point and personal qualifications of the
author ; and,, finally, the careful criticisms of the reli
gious character of certain world-historical personages, to
which the nature of the work naturally leads.
Of the general interest of whatever throws fight on
this great revolutionary crisis of humanity, I need
scarcely speak. Of the crisis itself Mr. Alison uses these
words : " There are few periods in the history of the
world which can be compared, in point of interest and
importance, to that which embraces the progress and

6 PREFACE TO THE ABRIDGMENT.
termination of the French Revolution. In no former age
were events of such magnitude crowded together, or in
terests so momentous at issue between contending nations.
From the flame which was kindled in Europe, the whole
world has been involved in conflagration, and a new era
dawned upon both hemispheres from the effects of its ex
pansion. With the first rise of a free spirit in France,
the liberty of North America was established." Mr.
Jones, the oontinuator of Russell's history, speaks in
similar terms. " We are now brought," says he, " to
enter upon a subject of such fearful magnitude, so por
tentous in its origin, and terrific in its consequences,
that the annals of the human race scarcely present us
with its parallel. The French Revolution introduced a
new state of society in Europe." A standard German
encyclopedia speaks as follows : " The French Revolution
constitutes one of the grandest epochs in the history of
human society. He who regards it as a mere incidental
event has not examined the past, and is unable to look
into the future. It is an event which came forth out of
the womb of the centuries. So judges Madame de
Stael ; and she is right." M. Michelet says : " I define
the Revolution as the advent of Law, the resurrection of
Right, and the reaction of Justice. I see upon the
stage but two grand facts, two principles, two actors,
and two characters — Christianity and the Revolution.
The Convocation of the States-General, in 1789, is the

PREFACE TO THE ABRIDGMENT. 7
true era of the birth of the people. On the eve of the
opening of the States-General the mass of the Holy
Ghost was solemnly said at Versailles. It was certainly
that day, or never, that the people might sing the pro
phetic hymn : Thou wilt create peoples, and the face of
the ea/rth shall be renewed.'''' Such is the general manner
in which this event is spoken of both by the friends and
the enemies of France. The merit of M. de Pressense's
book is, that it presents an exhaustive view of one of
the special phases of this Revolution, namely, the relig
ious — a phase which, though among the most important,
has yet had the misfortune either of being treated with
neglect, or of being perverted and distorted by skeptics,
to the prejudice of Christianity.
The special interest of the French Revolution for re
publicans lies in the nature of the interests that were at
stake. It Was, on the one hand, a struggle of liberty
against absolutism, free thought against spiritual despo
tism ; and, on the other, of Christianity against a godless
philosophy ; it was, therefore, a struggle in the mterest
of the very principles which lie at the basis of American
greatness. But the great Revolution made shipwreck :
the name of liberty was tarnished by the most atrocious
crimes ; Christianity seemed for a moment to have gone
down in a night of blood and delirium, amid the tri
umphant orgiesof a foul-mouthed Atheism ; and, finally,
political liberty was trampled in the dust, and forced to

8 PREFACE TO THE ABRIDGMENT.
give place to the most absolute of despotisms. How
came this to be the result? Why did the principles
which have succeeded so well in America meet only with
disaster and failure in France ? The question is inter
esting. For more than half a century the political and
spiritual despots of Europe have been using the excesses
of the French Revolution as a bugbear to frighten their
ministers and subjects from every effort in favor of
liberty and Church reform. "Unless" you desire to
renew the horrors of the reign of terror, and to be
subject to the disgusting domination of an unwashed
mob, do not limit the authority of your legitimate rulers ;
unless you wish the extinction of religion, and the tri
umph of vice and Atheism, do not question the preten
sions of your priests, or presume to suppose that the
Church can exist without being salaried and governed
by the State." And, unfortunately, this argument has
too often succeeded, to the detriment of enlightened lib
eralism. To the too common excessive censure of the
French Revolution, and especially to the prejudices
thereby created against the causes of liberty and free-
churchism, the book of M. de Pressense is a sufficient
and convincing reply. These holy causes of liberty and
free-churchism are triumphantly vindicated, and the true
cause of the miscarriage of the Revolution assigned,
namely, a radical misconception as to the extent to
which a government may legitimately interfere with per-

PREFACE TO THE ABRIDGMENT. 9
sonal liberty, and as to the proper relations of the civil
power of the Church.
As to the exact stand-point of the author, he has
clearly enough expressed himself in his preface. " My
book," says he, " is animated with a profound love of
general liberty, but, above all, of the liberty of the soul
and the conscience. I am thoroughly convinced that re
ligion and liberalism are the natural allies of each other.
I hope I have written in that impartial spirit which guar
antees against passion and injustice. I am with the
Revolution whenever it serves the cause of liberty, and
against it whenever it violates it by so-called measures
of public safety. I confess, in fine, that I cannot see
the denouement of this grand struggle, in the foundation
of a despotism without caste, at the beginning of this
century. "The question of the relation of the spiritual to the
temporal, so passionately debated by our fathers, is yet
far from being settled. It is of the highest moment to
the cause of the nation and of modern civilization. On
its proper decision depends the triumph of a true over a
false liberalism. Full liberty of worship guarantees the
absolute independence of the conscience, and thus erects
the surest barrier to the encroachments of the State on
the rights of the individual. It therefore gives a mortal
blow to that oppressive centralizing system of politics
which sacrifices the citizen to the State, and the indi-

10 PREFACE TO THE ABRIDGMENT.
vidual to the coUective sovereignty. The question is of
wide scope. The solution which imposes itself on my
mind is that which Mirabeau foresaw, which Lafayette
and Madame de Stael openly adopted, and presented in
vain to their contemporaries ; and which, therefore, pre
sumptively breathes of the true spirit of 1 789. May the
bitter experience of those who had the honor of pro
claiming it, and the misfortune of so often violating it,
enlighten our path ! I trust I have succeeded in pre
senting the salutary lesson which is taught by our
great Revolution, thus contributing my feeble part to the
revival of a true public spirit in France, a cause in
which no one takes more interest than myself." Such is
the modest and yet high ambition of the author. His
stand-point is essentially liberal — republican.
As to his qualifications for the task little need be said.
Those who are conversant with the highest critical
journals of the day know how eminent is his rank for
learning and piety, not only in France, but throughout
Europe. He stands at the head of the evangelical French
clergy, and shares his energies between the functions of
the pastorate and those of the critic and writer. He is
the author of the best Church History in the French
language, and has the honor of being the most successful
antagonist of Renan. His Life of Jesus places him in the
front rank among the recent champions of Christianity.
Last, though not least important, might be mentioned

PREFACE TO THE ABRIDGMENT. H
as lending interest to the present work, the bold and
candid criticisms of character which it contains. The
brief fourteen years of the French Revolution witnessed
the rise and fall of a succession of the strangest charac
ters which appear on the pages of universal history.
How grand, how weird, how ghostly are, in turn, the
reminiscences which hover around the names of Mira
beau, Desmoulins, Danton, Hebert, Chaumette, Ana
charsis Clootz, Marat, Charlotte Corday, Robespierre,
Talleyrand, Bonaparte, and many others ! Nor are cer
tain associations of this epoch destitute of peculiar in
terest : such are the Girondists, the Jacobins, the Athe
ists, the Deists, and the Theophilanthropists. All of
these characters and associations are taken up, discussed,
dissected, and, finally, weighed in the balance of a philo
sophic Christian judgment. I will mention as of special
importance, the chapters which treat of the civil and re
ligious policy of Napoleon. If any one thing more than
another could shake one's confidence in the justness of
the severe verdict of the author as to the baneful, the
anti-liberal tendency of the Napoleonic system, it would
be that so bold, so free-spoken a book has been permitted
to be published under the present regime.
As a whole, and apart from the intrinsic worth of its
subject-matter, the work leaves on the mind the most
salutary impression. It breathes of a generous cosmo
politan spirit, and brings the reader into closer sym-

12 PREFACE TO THE ABRIDGMENT.
pathy with the great suffering heart of humanity. It
discloses the frightful depths of degradation to which
society inevitably sinks when it breaks loose from
the authority of God. It reveals in the bosom of a
Church which seemed to be dead in ritualism and sin,
as soon as the hour of trial came, examples of Christian
heroism and devotion which have not been surpassed
since the days of the apostles.
A word as to the manner in which the work has been
prepared in English. The original is an octavo volume
of four hundred and seventy-five pages. The present is
not strictly a translation, but rather a digest. Some
portions, not so interesting to the non-French reader,
have been closely condensed, while others have been
slightly enlarged by additions of historical or elucidating
details. As to the essence of the book, however, its
spirit, its doctrines, its judgments, I have endeavored to
be faithful to the author.
The biographical notes which I have subjoined to the
volume will not, I trust, be devoid of value.
J. P. Laceoix.
Ohio 'Wesietan Univbbsitt.

CONTENTS.

Pbefaob  Page 5
INTRODUCTION.
SITUATION OF THE CHUROH OF FEANCE AT THE EVE OF THE EEVO
LUTION— STATE OF OPINION AS TO LrBEBTY OF CONSCIENCE AND
THE ORGANIZATION OF WOBSHD?.
The Religions Question and the. Revolution — Condition of the An
cient Church of France — Close Alliance with the Ancient Regime —
Catholicism alone recognized — Riches and Privileges of the Church —
Subordination to the Civil Power — Concordat of Francis I. and the so-
called Gallican Liberties— Increasing Dependence on the King — De
cline of Faith — Maxims of Intolerance — Public Opinion against the
Church — Toleration universally demanded— Religious Liberty poorly
understood — Fatal Influence of Rousseau — Illiberal Opinions of the
Clergy — Difference between the High and the Inferior Clergy  19

BOOK L
THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY.
CHAPTER I.
LEGISLATIVE PBELIMINARIES — THE FIEST DEBATE ON LIBEETT OF
WOESHIP.
Opening of the States-General— Union of the three Orders— Role of
the Mob in the Revolution— The Common People favorable to Relig
ion—Memorable Night of the Fourth of August— Instances of Clerical
Self-denial— Abolition of Tithes— Declaration of Human Rights— First
Debate on Liberty of Worship— Discourse of Mirabeau— Spirit of the
Majority of the Assembly  49

14: ' CONTENTS.

CHAPTER H.
DISCUSSION ON THE PROPERTY OF THE CLERGY — ATTITUDE OF THE
DIFFERENT PARTIES — SUPPEESSION OF THE RELIGIOUS OEDEES.
Church Property before the Revolution— The Question comes up in
the Assembly — Propositions of Talleyrand and Mirabeau — Three
Groups of Opinion — Opinion of the Right — Opinion of the Left — Ma-
louet— Mirabeau — Resolution of the Assembly — The Revolution not
Radical enough— Powers of the State over the Ancient Corporate So
cieties — The True Solution — The Ecclesiastical Committee — New
Propositions — Alienation of the Property of the Clergy — The Monastic
Orders — Proposal to Salary the Clergy — The Debate — Wrath of the
. Right — Motion of Dom Gerle — Excitement in Paris — Failure of the
Motion — Inconsistency of both Parties — Reparation made to the Prot
estants — Civil Rights granted to Jews and Comedians  Page 66
CHAPTER HI.
THE CIVIL CONSTITUTION OF THE CLERGY — THE ASSEMBLY TBANS-
FOBMED INTO A COUNCIL.
Plan of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy— Discussion— Retroac
tivity admitted — This Constitution faithful to the Ancient Regime 91
CHAPTER IV.
FIRST EESISTANCE OF THE CLEEGT — TROUBLE AT NIMES AND MONT
AUBAN — POLITICAL OATH IMPOSED ON THE CLERGY — PATHETIC
SCENE IN THE ASSEMBLY — ADDBESS OF MIRABEAU TO THE NATION
— PAMPHLET OF OAMILLE DESMOULINS.
War breaks out between the Revolution and Religion — Effect of
the Measures of the Assembly on the Country— Trouble in the South
and in Alsace— Massacres at Nimes— Beginning of Resistance at Rome
—Proposition to impose on Ecclesiastics an Oath of Fidelity to the
Civil Constitution of the Clergy— Discourse of Mirabeau— First Effects
of the Decree— Perplexity of the King— He Sanctions the Decree-
Pathetic Scene in the Assembly— Violence of the Radicals— Decree
against those who Refuse the Oath— Apologetic Address— Eloquent
but Inconsequent Address of Mirabeau— Pamphlet of Camille Des-
moulins  „„
CHAPTER V.
SOHISM IN THE 0HUE0H-COEEESPONDENCE WITH EOME— DEBATE ON '
THE LIBERTY OF WORSHIP-DISCOURSES OF SIEYES AND TALLEY
RAND— DISSOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY.
Annexation of Avignon to France— Letter of the Pope to the Bish
ops-Reply of the Bishops-Brief of the Pope-The Leading Bishops

CONTENTS. 15
of the new State Clergy— Their first Movements— Ridiculous Charge
of Bishop Gobel— Irritation of the Paris Populace against the Non-
juring Clergy— Resolution of the Municipality against Non-conforming
Temples— The King Hindered from going to Church at St. Cloud-
Riot against Religious Liberty— Noble Attitude of Lafayette— Dis
course of Talleyrand — SieySs defends the same Cause— Increase of
Religious Strife— Translation of the Ashes of Voltaire to the Pantheon
—Close of the Assembly— The Attempted Flight of the King hastens
the Crisis— Criticism on the Constituent Assembly  Page 119

BOOK II.
THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AND THE NATIONAL
CONVENTION UNTIL THE PROCLAMATION OF THE
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
CHAPTER I.
THE EELIGIOUS STEUGGLE IN THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.
Composition of the New Assembly — Extravagance of the Girondists
— Situation of the Country — Popular Violence against the Non-jurors
— Condition of La Vendee — Important Report — La Vendue desires
simply Liberty of Worship — Rising in the South — Blindness of the
Papal Court — Massacre at Avignon — Amnesty procured for the Guilty
by Vergniaud — Letter of Chenier in favor of a Separation of Church
and State — Measures against the Emigrated — Fauchet demands the
Persecution of the Non-jurors — Wise Discourses of Torne, Ducos, and
Gensonne — Violence of Isnard — Iniquitous. Decree of the 29th of No
vember, 1791 — The King Vetoes it — Noble Petition of the Municipality
of Paris — Contrary Petition of the Demagogues — Petition of Camille
Desmoulins — Effects of the Veto in the Provinces — Shameful Persecu
tion of Non-jurors and Nuns— Protest of the Refractory Clergy— New
Brief of the Pope— Disorders in the State Clergy— Further Persecution
— Abolition of the Clerical Costume — Roland Countenances Illegal
Persecutions— Feebleness of the Moderates — Persecuting Decree of
May 25, 1792— The Violation of the Palace on the 20th of June— Ter
rible Discourse of Vergniaud against the King — Persecution Redoub
led — The Massacre on the 10th of August — The Massacres of Septem
ber  Wl

16 CONTENTS.

CHAPTER II.
THE OHUBCH DURING THE NATIONAL CONVENTION UNTIL THE ABOLI
TION OF THE SALARIES OF THE CLEEGY.
Character of the Convention— Formation of the Revolutionary Tri
bunal—The Majority hostile to Religion— First manifestation thereof
—The Masses of Paris as yet Religiously Inclined— New Form of
the Oath — Transportation — Numerous Non-jurors Condemned to
Death— The Constitution— Plans of Condorcet and Robespierre— Con
stitution of 1793— Debate on the Liberty of Worship— Robespierre
Defends the Salarying of the Church by the State— Attacks on the
new State Church— Gigantic Efforts of the Revolution— The Reign of
Terror— The Municipality of Paris at the Head of the Movement-The
Atheistic Calendar— First Public Outbreak of Atheism— Inauguration
of the Worship of Reason in the Convention— Shameful public Apos
tasies—Noble Christian bearing of Deputy Gregory— Spoils of the
Churches brought to the Municipal Authorities— Organization of the
Worship of Reason — Impious Orgies — Measures of Persecution — En
tire Proscription of Religion — Robespierre Attacks the Atheists — His
Discourse at the Jacobin Club— Ignoble Recantation of Hebert and
Chaumette — Change of Tone of the Convention — Robespierre has the
Liberty of Worship Proclaimed — Hypocritical Decree on the Liberty
of Worship— Condemnation of the Dantonists — Discourse of Robes
pierre on the Supreme Being — Festival of the Supreme Being Voted
—Celebration of the Festival— The 9th of Thermidor  Page 187

BOOK III.
THE PERIOD OF THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND
STATE.
CHAPTER I
MEASURES OF THE CONVENTION IN REGAED TO RELIGION FEOM THE
FALL OF ROBESPIEERE TO THE EXPIRATION OF ITS POWERS.
Immorality of those who overthrew Robespierre — Their impious-
ness— Continuation of the Oppression of the Priests — Sufferings of
the Priests on the Pontoons— Gregory Pleads their Cause— Fine Dis
course of Gregory— Cambon Proposes to Abolish the Salaries of the
Clergy— His Proposition Adopted— Motion of Boissy d'Anglas— Law
on the Liberty of Worship— Rigorous Measures against the Dissent
ing Clergy— Good Effects of Toleration in La Vendee— Church Edi-

CONTENTS. 17
flees Restored to the Parishes— Worship under Strict Police— Propo
sition to Replace Christian Worship by the Deistical Civic Festivals-
Constitution of Tear ni— Final Measure of the Convention against
the Priests — Close of the Convention  Page 249
CHAPTER H.
RELATIONS OF CHURCH AND STATE UNDER THE DIBECTOEY.
Shameful Rule of the Directory— The Directory the Sworn Enemy
of the Liberty of Worship— Violence of the Directory against the
Papacy— Treaty of Tolentino— Camille Jordan on the Liberty of Wor
ship— Fine Discourse of Royer-Collard— Coup d'itat of the 18th of
Fructidor — Renewal of Persecution against the Church— Compulsory
Observance of the Deistical Festivals — Imprisonment of Pope Pius"
VL and his Death at Valence— End of the Directory  272
CHAPTER III.
THE ALTARS RESTORED BY LD3EETY.
Moral Condition of the Nation under the Directory — Hostility of the
Official and Dissident Catholic Clergy — Establishment of the Theo-
philanthropist Worship — Its Character— Progress of the Dissident "
Worship — It Prospered without Help from the State — Resuscitation of
the Constitutional Church — Role of Gregory in this Work — Large
Congregations in the Churches — Severe Morality of the Constitutional
Church — Worship Re-established in Forty Thousand Parishes — Coun
cil of the Gallican Clergy in 1797 — Its Acts— Second Council Dissolved
by Bonaparte — Situation of Protestantism at this Epoch — The Altars
Restored before the Concordat  292

BOOK IV.
THE CONCORDAT.
CHAPTER I.
PREPARATION FOR THE CONCORDAT:
Political Circumstances which led to the Concordat— The real Ob
ject of the Concordats-Opinions of Napoleon on Religion — He regards
it merely as an Instrument of Governing— His Speech to the Priests
at Milan  His Private Opinions — Religious Liberty Inconsistent with
Despotic Rigime— First Measures of the Consuls in regard to Religion
o

18 CONTENTS.
—Negotiations with Rome— The Civil Constitution of the Clergy
serves as a Basis — Public Opinion unfavorable to these Negotia
tions—Explanations of the First Consul— Religious Discussion For
bidden.. .  PaSe317
CHAPTER LI.
CONCLUSION OF THE CONCORDAT.
The Negotiations— The Slowness of Rome Irritating to the First
Consul— Threatenings of Rupture— Gonzalvi comes to Paris— Opinion
at Rome favors the Concordat — ItB Conclusion — Opposition in the
French Legislative Bodies— Purgation of the Legislature— The Or
ganic Laws of Germinal, Tear X— Legislation of Germinal, Tear X —
•The Concordat presented to the Tribunate and Legislature— Discourse
of Portalis— Of Lucien Bonaparte — Proclamation of the Concordat —
Ceremonies at Notre Dame — Proclamation of Bonaparte — Public
Opinion is not Favorable  345
CHAPTER m.
EFFECTS OF THE CONCORDAT — CONCLUSION.
Effects of the Concordat — Suppression of the Liberty of Worship —
Moral Enslavement of Protestantism — Episcopal Flatteries to the
new Monarch — Servility of the High Clergy — Wonderful Imperial
Catechism — Careful Surveillance over the Clergy — Severe Measure
against all who do not submit — Debates with Rome — The Pope is in
sulted — Open Rupture — Imprisonment of the Pope — Napoleon regrets
the Concordat— Cardinal Pacca Opposed to the Temporal Power of
the Pope — Conclusion  359
Biographical Notes  385

INTRODUCTION.

situation of the church of France at the eve of
the eevolution  state of opinion as to liberty
of conscience and the organization of worship.
I desiee to review the history of the relations of
Church and State during the French Revolution, from
the moment when this great movement broke out over
France and Europe, drunk with youth and enthusiasm,
and inspired with an inexperienced ardor for universal
reform, to the unpropitious hour in which it seemed or
ganized forever in force and glory in a spirit the very
contrary of the principles which had animated it at its
onset. Napoleon has been fondly styled the heir of the
French Revolution ; nevertheless, the great and gen
erous spirit of 1789 had most decidedly ceased to live
before he became master of France. Because the blood
of the ancient races did not course in his veins, because
he did not re-establish the privileges of caste, it has
been the fashion to view him as the armed representa
tive of that Revolution, and as its triumphant missionary.
It has been pretended that he caused it to enter the
capitals of absolutist Europe at the gallop of his war-
horse ; and yet the fact is, that the first capital he entered
as all-powerful general, was Paris itself — Paris submit-

20 INTRODUCTION.
ting to absolute power, rejuvenated by victory, and thus
renouncing the very principles which had animated it
with enthusiasm ten years previously. For, whatever
may be said by hired sophists, ever ready to laud and
beautify servitude, the essence of 1789 was the great
principle of general liberty. Civil equality is only one
of its consequences. And as soon as this is detached
from the vigorous trunk which produces it, one of two
things is certain to result — either it withers and perishes,
(for privilege springs most generally from the arbitrary,)
or there remains thereof merely a vain semblance, a mass
of dry leaves driven at the will of every capricious
brea+h. This sudden abortion of one of the noblest
movements of humanity continues to be the most worthy
and interesting problem of contemporary history. The
problem has been treated, as a whole, by many eminent
minds. My ambition is less vast. I desire to confine
myself to a single one of its many phases — to write the
history of religion during the French Revolution, to
mark the real progress accomplished at the opening of
the new era, to signalize honestly the faults committed,
to indicate the fatal mistake which gradually led to the
legalized enslavement of the Church, and, without ex
cusing the final excesses of a power which knew no con-'
trol, to seek in anterior history the causes which almost
necessarily led to them. Such is my design. There is
no surer means than this of comprehending the cruel
disappointments from which we are still suffering ; for
I am thoroughly convinced that nothing contributed
more fatally to the downfall of liberty than the errors
of our fathers as to the mode of organizing religion in

INTRODUCTION. 21
France. An attentive study of the progress of the
French Revolution demonstrates that that which
checked the chariot of liberty, so grandly sent forth at
the start, and finally precipitated it into the bloody dis
grace of terrorism, was precisely an inadequate compre
hension, and a too hasty decision, of the question of
religion. Though the French Revolution had proclaimed im
mortal truths, and recognized sacred rights, yet when
it attempted to infringe on the sacred domain of con
science it excited the most invincible opposition. This
opposition exasperated it, and turned it aside from the
path of fruitful and lasting reforms. It irritated its
proud and formidable genius, and led to the extinguish
ment of its benefits in a long paroxysm of wrath. This
eighteenth century, which seemed so thoroughly skeptical,
was really troubled more deeply by the question of religion
than by any other. It is well to recognize this to the honor
of humanity. In spite of appearances the heart of man
kind is more profoundly moved by spiritual than by
material interests. This explains the paramount im
portance of questions of this class, even when they
relate merely to the civil organization of religion, for
the question of form is readily confounded with the
question of essence. And to defend the absolute liberty
of the conscience is one of the first duties of religion.
In the France of to-day the problem which was
broached in 1789 is still unsolved. The concordat
which Napoleon imposed on, or rather, extorted from,
the Pope, has resolved no difficulty. Like every arbi
trary act, it has only served to complicate the situation.

22 INTRODUCTION.
Our own blunders, however, are much less excusable
than those of our fathers, for we cannot overbalance
them by real and signal reforms. In fact of tolerance,
they had said every thing from the very start. To-day
we enjoy their conquests, which no reaction has been
able to compromise, so securely are they based on eter
nal right. But let us temper with discriminating criti
cism the admiration they so legitimately inspire. Giv
ing them due credit for the great truths they proclaimed,
let us frankly signalize the elements of falsehood and
injustice which their system involved. And for this we
are the better prepared, inasmuch as we can now clearly
see that in their mistakes they were much rather timid
conservatives than daring reformers. They were influ
enced by the ideas of ancient France at the very mo
ment when they thought they had constructed against
them the most formidable instrument of war. It is from
this source that the Revolution had learned to
strengthen beyond measure the central power, and to
give to the State what belonged alone to the individual.
It is no wonder that the new wine could not be con
fined by the old vessels. I shall hope to have rendered
a real service to my country if I can clearly point out
the shoals on which, for a short time only, as we assur
edly believe, one of the noblest of revolutions has made
shipwreck. In attempting to understand the mutual relations of
the Church and the State, at the eve of the French
Revolution, the first thing which strikes us is their close
association as to politics, and their profound separation
as to theory and aspiration. This contrariety becomes

INTRODUCTION. 23
more and more violent the further we advance. It led
finally to the fatal blunder which divorced liberalism in
France from the Christian religion. It was precisely
the political union that provoked and envenomed the
moral separation. The Church was, so to speak, in
crusted in an order of things which shocked the public
conscience ; the altar had been the strongest support of
the ancient and now hated system of government.
Every reformatory and progressive aspiration, meeting
in this system an obstacle and barrier at its very start,
was naturally led to attack it with unmeasured violence.
The result was, that the liberal cause soon became alien
ated from the Church and identified with irreligion.
All who were young of heart and ardent for the vindi
cation of right and liberty, were in so far predisposed
to reject Christianity without hesitation. Life, pro
found conviction, conquering proselytism, were all on
the side of a skeptical philosophy. The Church was
not only stationary in the midst of this life, but even
undertook the vain task of arresting and beating back
the rising flood of enthusiasm. The eighteenth century
was imbued with one of the grand ideas born of the
Gospel. I mean the idea of humanity, the idea of
human right vindicated in the face of those caste privi
leges which are its negation. It was found that the
Church had taken sides in advance against the very
principles which it should have been the first to pro
claim, since it had in its own hands the book which had
disseminated and caused to triumph in the Roman em
pire the immortal words, (the chart of equality and true
liberty,) that in Christ there is neither bond nor free.

24 INTRODUCTION.
Thus by the fault of its representatives, the very relig
ion which had taught the world the ideas of humanity
and right, came to be regarded by liberal spirits as the
very foe which they must first conquer in their work of
vindicating principles which itself had first proclaimed.
In the confusion of the age, the ancient pagan view was
defended by the pretended successors of those who had
once overthrown it ; and the social and humane princi
ples of Christianity were defended by those who were
resuscitating the naturalism of the pagan world — the
impure source of all the injustice and abuses of despot
ism. Thus the most discordant elements were mingled
together ; justice and religion, which should have been
indissolubly joined, were violently and perniciously
separated. They fought in opposing armies, and every
stroke dealt by the one on the other weakened them
both. This fatal divorce, though dating far back in the
past, had been renewed and consummated at the close
of the seventeenth century by one of the greatest
crimes of history — by the murderous expulsion of that
portion of the religious public which was not bowed
under the yoke of Romish unity. The ruins of the
Jansenist community of Port Royal, and, above all,
those living remains of the Protestant Church who
were bound as slaves, and forced to row the galleys of
the Mediterranean, or who sought at the risk of life to
meet together in the desert for worship, reminded con
tinually an emancipated and indignant generation of
the pernicious union of religious with civil despotism,
and of the severe discipline they had suffered under the
ferule of that devout and all-powerful Papist, Madame

INTRODUCTION. 25
de Maintenon, during the last years of Louis XIV.
This ferule had been too long the scepter of France, and
France had been compelled to too bitter a penance for
the early sins of the most selfish of monarchs.
The seventeenth century had not been content with
transmitting these sad remembrances to the succeeding
age — remembrances which were yet visible realities,
since the proscription of Jansenism and Protestantism
was still in full force. It had even defended its theory
and sanctioned its practice by the immortal eloquence
of Bossuet, its greatest preacher. His book Politics
drawn from the Bible, consecrates the maxims of a
twofold despotism, and was destined to excite the in-
tensest wrath in the coming generation. This cunning
catechism, in which an unlimited monarchy and an un
curbed priesthood learn how, by uniting their power, to
control and entirely subjugate a great nation, may be
regarded as the testament of the age of Louis XIV.
This testament was broken and scornfully repudiated in
that brilliant and powerful but scoffing literary parlia
ment of the eighteenth century, which was presided
over by the genius of Voltaire.* The book of Bossuet is
the apotheosis of the ancient regime and its worst abuses.
It presents the king as a deity, whose appearance rejoices
the people as the sun, and whose unquestionable voli
tions should be received on bended knees. It is a deity,
it is true, somewhat like those of Homer, exposed to all
the passions of men, and rather inclined to fall into
them. The counsels which the eloquent bishop gives
to the prince are good enough ; they show to how many
* See Appendix, note 1.
4

26 INTRODUCTION.
crimes absolute power is exposed, and what terrible
consequences they may have in the world to come ; but
these counsels terrify rather than assure, for they reveal
the possibility of evil for which, when once committed,
there is no remedy ; since there is no resource against
the royal will, and since his subjects, after timidly re
monstrating, have only to kiss the dust into which his
foot has crushed them. There is no right in face of the
royal right. I mistake ; there is the right of the clergy,
for whom alone Bossuet makes a haughty exception.
All the property of the kingdom belongs to the mon
arch, except that of the clergy ; with this he has noth
ing to do, except to increase it. A king who under
stands well his duties is not content with opening his
treasures and enriching the Church. He remembers
that it, though detesting bloodshed, yet has need of it,
and, using his sword to execute its will, banishes its
enemies, or immolates them at the stake for the greater
glory of God, as at the revocation of the Edict of
Nantes. Heresy is not tolerated in the happy land
which he governs : " Those who maintain that the
prince should not use force in matters of religion, for
the reason that religion should be free, are in an im
pious error." Bossuet recalls and insists on the solemn
oath given by the Most Christian King, the day of his
coronation, for the extirpation of heresy. All these fine
theories are supported by texts of Scripture, whose
meaning is entirely distorted; for the learned bishop
applies to modern states that which related only to the
Jewish theocracy, which was essentially of a transitory
character. Thus he brings about this double result of

INTRODUCTION. 27
making monarchy and Christianity seem both hateful
alike, and of preparing inevitably a most dangerous
revolution. One might suppose the effect of such a
book in some measure counteracted by the humane po
litical system of Fenelon, which, though clothed in a
pagan form, was much more Christian than that of Bos
suet ; but such was not the case. His book, Telemaque,
was but a poetic Utopia, the splendid dream of him
whom Louis XIV. had styled the most chimerical spirit
of his kingdom. On the contrary, Bossuet's Politics
drawn from the Bible was the faithful portraiture of the
organization of religion in France down to the very
moment when the most daring vows were made for the
entire renovation of society. Let us present a review of
that organization.
The Catholic Church of France enjoyed the highest
privileges. Since the proscription of the Protestants it
was without a rival, and possessed full sway in the
whole of France. It possessed all the edifices for wor
ship, while the most secret retreats could not shield the
Protestants from the cruel hirelings of bigotry. They
had not only lost the right of professing their creed,
they had lost the right of existing. As soon as they
were discovered they fell under the vengeance of the
laws. Neither their births nor marriages were recog
nized as legitimate ; all public offices were closed
against them, and their children were considered as
belonging to the Catholic Church. The people of Al
sace alone, thanks to special treaties made at the time
of the conquest of that province, enjoyed liberty of con
science. As to Jews, they were barely tolerated ; for

28 INTRODUCTION.
they were oppressed by special taxes and a very severe
police, and were likewise excluded from public func
tions. The Catholic Church, therefore, possessed the
whole field. By the monoply of the marriages and
baptisms the entire state was in some measure in its
hands. Its voice alone was heard from one frontier to
the other. If one wished to publish a book which
might give it offense, he was necessitated to go to Hol
land. It enjoyed almost complete control of the educa
tion of the youth. Thus the minds, the souls, of the
whole population were officially in its power. To ac
complish its work the clergy possessed immense riches,
and a considerable portion of the soil. They had re
ceived them from the piety of the faithful, and from the
terrors of the death-bed. The kings of France had given
largely in their favor ; and if one may estimate the num
ber of their sins by the quantity of their donations, the
list was frightful indeed. The following is a low esti
mate of some of the branches of the revenue of the
clergy. At the head stand 11 Archbishops and 116
Bishops, with an aggregate annual income of 8,400,000
francs. The income of the Grand Vicars and Canons
was at least 13,400,000 ; that of seven hundred and
fifteen abbeys 9,000,000 ; that of seven hundred and
three priories 1,400,000 ; that of several hundred other
monastic institutions 7,042,000. The curates and their
vicars formed the secular clergy who served the 35,156
parishes. They were supported by tithes and various
casual receipts. The regular clergy filled the convents,
and numbered about 51,000 in the aggregate. One
half of the income of the French Church arose from

INTRODUCTION. 29
tithes, and the whole of its acknowledged revenue
amounted to nearly 130,000,000 francs ; and if to this
we add the casual receipts, it would not perhaps fall
below 200,000,000 francs, or 40,000,000 dollars annually.
The property of the clergy was exempt from taxation,
but they contributed to the support of the State by a
voluntary donation of 16,000,000 francs every five years,
though much of this was usually employed in liquida
ting previously contracted debts.
Certainly the State had been sufficiently prodigal of
privileges and riches toward the Church ; but, in return,
it had reduced it to a state of cramping dependence. The
eldest and cherished son of the Church had taken pre
cautions against his mother, and had bound her hands
with cords which, though golden, were none the less
galling. The king felt her ascendant as often as the fear
of damnation stirred in his breast, or age or disease re
minded him of the tolling funeral bell of St. Denis,
where his bones were finally to rest ; but the laws, re
strictive of the liberty of the Church, none the less con
tinued in force. These laws constitute what it has
seemed proper to term the liberties of the Gallican
Church. These famous maxims, full of a spirit of just
suspicion against the encroachments of Rome and of a
rich and ambitious clergy, were the work of the founders
of a despotic monarchy, and tended to enslave the
Church and reduce it to a mere instrument of govern
ment. To forbid the clergy to assemble in convention
without special royal permit, or the bishops to communi-
¦ eate freely with the spiritual head of Catholicism, was evi
dently to put the religious conscience rudely under the

30 INTRODUCTION.
hand of the State. It is true, however, that it was dan
gerous for the civil authority, in view of the power
and wealth of the clergy, to relax this control. It is
thus that the riches which tended to corrupt them began
by reducing them to subjection. To appreciate this sit
uation of the French Church, we must first have a clear
view of its relations with the Roman See.
It was in the Middle Ages that these relations were
most wisely regulated ; I mean, by the pragmatic sanc
tion made between St. Louis and the Pope, in 1268, and
confirmed at Bourges by Charles VH. in 1434. These
wise arrangements, which secured to the Church the
right of electing its own dignitaries, and guarded against
the encroachments of the Roman See, were, however, ab
rogated by the concordat concluded with the Pope by
Francis I. in 1516. It was a most grievous abuse of
power for the king to make this arrangement with the
ambitious Leo X. without consulting the Church. He
arrogated to himself the right of making nominations
to the parishes and bishoprics, and left in the hands of
the Pope the formidable power of confirming them by
bulls. A refusal of these bulls was enough to convulse
the entire nation. This was perceived too late — during
a crisis in the reign of Louis XIV. On the one hand,
one saw the clergy bowed at the foot of the throne, and
defending its privileges with their utmost ability ; on the
other, the proud monarch was forced, after a long refusal
of the bulls had deeply agitated the whole land, to hu
miliate himself and yield to the Holy See.
Assuredly the maxims of the Gallican Church, as
strengthened by the famous declaration of the clergy,

INTRODUCTION. 31
drawn up by Bossuet in 1682, had wisely guarded against
the interference of the Pope in the government of France,
but they had none the less consecrated the subjection
of the Church to the State. In the eighteenth century
the royal council could declare, without raising opposi
tion, that the government had the right, before authori
zing the decrees of the Church, to examine them, and to
interdict any thing that might agitate or disturb the
public tranquillity. We admit the merits of the Gallican
Church for her resistance to Ultramontanism ; we recog
nize her virtues, talents, and patriotism, but we cannot
forget that she has sacrificed more than one precious
liberty to the great French idol — I mean the State. She
allowed to be forged for herself a heavy yoke, which, as
soon as it ceased to be of gold, and was imposed, not
by royal hands, but by a popular assembly, became
utterly intolerable. We will see, in fact, that in order
to enslave the Church, the French Revolution had only
to act consistently with the principles laid down by
Bossuet and Louis XIV. Constantly associated with all
the iniquities of the ancient regime in the eighteenth
century, and even surpassing them by her own, the
Church of France was destined to excite the most intense
opposition, without signalizing herself by noble virtues.
For nothing is sadder than her moral condition previ
ously to the time when, in the reign of terror, she arose
by martyrdom, and purified herself in her own blood.
The state of things we have just described was but
the continuation of what had existed in France for
centuries. The only change that had taken place was
in public opinion; but this sufficed to present abuses

32 INTRODUCTION.
which, in the past, had been tolerated or connived at,
in their true light. The public conscience, once awak
ened, grew indignant at that which for a long time had
excited no scruples ; and it was enough that the Church
should remain as in the past, to arouse the most vehe
ment indignation. Unfortunately she was much more
occupied with her internal strifes and pecuniary interests
than with the formidable attacks of a skeptical philosophy.
Nothing is sadder than the religious history of the
eighteenth century. Piety languished, and science, at
least on the side of the Church, was null. In England
and Germany a withering breath brooded over hearts
and souls. In Protestant pulpits a religion without
grandeur and without mysteries was languidly preached,
which had neither the boldness of philosophy nor the
enthusiasm of faith. A cowardly compromising spirit
prevailed. In the French Church the declension was
visible to all eyes. Since the death of Massillon, in 1742,
no eloquent voice had been heard in the evangelical
pulpit, if we except the few trumpet tones of studied ve
hemence of Father Bridaine. The priestly spirit had
full career. Having little to persecute without, the dom
inant party began the work within the Church, attempt
ing to impose the ultra Papal bull Unigenitus, which
the Jesuitical courtiers of Louis XIV. had induced
Clement XI. to issue against the good Quesnel and the
feeble remnants of Jansenism, on all who had not yet
bowed to the Ultramontane yoke. The death-bed of the
most estimable priests was jealously spied, and clerical
persecution ceased only with the last breath. But the
Jansenists obtained little glory in the strife. There is

INTRODUCTION. 33
something, in fact, sadder still than the destruction of
the noble establishment of Port Royal — I mean the moral
degeneracy of Jansenism itself. That grand school
which had given to France St. Cyran and Pascal had
really fallen into dotage. It was now occupied chiefly
with apocryphal miracles, and the fanatical convulsion-
aries of St. Medard passed for the genuine disciples of
the saints and heroes who had defended the liberty of the
Church and produced some of the noblest masterpieces
of literature. These quarrels of the Catholics were
freely talked about in the court and the world. The
persecutors excited indignation, but the persecuted were
only pitied and laughed at. Could there be a more de
plorable condition for the Church ?
At the same time the attacks of philosophy were
growing more pressing, and making a deeper impression
on the public mind. It was necessary to answer them.
With one or two exceptions these replies were mere
monkish balderdash, and evinced neither logical ability
nor deep learning. To succeed in this work, it would
have been necessary to separate the Gospel from the
chaff with which a rich and privileged Church had cor
rupted it. As it was, the apologists did little more than
furnish excellent matter for the wit of Voltaire and the
Encyclopedists. Recourse was had to strokes of au
thority and official condemnation. It was easier to refute
error by documents affixed to the doors of cathedrals
than to meet it in honorable fight. The reunions of the
clergy in the eighteenth century had not failed, every
time they occurred, to anathematize philosophism, and
denounce it to the authorities, at the same time_recom
5

34 INTRODUCTION.
mending for promotion such priests as had signalized
themselves in this inglorious contest. This attitude of
St. Michael crushing the demon produced no very sal
utary effect : in the first place, because the enemy was
already in.legal chains ; and, secondly, because the cham
pions of the celestial cause were far from possessing the
necessary immaculate purity. While the official faith
continued the same, the real faith was growing weaker
and weaker, even in the ranks of the clergy. They
seemed to vie with each other in rendering their order
as vulnerable as possible. Those who retained the pure
faith, and led good lives, were hidden in the obscurity
of convents or country parishes ; while those who ap
peared in public, in the court and at Paris, were fre
quently implicated in deplorable scandals. Too often
they celebrated a mass in which they no longer had
faith, and appeared at the altar redolent with the per
fumes of the boudoir. The race of free-thinking and
gallant abbots was only too numerous. They encum
bered the drawing-rooms, and called to mind one of the
most crying abuses of the Church — the right of absence,
which allowed the noble titulary of a benefice to enjoy
in the capital, or where he pleased, all the emoluments of
his office, and to turn over all its duties and labors to the
miserable substitute whom he had hired for a mere trifle.
The nobility enjoyed largely the high places of the
Church, receiving immense incomes, but giving in return
only their sounding names. The clergy who did the work
received but little pay and lived miserably. Thus the
salaries were in inverse proportion to the labor performed.
In 1785 the scandalous lawsuit of the diamond neck-

INTRODUCTION. 35
lace had gravely compromised a prince of the Church.
The Cardinal de Rohan, Bishop of Strasbourg, and
Grand Almoner of France, had doubtless been duped
by the intriguing and unworthy Countess de Lamotte.
She had persuaded him that by means of a certain very
costly ornament he would be able to obtain the favors
of the Queen, and had surreptitiously obtained it for
him. This affair, when it came to the light, and was
brought into the courts of justice, produced a profound
impression on society. The world saw in it something
worse than the filching of a diamond necklace' ; namely,
its use by a prince of the Church for such a purpose.
When we recollect that all the infamous laws of perse
cution of Louis XIV. were scrupulously enforced by this
musked and discredited clergy ; that with sleek faces
and joking lips they attempted to play the zealous
heresy-hating Dominican of the Middle Ages without
having a particle of his sincere faith, it is easy to con
ceive the contempt into which they fell in the public
mind. The condemnation of the Protestant father
Calas, through their influence, by the Parliament of Tou
louse, on the false charge of having hanged his son for
wishing to go over to Catholicism, gave a powerful im
petus to the opposition and indignation. In the year
1761 the eldest son of this unfortunate man had been
found strangled in his father's own house. The Catho
lics had Calas arrested on the charge of having himself
committed the unnatural deed on his own son. Nu
merous witnesses appeared against him. It was impos
sible for the father to prove a negative, and it was in
vain that he appealed to the facts of his parental ten-

36 INTRODUCTION.
derness for his children ; of the restless melancholy tem
perament of his deceased son ; of his not having opposed
another of his sons who had gone over to the Catholics ;
of the impossibility of his committing such an act of
violence in his sixty-eighth year on a vigorous young
man ; and of there having been in his house at the time
a Catholic servant girl, who yet knew nothing of his
alleged crime. He was condemned to the wheel by
eight voices against five, and in March, 1762, put to
death. He endured the torture with calmness and pa
tience, and on mounting the scaffold uttered the fol
lowing words : " I die innocent ; my judges have been
deceived. Christ, however, who was innocence itself,
died even a more painful death than mine." The re
maining members of the family removed to Geneva,
where Voltaire became acquainted with them and with
their terrible misfortune. He immediately determined
to investigate the matter thoroughly, and to submit it
to the judgment of the world. The iniquity of the
affair becoming thus notorious, the widow and children
applied for a revision of the trial. The result was that
fifty judges, after a thorough investigation of all the
circumstances, pronounced the father entirely innocent
of the charge for which he had suffered. This serv
ice of Voltaire in the cause of justice* was a terrible
blow to the Catholics ; but his wrath did not stop
within the bounds of justice. Seizing every plausible
pretext, he increased the indignation to the extent of his
power. Thus we have, near the close of the eighteenth cen
tury, the spectacle of two great irreconcilable powers

INTRODUCTION. 37
mutually driving each other to the last extremes. It is
easy to foresee how difficult will be any conciliation
when the hour for great social reforms arrives. There
had gradually arisen in the minds of the liberal portion
of the laity an unwillingness to allow to remain on the
same footing the vast and expensive establishment of
the Church. True, these opinions were rather insinu
ated than openly advocated. Sometimes it was by way
of allusion, as when Mably discussed the origin of tithes
and of the property of the Church ; sometimes by sar
casm, as when Montesquieu exposed so masterly the
uselessness of the monastic life ; and sometimes by the
inexhaustible and terrible raillery of Voltaire, which
attacked even the bases of Christianity. As early as
1749 public functionaries had maintained the right of
the nation to lay hands on the property of the Church
for the good of the public treasury. But though public
opinion so strongly disfavored the accumulation of so
much wealth in the hands of the clergy, the government
manifested no inquietude. France, naturally more en
thusiastic for ideas than for particular interests, needed
the pressure of a great crisis to induce her to interfere
in earnest in secularizing the property of the Church.
It was not thus with the second object of the public
desire, namely, liberty of opinion. This the new gener
ation was determined to have, even at the price of
overthrowing the former social fabric. It shall be to
the eternal honor of Voltaire to have truly and sin
cerely loved tolerance. I am not sure that he had the
fever at every anniversary of the massacre of St. Bar
tholomew; I do not know that any one felt his pulse

38 INTRODUCTION.
regularly on that occasion ; it is certain, however, that
he had the fever of the soul and heart, that noble fever
of an unfeigned indignation against the crimes of intol
erance. It is false, however, to attribute to him the
founding of the doctrine of tolerance. Not to mention
the first apologists of Christianity, who are so pointed
on this subject, William Penn had inscribed the doc
trine of religious toleration at the head of the constitu
tion of the State he had founded in America at the close
of the preceding century. The little State of Rhode
Island had honored itself with the most intelligent
practice of the same principle. We must add also that
only in America had it been embraced in all its conse
quences. In France the boldest and freest thinkers
had fettered it with strange restrictions.
We applaud Montesquieu for putting into the mouth
of a young Jewess the following words : " Tou wish us
to be Christians, and you are not such yourselves. The
characteristic of truth is its triumph over the heart and
mind, and not this feebleness which you admit when
you attempt to force it on others by punishment. The
chief honor of a religion is its being believed ; that of
laws, their being feared." Instead of being consist
ent with these noble maxims, however, Montesquieu
violates them himself by refusing to a new religion the
right of propagating itself. " Inasmuch," says he, " as
scarcely any but an intolerant religion can have a zeal
to propagate itself in other lands, since a religion which
can tolerate others has little of the missionary spirit, it
would be well for the government, when satisfied with
the existing religion, not to permit the estabUshment of

INTRODUCTION. 39
others. When it is equally practicable to receive or
not receive a new religion it should be forbidden, but
that which is already established should be tolerated."
One seems to hear in these words a voice from the age
of Trajan and Pliny the Younger. Is this not simply
the old Roman and French idea of a religion for the
State and for the public order? Montesquieu adds,
" When the laws authorize different religions they
should also oblige them to tolerate each other. They
should be required not only not to trouble the State, but
also not to trouble each other." Thus religion is made
to exist only at the good will of the State and during its
good pleasure.
In Rousseau* this germ of a system received its full
development. The eccentric citizen of Geneva was
surely a friend of tolerance. He had learned this in
severe lessons from the Parliament of Paris, which had
ordered the public burning of his philosophical romance
Emile, and from the official blasts of Beaumont the
anti-Jansenist Archbishop of Paris. It was Rousseau
who had given to the ancient regime the most terrible
blow, for it was he who had given to the reformatory
movement his earnest passion, and to the young genera
tion the fire which raged in his own heart. He has the
sad honor of having molded the French Revolution
according to his own image. By his writings he was
the ruling spirit in its most violent and devastating
period. It is easy to perceive the influence of his ideas
on the organization of religion in the acts of our first
national assemblies. His Contrat Social contained the
* See Appendix, note 2.

40 INTRODUCTION.
formulae which by them were made into laws. Strange
to say, this chart of the impending revolution, this pro
gramme of the boldest of reforms, was full of the
favorite ideas of Bossuet. It was a sort of deistical
Gallicanism, with a very short catechism, it is true, but
as implacable toward its foes as if it had had to enforce
the creed of the Council of Trent. The sword, though
drawn for so feeble a formulary, is none the less terri
ble against all dissenters. The Contrat Social is, so to
speak, Louis XIV. in a Jacobin's coat. It is true, the
supreme power, instead of being a single man, is called
Legion. Instead of at Versailles, it presides in a noisy
forum; but it is none the less absolute, none the less
destructive of all real freedom ; it is a pure despot.
Rousseau, of course, desires that this despot be a good
prince, and allow all his fellow-citizens to believe as
they please. The concession, however, is very small,
for it does not permit dissenters to manifest publicly
their faith. Let Rousseau speak for himself : " There is
a profession of faith purely civil, of which it is the sov
ereign's duty to fix the articles, without obliging any
one to believe in them ; but he may banish from his
State whoever does not believe them. He may banish
him not as impious, but as unsocial, incapable of sin
cerely loving law and justice, and of sacrificing, if need
be, his life to his duty. If any one, after publicly
recognizing these dogmas, acts as if not believing them,
let him be put to death ; he has committed the greatest
of crimes, he has lied against the laws."
At the reading of these words, published about the
year 1764, I seem to see in the distance Robespierre

INTRODUCTION. 41
celebrating the festival of the Eternal in the presence of
the guillotine. Rousseau, doubtless, would have been
first in detesting the practical working of his theory;
but when we remember that it was his doctrines which
had done most in educating the young generation, we
can easily account for the grievous mistakes which
were made in adapting the relations of the State to
religion. The eloquent teacher had poorly instructed his
disciples on the subject of liberty of conscience.
What we have above said of the moral condition of
the clergy in the eighteenth century, explains the atti
tude they took as to the property of the Church, and as
to the principle of tolerance. In 1788 the Assembly of
the Clergy was called to vote on the resolutions of the
Assembly of Notables which levied a tax on all lands,
including the possessions of the Church. They protested
with great energy against a project which seemed to
them to overthrow all laws, human and divine. They
declared to the King that their goods had been irrevo
cably vowed and consecrated to God, and that their con
science and honor forbade them to change into a legal
tribute, what could only be their free gift to the national
treasury. They prayed God to guard their ancient im
munities against the license of revolutionary opinions.
Nor were their feelings as to the liberty of the press any
more honorable. From 1781 up to 1789 they had done
their utmost to suppress whatever publications attacked
their privileges.
Worst of all was the attitude of their later assemblies
toward the Protestants. The persecuting laws of Louis
XIV. were still retained. A Protestant Pastor, Francis

42 INTRODUCTION.
Rochette, had been executed in 1762, and the judicial
murder of Calas belonged to the same epoch. The ex
plosion of indignation excited by this crime, and its elo
quent exposure by the genius of Voltaire, had done
more for the Protestant cause than a half century of ob
scure sufferings. Men did not yet dare to demand for
it toleration as a religion, but they were at least ashamed
of the entire proscription of one of the noblest classes
of society. For some years the magistrates, shocked at
the injustices encouraged by the lack of a legal recog
nition of the Protestants, had sought in divers ways to
evade the difficulty. The friends of tolerance pressed
openly for a legal recognition, if not of Protestantism,
at least of the Protestants as citizens. The great states
man, Malesherbes, had drawn up on the subject, in 1785,
a project of a law. In the Assembly of Notables, in
1787, Lafayette, who had breathed the air of liberty in
the United States, took the initiative in a formal propo
sition which resulted in an edict of toleration. Imperfect
as it was, it was hailed with the warmest satisfaction.
It declared in its preamble that the King would continue
to use all his influence in the interests of the Catholic
religion ; it provided that the Roman Catholic religion
alone should enjoy the right of public worship ; that
non-Catholics might live in France and exercise profes
sions or trades without being molested on account of
religion ; that they might be legally married before the
officers of justice, and have the births of their children
regularly registered; that, in fine, they might enjoy the
privileges of honorable sepulture. These concessions,
though interfering in no way with the domination of

INTRODUCTION. 43
Catholicism, met with the intensest opposition from the
clergy. Even the Parliament of Paris made some ob
jection to their registration. Espremenil, holding up an
image of Christ, cried out, " Will you crucify him
afresh ! " But nothing responded better to public opin
ion than these concessions to the persecuted, now that
their cause had been pleaded by the philosophers. It
had needed the noise of a public discussion to render
their condition a subject of interest to France. The
high clergy alone continued their protests. At the cor
onation of Louis XVI., in 1775, a prelate, less known
for his virtue than for his ambition, Lomenie de Brienne,
Archbishop of Toulouse, had assumed to address the
Monarch thus: "We conjure you, Sire, do not delay to
take from error the hope of having among us temples
and altars. It is reserved to you to strike the last blow
to Calvinism in your dominions. Order the dispersion
of the schismatic meetings of the Protestants; exclude
them, without distinction, from all public functions, and
you will assure to your subjects the unity of the Chris
tian worship."
From the accession of Louis XVI. on, the clergy, in
their assemblies, continued to rail against the Protestants.
In a report presented by them in 1789 we find these
words : " This sect, which in the midst of its ruins pre
serves the spirit of audacity and independence which it
has shown from the beginning, wishes to arrogate for
falsehood the rights which belong only to the troth."
And yet all the rights they sought were, not to be
treated like wild beasts, and hunted down in the forests.
" This sect," continues the report, " presumes to demand

44 INTRODUCTION.
a civil and religious existence; hence the necessity of
vigorously resisting all its efforts." The Archbishop of
Aries raised a more authoritative voice. According to
him both country and Church were in great danger, and
he uttered the cry of the disciples in distress : " Lord,
save us or we perish." The country was in danger for
sooth, for some Protestants were admitted to public
offices. This, however, does not hinder the good Arch
bishop from declaring his love for his erring brethren:
"They are our fellow-citizens and brethren. We will
always love and cherish them. Far from us the thought
of the sword. The warfare to which we are called is
purely spiritual." The orator forgot the winged words
which Bossuet charged, in his funeral eulogy of the abom
inable persecutor Letellier, with the duty of conveying
to subsequent ages the knowledge of the exploits of this
saintly man in extirpating heresy. The sabers of the
dragoons and the ax of the executioner would not
pass, at the opening of the French Revolution, for the
pacific crosier. The Archbishop protested that he put
all his confidence in the touching instructions and lumi
nous examples of the Church. Nevertheless the Assembly
of the Clergy, held in 1788, was unwilling to dispense
with the temporal arm, but made to the King a formal
petition to revoke his edict of toleration. This was its
last public act, and, as it were, its will and testament.
Happily there was no one in France who received the
legacy. We have not cited these facts to throw discredit on
the ancient Church of France. Large bodies like it are
slow to receive light, for they are dominated by their

INTRODUCTION. 45
traditions. The more we study history the more are
we convinced of the astonishing facility with which
human nature embraces the strangest contradictions.
It is ever leavened with inconsistency. The noblest
sentiments exist in the same bosom along side of the
most pernicious prejudices. The high clergy of France
embraced more than one enlightened and liberal spirit ;
as a body, however, they labored under the weight of
centuries of error.
Having thus characterized the tendencies which were
about to enter into conflict, we shall not be surprised at
the Revolution which broke out in 1789. We shall often
.have to regret that their opposition was not, at bottom,
more radical, and that both the party of the Church and
the reform party acted too often from the principle of
mutual intolerance. For, the reformers were often guilty
of defending the cause of tolerance by intolerant meas
ures, and of outraging the liberty of conscience in their
opponents under pretext of serving it in general. On the
other hand the Church party, assailed in their interior
sanctuary and in the sacred rights which, in their pros
perity, they had not respected in their brethren, arose
through opprobrium and persecution to an unconscious,
but none the less real, defense of this sacred liberty
against the despotism of the civil power which they had
once themselves used against the Protestants.
This exposition of the condition of the French priest
hood would give an incorrect idea of the general state
of the Church, if we spoke only of the higher clergy. It
is true, the nobility held all the high and lucrative posi
tions, and that a breath of reform was then prevalent

46 INTRODUCTION.
among the aristocracy. Some of their number had taken
part in the glorious work of the American Revolution.
Nevertheless this had not shaken the ecclesiastical preju
dices of the gentlemen prelates. They all remained true
• • them, with the exception of Pompignan, Archbishop
of Vienne, and Talleyrand,* Bishop of Autun; and of
these the latter had the churchly vocation only to a very
feeble degree. But it was not so with the lower clergy.
Poorly paid, and held in subjection to their superiors,
these were in a state of perpetual discontent: Belonging
mostly to that energetic and wide-awake middle class,
who felt that the time of their disinthrallment was
dawning, they shared in the same feelings. To this
number belonged the still remaining Jansenists, who
were already predisposed for change, inasmuch as for a
century they had been suffering severely at the hands
of the State Church. Also the convents, encumbered
as they were with men without active rehgious duties,
hid in their cells more than one dangerous agitator, as
yet unknown to himself. On the whole, the opinions of
the inferior clergy were not beyond a firm but moderate
liberalism, at least in the center and east of France.
The west and the south were still imbued with the preju
dices of the past. It was an Abbot, namely, Sieyes,f
whose eloquent words decided, at the time of the con
vocation of the States-General, the difficult question as
to the manner in which the three orders should be rep
resented in the coming National Assembly. Another of
these earnest priests, Abbot Gouttes, published a work
On the Injustice of the Pretensions of the Clergy and
° See Appendix, note 3. f Ibid, note 4.

INTRODUCTION. 47
Nobility. Abbot Pacot published letters on Political
Liberty; and Abbot Gregory,* who was afterward to
play so noble a role, issued a series of Letters to Parish
Priests. Ab an exceptional case, we might mention the
pamphlet of a priest of Auxerre, entitled the Gloria in
Excelsis of the People, which presented in embryo all
the excesses of the spirit of Jacobinism. Such was the
state of public opinion on the rehgious question at the
moment when all the secret aspirations were on the point
of bursting into active attempts at practical realization,
without meeting any other obstacle than their own bitter
rivalries. The Church was so inwoven in the State that
the one could not be touched without affecting the other.
We shall therefore see, from the very outbreak of the
Revolution, the question of Church and State distinctly
presenting itself, and marching through manifold perils
and mistakes to its own proper solution.
* See Appendix, note 5.

RELIGION

REIGN OF TERROR

BOOK FIEST.
THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY.

CHAPTER L

LEGISLATIVE PRELIMINARIES  FIRST DEBATE ON THE
LIBERTY OF WORSHIP.
A unique hour in our history had arrived. France,
in seeing herself honored with a worthy national repre
sentation, felt the throbs of a new life. She saw the
future in the brilliant colors of that May sun which
saluted the opening of the so long and so earnestly
desired States-General. " Despise not your youth," said
a great poet. Let us likewise respect this season of genu
ine enthusiasm for the public good. It had sprung up
in a race which had seemed in dotage. Let us not
deride this readiness to hope for every thing ; this un
limited confidence in the future. If the harvest answers
not to the spring, that does not say that the spring wa3
deficient in vigorous sap. Had it not been for these

50 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
brilliant illusions, nothing at all would have been accom
plished, nothing even undertaken. If there exists to-day
earnest opposition to the general abasement, generous
aspirations for improvement, it is because something
remains of the illusions of 1789. They remain, after all,
the ideal of our history ; and the moment they are lost
sight of by the public, that moment the condition of the
nation will be similar to that of falling Rome.
The clergy partook largely of the universal enthu
siasm. The Bishop of Nancy, in preaching the inaugu
ration sermon of the States-General in a church at
Versailles, so touched the chord of patriotism as to be
interrupted by cheers, notwithstanding the sacredness
of the place. However, from the very first day it was
easy to observe profound differences of sentiment. On
several weighty points, however, there was general
harmony, such as the equal distribution of taxes, the
regular assembling of the States-General, and the refor
mation of the abuses of the feudal system. The clergy
were hberal on every subject except the privileges of
the Church. M. de Tocqueville, in saying that they
were fully as favorable to civil hberty and political
rights as the members of the Third Estate, doubtless
goes too far, and attributes to them as a body what
belonged only to certain sections of them. Neverthe
less it is true that as to politics they fell behind none in
liberalism, and were in advance of the nobility. Still
they were much divided on the question as to whether
the voting in the Assembly should be by individuals
instead of by orders. To their honor be it said, that
they insisted earnestly on the suppression of slavery

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 51
and the slave-trade. But there was great variety of
sentiment on important subjects. The representatives
of the high clergy generally insisted on the divine right
of kings, while those coming from among the parish
priests invariably plead the rights of the people.
But even the high clergy were divided. While the
Archbishop of Lyons spoke only of the anarchical and
subversive tendency of the new ideas, the Bishop of
Blois offered the half of his income to the public treas
ury, and the Archbishop of Bordeaux preached self-
sacrifice to the great, and concord to all. But this
liberalism did not extend to a recognition of the liberty
of conscience. The clergy insisted on the necessity of
maintaining the Catholic as the rehgion of the State,
and demanded a priestly surveillance of the press.
They favored reforms in the education of the youth,
but insisted that it be confided to the Church.
While admitting the need of reforming the discipline
of the convents, they insisted on maintaining the
monastic orders. Certainly these views were widely
different from those of the Third Estate. In the elec
tion of many of the deputies to this body, an anti-
Church feeling had openly prevailed. At the Paris
election the cry was heard on every hand, " No more
priests ! No more priests ! " The opinions of the Paris
delegation were very pointed. They held that, rehgion
being a matter of persuasion and not of force, every
citizen should be free to choose his own Church ; that
the sending of Peter-pence to Rome should be stopped ;
that every Church dignitary should live in the bounds
of his official district ; that plurality of benefices should

52 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
be forbidden ; and that thenceforth monastic vows
should not bind devotees to remain in their convents.
Principles so widely discordant as these, were destined
to break out in the Assembly in open conflict.
The expenditures of Louis XIV, and the improvidence
of the government since his death, had brought the
nation to the brink of bankruptcy and ruin. As a last
expedient it was decided to summon a meeting of the
States-General, a 'body which had not been called to
gether since the year 1614. This body consisted of
delegates from the three orders of society — the nobility,
the clergy, and the people, or Third Estate. The dele
gates of the people numbered a few more than the
sum of those from the other two classes. The As
sembly convened at Versailles in the beginning of
May, 1789.
An all important question now arose, namely, How
should the members of the Assembly vote ? Should it
be by orders, or by individuals ? Should the noble, the
priest, and the deputy of the people stand on an equality
in privilege and power, or should each order vote sep
arately ? If the latter, then farewell to all hope of
effectual reform, for no measure could pass without the
vote of at least one of the privileged orders. The Third
Estate would, therefore, be powerless, inasmuch as the
two orders of the nobility and clergy could combine
and defeat all its measures. The question was, there
fore, one of life and death. The existence of the estab
lished order of things depended on its decision. Should
the demand of the Commons for a union of the three
orders be acceded to, then every thing would be in

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 53
their power, for they were in the majority. It was
natural that ancient France was not willing to die
without a struggle. Though the nobihty and clergy
were willing, under the pressure of the times, to cut off
from the old oak all excrescences and parasitical
branches, still they were by no means favorable to tear
ing it out by the roots. The union of the orders was
especially distasteful to the clergy. The basis of the
constitution of the priesthood was a principle of isola
tion. Based on the order of the Levites, they felt
themselves to be separated from the laity in every
respect — in their office, in their property, even in their
garments. To bow under the sway of the common law,
and to debate their rights with laymen, was to abandon
all their cherished notions of special privilege. It
would, therefore, be unjust to condemn their long hesi
tation before consenting to a fusion of the orders. This
step, however, they were finally compelled to take.
During the weeks of contest which preceded the
fusion, the Third Estate gave proof of consummate
pohtical genius. They aimed at a definite point, and
were ready to yield in any thing that was not essential
to their object. When it became necessary, they exhib
ited a sublime and heroic force of determination. Such
was the hour when, shut out of the former place of
meeting, they assembled in the empty saloon of a tennis-
court, and, raising their hands, took a solemn vow not
to separate till they had given the nation a new consti
tution. They were more fortunate than their privileged
brethren, moreover, in having in their ranks the prince
of modern orators — one who, despite his vices, was

54 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
abreast with the noble enthusiasm of the time, and
whose winged words were like lightning flashes in the
faces of his foes. Mirabeau* was an intellectual king,
and dominated in the Assembly by the divine right of
genius. The victory of the Third Estate was certain from the
first day. They were united, while their opponents
were divided. On the first vote a large minority of the
clergy favored the fusion of the orders. As this minor
ity, however, contained only three Bishops, it is clear
that it consisted chiefly of the inferior clergy. The
majority itself was less firm in resistance than the no
bility. They treated the delegations which were sent
to them from the Third Estate with deference and
respect; still they could not turn aside the inevitable
democratic drift of things, which every-where stared
them in the face. No stroke of policy or cunning was
left untried. The most ingenious of all was the attempt
to carry their point by surprise. Prices of food were
enormously high, and the people in some places were
on the point of famine. What could therefore seem
more patriotic than, for a season, to adjourn their long
political dissensions and attend at once to the furnishing
of bread to the starving ? Accordingly, under pretext
of attending to this duty of charity, the body of the
clergy voted unanimously, on the sixth of June, to ap
point a committee to take into consideration the scarcity
of grain, and invited the other two bodies to second
them in this good work. Doubtless the minority voted
for this measure with perfect honesty and patriotism;
* See Appendix, note 6.

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 55
as to the majority, however, it is perfectly evident that
it was a cunning design to avoid the fusion of the orders
by surprising them in advance into separate action.
The scheme could not succeed. Bailly, the wise presi
dent of the Third Estate, replied to the proposition as
follows : " The most ardent wish of the deputies of the
people is to procure them relief. The resolution of the
clergy justifies them in believing that that order shares
with them in this wish, and Will therefore not long delay
to unite in a body with them, without which union the
public distress must go on increasing forever." Thus,
beaten on their own ground, the higher clergy looked
elsewhere for help, and urged the King to despotic
action. But fresh chagrin awaited them here. Com
missioners had been appointed by the. three orders to
confer with those of the King, but their deliberations
resulted in httle. By this time the spirit of the hour
had so far made progress among the clergy as to gain a
majority. This majority now resolved on the first occa
sion to put their views into practice.
A royal- session took place June 23. The King, sur
rounded by all the pomp of royalty, appeared in the
Assembly, expressed much displeasure at the obstinacy
of the Commons, made sundry threats to provide for
the good of the nation without their help if they per
sisted in making trouble, enjoined the continuance of
the separate action of the three orders, and on retiring
ordered the Assembly t& disperse. The nobility and
clergy obeyed, but the Commons retained their seats.
"That day," says Mignet, "the royal authority was
lost." It was successfully disobeyed. " The Assembly

56 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
remained," said Sieyes, " what it had been from the first,
that is, sovereign." The proud words of Mirabeau de
clared that the new right was stronger than the old. The
King, urged on by the higher clergy and the nobility, had
gone too far, and lost every thing. It was in vain that,
in conformity with his direction, they persisted in meet
ing separately. Within a day or so the majority of the
clergy and a large number of the nobility had joined
the Commons, and the King, under the pressure of
pubhc opinion, ordered the remaining ones to do like
wise. The disaffected members of the clergy sought to pro
vide for the future by protesting against the union they
had reluctantly consented to. This was met by the with
ering words of Mirabeau, that no one could be a member
of the Assembly who did not recognize its sovereignty.
The former system of things had passed away. The only
authority remaining consisted in the sovereignty of a de
liberative assembly. By the 27th of June, we may say,
the Revolution was consummated. Nothing of a more
radical nature remained to be done than had already
been accomplished.
As regards the Church of France, the changes were
of a deep and wide-reaching nature. It was no longer
an isolated order in the bosom of the State. Its organi
zation was now to fall under the criticism and direction,
not of its own ministers, but of the deputies of the
nation. The great danger waS that in the confusion of
the temporal and spiritual spheres, the sanctity of the
conscience might be violated.
As to the National Assembly, it seemed that it now had

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 57
nothing further to do than to enter on its great work of
preparing a constitution for France. But it was neces
sary, first of all, to provide for its own safety. At this
point a dangerous power came to its protection. This
was the power of the populace, the mob. We do not
censure all uprisings of the people ; they are sometimes
sublime and of good result. But in the state of the
ignorance of the masses at the close of the eighteenth
century, these explosions of pubhc sentiment had the
character of savage and intractable forces. The in
structed classes breathe the fire of a legitimate indigna
tion into the hearts of the brawny-armed masses, and
imagine that they will stop their violence at the proper
bounds ; but this is rarely the case. The mad waves of
wrath roll higher and higher, until both friends and foes
are submerged in the general wreck. Moderate liber-
alists will always perish in the impure waters of dema-
gogism, so long as they will not be wise enough to
busy themselves fraternally with the elevation of the
masses in times of peace. It is the just chastisement of
their careless selfishness. Such is the great lesson to be
learned from the stormy beginnings of the French Rev
olution. Certainly, when foreign troops were in camp
at Versailles, ready brutally to disperse the National
Parliament, it was right to seek protection in the popu
lace of Paris ; but the same element which saved the
Assembly was destined afterward to constrain and
crush it. The despotism of the street, once called into
play, stopped not till it was the ruling power of the
nation. We applaud "the people who destroyed the
Bastile ; but it was the same people that afterward rev-

58 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
eled at the foot of the guillotine. We will see that the
influence of the mob was never more imperious than at
the time when the question of religion was discussed in
the National Assembly.
Not that the people of Paris, at the opening of the
Revolution, were hostile toward rehgion. On the con
trary, they even mingled with the taking of the Bastile
a vein of religious zeal. In destroying a prison which
stood in connection with a convent, the mob spared the
Sisters of Charity and respected their character. Irre
ligious passion was so far from being yet excited, that
after the victory of the Bastile the people of Paris com
mitted the opening Revolution to the patronage of St.
Genevieve. They made a rehgious procession in grati
tude to God for his help. Men, women, and children
flocked with garlands and votive offerings to the tomb
of the patroness of Paris. The citizens of the faubourg
St. Antoine repaired to church preceded by young ladies
in white and a large number of the clergy, and piously
celebrated funeral services for those who had fallen at
the Bastile. These dispositions, it is true, soon changed ;
but they show that at this point the hostility which was
afterward so bitter against rehgion, and so destructive
to liberty, had not yet penetrated the masses.
The night of the 4th of August will remain forever a
glorious epoch in our history. It presented to the world
an unprecedented example of patriotic enthusiasm and
noble self-sacrifice — we might call it a sort of worldly
Pentecost — so sudden and so great was the change. It
presented the French character in one of its brightest,
but also most perilous aspects. The nobihty and high

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 59
clergy vied with each other in sacrificing on the altar cf
the country the privileges they had enjoyed from time
immemoriaL The scene was sublime ; still we cannot
forget that it is not by such exhibitions of momentary
devotion that permanent changes are generally brought
about in society. What one hour can do, another hour
may undo. Despite all this, however, the night of the
4th of August remains an admirable moment.
The nobihty had just renounced their feudal rights
and privileges. Then the Bishop of Nancy arose to
speak for the clergy. He declared that if any redemp
tion was given in exchange for the privileges they were
about to relinquish to the nation, it was his wish that it
should not be to the profit of the ecclesiastical proprietor,
but rather that it should be used as a public fund, in
feeding and clothing the destitute. After him, the Bishop
of Chartres demanded the abolition of the laws of the
chase. The generous Gregory proposed the abrogation
of the annats, an occasional tribute heretofore paid to
the Pope. Several priests offered to the country the
whole of their incomes. This grand session was termi
nated by an approval of the proposition of the Arch
bishop of Paris to sing a Te Deum in the chapel of the
King. It was fitting that the name of God should be
pronounced at the close of such a session. All that is
grand or noble is from him. His breath had brooded
over an assembly, the majority of whom were far from
believing in his providence.
The clergy were scarcely aware of the gravity of the
events just accomplished. This lay not so much in the
sacrifices they had already made, as in the fact that the

60 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
whole question of the Church property was intimately
connected with questions already settled. The clergy
had unconsciously submitted the whole subject to the
arbitration of a deliberative assembly. The day after
the memorable session of August the 4th, the question
of tithes presented itself in all its difficulties. It is true
they were included among the other exceptional taxes
which had been renounced forever; but the question
remained, whether the renunciation was to be understood
as absolute, or whether the tithes were to be redeemed
in money or otherwise. Many of the clergy were of the
latter opinion. Much troublesome discussion arose on
the subject. Finally Deputy Buzot arose and uttered
the following insolent words : " The best thing the clergy
can do is to save appearances, and to seem to make, of
their own accord, the heavy sacrifices which imperative
circumstances will force upon them." Mirabeau pro
nounced, on the occasion, one of his finest speeches, in
favor of the unconditional abolition of the tithes, and
of the direct payment of the ministers of rehgion out of-
the general treasury. He was ably responded to by
Sieyes, who, however, could not gain the majority.
Finally the clergy saw that their cause was hopelessly
lost. They yielded, and made the necessitated renuncia
tion by the mouth of the venerable Archbishop of Paris.
His words were worthy and noble. " We remit," said
lie, " all these ecclesiastical tithes into the hands of a'
generous and just nation. That the Gospel be preached,
that divine worship be celebrated with dignity and pro
priety, and that the poor be provided for, these are the
objects of our ministry. We have confidence in the Na-

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 61
tional Assembly." To imagine that the Church property
could, after this, be saved to any degree whatever, was
the most vain delusion — the cause was lost before the
battle. Let us terminate this chapter by a review of the opin
ions of the Constituent Assembly as to the hberty of con
science. The subject came up in connection with the dec
laration of the rights of man. The work of framing a
constitution would not have been in harmony with the
French genius had it not been prefaced by a chapter of
philosophical generalities. One would suppose it to have
been more necessary to enact good practical laws than to
proclaim abstract rights, which are never a barrier to
tyranny. Such a document has, moreover, the disadvan
tage of reducing past history to an abstraction, and of
taking too httle account of circumstances. It would have
been better to follow the sentiment of Mirabeau, who said,
" Liberty is never the fruit of principles drawn from met
aphysical axioms, but rather of such as are drawn from
the experience of daily hfe." But it was not to be ex
pected that philosophy, which had made the Revolution,
would retire from the field the very day of its own tri
umph. However, when the work of prefacing the con
stitution with these abstract rights was once undertaken,
it would have been better, as Gregory reminded the
Assembly, to make the work complete, and to remember,
that " man was not cast into the world by chance ; that
if he has rights, it would be well to speak of Him who
gave them ; and that if he has duties, some mention
should be made of Him who has established them." The
declaration of rights was incomplete, and even dan-

62 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
gerous, without the declaration of duties. It was silent
as to the rights of God. It was an attempt to be free
without being just. If it is objected that a declaration
of duties would have approached too closely the domain
of religion, we answer, That is true. The safer way is,
for political assemblies to abstain entirely from such
philosophical abstractions. Their tendency is generally
evil. We are astonished, however, that these abstract state
ments should be so ambiguous on the point of the
rights of conscience. But our astonishment ceases as
soon as we reflect, on the one hand, on the influence
of Bossuet on the opinions of the clerical members,
and, on the other, on that of Rousseau on the philo
sophical party. The words of the declaration of rights
which relate to the general subject of rehgion were as
follows : " The law not being able to take cognizance of
secret wrongs, it is for religion and morality to supply
the defect. It is therefore essential for the good order
of society that both be respected. The existence of a
religion requires a public worship. Respect for the
public worship is therefore indispensable. Every citizen
who does not disturb the established worship should be
unmolested." This statement admits one national re
ligion, and only one. The vague reserve as to non-mo
lestation was, in no respect, protection to dissenters. It
was the application to Catholicism of the principles of
the Contrat Social. The high clergy were very well
satisfied. A bishop, in expressing his pleasure, observed
that "religion is the basis of empires," and cited the
words of Plutarch, that "it would be easier to build a city

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 63
in the air than to found a republic on any other principle
than the worship of the gods." A lay deputy, La Borde,
understanding the full drift of these words, uttered his
earnest protest. " I avow," said he, " that I am afflicted
at seeing Christians invoking the civil power in behalf
of a rehgion which should be maintained only by the
purity of its doctrine. Surely, earthly powers have
nothing to do with religion. Liberty of religion is a
right of every citizen. Let us respect other worships,
that our own may be respected in return. Our worship
should in no way interfere with the exercise of other re
ligions." But the Assembly was not yet ripe for such
opinions. At this point the powerful words of Mirabeau
came to the aid of the good cause. The objectionable
articles were rejected. M. de Castellane proposed to sub
stitute the following: " No man shall be disturbed for his
rehgious opinions, nor troubled in the exercise of his wor
ship." This excited a violent opposition on the part of
the Conservatives and Catholics, but it was bravely de
fended by Mirabeau and others. One of the most touch
ing incidents of the debate was the appearance at the tri
bune of Rabaud St. Etienne,* the worthy son of the heroic
and persecuted Protestant minister, Paul Rabaud. When
he spoke the words, " I am the representative of a great
people," one seemed to hear in him the voice of that
vast multitude of Protestants who for ages had been
oppressed, imprisoned, banished, and often put to death,
by a State Church and an intolerant clergy. " He who
attacks the hberty of others," said Rabaud, " deserves to
live in slavery. A worship is a dogma ; a dogma is a
° See Appendix, note 7.

64 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
matter of opinion, and opinions should be free. In
structed by the long and bloody experience of the past,
it is time, finally, to break the unnatural barriers which
separate man from man, Frenchman from Frenchman."
He honored himself by joining to the cause of his own
people that of the Jews. He concluded with the words,
" My country is free ; let her show herself worthy by ac
cording equal rights to all her children."
The Assembly closed the discussions by adopting an
ambiguous half-way measure. It was to this effect :
" No one shall be disturbed for his opinions, even re
ligious ones, if their manifestation does not disturb the
public order established by law." Mirabeau expressed
his displeasure at this resolution in a vehement news
paper article : " We cannot dissimulate our sadness
that the National Assembly, instead of smothering in
tolerance in the germ, has placed it among the articles
of the declaration of rights. Restrictive laws in matters
of rehgion are absurd in themselves, for they require
men of different intelligence to see evidence in the same
dogmas, and truth in the same doctrines. Such laws
are immoral ; they create corrupt men who traffic in
their faith. They are impious. What greater impiety
than to interpose between man and God, and say to
man, ' We forbid you to worship in this or that manner ;'
and to God, 'We forbid you to receive homage offered
under any other form than our own ? ' " But we will not
quote further. The great orator did his work earnestly
and well, but in vain. Many of the abuses he exposed
are still prevalent in France.
We have now finished what we had to say on the

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 65
treatment of the Church question in the first period of
the Constituent Assembly. Most surely the majority of
that great body was animated by a true love of hberty.
Would to Heaven that this love had been as intelligent
as it was ardent and sincere ! The results obtained
were very important. The Church was no longer a
separate order in the State, and tolerance had been in
scribed on the frontispiece of the constitution ; but
neither the independence of the Church nor the liberty
of conscience had been truly understood or guaranteed.
These first errors were destined to react in a most in
jurious manner on the deliberations of the succeeding
year as to the organization of the Church.
9

66 Religion and the Reign of Terror.

CHAPTER H.
DISCUSSION ON THE PROPERTY OF THE CLERGY  ATTI
TUDE OF THE DIFFERENT PARTIES  SUPPRESSION OF
THE RELIGIOUS ORDERS.
The reforms already made in Church matters naturally
led to others of a more radical character, so much the
more as the legislators of 1789 were governed, not by
precedent, but by abstract principles. This . method of
procedure, so different from that of the Enghsh, leads
often to chimerical and impracticable measures. The
Church was the greatest proprietor of fiefs in the king
dom ; she fell, therefore, under the influence of all the
new laws which weakened and abrogated the feudal
system. We must also take into account the financial
distress of the nation. Every hour was bringing the
country nearer the gulf of bankruptcy. The nation had
in its hands an immense property, the title to which
was not fully settled. Every temptation was, therefore,
inciting the Constituent Assembly to examine the title
of this property; and, if possible, to obtain it for the
relief of the national treasury.
To a better understanding of the debates on this sub
ject let us notice the condition of the Church property
under the ancient monarchy. The primitive Church, in
the heroic age of persecutions, lived simply but glo
riously from the free gifts of the saints, content with

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 67
what was strictly necessary, and seeking abundance
only in order to increase its . acts of charity. These
unconstrained donations amounted to large sums as
soon as the Gospel obtained footing in large places, like
Alexandria, Carthage, and Rome. With Constantine
Christianity became an official rehgion, with rights of
proprietorship, and was the recipient of imperial dona
tions. It soon began to receive rich heritages from
dying saints. Augustine cries out against the undue
persuasion, so commonly practiced even in his day, to
obtain testamentary gifts. It is well known how favor
able to the increase of the wealth of the Church were
the fears of an approaching end of the world, about the
year 1000. It seemed very convenient to escape the
wrath of God by gifts of lands, which the fires of the
last judgment were soon to consume. The develop
ment of the monastic life also opened to the Church
exhaustless sources of riches. As a result, the Church
became the richest proprietor in all Catholic States.
This was especially so in France. But the more these
possessions increased the more they were bound up and
inwoven in the civil government by an embarrassing
net-work of special laws. We are less astonished at the
acts of the French Assembly when we see to what an
extent the Church possessions had for centuries been
under the control of the chief of the State.
In former ages the King was the virtual bestower of
many of the richly paid Church offices. To the most
important of the benefices he made the appointments,
since his nominations to the Pope were equivalent to
elections. But it was especially in the administration

68 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
of the Church property that the hand of the State was
felt. " The Church," says Fleury, " has neither the
same liberty jto purchase nor to sell real estate as is en
joyed by individuals." In the seventeenth century, it
required a special authorization by the King to legalize
either the alienation or the acquisition of real estate by
the Church. We will see that the action of the Con
stituent Assembly in laying hand on this vast property
was perfectly in harmony with precedents given in the
reign of Louis XIV.
One month had elapsed since the famous night of the
fourth of August. The decrees of the Assembly had
excited, rather than satisfied, the passions of the people.
The war against the castles had broken out on all sides.
Insufficient harvests added to the public distress. The
fearful debt increased, from day to day. The financier
Necker * was at his wits' end. His cry of alarm, taken
up and resounded by the eloquent mouth of Mirabeau,
revealed an appalling danger which admitted neither
delay nor half measures. In the interval between two
of Mirabeau's finest orations an unknown orator arose
and proposed to demand of the clergy the sacrifice of
the precious ornaments of the Church. This he declared
would amount to 140,000,000 francs. Contrary to all
expectation, the Archbishop of Paris arose and declared
that the clergy was ready to sacrifice all except so much
as was necessary for the dignity of the worship. The
clergy wished at any price to avoid the debate on the
title of the real estate of the Church. The cry of dis
tress of a whole people, however, overcame the hesita-
* See Appendix, note 8,

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 69
tion of the Assembly, and the dreaded question was
broached. Unfortunately, views of expediency and im
mediate utility prevailed too much to the detriment of
justice and safe policy.
In an address drawn up in the name of- the Assembly
by Mirabeau, soliciting patriotic donations, it was
argued at length that the wealth of the Church, in
being turned to the defense and safety of the country,
would not be perverted from its orginal destination,
namely, that of benefiting the people. It was but a
provision laid up for such a time of need as the present.
It was, therefore, only an act of piety for the clergy to
come to the public rehef. On the eleventh of October,
1789, the formal proposition to take possession of the
property of the Church was for the first time submitted
to the Constituent Assembly; and by a curious freak
of destiny, the motion was made by one of her own sons,
a youthful Bishop, who represented in his own person
the two privileged orders of the nation. It was from
the disdainful mouth of Talleyrand that the bold words
fell, to the great scandal of his caste, but to the applause
of all the representatives of young France. Talleyrand
was the mouth-piece of the Committee of Twelve, which
had been appointed to discuss the securities for a loan
of 80,000,000 francs. He declared that the other re
sources of the nation were insufficient ; that it was
necessary to appropriate the property of the Church ;
that the State had the same right over the clergy as
over other corporations ; that it might revoke their
privileges if need be ; and that if the State provided for
the maintenance of the clergy in a direct manner, the

70 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
design of the donors of the Church property would not
be interfered with, nor the dictates of justice violated.
Two days afterward Mirabeau, unwilling to see himself
outdone in radical measures, proposed the decreeing of
the following principles : " First, that the ownership of
the property of the clergy belongs to the nation on con
dition that it provides for the support of the clerical
order ; and, second, that the disposition of this property
be such that no curate shall receive annually less than
1,200 francs, with lodging." It was well that the ques
tion was thus presented in all its completeness. The
debate lasted three weeks. It had previously, however,
been thoroughly discussed by the press. The able
pens of Turgot, Sieyes, and Servan had shared in the
work. The discussion in the Assembly began, as usual, with
philosophical generalities, and this was perhaps its most
dangerous feature, for what property is it whose original
title will bear the test of metaphysical examination ?
The Abbot Maury replied to the Assembly with perti
nence : " I will prove to you that with these principles
you will bring us to an agrarian law. In fact, as often
as you go back to the origin of property the nation will
go back with you. The people will place themselves at
the epoch when they left the forests of Germany, and
demand a new division of lands."
Three groups of opinions were presently observable
in the Assembly : first, the party which opposed all con
cession and real reform ; second, the extreme radical
party, which took no account of circumstances, and saw
only the danger and wants 'of the government; and,

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 71
third, the cautious reformers. These groups are known
as the parties of the right, the left, and the middle.
The right was, naturally, formed of the higher clergy,
together with the nobihty. They committed too often
the fault of confounding the cause of the Church prop
erty with that of rehgion itself. " The sale of our prop
erty will remedy nothing," said the Bishop of Clermont.
" Soon there would remain neither ministers nor rehg
ion." The Archbishop of Aix was of the same opinion,
but he admitted the necessity of important reforms, pro
vided they could be made canonically. One is at first
astonished to find on the extreme left, in opposition to
the high clergy, quite a number of curates. But the
lower clergy had suffered enough in the past at the
hands of the high dignitaries to dampen their zeal in
defense of privileges from the enjoyment of which they
had been carefully excluded. The Abbot Gouttes said
in plain terms that the riches of the clergy had done
much evil to the cause of rehgion " by extending the
contempt, due only to certain Church dignitaries, to all
the Pastors without distinction." The Deputies of the
left maintained that the clergy were not the possessors
of the Church property, but only its administrators.
The honest and eloquent Barnave* declared from the
start that the clerical order existed only for the State ;
that the. State could dissolve it at its will, and seize and
administer the property at its pleasure. The discussion
made a rapid advance when the jurisconsult Thouret
entered the arena. He raised the gravest objection to
the title of the Church to its property, in maintaining
* See Appendix, note 9.

72 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
that it differed entirely from the title of individuals.
"Individuals, existing before civil law, have rights
which they hold from nature ; such is the right of prop
erty. All corporate bodies, however, exist by civil law,
and their rights depend on law, and may be modified
by law. The legislative power has consequently com
plete power over them." The inferences from these
principles were soon drawn by the whole Assembly.
A Deputy declared that the State was not only the com
petent master of religion, but that it even might abolish
the Christian rehgion, together with its worship, and
establish another more moral one in its place, provided
such a one could be found. " It is fitting," said he in
finishing, "that the priests be salaried by the nation;
if they are proprietors they may be too independent."
In these opinions we find a strange mingling of truth
with error, the whole showing how much the evil genius
of the Contrat Social prevailed in the Legislature.
Petion * produced a breeze in the Assembly by boldly
exposing the moral disadvantages of the riches of the
clergy. " Is it not," asked he, " the immense wealth of
the priests which has corrupted their morals ? " Cries
of " order " were heard ; but Camus, the Jansenist, who
was presiding, declared that he could not call a speaker to
order for uttering what was printed all over the nation.
Between these two extreme parties a third opinion,
wiser and more moderate, was held and defended. The
statesman Malouet, and the Abbots Gregory arid Gout
tes, -were the chief speakers. Malouet expressed great
fear of the evil effects of ahenating the affections of the
* See Appendix, note 10.

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 73
clergy from the popular cause, at a time when the As
sembly so much needed their aid to make the passage
easy from the old to the new state of things. He
argued that it was precisely because of the popular
fury against the property of the Church that the legis
lative Assembly should be more cautious in its action.
He proposed to leave to the Church as much as was
strictly necessary to support the expenses of the clergy,
and to appropriate all the rest to the uses of the State.
This proposition was surely a wise and just mean be
tween the radical extremes, but it found httle favor
amid the passions of the hour. It must be confessed
that the priests did many things to irritate and excite
their opponents. They circulated, for example, a pre
tended petition of the poor of various parishes, against
any sale of Church property on the plea that thus they
would be shut off from the abundant alms which from
time immemorial they had received from the hands of
the Church. To bring the discussion finally to a ter
mination it was necessary that Achilles should come out
of his tent. It was for Mirabeau to close the debate,
and carry the majority with him. It is to be regretted
that his weight was thrown into the ultra-radical scale.
Had his voice been for concihation he might have saved
his country from many misfortunes ; but he was the
chief of a party, and, therefore, very dependent. He
pleaded with great eloquence and dialectical skill for
the popular cause ; but he was not careful enough in
guarding the rights of conscience, and could not get rid
of the notion, that it was necessary to have an official
rehgion under the surveillance of the State. His mo-
10

74 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
tion was carried on the fifth of November, under the
following form : " All the property of the clergy is at
the disposal of the nation on condition that it shall pro
vide in a fitting manner for the expenses of worship, the
maintenance of its ministers, and the necessities of the
poor. As to the dispositions to be made for the minis
ters of religion, they shall be paid each not less than
one thousand two hundred francs, not including lodging
and the use of a garden."
Before pronouncing judgment on the justice of this
revolutionary decree, let us remind the detractors of the
French Revolution that in this measure it did nothing
which is not justified by the principles of the ancient
monarchy. We have the proof in a remarkable work
which was compiled by the Master of Requests, at the
express order of Louis XIV, for the purpose of ascer
taining the rights of the crown in ecclesiastical matters.
The conclusion reached by this author is, that except in
cases of pressing necessity the goods of the Church can
not be alienated without the concurrence of the Church
itself. But these restrictions fall entirely away in cases
of urgent necessity. " For example," says he, " when
an invasion of an enemy is to be repulsed, it cannot be
denied that the King has the right to use the property
of the Church as well as other property for the defense
of the State." It is well known that, acting on these
principles, Michault proposed an ahenation of a portion
of the property of the Church in the year 1749. The
Constituent Assembly, in its boldest decrees, did nothing
more than act on the same principle; it simply laid
hand on the property of the Church in a case of most

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 75
urgent national necessity. Talleyrand and Mirabeau
acted on the principles of Louis XIV.
We cannot deny the special right of the State to con
trol the Church so far as it is a corporate body. If the
State gave to corporations the same immunities as to
individuals, they would soon become master of the
State itself, from the fact that their property, not being
liable to the vicissitudes of inheritance, would accumu
late very rapidly, and to an unlimited extent. They
would absorb the chief part of the wealth of the State.
For this reason rehgious corporations have always been
placed, in France, under the strict surveillance of the
laws. They have existed only by special royal per
mits. Now it cannot be denied that the State has the
right, if it sees fit, to withdraw its authorization, and
dissolve these small corporate bodies. Of course, how
ever, it has not the right to suspend an essential hb
erty ; the general good does not permit it to interfere
with the rights of the conscience, or to forbid the indi
vidual or collective manifestation of the religious belief
of its citizens. Thus rehgion in none of its forms should
depend on the pleasure of the State. The State should
neither authorize nor interdict it, for in so doing it in
terferes with an original right of the conscience. The
priests, who were indignant at the ahenation of the
goods of the Church, ought much more to have mani
fested their holy horror at the ahenation of the rights
of conscience, by a State Church, under the ancient
monarchy. This was a much greater profanation than
that committed by the Constituent Assembly. Relig
ion, however inviolable in itself, is so no longer when it

76 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
becomes a vast political corporation, and the proprietor
of a large portion of the soil of a nation. In this re
spect it falls under the power of the State, and grows
in dependence as its possessions increase. The pohtical
element in its constitution subjects it to the fluctuating
influence of political systems. When every thing about
it is undergoing reform it surely cannot remain un
touched, unless it be true that one age can establish
institutions which no future generation can change, and,
as M. Laboulaye well observes, unless it be a fact that
the earth no longer belongs to the living, but to the
dead. It is not less evident that one generation should
not have to bear all the expenses of reforms which it
could not avoid, and which centuries of abuse have
rendered necessary. If, therefore, in the present case
the State had a right to alienate the goods of the
Church, it remains to be seen whether it used its right
wisely, and, above all, whether it chose the best means
of providing for pubhc worship.
It was to the interest of the Revolution, while inter
vening in the affairs of the Church, to avoid as much as
possible the alienation of the affections of so powerful a
class as the ministers of the altar. Those who thought
that at the close of the eighteenth century the Christian
Church was incapable of deeply agitating and endan
gering the peace of the country, were sadly mistaken.
They judged the whole of the nation by the frivolous
drawing-rooms of Paris. Despite the scandals of the
high clergy, and the incredulity of the educated classes,
the religious sentiment was still the most powerful ele
ment with which the Revolution had to contend. And

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 77
now that the people had fallen into trials and sufferings,
it was sensibly regaining its natural strength. The
radical measures of the Assembly were well fitted to
strengthen both the real religion and the fanaticism of
the people and clergy, for now they could plausibly
believe themselves the objects of injustice and persecu
tion. Rehgion is always instinctively sought by the
suffering and wronged. It was not in the power of the
Assembly to give the people a new rehgion in place of
the old one. It was, therefore, a great pohtical blunder
to take at once such a radical step against the time-
honored immunities of the clergy. The needed prop
erty could have been obtained in a much more concili
atory way. It is assuredly to the interest both of
Church and State that they be independent of each
other. Now had some such proposition as that of Ma
louet been adopted, the most of the property might have
been obtained for the relief of the country, and the rest
set apart for the support of the ministers of the Church,
leaving the management of it to the clergy, and thus
freeing the State from its troublesome and dangerous
connection with the Church. A willingness to such a
step had finally been expressed, even by the high clergy.
Thus the question of Church and State would have been
wisely and at once settled, and religion in France would
have been in the happy condition it has so long enjoyed
in the United States. This is the solution for which
Cavour, the great statesman of modern Italy, strove so
earnestly — namely, a free Church in a free State.
It was not so much to establish a principle as to raise
funds that the Assembly had v oted the alienation of the

78 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
goods of the Church. The work, therefore, of putting
the decree into practical effect soon began. The Com
mittee which had been formed on the twentieth of Au
gust, 1789, to prepare the part of the constitution which
had relation to the Church, was now furnished with an
immense increase of business. It had to prepare plans
for the sale and management of the Church property,
and for the support and reorganization of the Church.
Composed at first of fifteen members, it was after
ward increased. It embraced men of every shade of
opinion. This Committee was subdivided into three
sections, the one being charged with the reconstruction
of the Church constitution, and the other two with the
administration of the confiscated property. These sec
tions went to work with great zeal, and it is in accord
ance with their recommendations that those measures
of the Assembly were decreed which threw the Church
into distress and anarchy.
In November the Assembly ordered the Church prop
erty to be put under the charge of the King and of the
courts, and advised the King to make for the present no
more appointments to benefices. On the motion of an
Abbot a decree was issued requiring all who possessed
benefices to present, before the courts, a detailed list of
all the chattels and real estate of the Church in their
possession. This declaration, after having been posted
in the parish churches, was to be returned to the As
sembly. These motions indicated the firm intention of
the nation to make use of the new resources which had
fallen into its hands.
After a hot debate, in which some of the high clergy

Religion cmd the Reign of Terror. 79
distinguished themselves in vain, the Assembly decreed,
on the 20th of December, the immediate sale of Church
property to the amount of four hundred million francs,
to serve as a basis for the issue of paper money. It
was observed facetiously by some of the Deputies, that
this disembarrassing the clergy of temporal cares would
facilitate the return of the Church to her golden age.
The Assembly now took possession also of the royal
domain. Truly may we say, a great gulf had been cre
ated between ancient and modern France.
One of the first cares of the Ecclesiastical Committee
was to recommend to the Assembly the abohtion of the
monastic orders, which at this time covered the entire
country. It was a complex question. The Taws had
covered the religious vows with their powerful sanction.
But pubhc opinion urged to the reform. The monastic
life, once useful in converting and enlightening the
people, had fallen into a decline which its most eloquent
apologist, Montalembert, has had the frankness to admit
and bewail. Living in idleness, the monks had too often
led hves of vice and shame. Those employed in educa
tion shared more indulgence than the others. Still, it is
quite certain that they taught Latin better than religion.
Voltaire and the infidels of his age had been taught in
their colleges. Doubtless there remained yet in the
cloisters some genuine piety ; still, the opposition to the
convents increased from day to day. Voltaire had at
tacked them with power. Diderot had satirized and
turned them into ridicule. His influence was manifest
in more than one discourse in the National Assembly.
The abohtion of the order of Jesuits in France, and the

80 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
numerous suppressions of monasteries in Austria by
Joseph H., had prepared the way for a more radical
reform in France.
The debates on this branch of reform were opened in
the Assembly on the 22d of February, 1790. Camus,
Gregory, and all the Jansenists, pleaded the cause of the
orders. The high clergy protested that the monks were
the most useful auxiliaries of the Church. The Bishop
of Nancy attempted to turn attention from the main
question by moving that the Assembly declare the Cath
olic religion to be the national religion, but he only suc
ceeded in calling upon his head a shower of wrath from
Charles Lameth.* Petion and others spoke of the con
vents almost in the strain of Diderot. It was finally
decreed that the law should no longer recognize the
monastic vows, and that the monks should thenceforth
be free to abandon or to remain in the convents, as
should seem to them best. On motion of Thouret the
rehgious orders were suppressed, and new' ones forbidden
to be introduced into France. This was a violent in
fringement of the rights of conscience ; it was forbidding
the free exercise of certain forms of rehgious association.
The convents of women had not yet been touched.
It now remained to fix the pensions of such monks
as should break their vows and leave the cloisters. It
was for some time debated as to whether all should be
paid the same sum, or whether account should be taken
of their previous incomes ; whether the rich Benedictine
should receive only as much as the mendicant Capuchin.
Before the matter was settled, Robespierre f had shown
* See Appendix, note 11. f Ibid., note 12.

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 81
how much juetice was to be expected from the demagogue
party by declaring that, in his opinion, if any distinction
was to be made, it should be in favor of the begging
orders — that is, inversely to their previous receipts. The
pension was finally fixed at eight hundred francs for the
mendicant monks, and nine hundred for the non-mendi.
cants. It is a remarkable fact, that on motion of Gregory,
the Jansenist, and Barnave, the Protestant, the Jesuits
were included in this arrangement. The same principle
was subsequently applied to the monks who should re
main in the cloisters not confiscated.
There remained yet to be discussed in the Assembly
a question which was destined to excite the most violent
storm, namely, to determine into whose hands should
be placed the administration of the alienated Church
property. The memorable debate opened on the 9th of
April, 1790. Chasset read a report from the Ecclesias
tical Committee. It was the death-knell of the ancient
constitution of the Gallican Church. It recommended
the appropriation of the whole of the Church property,
on the plea of the pressing wants of the nation, and on
condition of the payment of the clergy by direct tax.
"Worship," said he, " is a duty of all. All are supposed
to share in it, for the temple of the Lord is open to all.
The sacred police, just like the army of defense, is main
tained for the benefit of all. It is just and constitutional
to make all contribute to the expense of worship by
means of a tax on all." Chasset proposed that the
Church property be administrated for the time being by
the provincial Assemblies, that all tithes cease to be paid
from the first of January of the next year, and that from
11

82 Religion and tlie Reign of Terror.
the same date the clergy be salaried by the State. He
stated that the Committee had already estimated the sum
total of these salaries at 133,884,800 francs; a sum which
showed that the Assembly would make a large saving
on the former amounts indirectly paid to the Church,
and at the same time suppress many crying abuses.
The high clergy regarded these propositions as in the
highest degree inimical to their order, which had hith
erto lived on the income of its own domains. They
therefore attacked them with as much passion as if they
had involved the subversion of religion itself. Some of
them indulged in such extravagant cries of holy horror,
and in "such invocations to God, as to make the impression
that they thought more of their rich incomes than of the
essence of religion itself. An obscure Deputy had scarcely
begun to point out the happy effects of freeing the clergy
from their temporal cares, when his voice was drowned
by the murmurs of the Conservatives. Abbot Gregory
argued, in a very sensible discourse, in favor of leaving
to the Church enough to support itself, but such mod
erate opinions had no chance of success. The contest
was between the right wing, which wished to preserve
the Church as a rich corporation, and the radical left,
which desired to reduce it to a mere department of the
government. The latter spoke with the cold defiance of
those who are assured, in advance, of the victory.
" When religion," said Thouret, " sent forth into society
her ministers, she did not say to them, Go, prosper and
get rich. No ! she said to them, Preach my word and my
principles. As to their temporal subsistence, she simply
said, It is right that the priests shall live of the altar.

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 83
Now we, the legislators of France, have said, in strict
conformity to these words, The public functionary shall
live of his functions." This expresses exactly the es
sence of the new State Church scheme. It is its greatest
condemnation that it reduces the clergy to the condition
of mere hirelings. We see here, in germ, the whole civil
constitution of the clergy, which was afterward to do so
much harm.
As the discussion advanced, the opposition and ex
citement of the Church party grew more intense. They
trembled with indignation, rather than argued. Appeals
to the God of their fathers were heard on every hand.
The Archbishop of Aix terminated his harangue by
quoting to the Assembly the words of an ancient bishop,
" Tou may rob us of our goods, but we will not give
them to you." At this point in the debate an incident oc
curred which threw all Paris into the wildest excitement.
Dom Gerle, a Carthusian monk, perfectly sincere in his
rehgion as well as in his attachment to the Revolutifti,
undertook to concihate the parties by moving that the
Assembly quiet the fears of the Church by decreeing
that the Catholic rehgion was, and should always remain,
the sole authorized and national worship of the French.
The gravity of such a decree could not escape the at
tention of the Assembly, for it involved an absolute de
nial of .the rights of conscience. The motion was hailed
by the party of the right with the warmest enthusiasm.
Abbot Maury was heard, on retiring from the hall, to ex
claim, in confidence of the success of the motion, " We
have them ! " It was attempted to carry it without dis
cussion, and, as it were, by surprise. The Bishop of

84 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
Clermont, forgetting that he was not in his pulpit, de
clared that a Christian ought to be ready to confess his
faith as soon as called on, and that a Cathohc assembly
ought not to wait to discuss that which should spring
from spontaneous feeling. One of the members invoked
to aid, on this important occasion, the venerable names
of Clovis, Charlemagne, and St. Louis. Charles Lameth
rose and sarcastically asked where, was the necessity of
demanding a profession of faith of an Assembly " which
had reahzed the first principle of the Gospel by humil
iating the proud and taking under its protection the
lowly and the feeble. Has it not verified the words of
Christ, that the first should be last ? " This taunt was
in no way calculated to calm the partisans of Dom Gerle's
motion. They insisted on the putting of the motion,
and so much the more as they saw Mirabeau about to
arise to speak. The majority had the greatest difficulty
in adjourning the question till the next day. The mem
bers of the right would not leave their seats, and it was
long after the adjournment before they left the hall.
When they did go, it was to concoct a theatrical stroke
for the coming session.
The news of the affair ran hke wildfire throughout the
city of Paris. The magic pen of Camille Desmoulins*
denounced the scheme of the clergy in language which
caused, at the same time, laughter and terror. His
journal, scattered widely through the city by the " three
hundred patriotic trumpets of the newsboys," informed
the people of Paris that the Deputies of the right were
assembled in the church of the Capuchins, to concert a
* See Appendix, note 13.

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 85
plan for obtaining a decree, in to-morrow's Assembly,
which would estabhsh anew the alhance of the Throne
and the Altar. And in fact such a meeting did take
place. It was decided that if the motion of Dom Gerle
was rejected, the party of the right would in a body
leave the Assembly hall, and, traversing the Tuileries,
place in the hands of the King a solemn protest against
the wicked refusal. To give greater eclat to their pro
testation they agreed to repair to the coming session
habited in black, and with swords at their sides. But
the Court feared the effect of such a step, and informed
them that the King would not receive them. At the
same hour the excitement was not less at the head
quarters of the party of the left, namely, at the Jacobin
Club, at the Palais-Royal, and at the coffee-houses.
Bailly and Lafayette, fearing a bloody collision,
doubled the pohce, and stationed large bodies of troops
around the hall of the Assembly. But the crowd occu
pied every spot that was left vacant. The deputies of
the right, on approaching the hall, were saluted with
jeers and hisses. The populace were indignaiit in the
extreme. It is impossible to reproduce the varied fea
tures of this stormy debate, the sharp cross-firing, the
countless interruptions, and the endless calls to order.
Sometimes large fractions of the Assembly sprang to
their feet as one man, and vociferated the same cry.
Amid all the confusion, however, it was plain that only
two leading opinions were uttered, namely, that of the
adherents of a national Church, and that of the friends
of rehgious liberty. A few noble words fell from the
lips of Baron Menou. He said that however much he

86 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
loved the Cathohc rehgion for his own part, yet it
would not follow from that that he should wish to im
pose it on all his fellow-citizens. " My opinion," said
he, " is my own. Why should I wish to make my re
hgion the dominant one ? Open your annals and see
what evils have come of rehgious wars. Shall the Na
tional Assembly become the instrument of the misfor
tunes of the people ? Ministers of rehgion, return to
your functions. Proclaim a - system, to the glory of
which human laws can add nothing. Do not put car
nal weapons into the hands of God."
Amid the increasing storm an attempt was made to
calm the spirits. It was moved to declare "that the
majesty of rehgion and the honor due to it are such as
to forbid making it the object of a legislative debate ;"
but the right regarded this as adding hypocrisy to
insult. When a member, in the interest of the Church
party, called to mind the oath made by Louis XIV. in
1675, to maintain the Cathohc rehgion to the exclusion
of every other, the great Mirabeau could not restrain his
indignation. " I am not surprised," said he, " that refer
ences are made to a reign in which the Edict of Nantes
was revoked. Doubtless it affords examples of all sorts
of intolerance ; but consider. From this tribune from
which I address you I see that fatal window where a
King, the murderer of his people, mingling worldly
with rehgious matters, fired the signal gun for the mas
sacre of St. Bartholomew. I will say no more ; there is
no ground for hesitation." After further discussion the
motion of Dom Gerle was withdrawn, and the Assembly
declared by a vote that, having no' authority over the

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 87
conscience, or over rehgious opinions, and having given
sufficient proof of its attachment to the Catholic Church
in agreeing to salary its ministers out of the pubhc
treasury, it would now proceed to the legitimate busi
ness of the day.
In the evening the popular excitement was again
intense. The democratic press teemed with contemptu
ous onslaughts on the clergy. Another clerical reunion
took place. It was proposed formally to denounce to
the nation the un-Cathohc temper of the Assembly. A
mob, however, surrounded the Church, and under pre
text of serving the cause of liberty, violated one of its
sacred rights by insulting the priests as they retired.
They had not had time to draw up a formal protest, but
they went forth, each determined to use to the utmost
his personal influence.
The debate as to the Church property continued.
Several priests frankly admitted the abuses which riches
had caused to religion. An Abbot had the shameless
ness to say in reply to them, that a rehgion of poverty,
hke Christianity at the start, might be good enough for
a people of slaves cowering under the lashes of their
master, and needing the consolations of heaven as an
offset against the sufferings of this life, but that none
but a wealthy rehgion could obtain consideration in a
flourishing kingdom hke France. The result of the
whole deliberation was, that the Assembly adopted the
recommendations of Chasset, and sanctioned the prin
ciple of salarying the priests.
The conclusion thus arrived at was self-contradictory.
The Assembly had rightly refused to proclaim a na-

88 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
tional rehgion, and yet it had adopted measures for
creating a civil, a state rehgion. In treating rehgion
thus, hke the magistracy or the police, it did almost
the very thing it wished to avoid when it refused to
proclaim a national Church. But the principle of the
distinction of the spiritual and the temporal powers
had been emphatically consecrated. Mirabeau admira
bly resumed the result of the dehberations, when he ex
claimed " that the Assembly was no longer theological,
but national." We shall have frequent occasion to refer
to the evils resulting from an imperfect solution of these
religious troubles. The abolition of a powerful system,
which had lived by privilege and oppression, was surely
a precious conquest ; but the infringement of the princi
ple of religious freedom, committed by the Assembly
when it entangled the Church again in the meshes of
politics by salarying its ministers, exerted an unfortunate
influence as well on the Church as on the cause of lib
erty in general. The principle of religious equality for
all Churches had, however, been sanctioned, if not in
point of salary, yet in point of fact.
The Assembly could not have ad6pted the motion of
Dom Gerle without putting itself in flat contradiction
with itself in respect to the action it had taken in favor
of the Protestants, and another still more misused class
of society, the Jews. A decree had been adopted in
December, 1789, declaring the Protestants eligible to
all civil offices without exception. Subsequently, rights
of citizenship were decreed to all the descendants of
refugee Protestants who would return to France. In
March, 1790, Rabaut St. Etienne, the worthy son of the

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 89
aged Huguenot preacher of the desert, on whose head a
price had so often been set, wrote a letter to the latter
which contained these words : " The President of the
National Assembly is at your feet." He had been
elected to the chair of that great body, but it was
some time still before all barriers against the Jews were
broken down. Why should we wonder at this ? Had
not free England still refused them a real part in pohti
cal life by imposing an oath at the doors of Parliament
which no Jew could take ? Let us recognize it, to the
honor of Robespierre, that from the very first he refused
to favor any law of exception to the disadvantage of
this despised people. In December, 1789, he said: " The
vices of the Jews spring from the debased condition
into which you have plunged them. I think we should
deprive no individual of this class of the sacred rights
which belong to him as man. His cause is the general
cause. We ought to decree the principle." Another
Deputy uttered these noble words : " Let us leave the
conscience free. Either do not make it a civil offense
to direct the thoughts and feehngs to Heaven in this or
that manner, or be consistent — proclaim a national re
hgion, arm it with the sword, and blot out your decla
ration of the rights of man." The sharpest opponents
of the Jews were the clergy. Even Mirabeau was car
ried over into the opposition. It was only after many
delays, after receiving and rejecting many petitions
from Jews in all parts of France, that in September,
1791, the Assembly braved the current of prejudice,
and did full justice to this class of society. The Come
dians did not have to wait as long as the Jews to be
12

90 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
recognized as citizens ; but Abbot Maury could not
avoid the temptation to make a display of opposition.
He forgot that the most contemptible of all comedians
is he who hides under a priestly garb the whole nest of
worldly passions.
Such was the general position of the Constituent As
sembly on the question of rehgious hberty and the
rights of conscience.

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 91

CHAPTER HI.
THE CIVIL CONSTITUTION OF THE CLERGY  THE ASSEM
BLY TRANSFORMED INTO A COUNCIL.
The day the Assembly decreed to salary the priests as
officers of pubhc morality it assumed the obligation of
giving to the Church a new civil constitution. The
first fault led to the second. It was a deplorable mis
take for a political assembly to meddle with the work
of a Church council. The civil constitution given by
the Assembly to the Catholio Church of France was
the joint offspring of the Jansenists arid the free think
ers. On the one side it was a just chastisement of a
haughty estabhshment, which, though having lost the
fervor of its primitive faith, yet persisted in all its for
mer bigotry and intolerance ; but on the other, it was a
violent infringement on rehgious liberty, and occasioned
as well as justified a most earnest and dangerous oppo
sition. The Jansenists, who were numerous in the As
sembly, taking advantage of the occasion, undertook, in
league with the pohticians, to frame a constitution for
the Church which should embody all of their favorite
notions as to the only proper and primitive Church
system. They exerted the preponderating influence in
the Ecclesiastical Committee, and the plan of the new
Church constitution was presented to the Assembly by
Martineau, one of the most respectable adherents of

92 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
that sect. The Assembly now became a theological
battle-field. The combatants were the two parties
which for ages had divided the French Church, and the
audience and judges of the contest were the disciples of
Voltaire and Rousseau. Surely it was a strange place
to determine questions of Christian doctrine.
Before noticing the debate let us give the outlines of
the proposed Church constitution. It interfered with the
old bishoprics, and gave entirely new boundaries to the
ecclesiastical districts, adopting the new political di
vision into eighty-three departments. All bishoprics
lying outside of these limits were suppressed. The
kingdom embraced only ten metropohtan districts. It
was unlawful for any French citizen to recognize in any
way the authority of any Bishop or Metropohtan, in
person or by delegate, whose see lay in the jurisdiction of
any foreign power. This article amounted almost to an
abohtion of the Papal authority over the French Church.
Many titles and offices were suppressed. The cathedral
church became a mere parish church. The seminaries
were reduced to the number of bishoprics. A much
more radical measure was that which took from the
bishop the sovereign power in his own diocese, and asso
ciated with him a permanent council composed of the
vicars and the seminary directors, without whose co-ope
ration he could perform no official act. The parishes
were reduced also. Towns containing no more than six
thousand inhabitants could have only one. The plan
was very revolutionary as to the mode of distributing
church offices, for it substituted, in place of the canon
ical forms, the method of popular election at the ballot-

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 93
box. No rehgious test was required, and the same ticket
might contain candidates for civil as well as for religious
offices. Protestants and Jews could vote as well as
Cathohcs. The vote was to take place immediately after
the Sunday morning mass. The Metropohtan had the
right to examine the Bishop elect ; and the Bishop, the
newly elected Curate. But neither of them could hinder
the candidate elected from entering upon his functions,
except by consent of his council ; and even then the re
jected ones enjoyed a large hberty of appeal. The
Bishop could choose his colleagues or Vicars only
within the bounds of his own diocese, and on fixed con
ditions. He could eject them from office only after de
liberation with his council, "and by a majority of the
votes. As to the salaries, they were considerably re
duced from the customary figures. The Bishop of Paris
alone received fifty thousand francs. The salaries of the
other Bishops varied from twenty to twelve thousand
francs, according to the importance of the bishopric.
Every Church officer was required to reside in the field
of his labors, and was placed under the surveiUance of
the municipal authorities.
This sketch of the proposed civil constitution of the
clergy, is enough to show its deeply revolutionary char
acter. It is in vain that the apologists of the French
Revolution attempt to excuse it. In vain is it urged,
that much of the plan is in harmony with the practice
of the primitive Church. It was an excuseless abuse of
power for a political assembly to impose it on the Church.
But the blame should fall partly on the Church herself.
She was too slow in undertaking the work of self-refor-

94 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
mation. What a misfortune for the Church of France,
that she did not sooner share the spirit of reform which
animated the generation of 1789 !
The discussion of the project of the Church constitu
tion opened May 29th, 1790. Little dignity of temper
was manifested. The High-church party had expended
their sublimest flights of eloquence in supporting the
motion of Dom Gerle. It produced httle effect to go
through the same protestations a second time. It was
equally vain for them, on different occasions, to rise in a
body and leave the hall. These sudden secessions to the
Sacred Mount, and equally sudden returns, became at
last ludicrous. The Archbishop of Aix expressed, with
deep emotion, the grief and indignation of his party.
He said, with justice : " Religious truths are at stake.
The purely spiritual jurisdiction is involved. The Church
alone can govern the spiritual." Treilhard sustained the
project with his cold and relentless argumentation. He
pointed out the justice of a scheme which abolished
some of the crying abuses of the old system. It was
much better to elect the Bishops by simple vote than to
subject their appointment to all the scandalous intrigues
of a corrupt court. The successor of Judas had been
elected by popular vote. All of this was true enough, but
it did not touch the essential part of the question,
namely, the right of a political assembly to impose its
laws on the Church. Several Curates argued in favor of
the project with a great show of patriotic texts and of
citations from Church history. An important feature in
this debate was the intervention of Robespierre. He
supported the proposed plan on the principles, and with

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 95
all the intolerance, of Rousseau. A civil rehgion was one
of Rousseau's most cherished ideas. Desirous of securing
to the multitude an unlimited sovereignty, which he
mistook for hberty, he saw that the greatest danger
thereto would arise from those free behefs of the soul
which are beyond the reach of the despotism of the ma
jority. He had, therefore, in his ideal republic, sacri
ficed the hberty of conscience to his hundred-headed
idol the populace, and conferred on the latter the right
of imposing a religion on the whole population on pain
of banishment or death. Robespierre defended these
fine maxims at the bar of the Assembly with all the as
surance of a popular demagogue. He argued that it be
longed to the Assembly to determine what and how
many churchly functions should be permitted in the
land. He even went so far as to insinuate that the
people had the right to give wives to their priests, in
order to identify their interest more closely with that of
the nation. This was to commit the highest outrage on
the religious conscience; and it was easy to see how
httle would remain to God when the Caesar of dema-
gogism had obtained all that he claimed.
After the usual amount of discussion, the proposed
civil constitution of the clergy was adopted almost as at
first presented. The article forbidding to recognize the
authority of foreign Bishops was so modified as to work
no prejudice to the unity of the faith, and to the com
munion with the visible head of the Church. But the
only communion now possible was of a mystical char
acter. When it was objected that the primitive popular
elections were held among the members of the Church,

96- Religion and the Reign of Terror.
and not among a confused mass of the populace, it was
ruthlessly rephed by Robespierre, that the people of
France were fully competent to elect their priests, and
that they were equally as pure as the clergy. One of the
tides, which was voted almost without debate, was
pregnant with trouble and commotion. It required the
newly elected clergy to swear fidelity to the nation, and
to support with all their power the National Constitu
tion voted by the Assembly. This Constitution was not
simply pohtical, but involved also the organization of
the Church ; and such an oath was calculated to awake
the most serious religious scruples. The thought which
pervaded the whole of this Church scheme was well ex
pressed by Camus when he said : " The Church is in the
State, the State is not in the Church. We are a National
Convention ; surely we have a right to change the relig
ion." But this was to forget that liberty consists, not
in extending the sovereignty of the State, but rather in
limiting it, in checking it to the profit of personal liberty.
The result will show that the most democratic of gov
ernments cannot infringe with impunity on the sacred
domain of private belief.
A question remained to be settled, namely, whether
the article relating to the salaries of the priests should
be retroactive, or whether it should affect only those who
should be elected in the future. Should it be apphed to
high functionaries who had entered orders on conditions
the abrogation of which they could not have foreseen ?
After a lively discussion, and despite the ridiculous pro
test of a certain Deputy, in favor of a financial compen
sation for the unfortunates who had vowed an eternal

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 97
isolation from the fair sex, the article was pronounced
retroactive. It was decreed that from the 1st of Jan
uary, 1791, such salaries of Archbishops and Bishops as
did not exceed twelve thousand francs should suffer ne
reduction, and that those exceeding that sum should be
reduced to twelve thousand francs plus the half of the
excess of the previous amount over that sum, provided
that the whole should not exceed thirty thousand francs.
The only exception was the Archbishop of Paris, who
was allowed seventy-five thousand francs. Such was the
famous Constitution of the Clergy as finally amended
and adopted. We may add that it was put into opera
tion as soon as decreed.
It is just to offer, in excuse of the Revolution, the fact
that this scheme of Church organization is nothing more
than a rigid apphcation of the maxims of the ancient
monarchy. It was simply ultra-Gallicanism. An ex
amination of the report already mentioned, concerning
the power of the King in Church affairs, which was
drawn up for Louis XIV. by one of his" masters of re
quests, M. Le Vayer de Boutigny, furnishes sufficient
evidence of this fact. This wise lawyer distinguishes
in the Church two bodies, the mystical and the po
litical. All that relates to the latter belongs to the
King without dispute. But the King is not only mag
istrate, he is also protector of the Church. In the latter
character he has a wide sway over the mystical body
also. He does not touch the creed so far as it is merely
theoretical, but as soon as it manifests itself in public
acts it falls under his direction. He must watch that
the Gospel be not so preached as to work detriment
13

98 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
to the laws or to the loyalty of his subjects. The pre
cise time and manner of preaching is not essential to
salvation, therefore " the King has the power to regulate
the choice of the person who preaches, as well as the
place and hour of the preaching." Prayer is necessary,
but it must be regulated and authorized by the King.
Church councils are necessary, but it is the right of the
King to authorize them, to convoke them, and even to
dissolve them, when they cause trouble. In fine, there
is scarcely a single function of the Church which does
not, in one way or other, fall under the power of the
King. What he cannot do as magistrate he may well
assume to perform as protector. According to this royal
counselor the Church is like a ship ; the helm is in the
hands of the spiritual authority, but the captain who
gives the orders is the State. The comparison is worthy
the age of Louis XIV., and reveals the spirit of the
system. The boldest measures of the French Revolu
tion in regard to the Church were thus justified, in ad
vance, by abundant governmental precedent.
No one, however, thought of this, or acted from these
reasons. The parties were divided into two hostile
camps. On the one side were the sticklers for the old
order of things ; on the other, the reformers, who were
still too much under the domination of tradition. The
former imagined that the foundations of society were
overturned, when in fact only the maxims of their fa
thers were turned against them ; but their exasperation
knew no bounds, and an opposition sprang up in all
France which was destined to provoke the Assembly to
further injustice and violence.

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 99

CHAPTER IV.
FIRST RESISTANCE OF THE CLERGY  TROUBLE AT NIMES
AND MONTAUBAN  POLITICAL OATH IMPOSED ON THE
CLERGY  PATHETIC SCENE IN THE ASSEMBLY  AD
DRESS OF MIRABEAU TO THE NATION  PAMPHLET OF
CAMIIXE DESMOULINS.
The spirit of liberty had, at the close of the eighteenth
century, visited more than one cloister, and found wel
come from not a few of the dignitaries of the French
episcopate. We firmly beheve that the Revolution, had
it not violated the sanctuary of rehgious scruples, might
have rallied to the cause of reform the greater part of the
French Church. The majority of the Chamber of the
Clergy had joined the Third Estate even before the King's
willingness thereto was known. This fact should surely
have counseled a conciliatory pohcy ; but we- have seen
that the Assembly rushed into the opposite extreme,
and thus awoke an opposition which was the more
dangerous as it was completely armed and organized.
This opposition irritated the Assembly, and led it to
persist in and multiply its faults. It came to regard
the clergy as an enemy, to crush which any and every
means was lawful. In order to understand the events
which induced the Assembly to impose the pohtical
oath on the clergy we must notice the progress of the
rehgious reaction in the provinces.
It was the Revolution which began the contest. The

100 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
people of Paris, at first favorable enough to the priests,
soon began to regard their peculiar costume as the sym
bol of the old regime. After the stormy debates on the
Church property, the clergy were often exposed to insult
in the streets. In October, 1789, Gregory had com
plained that the people of Paris, ignorant of the pa
triotism of the Curates, outraged them, and addressed to
them the most furious threats. In the same month the
Archbishop of Paris was compelled publicly to defend
himself against the accusation " of having in the pres
ence of the King supported the interests of the rich and
powerful against the poor and feeble." He demanded
a passport, and initiated the flight or emigration of the
clergy. About this time an impassioned letter of a
Brittany Bishop excited the fanaticism to a flame. He
assumed openly the martyr role of a Thomas a Becket.
It was a veritable war clarion. " Rehgion is annihi
lated," cried he ; " its ministers are reduced to the sad
condition of hirelings appointed by brigands." Relig
ious hberty was openly execrated in this episcopal as
sault, and the nobility and peasantry were summoned
to a coalition against the Third Estate. This impru
dent provocation occasioned a hvely debate in the
Assembly, and an order for the Bishop to appear in
court to answer a charge of treason. The clerical op
position increased with each new invasion of the old
organization of the Church. The decree confiscating
the Church property was a signal for a general active
opposition. In several provinces the nobility and clergy
held their Assemblies just as if no changes had been
made in the laws. The National Assembly thereupon

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 101
ordered, that until further authorization no provincial
Parliament should be called together. The order was
resisted at Rouen and Metz. In the latter city the
high clergy held factious meetings. Civil war was im
minent in Provence. The Bishops were busy kindling
the irritation in the excitable hearts of the South. The
order to make an inventory of the property of the mon
asteries set the whole South on fire. The convents
seemed on a sudden to have become the asylum of
every human and divine virtue. Every-where the ma
gistrates had to press their way through a dense mass
of furious populace, to whom their work seemed an
abominable profanation. It needed but a spark to
kindle an open insurrection. And it soon actually
broke out, especially in places where Protestant socie
ties existed. The fervid Cathohcs of the South could
not pardon to Protestants the crime of daring to exist,
and of being no longer under the ban of proscription.
For this populace the proclamation of religious equality
was the great crime of the Revolution.
Civil war broke out openly as soon as the Assembly
refused to declare the Cathohc religion the Church of
the nation. The ignorant and superstitious masses of
Nimes, Uzes, and Montauban showed as much fury
against those who had abolished an odious privilege as
the people of Paris had exhibited against its champions.
But violence was the law of both parties, and liberty
was destined to be enfeebled and wounded in the con
test. As soon as the defeat of the motion of Dom Gerle
was known in the South, the clergy began to excite the
people to send violent protests to the Assembly. In

102 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
April, 1790, a large meeting was held at Nimes in the
church of the White Penitents. They petitioned unani
mously in favor of the ancient state of things. This
meeting was preceded and followed by exhibitions of
Catholic effervescence. Wherever they caught sight of
a Protestant the cry was, " Kill him ! kill him ! " Simi
lar scenes took place at Uzes and in Alsace. In the
latter province the Jews were sadly maltreated. Surely
the Catholic party was unfortunate in its mode of pro
cedure. It strove to obtain the rights of conscience by
petitioning that these rights should be blotted from the
constitution of the country ; but this inconsistency will
surprise no one who understands how manifold are the
tortuosities of the human heart. The Assembly or
dered procedure against the abettors of the troubles at
Nimes, and summoned to its bar (despite the invoca
tion in their favor, by Malouet, of the rights of meeting
and discussion) the chief signers of the petition. But
the trouble did not cease. The news of the adoption of
the Civil Constitution of the Clergy intensified the dis
pleasure of the South. In the months of May and
June it took, at Nimes, all the features of earnest war.
The opposition arose not from fanaticism alone, but
rather from fanaticism used as a tool by the party of
the old regime. This is clear from the declaration of
Froment, the chief exciter of these troubles. " One
strong passion," said he, " cannot be quenched except
by exciting a still stronger one ; consequently the re
publican mania can only be counteracted by calling into
play a zeal for rehgion." The struggle broke out at
the municipal elections. The Catholic party at Nimes,

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 103
always fanatical and determined not to tolerate rehg
ious equahty before the law, firmly resolved to prevent
the election of Protestants. Their rage knew no bounds
when they learned of the honor conferred by the Na
tional Assembly in April on Rabaut St. Etienne. A
placard was put up bearing these insulting words :
" The infamous National Assembly has just capped the
climax of its iniquities by electing as its president a
Protestant." A league was formed. Troops of zealous
Cathohcs, with a special badge, .calling themselves the
Companies of the Cross, were formed in opposition to the
National Guard, which latter was composed of all classes
of citizens. Every means was used to work up the feel
ings. Nocturnal meetings were held in the churches,
and violent harangues delivered. Incendiary pamphlets
representing religion as proscribed, and the King as in
captivity, were spread abroad. In these libels the Prot
estants were described as venomous serpents, whom
numbness alone had hitherto kept from harming, but
who, now that they were recalled to hfe by favors, were
engaged in plotting vengeance and death. The strug
gle broke out June 13, by an assault of the champions
of the cross on the troops of the Guard. The day previous
the peasantry had rushed in from the country, but had
mostly returned home as soon as they learned that they
were desired to defend the counter-revolution. The
Protestants of the neighborhood had also taken the
alarm and flocked to the city. They would also have
returned, had they not been violently attacked from the
convent of the Capuchins. Furious at this assault, they
rushed upon the Catholic companies. Finally a parley

104 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
for peace was entered upon. This was interrupted at
the order of the royahst Froment, who was posted at
the castle, by an attack with musketry. This traitorous
act broke up all hope of peace, and dehvered the city to
the rage of the justly exasperated Protestants and re
publicans. More than three hundred Catholics were
slain in the city ; while in the neighboring country the scale
was reversed, and the blood of Protestants was freely
shed. Impartial history must admit that the misfor-
tunes at Nimes were the natural fruit of an abominable
plot worthy the days of St. Bartholomew. The party
which provoked them was not defendmg the hberties of
the Church, but rather its odious privileges and intol
erance. m
Similar events had taken place previously at Montau
ban. The civil officers had succeeded in selling the
suppressed convents only at the risk of their lives.
They had been compelled to face the rage of a multi
tude rendered furious by the exhortations of a Bishop.
They met, at the threshold, crowds of groaning women
on their knees to defend the sanctuary. The city hotel
had been assaulted, and six guards, of whom five were
Protestants, massacred. Others had been dragged to
the cathedral, waxen tapers in their hands, to do satis
factory penance. The Assembly, on hearing report of
these proceedings, was exasperated to severe measures,
and tempted more and more to view the Church as its
enemy. These small skirmishes, however, were of much less
consequence than the general resistance which, under
the leadership of the high clergy, was organized all over

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 105
the land. However justly the Church may have felt her
self aggrieved, it was a great blunder for her to identify
the cause of her liberty (which was, in fact, attacked) with
the cause of monarchical despotism and churchly intol
erance. Her struggle for her well-grounded rights was
fully equaled by her struggle against the hberties of
the people. In this period, we must distinguish between
what was really plotted and what was actually accom
plished. The latter was infinitely less than the former.
The violent official charges of the French Bishops were
of much less importance than the influences which were
sent out from Rome. Pope Pius VI. was in frequent
correspondence with both the King and the high clergy.
From the month of March 1790, he assumed an attitude
openly hostile to the Revolution, not only defending
his just rights, but also combating at the same time all
reforms, even the most legitimate. At this date he ex
pressed, in an official meeting, great grief at every thing
which had taken place in France since the convocation
of the States-General, and declared that the ancient mon
archy had been brought by its own children to the very
brink of ruin. He condemned the National Assembly
for having decreed hberty of conscience, and grew in
dignant that non-Catholics had been declared eligible to
office. He treated political liberty as a vain phantom,
and deprecated the limitation of the royal authority as
incapacitating the Most Christian King for revenging
the rights of the Church. Thus he was guilty of con
demning the simplest principles of modern civilization,
and bewaihng the abolition of odious ancient abuses.
This subtracted greatly from the force of his just com-
14

106 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
plaints, for the cause which he anathematized was im
measurably more just than that which he defended. He
cursed the cause of young France, and put himself at
the head of the pohtical reaction. During the next
year it was believed at Rome, for a few days, that the
King had escaped from France. Immediately the Pope
wrote him a letter expressing great joy that he had suc
ceeded in escaping from that abominable city of Paris,
and his firm behef that he would soon be able to return
as conqueror, and restore the ancient state of things.
During the interval between the adoption of the civil Con
stitution of the Clergy and its sanction by the King, the
letters of the Pope to the latter and to the Bishops of
France, were very numerous. They uniformly counseled
hostility to the decrees of the Assembly. The sanction
of the Clerical Constitution by the Pope had been ear
nestly sought. His hesitation and long delay irritated
the Assembly to fresh acts of imprudence. The putting
into practical execution of the new Constitution of the
Clergy was the occasion of intense opposition on the
part of the high clergy. They exhorted the people to
resistance, declared that in such matters God should be
obeyed rather than man, and branded all priests who
should take office under the new system as intruders.
Riots broke out at various places. Vengeance on the
Protestants for the blood shed at Nimes was loudly
called for. The civil officers were resisted in many
places. In these circumstances a very unfortunate step was
taken by the Assembly. A Deputy, after reviewing the
hostility of the clergy, uttered these ruthless words:

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 107
" Ministers of religion, cease to seek pretexts ; acknowl
edge your weakness. You regret your former opulence,
your marks of distinction and pretended pre-eminence.
Recollect that the Revolution has made all of us men.
It is yet time; disarm, by a prompt submission, the
popular resentment against your order. The decree I
am about to present is less a law of severity than a
measure of indulgence." This indulgent measure con
sisted in requiring all who held positions in the Church
to take an oath to support and obey, not only the laws
of the land in general, but also to maintain with all
their power the Civil Constitution of the Clergy as de
creed by the Assembly, and that, on pain of ejection
from office, forfeiture of pension, and loss of French cit
izenship. Nothing could have been more impohtic than
this. It would have been just to require an oath of
submission to the civil laws, but to extend it to the new
Constitution of the Clergy was to outrage the conscience
of many respectable priests. But the hour of reason
and justice was well-nigh past. The radicals of the
Assembly wished to crush their enemy. The debate
opened in a perfect tempest of passion. Its most im
portant feature was a magnificent, but illogical and
unfortunate oration, of Mirabeau. Left to himself in
the calmness of solitary reflection, he rarely went astray.
But he was capable of being swayed by the storm of
the popular fury. He seems not to have seen that the
Constitution of the Clergy, arid especially this proposed
oath, were in violation of his own cherished principles
of the hberty of conscience. He pretended that the
priests had been so recreant to the cause of religion

108 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
that the National Assembly was compelled to take the
Church under its own patronage, not perceiving that the
greatest compliment a government can make to religion
consists simply in letting it alone. " It is," said he, " at
the very moment when we have confessed, in the face
of all nations and of all ages, that God is as necessary
as liberty to the French people, that our Bishops are
pleased to denounce us as violators of the rights of re
hgion." His power was terrible in the part of his dis
course where he exposed the scandalous corruptions of
the clergy under the old system. The true intruders
into the ministry were, thought he, those courtier priests
who lived in luxury and intrigue. Toward the close he
grew too violent even for the radical left, and Petion op
posed some of his arguments. Among the warmest ad
vocates of this oath was the Jansenist Camus. He
loved it because it trampled under foot the pretensions
of Ultramontanism and the power of the Papacy, from
which his sect had suffered so much. During the debate,
a certain priest had cried out to the Assembly this preg
nant warning : " Take care, it is not wise to make mar
tyrs." Finally, the decree requiring the oath of the
clergy was passed on the 27th of November, 1795. This
is a sad date in the history of the Revolution. It con
summated the divorce between young France and re
ligion, and led to still more flagrant violations of hberty
by the very party whose most earnest desire was to
establish and sanction it. The cause of right cannot be
served by the arbitrary.
This decree set all France into ferment. The revolu
tionary press brandished it as a sword in the face of all

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 109
reactionary priests. The King, who thus far had tried
to reconcile his duties as Sovereign with his conscience
as a Cathohc, saw himself reduced to the desperate di
lemma where any decision was equally fatal, and where
resistance was as impossible as concession. To sanction
the decree was to break with Rome; to veto it was
vainly to attempt to brave the triumphant Revolution.
The unhappy prince stood between excommunication on
the one hand, and dethronement on the other. In his
despair he now formed a plan of escaping from France,
and calhng to the support of his throne the arms of for
eigners. In December he wrote to the King of Prussia,
imploring aid against his factious subjects. It is at this
period that the force of circumstances led him into that
course of double-dealing toward the Assembly which
was so foreign to his generous nature. The Assembly
would not tolerate his veto ; its President, at two dif
ferent times, demanded in imperious terms that he should
sanction it. The King was conquered. His letter of
sanction may be regarded as his moral abdication, so
thoroughly is it imbued with the spirit of humihation.
But he still cherished hope. That same day he had let
drop the bitter words, " I would rather be King of Metz
than remain King of France under these circumstances."
Scarcely had the decree been sanctioned when the As
sembly took measures for its immediate execution. It
forthwith summoned the clerioal members of its own
body to take the oath. This was to lay the corner-stone
of the counter-revolution, for it provoked a soul-trying
scene in which all the honor was on the side of the high
clergy. No description can do it justice. A vast mul-

110 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
titude, ready to break out into riot, surrounded the
doors of the Assembly. The voice of the tribune was
drowned in the applause or hisses of the spectators.
The wrath of the left was only equaled by the impas
sioned indignation of the right. Words of moderation
stood no chance of a hearing. It was in vain that at
different times Gregory and some other priests attempted
so to explain the oath as to render it palatable to the
main body of the clergy. They could not be persuaded
that it did not conflict both with the rights of the Pope
and with the essential honor of the Church. On the 2d
of January, when the Bishop of Clermont attempted to
present a temperate protest, his voice was covered with
hisses. It was then decreed by the majority, in the
midst of stormy altercations, that no opponent of the
oath should be allowed to explain his reasons at the
tribune, but that the oath should be taken or declined
purely and simply. At this the Bishop of Clermont
exclaimed, " I cannot in good conscience ;" but his noble
words were greeted with cries of rage. However, this
Non possumus of the outraged conscience was destined
to make a powerful impression throughout the commu
nity. That same evening the Bishop published to
France the words which he had not been permitted to
utter in the Assembly. When rudely interrogated in
the session of the next day, he replied in words which
cannot be too well considered, "It will be an eternal
infamy to have inflicted punishment on those who refuse
this Oath; for it is saying to them, Whatever your
conscience may say to the contrary, take the oath any
how." To put an end to the delay, Barnave moved

Religion and the Reign of Terror. Ill
ihat the clerical members be allowed only till the next
day to consider, and that their refusal to take the
oath be regarded as equivalent to resignation of office.
The members of the right could delay the vate only a
few minutes. The spirit of the majority may be seen
in the incident that, when a member stated to the As
sembly, that by this precipitate action they might be
under the necessity of expelling sixty or eighty mem
bers, a large number of voices exclaimed, " So much the
better ! " It is plain that the ultra-radicals were only
too willing to find a pretext for driving from the As
sembly every representative of the ancient order of
things. The motion of Barnave was carried.
It was in the session of January 4th, 1791, that the
grand scene of refusing the oath commenced. It was the
counterpart of that which had immortalized the tennis-
court at Versailles. None but a prejudiced spirit can
fail to see its moral grandeur. I know that conservative
political passions and an unfortunate love of the old
abuses and privileges of the Church were mingled with
the nobler principles which led to a refusal of this in
iquitous oath ; still, it is none the less true that on that
day religion vindicated and safeguarded its right and
honor, in the midst of great danger and at the cost of
great sacrifices. The effervescence of the populace was
extreme. At the moment when the President of the
Assembly summoned the clerical members to take the
oath, one could plainly hear in the silence which ensued
the ominous clamor of the multitude without, whose
only idea of liberty was the indulgence of their own
good pleasure. No one having replied to the general

112 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
call of the President, the call by name began. The
Bishop of Agen was the first one called. When he rose
and began to speak, several voices from the radical side
cried out„" No words ! Take the oath, yes or no." The
hshop remarked calmly and respectfully, "You have
made a law requiring all clergymen holding office to
take a certain oath, on pain of exclusion from office. I
regret neither my position nor my income ; I only regret
that I must incur the loss of your esteem, which I fain
would merit. I beg you, therefore, to take in good part
the testimony of the regret which I feel in not being
able to take the oath." The next priest called was a
simple curate. He uttered only these words : " I shall
say with the simplicity of the first Christians, I think it
all glory and honor to follow in the footsteps of my
Bishop." It was clear that the call by name was turning
to the disadvantage of the majority, and serving only to
give more eclat to the refusals. The President resorted
again, therefore, to the general call, but only a single
oath was obtained. A member of the right asked that
the Assembly explain the oath, by decreeing that it had
no wish to infringe on the realm of the spiritual. " It
has not so done," exclaimed Mirabeau, " and that is
enough." The time for conciliation was past. The
Bishop of Poitiers arose and spoke in these terms : " I
am seventy years old ; I have been thirty-five years a
ISishop ; I have sought to do all the good in my power.
Weighed down with years, I am not willing to dishonor
my old age; I cannot take the oath." But these words
were greeted only with murmurs. The radicals found
it necessary to close the scene. It was voted that the

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 113
President should repair to the King and urge him to en
force the law against the refractory clerical Deputies.
The affair of the oath was for many days a subject of
ever-recurring trouble. For some it was a subject of
remorse, for others a pretext for indulging in venom
against the clergy, and for all an occasion of embar
rassment and discord.
In view of the vacancies in the Church, which the re
fusal of the oath would inevitably occasion during the
year 1791, Mirabeau induced the Assembly to decree
the ehgibility to the episcopate of every one who had
served five years as curate iri France, and to the curacy,
of any priest who had held any Church office what
ever. Some days later, Barnave, always ready to attack
the Bishops, clamored for positive procedure against the
refractory priests, and was impohtic enough to denounce
the pohtical association, or club, which the members of
the right had founded, as perfidious and factious. These
strange and inconsistent words in the mouth of a friend
of liberty excited just indignation in the Assembly.
" I demand," said Malouet, in an earnest protest, " that
in the very bosom of the Revolution, in the midst of this
city which saw the framing of the Constitution, and which
has done so much for liberty — I demand that hberty and
pubhc and personal safety be not outraged with impu
nity at this tribune." The decree" demanded by Barnave
did not pass without exciting firm opposition. Some of
the clergy opposed it from patriotic motives, but others,
who had lost all hope of justice, took an attitude of
simple defiance. Abbot Maury exclaimed, " Go on, gen
tlemen, go on; it will not be long. We have need of
15

114 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
this decree ; one or two more of the same kind, and the
work will be done." It served no good purpose, how
ever, to assume this defiant attitude. Cazales spoke in
a much better spirit, for the same party, when he can
didly explained, that the great majority of the clergy
firmly believed that the principles of rehgion forbade
them taking this oath. "These principles," said he, " are
of a higher order than the laws you may enact. If you
drive the Bishops and Curates from their posts you will
inaugurate a course- of persecution. You will see the
Catholics wandering over the face of the kingdom, and
following their deposed ministers into deserts and caves,
to receive from their hands the only sacraments which
they will believe to be valid. Then all the Catholics
throughout the land, who cannot accept your laws, will
be reduced to the state of misery and persecution into
which the Protestants were formerly plunged by that
act which you so justly detest, the revocation of the
Edict of Nantes. Even if the Church of France should
be mistaken, still there are laws which, though good in
themselves, should not, under all circumstances, be en
acted. If your laws cannot be executed without vio
lence, it would be prudent to hesitate before plunging
France into bloody civil convulsions." Mirabeau ehcited
' applause by observing, cynically, that the speaker prob
ably mistook his wishes for his fears. The sequel, how
ever, showed that Cazales was the better prophet.
About this time Mirabeau wrote, on the subject of the
relations of Church and State, an address which cannot
be too highly prized by posterity. But it is in part in
consistent with itself. It consecrates the great princi-

Religion and tlie Reign of Terror. 115
pies of the necessary freedom of rehgion and of spiritual
interests in general from the domination of human law,
and yet justifies the Revolution in its interference in the
organization of the French Church. " Religion," said
he, " is not, cannot, be a mere social relation ; it is the
relation of the individual mind to the mind of the In
finite. As it is absurd to speak of a national conscience,
so it is absurd to speak of a national religion. Religion
is individual and personal. You cannot estabhsh a
national rehgion, for the reason that truth is not estab
lished by votes. Though men may be externally united
by laws, yet in their thoughts and conscience they
remain forever separated. Religion, being but the
harmony of the thoughts and heart of man with the
divine thought and heart, cannot be subjected to a
civil or legal form. Jesus Christ is the only sage who,
in teaching men how to be good and happy, has not
viewed them from a political stand-point, and mingled
in his instructions the principles of civil legislation.
Whatever the influence of the Gospel on general moral
ity, neither Christ nor his Apostles gave to understand
that the evangelical system was ever to enter into
the civil constitution of nations. The Gospel, in its
conquest of the world, simply asks of men that they
accept it, and of nations that they suffer it." After ut
tering these noble sentiments, the great orator, illogically
enough, attempts to justify the decree requiring a polit
ical oath of the priests.
The Assembly seemed now to come to a consciousness
of danger, from the largeness of the party which its
measures had offended. Consequently it issued to the

116 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
nation a conciliatory document, explaining the reasons
which led to the enactment of the offensive laws. It
was a mere palliative, however, which subtracted nothing
from the measures which had given umbrage. ' And the
little good effect of this was more than counteracted by
the insulting violence of the demagogic press. Mena
cing documents and tracts, slanderous of the refractory or
non-juring clergy, were scattered broadcast over the
nation. From the 9th of January, 1791, the journal of
Marat had been encouraging the populace to hiss and
insult all priests who should be found in caucus, and
the masses were but too ready to obey such counsel.
Camille Desmouhns devoted his sharp satirical talent to
bringing the high clergy into disrepute. He published
a pretended sermon of a country priest, which was a
merciless and biting assault on the party of the Bishops.
These light but keen arrows produced, under the guid
ance of a steady hand, in the one camp a ravishing de
light, which was equaled only by the rage of the other.
He had taken for the text of his derisive sermon, the
following words, attributed to an aged Cardinal, namely:
" The Bishops were on the throne, and religion prostrate
in the dust ; France has now put the Bishops down, and
raised religion to her true place." Nothing can surpass
the sarcasm of the passage which shows up the corrup
tion of the former clerical elections. He compared the
concordats to the compacts of robbers, dividing the
booty which does not belong to them. He cited the
following profound saying of James I. : " So long as I
shall have the power of nominating the Judges and the
Bishops, I shall be sure of having laws and a gospel

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 117
which will please me." "How httle," exclaimed Des-
mouhns, "does the gilded crosier of our Bishops re
semble the shepherd's staS" of the Apostles." Do you
remember how St. Ambrose chastised the impiety of
Theodosius ? It was because that Bishop had been
elected by the people of Milan. But cite me a Bishop
of France who has reproached our tyrants with their
worthlessness, .their cruelties, or their wars. The gen
tlemen in violet, however much they may have as
sumed a sanctimonious visage and frowning brows
in their dioceses, yet when they come to court, could
not be surpassed in affability and sweetness of words."
As to a council, which many of the clergy had de
manded to settle the pending difficulties, Camille Des-
moulins remarked, " The council of 1791 would not
fail to imitate that of 1179, which granted as means of
transportation, to a rural Lean two horses, to an Arch
deacon seven horses, to a Bishop twenty horses, to an-
Archbishop twenty-five horses, to a Cardinal forty
horses. As to the Pope, the Fathers of the Council,
who held their session in his Lateran palace, and
who dined from his Lateran kitchen, did not presume
to trace, with their crosiers, the limits of his stable, but
allowed him as numerous a supply as that of King Sol
omon. But though the Holy Father was at this time very
rich, he was yet not rich enough to have as many horses
in his stables as asses in his council." Toward the close
of his discourse, Desmouhns counsels the people not to
tear the robes of the refractory Bishops, but to be con
tent with withholding their salaries. " Let them sit,"
said he, " upon their episcopal thrones, like Simeon Sty-

118 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
lites on his column. We will see if Heaven sends them
manna, or a daily visit of a raven with a bill large
enough to bear them a pound loaf of bread. When
they are no longer salaried, you will see very soon, my
dear brethren, that that sort of demons generally called
Pharisees, or prince-priests, non ejicitur nisi per jeju-
nium, go not out but by fasting."
A pamphlet hke this belongs to history, for it presents
the popular opinion of the moment under its most lively
coloring. It served as a violent stimulus to the party
attacked. The high clergy might have fallen back on
the sentiment of honor, so powerful in France, to belie
these sarcasms, and to prove that they were able to en
dure privation and even persecution. But before resign
ing themselves to martyrdom, they desired to organize
and resist. They soon received the word of order from
Rome.

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 119

CHAPTER V.
SCHISM IN THE CHURCH — CORRESPONDENCE WITH ROME —
DEBATE ON TH^E LIBERTY OF WORSHIP  DISCOURSES OF
SIEYES AND TALLEYRAND  DISSOLUTION OF THE CON
STITUENT ASSEMBLY.
The Pope* delayed long his official answer to the
Bishops who had consulted him on the subject of the
new Civil Constitution of the Clergy, though his private
letters gave, clearly to be seen, what that answer would
finally be. Perhaps he awaited events, in the hope that
some sudden reaction in pohtics might save the necessity
of an official decision which would inevitably create a
schism in the French Church. The counties of Avignon
and Venaissin had, since the thirteenth century, formed
a part of the temporal possessions of the Holy Father,
though the title had more than once been disputed by
the Kings of France. In the hght of the ancient laws
of Europe, the Pope surely possessed them legally. But
the new order of things, based on popular sover
eignty, was destined to come in conflict with these
ancient rights, and dispute the propriety of allowing
this httle establishment to remain chained to the usages
of the Middle Ages, in the heart of a nation which had
gone through a pohtical regeneration. It was impossible
to arrest the contagion of hberty. The agitation began
e See Appendix, note 14.

120 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
at Avignon in March, 1790. The citizens of the place
had spontaneously given themselves a hberal municipal
organization, against which the Pope had hastened to
protest. They went a step further, and demanded for
mally their reunion with France. The friends of the
reunion persevered in their purpose, in spite of bloody
riots which, at three different places, broke out in the
little territory. They were not discouraged by the hes
itation of the Assembly, which feared to disturb a sub
ject involving grave diplomatic difficulties, and which
might precipitate a European war. In August, 1790,
the Pope had addressed to all the Sovereigns of Europe
a pastoral letter, to prove that his possession of this
hand-breadth of earth concerned the whole of Europe,
and involved the most sacred interests of rehgion. He
complained bitterly of the ingratitude of his subjects,
upon whom he had heaped all the benefits of his paternal
regime. This paternal rule, however, was precisely
what the people of Avignon did not like. The majority
of the Assembly favored the scheme of reunion, but it
was only after they had entirely broken with the rest of
Europe that they put their desires into effect.
The matter was discussed in the Assembly in No
vember, 1790. The clerical party exhibited a truly Ben
edictine erudition, in attempting to justify the Papal
thralldom of Avignon. The more clear-sighted of .the
radical party gave up the historical argument, and fell
back on the new principle of popular sovereignty, main
taining boldly that rulers belong to the people, and not
the people to rulers ; and that the people of a territory
alone have the right to choose their form of government.

Religion and the Reign of Terro1)'. 121
After many delays, the Assembly finally voted, in Sep
tember, 1791, to reunite Avignon to France, on condition
of paying to the Pope an indemnity, the amount of
which was not yet fixed. The httle territory had al
ready, for some months, been occupied militarily. The
Holy Father had, therefore, a secular as well as an eccle
siastical grudge against the Revolution.
About this epoch three important documents ema
nated from Rome. The first is a Papal brief, touching
the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, dated March 10,
1790. It is not yet definitive, though the real sentiments
of the Pope are clearly indicated. It condemns flatly
all the innovations in Church affairs thus far made by
the French Assembly. To this is added a general tirade
against the " so-called " new rights of man — the liberty
of conscience, the hberty of thought, and the liberty of
the press. The brief terminates with a violent assault
on Talleyrand, Bishop of Autun, in which he is de
nounced to the universal Church as impious, for having
taken the oath to support the Civil Constitution of the
Clergy. The example of the recantation and martyr
dom of Thomas a Becket is recommended to him, while
the punishment of Hehodorus is denounced against the
spohators and profaners of the sanctuary. The Assembly
is compared to Henry VHI., and an approaching excom
munication is denounced against all who persist in the
evil ways to which his Holiness takes exception.
This brief was accompanied by a letter to Louis XVI.,
perfectly adapted to disturb the Prince's timorous con
science. It expressly condemned the Civil Constitution
of the Clergy. " Your Majesty," said the Pope, " is en-
16

122 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
gaged by a solemn promise to live and die in the Cath
ohc rehgion. But, Sire, this promise will be to you
henceforth an inexhaustible source of bitterness and re
morse ; for, by your sanction, you have detached from
the Catholic unity all those who have the weakness to
take the oath required by the Assembly." These and
like words tended to render impossible any concihation,
to hasten the overthrow of the throne, and to bring on
the mad excesses of an irritated revolution.
The Bishops deputed to the Assembly hastened to
reply to the Pope. They could but agree in condemn
ing the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, but they did
not join in his crusade against all the great principles of
the French Revolution. They held to pohtical hberty and
equality, to the distinction of the civil and the spiritual
powers, and so on. At the close of their letter, they
spoke of the embarrassments and perils of their situa
tion. " But, said they, " we will submit," to our destiny,
whatever it may be, with that courage which rehgion
inspires. Exalt yourself, Holy Father, to the wisdom
and hberty of your mission. Rise above all those per
sonal considerations which perish with us. We occupy
but a small point in time and space, and our own fate
ought not to have the least weight against the interests
of empires, and the promises of the Church. We know
the examples the Church sets before us, and we know
how to suffer for her. Only let not principles suffer."
The Bishops closed by promising to resign, if schism
might thereby be avoided. This letter constitutes a
noble document in the rehgious history of France; it
breathes the spirit of the Christian conscience.

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 123
On the 13th of April the Pope gave his definitive de
cision in a brief addressed to the whole Church of
France. He pronounced the new Constitution of the
Church heretical, protested against the consecration of
Expilly, the new Bishop of Quimper, and against all the
new elections, alleging that the churches belong, not to
the people, but to their chief Pastors. The Pope then
solemnly abjured all Catholics, in the name of their
eternal salvation, to remain faithful to the ancient laws
of the Church, and to the Holy See.
The matter now assumed a new aspect. There were
henceforth two Churches in France : the one, constitu
tional and protected by the State ; the other, refractory
and persecuted. To rescue the honor of the former, the
hour of persecution was soon to come ; for, the bastard
system on which it was organized was impracticable.
And besides, the wrath of the people, excited at first
against the non-juring clergy, soon forgot the difference
of the two Churches, and turned its fury against all re
ligion whatever. Out of one hundred and thirty-one
Bishops, only four accepted the new Civil Constitution
of the Clergy, and a vast multitude of the inferior clergy
remained faithful to the Pope. The movement of oppo
sition took immediately a wide scope and an organized
form throughout the land. The charges of the Bishops
to their clergy, and their responses to the summons of
the Assembly to submit themselves to its decrees, had
been filled with matter of an inflammatory character.
Most of the high clergy fled the country, but before em
igrating they laid plans for exerting a perpetual influ
ence when they themselves should be absent.

124 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
Only four of the former Bishops, as already remarked,
had decided to take the oath and accept the new order
of things. These were Lomenie de Brienne,* Archbishop
of Sens ; Talleyrand, Bishop of Autun ; Jarente, Bishop
of Orleans; and Savines, Bishop of Viviers; these, of
course, remained in possession of their dioceses. The
other dioceses had now to be provided for by new elec
tions and consecrations. Gobel,f Bishop of Lydda, was
chosen Metropolitan of Paris. Expilly and Marolles,
clerical Deputies, were elected to provincial dioceses,
and consecrated, at Paris, by Talleyrand. Gregory,
Claude le Coz, Lamourette, and Moses, were elected to
other principal places. On the whole, the Constitu
tional high clergy were honorable men, though of only
moderate rank and talent. The most eminent of them
was doubtless Gregory, whose firm character was proof
against both the bloody orgies of demagogism, and the
menaces and promises of despotism. His new position
accorded perfectly with his convictions. He was thor
oughly attached to the Revolution. He loved it with
an ardent enthusiasm, which, though sometimes leading
him to imprudent language, yet never induced him to
a culpable act. He was neither a profound thinker nor
a great orator, but he was of that solid practical stuff,
out of which new social fabrics are most readily built.
He had faith and heroism. Lamourette had already fig
ured as a feeble apologist of religion against the philos
ophers, and was, on the whole, one of those gentle spirits
which make no mark in a time of strife. Claude le Coz
honored himself by a noble defense of the non-juring
° See Appendix, note 15. \ Ibid., note 16.

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 125
clergy, and by his devotion to the person of the King.
He defended the new Constitution of the Church with
all the earnestness of thorough conviction. As to Gobel,
Bishop of Lydda, he was one of those shallow, vacillating
spirits who are driven hither and thither by the popular
current, as sea-weed is washed by the waves. At bottom,
he had grave scruples- as to the new Constitution of the
Church, and defended it but feebly ; and yet he was des
tined subsequently to dishonor his name forever by the
most shameless of apostasies. Of the former Bishops
who had not abandoned their places, two, Jarente of
Orleans, and Savines of Viviers, were poor and obscure ;
and two were talented and celebrated, though but little
esteemed, namely, Talleyrand, (a pohtician rather than
a Churchman, who was soon to enter the ranks of the
laity, and there find a more congenial field for his gifts,)
and Lomenie de Brienne, who had been equally frivo
lous as minister and as prelate. The Pope, in reply to
a letter from the latter, had charged him with inflicting
the greatest possible dishonor on the Roman purple
by taking the civil oath, and by consecrating new
Bishops. " Such acts," said the Holy Father, " are de
testable crimes." Brienne answered by resigning his
office of Cardinal. The Pope announced its acceptance
in a secret consistory held September the 26th, 1791.
After enumerating the acknowledged services of the
Archbishop of Sens, he passed in review his censurable
acts, and hesitated not to class among the worst of them,
that which he had done, as Minister of State, in assuring
tolerance for Protestants. He reproached him for
having restored, in part, the fatal Edict of Nantes.

126 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
The Pope, in thus apologizing for persecution in the
same breath in which he defended the liberties of
the Church, chose the surest way of defeating his own
cause. Talleyrand had been expressly condemned in
the brief of April 10th, but he paid little attention
thereto, as his ambition far surpassed the ecclesiastical
sphere. The elections to new bishoprics and curacies
were not made in all places with equal facility. In some
parishes the balloting had to be repeated seven or eight
times. The most absurd and ridiculous rumors were
circulated. It was pretended that at the moment of the
election of Expilly it had thundered terribly, and that
the skies were covered with clouds the day of his ar
rival at Quimper.
The first pubhc acts of the new clergy were not of a
nature to make a favorable impression. A new Bishop,
in presenting his homage at the bar of the Assembly,
pronounced a violent discourse against the refractory
clergy, intimating that their fanaticism might resort to
torches and poniards. He closed by a pompous apology
of his conduct in accepting his new position, and ex
claimed, most ridiculously out of place, " Now, Lord,
lettest thou thy servant depart in peace." Nothing
could be more flat than the pastoral letter of Gobel, the
Metropohtan of Paris. It was written in the weak sen
timental style of the day. It spoke of the pure and
precise divine morahty which disclaims sectarian quar
rels. " Let us preach to our flock," said he, " that after
the divine law there is nothing more sacred than the
law of the State, and that to disobey the latter is to vio
late the former." Thus, in his opinion, all that is given

Reltgwn and the Reign of Terror. 127
to Csesar is given to God; there is neither distinction
nor reserve. France, at the first venture, had struck on
a model of a mere clerical functionary. Gobel surpassed
himself in absurdity in the speech he pronounced on
the occasion of the death of Mirabeau. He regrets
bitterly the death of the great man to whom he owes
the privilege of exercising canonically, on the flowery
banks of the Seine, the ministry which he had pre
viously exercised drearily and without glory, amid the
eternal snows of Switzerland; for it was the pure hand
of Mirabeau that had placed him in the See of Paris.
" Who could have imagined," he exclaimed, " that a ven
erable Archbishop would be proscribed to make place
for Gobel ! What a striking illustration of the wonder
working abihty of the great man whom we mourn to
day ! " At this thought the sensibilities of the Bishop
knew no bounds. " We must have," said he, " civic
priests, civic bishops, and a rehgion entirely civic."
That nothmg might be wanting to the ridiculousness of
this farce, it terminates with a eulogy of the domestic
virtues of Mirabeau, whose life had been notorious for
excessive debauchery. He was proclaimed the father of
the new Church. This wonderful piece of rhetoric was
signed by the Bishop and his secretary, and sent into
every parish in the kingdom. One may easily imagine
the impression such a document made on the adherents
of the ancient clergy. Some months later, Gobel pre
sided over a ridiculous farce, which mingled the Carnival
with the most sacred ceremonies of the Church. A com
pany of children, to whom he had administered the first
communion, were paraded with great display in the

128 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
streets of Paris. At the Jacobin Club they gave a
specimen of the principles they had been taught. " You
have brought clearly to the light of day," said their
spokesman to the Jacobins, " that sublime truth, so often
repeated by Voltaire in vain, under the reign of the
despots, that the virtue of man does not arise from his
belief'' It is clear that Gobel did not have to advance
much further in order to inaugurate the worship of
reason. These interesting neophytes were then presented
to the Assembly. Their spokesman recited, in their
name, a stupidly pompous speech, laudatory of the
Revolution, and demanded finally that these chil
dren of rehgion might be made the children of the
country by the adoption of the National Assembly;
after which they were caused to recite in chorus the civic
oath. The grave Treilhard, who was President at the
time, rephed in the same style. "Infancy," said he,
" exists no longer when the native land is at stake, and the
ices of age melt away and assume new life for the defense
of the empire." The radicals applauded, and demanded
the printing of these rhetorical masterpieces, whereupon
the conservatives burst out in roars of ironical laughter,
viewing the whole affair as a simple farce. A very
stormy debate followed, in which it came near passing
from harsh words to fisticuffs — a fit termination of this
exhibition of the young communicants of Gobel. Truly
the Constitutional clergy were poorly represented at
Paris, the center of hght.
The popular irritation against the priests who had not
taken the oath increased from day to day. Ignoble car
icatures exposed them to the contempt of the masses.

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 129
The solemnities of Holy Week presented afresh to the
conscience of every Catholic the grave questions which
were rending the land. Among the masses there were
two classes, the scoffers and the devout. At the begin
ning of April some unsuppressed convents had suffered
shameful violences, on the pretense that refractory
priests had there been allowed to administer the sacra
ments. Nuns had even been pubhcly whipped. To
stop these hideous and disgraceful scenes, the munici
pality had been compelled to publish a proclamation,
promising that the official Churches should be inter
dicted to the non-juring clergy. These troubles occa
sioned in the department of the Seine a decree declaring
that the temples not regarded as necessary for the Con
stitutional worship might be sold and appropriated to
any use whatever. It was also expressly stated, that
private individuals might obtain such and such rehgious
edifices for the celebration of any worship whatever, on
condition of placing on the main door an inscription in
dicating its use, and distinguishing it from the national
Churches. It was required that this inscription be ap
proved by the officers of the department, at least during
the year 1791. Doubtless it was feared that it might
contain something calculated to offend the populace
and incite to riot. In the provinces the agitation was
not less intense. The days appointed for taking
the oath were fearful occasions. The magistrates in
scarf, foUowed by an armed force, repaired to the
churches at the hour of service, and demanded, willing
or unwilling, the taking of the civic oath. In Cham
pagne a priest was shot dead at the altar at the

130 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
moment he was explaining why he could not take the
oath required.
Already most of the high clergy, especially the Bish
ops, had left France. From their foreign retreats they
kept up communication with their former dioceses, and
contributed greatly to foment sedition. As to the King,
it availed him nothing that he had sanctioned the de
crees. The Assembly knew well that he was conscien
tiously opposed to taking the sacraments from the hands
of a Constitutional priest. But as he made no parade
of his private sentiments, it would have been wise to
ignore them, though it would have been inconsequent
to allow him a private chaplain who had refused the
oath. The matter caused trouble. A popular riot had
prevented the King from going to the church at St.
Cloud, on Easter, to take the sacrament. It had been
provoked by a handbill of the Cordelier Club. The
placard, after mentioning the reports that the King
had been keeping in his palace refractory priests to offi
ciate in a way forbidden by the laws of the Assembly,
"denounced to the representatives of the nation, this
first subject of the laws as himself a violator of the
law." Previously to this the King had been under the
necessity of repairing to the Assemby to obtain per
mission of " freely going and coming." " It is astonish
ing," he had said, " that after having given liberty to
the nation, I cannot free myself."
In accordance with a municipal decree, that certain
churches might be used for any worship whatever, a few
citizens had hired the Church of the Theatins for the use
of non-juring priests. The authorities had accepted the

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 131
following inscription: "Edifice dedicated to religious
services by a private society. Peace and hberty." The
people of Paris had here a fine chance of showing their
love of true hberty, by conceding it to a minority whose
principles they detested. Unfortunately the madness of
the press and the intemperance of the pohtical clubs
wrought too fatally on the popular passions. The day
appointed for the first worship of these non-juring Cath
olics a menacing and insulting paper had been affixed
to the door of the church. A mob assembled in the
street, determined to do violence to whoever attempted
to pass the threshold. Thus the most sacred of hberties
was violated on the very first occasion. It was a direct
outrage on the glorious frontispiece of the Constitution,
the Declaration of Rights ; which amounted to nothing
but a vain and dead letter, if it could not protect a mi
nority against an insensate mob. The conduct of
Lafayette in these circumstances was highly honorable.
He had seen in America the working of the largest re
ligious liberty, and had hoped for France the same
happy system. In his memoirs he says : " The proposed
remedy of allowing each society to support its own
temple and ministers, as is done in the United States,
was rejected on every hand." Though hostile to the
high clergy party, he was willing enough to respect their
rights and conscience; he even allowed non-juring
priests to open a chapel in his own palace. When the
populace prevented the King" from going to the Church
at St. Cloud, Lafayette was so incensed at this violation
of religious hberty as to tender his resignation. And
he withdrew it, only on the assurance that no similar

132 Reliyion and the Reign of Terror.
outrage would be committed. He espoused with enthusi
asm, the cause of the Theatine non-jurors, and besought
them to celebrate their worship despite the populace.
"For two days," wrote he on this occasion, "I have
been absorbed in discussions and arrangements relative to
the full and immediate maintenance of religious liberty.
The real aristocrats are offended at our shielding rehgion
against their hostility. The Ecclesiastical Committee
spoke to me to-day of measures to be taken against the
non-conforming Catholics. I told them that the Na
tional Guard was an instrument which would play any
tune they pleased, provided only that they did not
change the key, which was the Declaration of Rights."
These matters gave rise to a discussion in the As
sembly which turned, on the whole, in favor of religious
liberty ; though the enjoyment of the right was very in
secure so long as it was liable to be infringed by the
mob. It was contended by some that the refusal to take
the oath had the effect only to deprive of public office and
salary, but not to hinder the non-jurors from officiating in
the national Churches. Others denied this inference. The
cause of the non-juring priests of the Theatine Church
found able' defenders in Talleyrand and Sieyes; Mirabeau
was no longer there. " It is time," said Talleyrand, " that
the people should know that this liberty of opinion is
not a vain and meaningless part of the Declaration of
Rights ; that it is a real, full, and entire right, to which
all protection is due." He showed that it was entirely
illusory if it was not respected outside of the official
worship, and if it was not so far respected as to be al
lowed the right of manifesting itself in acts of public

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 133
worship. " We do not combat fanaticism," said he, " to
substitute in its place a culpable indifference. It is the
respect for conscience that we wish to consecrate. We
wish to insure the triumph of true rehgion by leaving to
it no resort but persuasion, and by showing that it has
nothing to fear from the emulation of rivals." After ex
pressing lively regrets that the people of Paris had to
such an extent infringed the liberty of conscience, he
continued : " Conscience must be respected, even in our
bitterest adversaries. Those who believe it must be al
lowed, if they wish it, to stigmatize us as schismatics.
Their worship, whether it be like or different from ours,
must be perfectly free, otherwise religious liberty is only
a name, and we become an intolerant and persecuting
people. Let us show that this liberty is one of the
great benefits of our Constitution, which will grow
stronger from day to day, and soon or late command the
homage of mankind."
The Abbot Sieyes maintained the same principles with
his accustomed directness and precision. " Citizens have
been disturbed," said he, " in • their reunion ; this re
union had a rehgious object. Now is there any law
forbidding assembhes of the people when they have a
religious object, provided that otherwise they violate
no law? I know of no such law. The National As
sembly has substantially said to all, ' You shall not be
disturbed for your religious opinions ; you are subject
only to the law. Your hberty is guaranteed to you; rely
on it, it shall be protected.' If any one objects, saying
that opinion is free, but only in the mind, or when one
is alone, or in a small company, what more has the As-

134 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
sembly granted than existed under the former rigime ?
Is it possible for a hberty or right to exist in principle,
but not in action or consequences ? When you say the
citizens are free, what can you mean but that they are
free to put their rights into effect ? This must be so,
unless hberty is a mere abstraction. If such is the
hberty meant, it is not worth the trouble of the Revolu
tion." To those who objected that religious hberty was
full of peril, because it gave scope to popular agitation,
Sieyes replied, that the same objection might be urged
against every kind of liberty. The simple fact was, that
the majority was in favor of universal tolerance so long
as it was enjoyed only by sects to which they were in
different; but as soon as it turned to the profit of an
enemy, for example, the non-juring Cathohcs, they op
posed it.
Lanjuinais,* who subsequently distinguished himself
by his firm defense of liberty and justice, took the
question this time by its small side, and called upon
himself a sally of contemptuous laughter by his ill-timed
railing against the privileges enjoyed by the non-juring
Catholics and the Protestants. The result of the debate
was, that the National Assembly pronounced itself
fully in favor of the great principles advocated in the
speeches of Talleyrand and Sieyes. Thus the great
principles of 1789 were interpreted anew by this sov
ereign Assembly, as consecrating the largest religious
liberty. The pretended liberal of to-day, who does not
favor entire hberty of worship, is no disciple of 1789.
Un fortunately this great right, together with all others,
* See Appendix, note 17.

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 135
was soon destined to be submerged by the waves of the
all-devouring Revolution ; nevertheless, in spite of its
temporary defeat, it still remains, hke a rock imbedded in
the earth, the great principle which is to form the corner
stone of our constitutional edifice, when it is definitely
built. It is easy to see how greatly the Assembly was in ad
vance of the people of Paris in point of real hberahsm.
Notwithstanding the fine discussion in the Assembly on
rehgious hberty, the Church of the Theatins had scarcely
been opened when the non-juring Cathohcs were driven
away by a mob, and their altar demolished. Lafayette
had to come in person to stop the riot, and Bailly,* the
astronomer, wrote, in the name of the municipality of
Paris, a letter of thanks to the National Guard, which
had lent its strong hand to the law. He here pleaded the
cause of conscience, and deprecated fanaticism, whether
under the banner of the Revolution or of religion. But
the men of 1789 were fast becoming unable to control
the passions of the populace, on which they had already
too much rehed. They could call them to their aid, but
they could not place a limit to their excesses. More
over, they were not free from passion themselves, and it
was in spite of themselves if they respected rehgious
liberty in their enemies of the non-juring clerical party.
The opposition of this party grew from day to day,
and spread like wild-fire over the whole land. The calm
North was affected as well as the fanatical South. Riots
broke out in several provinces. The Bishop of Senez
courageously resisted all commands to obey a law which
* See Appendix, note 18.

136 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
violated his conscience, and took, at the tribunal of Cas-
tillon, the attitude of an ancient confessor. His firmness
had an extrordinary influence on the clergy. He ob
tained the recantation of a priest who had taken the
oath, and ceased not to direct his shafts against the
decrees of the Assembly. In several places priests had
to be thrown into prison.
About this time, the translation of the ashes of Vol
taire (who thirteen years previously had scarcely been
allowed the most humble burial place by the Catholics
of France) to the Pantheon, the national temple of the
French, had given new offense. It had been accom
plished in the midst of theatrical pomp and affected sen
timentality. It was a fresh defiance of revolutionary
France to the prejudices of Cathohcism. One of the
motives given by the Assembly for decreeing these
highest honors to Voltaire was, that he had prepared the
nation for liberty. But they were very soon to see, and
literally to reahze, how closely irrehgion is alhed to des
potism. As yet, however, the majority of the Assembly
showed no disposition to transgress the bounds of a wise
moderation. An instance of this occurred at this time,
in a case where they passed hghtly over a serious disre
spect of the laws, committed by the Archbishop of
Rouen. Their patience was further tried by frequent
briefs of the Pope, which were circulated widely, and
which created much mischief in the land. In the session
of June 9th, 1791, Thouret proposed a decree forbidding
in the future, under heavy penalty, the circulation of any
act of the Papal See which had not previously been ap
proved by the Assembly. This would have infringed on

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 137
the liberty of the press, for it would have hindered, in one
of its most sacred forms, the free expression of thought in
a large class of citizens. The furthest they could properly
have gone, would have been to forbid the circulation of
Papal acts as binding in France. Malouet and other
speakers ably exposed the injustice of such a law. The
decree, as finally passed, was limited in its application to
the official or constitutional clergy. This moderation was
imitated by some of the provincial authorities. In one
locality, the Sisters of Charity had manifested disappro
bation of the new regime, and the populace had menaced
them. The authorities took up their defense ; but while
allowing them the hberty of still taking care of the
sick, they forbade them the right of teaching, which
was now a civil function. The Minister of the Interior
wrote them a sensible letter, advising them to concede
to the sick, whom they nursed, the same liberty they
claimed for themselves.
But the attempted flight of the King, June 21, 1791,
rendered moderate measures any longer impossible.
The revolutionary passions became irresistible. The
emphasis laid by the King on the violence he had suf
fered from the Revolutionists in matters of conscience,
was a noteworthy feature of the manifesto which he had
designed to explain to France and to Europe the cause
of his flight. We thus read these words: "On his
recovery from sickness the King made ready to go to
the Church at St. Cloud. As a pretext for arresting
him, advantage was taken of the respect which he was
known to entertain for the rehgion of his fathers.
Thereafter he was compelled to order the discharge of
18

138 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
his private chaplain, to approve the letter of the [revolu
tionary] ministry to the foreign powers, and to attend
the celebration of mass by the new Curate of St. Ger
main I'Auxerrois." This document set in the plainest
light the intimate alhance between the counter-revolu
tion and the non-juring clergy. It is not surprising
that the opposition of the clergy henceforth excited
more discontent and displeasure. The fugitive King
had openly espoused their cause in the eyes of all Eu
rope. On the fourth of August an obscure Deputy had
gone so far as to propose, in the interest of the pubhc
safety, the suspension of the laws of justice and hberty,
in order to crush the opposition of the refractory clergy.
He had dared to propose, in the midst of the great As
sembly which had voted the Rights of Man, that all the
non-juring priests of certain departments in which great
trouble then existed, be required to retire to a distance
of thirty leagues, on pain of imprisonment. This would
have been to inaugurate general proscription, for which
the moment had not yet arrived. The men of 1789
could not be led to so flat a contradiction of their own
principles, even under the pressure of their own passions
and the raging fury of the masses. This proposition
was destined to reappear under an aggravated form in
the next Assembly. On the last day of September,
1791, the Constituent Assembly handed over its powers
to that stormy Legislative Assembly which accom
plished the sad work of sweeping away the monarchy
and establishing the repubhc on the ruins of hberty.
Let us not be unjust toward this great Assembly,
which, in the midst of a society full of abuses and preju-

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 139
dices, had the hard task of laying the foundation of a
new order of things. Assailed by difficulties on every
hand, a prey to contrary and mutually-exasperating
passions, having to deal with a royalty which it could
not trust, urged on by an uncultured people who were
tired of their yoke and impatient to humble those who
had so long held them in the dust, it was compelled to
deal at once with all sorts of questions, and to resolve
them under the pressure of the most urgent necessity,
and amid the heat of the most ardent party strife. It
was not possible, in such circumstances, to erect a dura
ble edifice, for too often laws were made as one erects
batteries — against the enemies of the day. The true
constitutionahsts, who desired to preserve both hberty
and power, and to conciliate the future with the past,
had no chance of success in so violent a crisis. Mira
beau, who was really on their side, saw fit to render
palatable his reasonable and sober discourses by the
excesses of the demagogue. It must also be confessed
that the stubbornness and plots of the reactionary party
rendered the practice of wisdom very difficult. In
these circumstances the system of Rousseau had fine
scope for its daring theories, its democratic parade,
(which, nevertheless, admitted of the most arbitrary
measures,) and its marked tendency to sacrifice liberty
to equality. Although restrained by the English school
and the great talents of its opponents, still this system
contributed largely to drive the Revolution into ex
tremes, and to deprive the governmental machine of
that counterpoise, without which it is unable to resist
the assaults of passion. The system of Rousseau, in

140 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
league with Gallican Jansenism, led the Assembly to
its greatest errors in ecclesiastical matters. Under this
influence the Constituent Assembly committed the mis
take of salarying the Churches from the State treasury,
and organizing a functionary clergy. It sought to sub
ordinate this clergy to the government by means of the
civil constitution and the political oath ; it carried con
straint even into the conscience. Thus in the very
temple of liberty the old idol of the State had been
replaced on the altar by legislators who, while believing
themselves bold innovators, were in this matter mere
revivers of the most obsolete pretensions of the ancient
monarchy. They had, however, proclaimed liberty of
conscience outside of the official worship; but this the
people would not peaceably suffer, and its shadow even
was destined to disappear in the storm which was al
ready muttering in the distance, and which was in the
sequel to overturn both Throne and Altar. Neverthe
less great rights had been invoked. A noble enthu
siasm, though doubtless mingled with imprudent indig
nation, had animated this great Assembly. And it is
upon the doctrines which it proclaimed that all devel
opment of liberty in this country must ever be based ;
for, though it unfortunately compromised every-thing,
yet it divined and aspired after every-thing, and noth
ing can ever surpass the intense patriotic ardor which
consumed it. A terrible ordeal was soon to separate
the good grain from the chaff. The struggles which
ensued were to be the implacable proof of the errors it
had committed as to the proper relations of the tem
poral to the spiritual power.

BOOK SECOND.
THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AND THE NATIONAL
CONVENTION UNTIL THE PROCLAMATION OF THE
SEPARATION OP CHURCH AND STATE.

CHAPTER I.
RELIGIOUS STRUGGLE IN THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.
The Constituent Assembly had maintained till the last
the principle of the liberty of conscience ; but the Dec
laration of Rights was a bond far too frail to restrain a
land agitated by bitter rehgious strife. What could an
abstract idea avail against popular passion ! Let us
also forget not, that though the Assembly had remained
true to the hberal idea, yet it had but too often yielded
to the pernicious pressure of the populace. Still the
men of 1789 could not be so inconsequent as to suspend
the freedom of worship. In the Legislative Assembly,
where they formed only an insignificant minority, they
pleaded earnestly in its defense ; but their resistance was
neither long nor very efficacious. The fatal theory of
the public safety, much more pernicious in a republic
than in an absolute monarchy, annulled for a time the
most precious conquests of the Revolution. Violent
hands were already preparing to disfigure the statue of
Liberty, though it had but just been placed on its

142 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
pedestal. The rude insolence which the new Assembly
showed to the King from its very first sittings was a
violation of the spirit of the Constitution ; for to debase
a royalty already so dependent was really to destroy it.
This open disrespect was to inflict on it a sort of moral
death. The Constitution was also in other respects
little better regarded. In fact, the work of the Legisla
tive Assembly was less to govern and found than to
combat and destroy. Composed mostly of new and
very young men, chiefly signalized by their revolution
ary fervor, and whose official duties had brought them
in contact with the reactionary spirit in the provinces,
it was imbued with a feeling of distrust and defiance.
Every thing impressed on it the great duty, as it
thought, of crushing every obstacle to the Revolution,
and more especially the rehgious reaction, which was
now assuming alarming proportions throughout the
land. Driven by its own inclination in the direction of
the arbitrary, and not having, as aids in checking its
excesses, the great orators and politicians whom an un
wise measure of the first had shut out from this second
Assembly, there was little to hinder it from rushing to
its own destruction. The conservative members of the
first had no representation in the second, and the mod
erates of the new Assembly corresponded to the radicals
of the old. The middle party of the Legislative As
sembly, without courage or fixed principles, were ever
ready to throw their weight on the side of the strongest
and most violent. Trembling and hesitating royalty
passed, for a moment, from the concessions which had
been wrested from its weakness, to a show of resistance

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 143
which served only the cause of its enemies, and endured
only sufficiently long for the current to gain head
enough to sweep it away entirely. An insensate press,
which could attack private or public character with
impunity — an organized mob constantly collected in and
about the hall of the Assembly — the increasing violence
of the debates in the clubs — the intoxication of combat
— the constant suspicion of treason on the one hand and
of conspiracy on the other — what was lacking to produce
on the Assembly a most unfortunate and irresistible
pressure? The radicals of the Legislative Assembly,
as is well known, were the brilliant group of Girondist *
Deputies. Behind them stood, as their natural heirs,
the future extremists of the Mountain party, now only
distinguished from them by a ruder energy and a more
cruel disposition. We will see that the Girondists
showed in the religious struggles as much violence and
injustice as their enemies, and that if they did not erect
the pohtical scaffold, they at least laid its foundation by
measures of ilhberal proscription. They sacrificed right
and hberty to "reasons of State;" and this is the
essence of the pohtical catechism of the terrorists.
Their eloquence, their youth, their generosity, and espe
ciaUy their courageous death, tend to blind us as to
their faults. But we must not look at them simply in
this last hour ; for that hberty which they then proudly
and heroically invoked, they themselves had too often
violated in their own pohtical career. They had tried
to found liberty by the arbitrary, a sure way of destroy
ing both it and themselves. They left it bleeding in
* See Appendix, note 19.

144 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
the hands of barbarous men who stained its name with
the stigma of their own dishonor. Docile and passion
ate disciples of an unbeheving age, the Girondists dis
played in their opposition to the reactionary clergy all
the prejudices of a materialistic philosophy which was
incapable of respecting God as manifested in the human
conscience. They gave to the world the shameful spec
tacle of persecuting disciples of Voltaire. Let us, how
ever, in judging them, not forget how much there is to
be pleaded in their excuse ; for to their eyes rehgion was
identified with pohtics, and behind the crowd of suffer
ing confessors, who have all our admiration, was to be
seen the long line of pohtical reactionists, who made
use of every thing, even to rehgion and martyrdom, for
their pernicious purposes.
Let us take a brief glance at the situation of the
country at the opening of the debates of the Legislative
Assembly. The matter of the oath, and the displacement
of the non-juring priests, gave continual trouble. Where
the revolutionary party was the stronger, the refractory
clergy suffered all manner of ill treatment. Where the
contrary was the case, the new clergy often suffered per
sonal violence from the populace. The non-juring clergy,
though deposed from their official stations, yet enjoyed
their salaries as private ecclesiastics, and could as such
celebrate the rites of the Church in the official temples.
They also had the right of renting, under certain con
ditions, private halls for their own worship. But in this
right they were constantly frustrated by the outrages
of the mob, and by the unfairness of the local police,
who often held them responsible for riots of which they

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 145
had only been the victims. Though in many rural dis
tricts they preserved their ancient ascendency, yet in the
cities they were generally at the mercy of the populace.
At Paris the opposition against them was surprisingly
great. Lafayette, in resigning the command of the Na
tional Guards, recommended earnestly respect for rehg
ious liberty. " Liberty," said he, " wiU not be firmly
established among us so long as intolerance of rehgious
opinions, under pretext of I know not what kind of
patriotism, shall presume to admit the thought of a
dominant and a proscribed worship." The authorities
published a severe proclamation, on the occasion of the
assault on the Irish College to prevent the non-juring
worship. It was declared that the assault had been a vio
lation both of religious liberty and of the rights of hospi
tality. The local authorities of Paris were recommended
to safeguard, in the future, the fullest rehgious liberty.
But they were strongly disposed to do the very opposite.
New violence followed. At the Irish College women
had been assaulted on leaving the church. At the Irish
Seminary a female had been brutally torn from the con
fessional. The house of English nuns, at the Jardin des
Plantes, had been the theater of similar scenes. The
police had intervened only to gratify the mob by shut
ting up the churches attacked. A magistrate to whom
complaint was made, satisfied himself with remarking
that the people were not ripe.
On occasion of these persecutions the non-juring
Catholics of Paris sent a remonstrance to the King.
" Sire," said they, " the Catholics of Paris for more than
six months have been exiled from their temples, deprived
19

146 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
of their worship, and exposed to all the outrages of fa
naticism, without uttering a single complaint. Disciples
of a Master who, whUe dying on the cross, prayed even
for his executioners — children of a religion whose first
law is charity, and whose first benefit is peace — they
thought fit at first to stifle their complaints and hide
their sorrow in their own bosorris ; but now, taking cour
age from the promulgation of the constitutional laws,
we have presumed to speak to you of our rights to the
common liberty, and to ask, for the exercise of our
worship, the protection of the laws. All we desire is
peace ; the Constitution gives us rights ; it is time that
we enjoy them."
In the provinces the attitude of the old clergy was
more bold, for they were" in general better sustained by
the populace. Messrs. Gallois and Gensonne had been
sent, in July 1791, by the Assembly, into the west of
France. They found the people of La Vendee, where
such a terrible civil war soon broke out, very favorably
disposed to the new regime in every thing that did not
eoncern their rehgion. " These people," said they, " re
mote from the common center of resistance, disposed nat
urally to a love of peace, of order, and of law, were en
joying the benefits of the Revolution without experi
encing its storms. Nothing would have been more easy
than to attach them to the Constitution, if their religious
faith, which is very positive and lively, had only been
respected. Their rehgion has become very strong, and,
as it were, the one moral habit of their existence." Not
being able to distinguish between rehgion and the priest,
they thought themselves deprived of their faith when

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 147
they saw the priests turned out of office whom they re
garded as the sole mediators between Heaven and earth.
They clung to them with a sort of wild affection which
could easily be brought to beheve insurrection a sacred
duty. And the non-juring priests were not backward
in taking advantage of this disposition. The refractory
Bishop of Lucon multiphed his pastoral letters, to keep
his flock true to the old faith. He forbade his clergy to
enter the churches profaned by the new priests, and
counseled them to open new places for worship. " In
parishes," said he, " where there are few who are rich,
it will doubtless be difficult to find a suitable locality,
and to procure sacred vessels and ornaments. In such
cases a mere barn, a portable altar, a surplice of calico,
and vessels of tin, wiU suffice to celebrate the sacred
mysteries. This simplicity and poverty, by reminding
us of the first ages of the Church and of the cradle of
our holy rehgion, will be a powerful means of exciting
the zeal of the priests and the fervor of the faithful.
The first Christians had no other temples than their
own houses." The Bishop ordered that secret regis
ters of baptisms, marriages, and interments should be
kept, and that if any one Could not avoid entering a
cemetery of which a government priest had the charge,
at least he should retire with all possible haste as soon
as the offensive Curate had defiled, with his presence, the
holy ground. Zealous missionaries, going out from a
central point, fanned the flame of fidelity to the old
Church, and spread abroad popular catechisms which
denounced the most terrible vengeance of Heaven on
whoever had any thing to do with the heretical priests.

148 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
No marriage celebrated by them would be legal, and
every ceremony in which they should officiate would be
a sacrilege. These teachings bore their harvest. Fam
ilies were divided, and municipal boards torn with dis
cord. The substitution of the new for the old clergy
was very slow and very incomplete. Wherever it was
accomplished great discord resulted. The adherents of
the refractory clergy could not behold without indigna
tion, the venerable Church of their fathers delivered over
to a smaU and, in their eyes, infamous minority, whUe
they were often condemned to make journeys of many
mues to celebrate their worship. On Sundays and fes
tivals whole vUlages went on these long journeys. It is
easy to imagine with what feehngs of bitterness the
fatigued peasants returned to their homes at night. The
agitation of the land was so great that the Assembly
had judged weU to back their exhortations as to the ex
cellence of the new Church system, by stationing in the
most refractory quarters detachments of troops. But the
best of soldiers, even under the command of Dumouriez,
could not re-estabhsh tranquiUity. What was needed
was not soldiers, but hberty. The Commissioners, finding
the district of Chatillon all on fire, assembled the people
in aU the chief places, and were astonished at the mod
eration of a population which had been denounced as
rebelhous. They demanded simply that the government
should leave to them the Pastors of their choice. The
report of the Commissioners says : " The people desired
to enjoy hberty of rehgious opinion. We received from
numerous deputations this same prayer. ' We only de
sire,' said they, ' to have priests in whom we have confi-

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 149
dence.' Many of them desired this so much that they
assured us they would freely pay for the favor the double
of their assessment. They left us with peace and con
tentment when we assured them that it was a principle
of the Constitution to respect the hberty of conscience."
These words of a chief of the Girondists contain the se
verest condemnation of all the innovations of the Rev
olution in ecclesiastical matters. They prove that civil
war might have been prevented by a faithful adherence
to the Constitution. What a condemnation for all the
so-called measures of public safety ! If they violate
right, they cannot contribute either to safety or honor.
While La Vendee was preparing for revolt, like
causes produced the same effects in other places. At
Montpelher the mob had interrupted the mass of a non-
juring priest, in a church which had been officially as
signed to both forms of worship. The Cathohcs had
repulsed this attack by the cry of " Liberty of worship,"
which was in fact to appeal from the Revolution mad
to the Revolution hberal and wise — to that one which
had eloquently proclaimed universal tolerance. Unfor
tunately, whUe the Cathohcs were sincere in their de
fense of this great principle, and were sustained by a
good number of priests who, for the sake of their flocks,
courageously exposed themselves to many dangers, the
chiefs of the Royahst party abroad sought to turn this
feeling to their own political profit. Their sole aim was
to restore the ancient regime, with aU its abuses. This
is clearly evident from a document which Abbot Maury
about this time sent to the Pope. It reveals the secret
designs of the leaders of the Cathohc party at a time

150 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
when multitudes of the simple and pious, unacquaint
ed with the thoughts of their chiefs, were winning for
themselves so pure a glory by suffering and dying
for the hberty of conscience. This hberty is cynically
denied in the letter of the incorrigible Abbot. Instead
thereof, he openly pleads for a restoration of the old
system, with aU its abuses, and especially for the main
tenance of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. He
declares that Louis XIV. justly regarded the French
nation as so a unit that it could not admit of more than
one religion ; in this respect the nationality was some
what hke the nature of the Supreme Being — as soon as
a division is admitted he ceases to exist. He argues
that the share the Protestants were taking in the French
Revolution justified the pohcy of the revocation of the
Edict of Nantes, and that the only safe course was to
return to the examples of Louis XIV., and trample
under foot the teachings of a vain philosophy. He
pleads for refusing civU rights to the Protestants, and
for denying them the protection of the laws. This ad
mirable plan was to be backed by a Papal buU of ex
communication against the Jansenists and philosophers ;
and the people were thus to be brought back to sound
reason, and to the yoke which for a moment they had
shaken off.
Such was the programme of the counter-revolution.
Surely it was fuUy as absurd and foolish as that of its
foes, the extreme revolutionists. The suggestions of
Maury were well received at Rome. The Pope, not con
tent with pleading for the sacred rights of rehgion, put
himself at the head of the political reaction in Europe,

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 151
and proclaimed himself the champion of the ancient re
gime. Already he had hurled his anathemas against the
elementary principles of modern society. Unfortunately,
he was now surrounded by a cabinet of Absolutist coun
selors, who persisted in involving and confounding the
most sacred with the most detestable of causes. Under
their influence, he gave much more attention to .the
temporalities of the Church than to the interests of re
hgion. Instead of being simply the father of the faithful
and the defender of Christianity, he played the earthly
sovereign, and espoused, against the people, the cause of
his brethren the kings. The causes of despotism and of
rehgion being thus identified, the Revolutionists believed
themselves justified in aU their extreme measures against
the refractory Cathohcs, seeing in them only the cham
pions of the despotism against which they were strug
gling — a view which was true, however, only of a portion
of them. Moreover, it is never safe nor pohtic to imi
tate the faults of one's foes. To understand the action
of the Legislative Assembly, it was necessary for us
thus to present clearly the complicated state of the re
ligious question. Neither party was in the right purely
and simply, and each pleaded in self-justification the
excesses of the other. The sole sublime characters in
these deplorable struggles were the humble martyrs,
whether priests or peasants, who, strangers to all polit
ical intrigues, suffered and died simply for their faith.
The Legislative Assembly had scarcely begun its
labors when it heard of the massacres at Avignon.
We have stated already how this little Papal territory
had been reunited to France ; but a decree of the As-

152 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
sembly could not cool the rage of the over-excited pas
sions of this southern city. As the result of a violent
contest of the two rival parties, an officer of the govern
mental army had been killed in the church of the Cor
deliers. The people, furious at this, had thrown into
prison more than two hundred persons, men and
women, who were suspected of dishking the new re
gime. Crowded into a dark recess of the ancient Papal
palace, they had been massacred on the sixth of October,
1791, by a band of brigands, at the head of which fig
ured a man well known for his cruelty, the revolutionist
Jourdan, afterward known as the Beheader. This act
was accomplished with an unheard of barbarity, and the
blood-stained walls remained for a long time its speak
ing witness. The indignation of the Assembly at the
news of these crimes was intense. The feelings of the
Deputy who read the report overcame him before he
could finish the horrible recital. Nothing was more
earnestly insisted on than the punishment of these in-
augurators of terror. However, the Girondists at
tempted to save them, and, thanks to a miserable legal
technicahty, succeeded in it to their own shame. Ver
gniaud was guilty of lending to this execrable cause the
charm of his grand eloquence. He was indignant only
against the victims of the massacre. " Let not hang
men," said he, " be the first gift you make to the people
of Avignon." He forgot that there is something worse
than to execute great criminals, namely, to sharpen the
daggers of assassins by a scandalous impunity. It was
an encouragement to crime, and the precursor of the
horrors of the coming September.

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 153
This result gave the measure of justice that might be
expected from the Legislative Assembly by the perse
cuted adherents of the ancient Church. The whole
tendency was toward the arbitrary and the tyrannical.
Once in awhile, however, the real cause of the trouble,
and the true solution of the difficulties, were clearly
caught sight of by the better members of the Assembly.
It was seen and felt that in establishing a civil rehgion
the first Assembly had committed a grave error. This
opinion was clearly and boldly expressed in the Moni
teur by an illustrious poet, Andre Chenier, who was at
that time the honor of French letters, and subsequently
one of the noblest martyrs of hberty. With the intui
tion of genius he saw at once the cause of the tyranny
on the one side and of the revolt on the other. This
cause was the meddling of the government in matters
of rehgion. Chenier was not a Christian ; he thought
and wrote as a philosopher; and yet we find in him
much more respect for the rights of conscience than in
those reactionary Cathohcs who wished nothing so
much as to go back to the old rigime, under which they
themselves had treated their opponents with the same
hard fate against which they now so loudly complained.
" We wiU only be delivered," said he, " from the influ
ence of insurgent priests when the National Assembly
shall assure to every one the full liberty of following
and inventing whatever religion he may choose ; when
every one shall pay for the worship he prefers, and for
no other ; and when the courts shall punish with severity
the seditious and persecutors of every party. If the
Assemblv objects that the French people are not ripe
20

154 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
for such doctrines, then we say, it is for them, by means
of their example, their discourses, and their laws, to
prepare and ripen us for them. Priests do not trouble
those states which let them alone, and they never fail
to give trouble where they are meddled with." The
gifted writer proved his positions by ample references
to universal history. • He closed his arguments by rec
ommending the entire banishment of religious matters
from the sphere of legislation, and the quenching of the
quarrels of priests by an attitude of indifference. This
indifference is in fact, thought he, the greatest mark of
respect which a pohtical body can show to rehgion ;
but this opinion was very far from the teachings of
Bossuet and Rousseau. The poet, on this occasion, was
a true votes, a prophet. Unhappily he was not in the
Assembly, and his sentiments found there but a feeble
echo. The question of the non-juring clergy was perpetually
the order of the day in the Legislative Assembly. The _
continual disturbances in the provinces ever brought it
up anew, and it was ever resolved with increasing harsh
ness against the refractory clergy. The emigrants were
openly preparing for war against the Revolution, and it
was perfectly clear that the obnoxious priests were their
strongest allies; therefore as often as one decree was
hurled against the former, another was forged against
the latter. The debates were for some time carried on
by the mediocre members, and with little abihty. The
Assembly was at first very inexperienced, and the most
ridiculous resolutions were constantly presented. For
example, Deputy Duval, after having proclaimed him-

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 155
self a child of nature by the grace of the plow, (as could
readily be proved by the oxen, those pure and incor
ruptible witnesses of his labors,) moved that every priest
who would not take oath to obey all the new laws be
required, on pain of imprisonment, to wear upon his left
shoulder a badge bearing the words : Priest suspected of
sedition. The question which finally presented itself was
whether the constitution should not be suspended in
order to crush the opposing clergy"; whether, in addition
to refusing them hberty of worship, they should not also
be denied civU rights. The problem therefore was
whether liberty was to be founded by hberty, or by the
arbitrary and the unjust. As early as the seventh of
October, 1791, the too famous Oouthon* raised a sort
of yell of fury against the non-juring clergy. He in
sinuated that the forms of justice should be refused to
them, for the reason that in the districts under their
influence it would be difficult to find proof against
them. Some days later the unknown Deputy Lejeune
intensified these views, and declared that the country
had no worse enemy than a fanatical priest, and that
the sole question was, how to stop his pernicious influ
ence. " It is not a question of rehgious hberty," said
he, " but of safety of the country." He then proposed
that all non-juring priests be required within two weeks
to fix their residence in the chief town of their province.
A constitutional Bishop, Fauchet, had the sad honor of
seconding these measures of intolerance. He was a
man of ready, impassioned speech, and had won a name
* See Appendix, note 20.

156 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
for eloquence in the court, where he had preached in his
youth. His enthusiasm for the Revolution had pro
cured him the bishopric of Caen, and a seat in the As
sembly. He there exhibited the fire of a democrat and
the bitterness of a priest whose authority was contested
in his own diocese. He was not naturally a bad man,
but he had been spoiled by the clubs, and now he gave
himself up to the current of the moment. He was un
measured in his invectives against the non-juring clergy,
and declared that hberty was incompatible with fanati
cism. His own revolutionary fanaticism, and the unjust
measures which he pleaded for against his former col
leagues, furnished the best proof of his assertion.
"Atheists," said he, "are angels in comparison with
these priests." Fauchet demanded the suspension of
the salaries which had been accorded to the non-juring
priests, on the ground that it was not right to pay them
for keeping the country in a ferment. He asserted that
poverty would soon chase away those who remained
" cuirassed in their pretended conscience ;" for the people
would soon weary of paying for a worship which they
could have more easily and more majestically in the
government churches. Sad language for a Bishop —
this speculating on the baser sentiments of human na
ture. Happily for the honor of man this calculation
has always proved false ; the conscience can neither be
bought by gold nor cowed by the sword. Fauchet was
too fast ; the time was not yet come for such action.
His discourse displeased the Assembly. He was justly
reproached with having preached vengeance in the name
of the Gospel. A brother Bishop, Torne, refuted his

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 157
positions, and was applauded when he invoked rehgious
Hberty in favor of the non-jurors. " Let us beware,"
said he, " of regarding their errors as a pohtical crime ;
fanaticism only increases by opposition. The refractory
priest who propagates his faith only makes use of his
natural hberty. Under the rigime of hberty let us
have no punishment without judgment, no judgment
without trial." Such language saved the honor of the
new clergy, so gravely compromised by Fauchet.
Tome's discourse was ordered to be printed " in expia
tion of the intolerant speech which had preceded it."
In vain Fauchet returned to the charge. He was
laughed at when he invoked the pity of the Assembly
for a salaried priesthood, on account of a few stones
which had been cast at a Curate by some women who
disliked him. The majority of the Assembly was
against him. Davignon demanded that the non-juring
worship be put on the same footing as that of the Prot
estants and the Jews ; Monneron, that the factious be
punished not as priests, but as rebels. Others showed
that the only alternative was either to guarantee rehg
ious hberty, or to turn persecutor. A few Deputies
caught a clear view of the only remedy for the difficul
ties, and proposed informally the leaving of the support
of aU worship to the free gifts of the faithful. Ducos,
in his earnest pleas for hberty of conscience, showed
himself a true disciple of Mirabeau. " It is unjust and
impohtic," said he, " to give a preference to any wor
ship whatever. Let us, therefore, separate State mat
ters from matters of Church, treat the manifestatfon of
religious opinions as we treat other opinions, regard

158 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
rehgious meetings as we regard other reunions of citi
zens, and allow every sect to choose whom it please,
whether it be a bishop or an iman, a minister or a rabbi,
just as we allow popular assemblies to elect whom they
will for president and secretaries." Ducos went on to
make inferences from his principles, and severely con
demned the Civil Constitution of the Clergy and the po
litical oath.
The capital speech on this subject was pronounced by
Gensonne. He had just claims on the confidence of the
Assembly, for he had traversed the disaffected districts
and obtained a thorough knowledge of the troubles. He
showed that all that the people wanted was religious hb
erty, and that the Revolution had committed a grave
error by regarding all as disloyal who, by error or by con
science, had remained attached to their former Pastors.
He declared that a grave mistake had been committed
in identifying love of country with the acceptance of
this or that form of worship, a course which had sub
jected the ignorant but honest people of the country
districts to innumerable vexations and persecutions.
The only remedy possible was simply the guaranteeing of
full rehgious hberty. And yet at this very moment the
radicals were pleading for the imprisonment of all non
conforming priests. Their arguments, based on the plea
of the pubhc safety, were ably refuted by Gensonne.
He showed that such general proscriptions involved
every injustice, confounded the innocent with the guilty,
and established an inquisition of the conscience. " Re
member," said he, in closing, " that respect for individual
hberty is the surest guarantee of public liberty, and that

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 159
one must never cease to be just even to an enemy."
The orator carried the Assembly with him ; but it was
rather from sentiment than from conviction. His dis
course was ordered to be printed, and a report to be
made within the next eight days on the propositions
which he had made. A faithful following of the coun
sels of that day would have saved infinite misfortune.
Unfortunately, the news of fresh troubles in the provinces
quickly turned the majority to the side of arbitrary and
despotic measures.
- Two days after this speech a special courier informed
the Assembly of grave troubles in the West. He bore
a report which deeply incriminated the non-conforming
clergy. It declared that meetings of people to the
number of four thousand had been held in several places
for the purpose of nocturnal processions and other re
ligious rites, and that when it was attempted to disperse
them they had armed themselves with guns, or pikes
and scythes. Conflicts with the National Guards had
taken place, and the popular fury had attacked the con
stitutional clergy, and reopened churches to the non-
juring priests. This report, though admitting that the
people had armed themselves only after having been
disturbed in their religious rights, caused equal alarm
and indignation in the Assembly. The storm was ev
idently muttering in the distance. Isnard cried out that
moderation had compromised every thing, that toleration
might work well enough in times of calm, but that no
indulgence should be shown to those who would not
tolerate the laws. " It is time," said he, " that every
thing should bow to the authority of the nation, that

160 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
tiaras, diadems, and censers should yield to the scepter
of law." While this matter was pending, news of se
rious troubles at Caen arrived. Numbers of the old
nobihty and of the emigrated French had returned and
assisted with parade at the services of refractory priests.
Tumults, in which blood was shed, resulted. The local
authorities had then taken measures which conflicted
with an existing law. Isnard urged the Assembly to
suspend the ordinary processes of the law, in order the
more quickly and the more terribly to strike down these
enemies of the Revolution. He spoke from the midst
of the Girondists, in the very tones of a St. Just and a
Robespierre. The time, however, was not yet ripe to
put his recommendations into practice.
A little later we find Isnard again at the assault. Under
pretext that the priests had in their hand the most power
ful means of seducing the people, he urged to the greatest
severity, and plead for nothing less than a decree of exile
against all who would not take the oath. " Do you not
see," said he, " that we must separate the priests from the
people whom they lead astray, and send the pests to Italy
and to Rome?" He argued that if the arbitrary is
criminal in the service of despotism, it becomes a great
act of justice in the cause of liberty — not seeming to see
that the arbitrary is itself the very essence of despotism.
He argued that the complaint of a single person should
be sufficient to justify the exUe of a priest, and regarded
as excessive indulgence the pretention not to condemn
him except on proof. Such principles passed for liberal
in November, 1791, at the same tribune where Mirabeau
had so nobly defended the rights of conscience. The

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 161
speeches of Isnard produced a profound impression
despite their sophisms and excesses, for they gushed out
of a heart on fire with enthusiasm. He was thoroughly
convinced and perfectly sincere. His discourses would
have been printed had he not shocked the religious senti
ment by exclaiming, " My God is the law ; I acknowledge
no other." This deity was for him, however, a very in
definite character, being nothing other than the public
safety — or rather, the will of the populace.
On the 6th of November, 1791, Frangois de Neu-
chateau presented, in the name of the Legislative Com
mittee, a project of law which involved, in itself, all
sorts of iniquities. After manifold modifications it be
came the law of the nation. The civil oath, which in
cluded an approval of the new Church Constitution, was
to be taken within one week by all non-functioning eccle
siastics, on pain of forfeiture of the salaries allowed them
by the first Assembly ; every priest convicted of having
excited religious tumults was to suffer imprisonment
for two years ; extraordinary penalties were reserved for
those convicted of intriguing with foreigners ; and the
priests were to be regarded as responsible for all pillage
or murders committed by riots excited by them, or on
their account. This law is the shame of the Legislature
which enacted it, and finds its only shadow of apology
in the use which the enemies of France were then busy
in making of the rehgious sentiments of the non-con
forming Catholics. To require such an oath was to vio
late the conscience ; to refuse the salaries was to break a
solemn pledge ;. and to hold the priests thus responsible
was to make them liable for mobs which, in some cases,
21

162 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
they themselves could not even have prevented. This
law received a worthy crowning in- a supplementaiy
article which indirectly and hypocritically suppressed
the liberty of worship. It required the civil oath of all
who rented a locality for the celebration of religious
rites. The law, as a whole, was a violent outrage on the
declaration of rights in the Constitution, and the King,
in vetoing it, was really more liberal than this democratic
Assembly. The most of the historians of the Revolution, hi view
ing this decree, commit the wrong of judging it in the
hght of the public dangers, and not in the light of
justice, which is synonymous with hberty. This is the
case with Louis Blanc and Michelet, When the decree
was brought to the royal council the ministers approved
it, but they found an invincible resistance in the King.
It is of no avail to say that this unhappy prince had
courage in nothing but the defense of the priests; in
this case he assuredly obeyed his profoundest and most
sacred convictions ; and, had the Assembly yielded, the
result would have been infinitely better for the liberal
cause. But this body, rendered furious by the war which
the Kings of Europe were preparing against France,
thought only of crushing every obstacle, and, meeting
the royal veto in their path, they rested not till they
had overturned the throne itself.
The royal veto deeply agitated the nation. It checked
the legal persecution, but it. increased the popular rage.
It was around this question that the great battle was
fought between the Constitutionalists of 1789 and the
hot radicals of 1791 ; between the friends of liberty and

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 163
the champions of mad democracy. The victory fell to
the latter, for the fever of the moment and the danger of
foreign war played into their hands.
The struggle began at Paris. A majority of the Di
rectory of the Seine consisted of members and partisans
of the former Assembly. They stood up earnestly for
the great principles of 1789. They regarded the recent
decree of the Legislative Assembly as a violence against
true liberty, and solemnly petitioned the King to refuse
his sanction. This petition, which the apologists of the
Revolution generally condemn as an attempt at reac
tion, bears throughout the impress of the highest and
most consistent liberalism. It is the language of right
and justice themselves. After protesting their love of
the Revolution, and their hatred of fanaticism, they
charge the Assembly with unintentionally voting meas
ures which conflicted equally with the Constitution,
with justice, and with prudence. They objected to the
decree that it broke the national faith by taking from
the non-functioning priests the salary they had been
promised ; that it created a sort of proscribed class, and
unjustly incarcerated the priests wherever troubles
might break out ; and that it violated the rights of con
science by refusing to non-jurors the liberty of worship.
They showed with as much eloquence as reason, that in
thus treating with injustice a whole class of citizens, the
Assembly was only opposing fanaticism to fanaticism,
and restoring the odious principles in the name of which
the Csesars had persecuted the first Christians, and
Louis XIV. proscribed the Protestants. " Has a whole
century of philosophy," asked they, " sufficed only to

164 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
bring us back to the intolerance of the sixteenth cen
tury ? Since no religion is required by the law, why
should any rehgion be a crime? For these reasons,
and in the sacred name of liberty, of the constitution,
and of the pubhc good, we beg you, Sire, to refuse your
sanction to the decree." This noble petition is taxed
by Louis Blanc with arrogance, and by Michelet with
being a vain abstraction. It met with violent opposi
tion in the populace of Paris. It was attacked in the
clubs and by the press. The Leaguers of former times
reappeared at the close of the eighteenth century as in
tolerant, in a contrary sense, as they had once been
under the Guises. The demagogues got up a scene to
counteract the influence of the petition. Deputations
from various sections of Paris appeared at the bar of
the Assembly, with protests against the petition of the
Directory. The most of these protests bear the impress
of a disgusting coarseness. An orator of one of the
faubourgs cried out thus to the refractory priests :
" You monsters, who suck the milk of crime, your God
is the god of the passions, but ours is that of clemency."
Strange introduction to a demand for proscription. But
the honors of the occasion fell to the incomparable pam
phleteer of democracy, Camille Desmoulins, who could so
well translate into caustic wit the rage of the populace.
He charged the Directory with having drawn up a sub
scription paper for civil war, ready for the signatures of
all the fanatics, all the idiots, all the slaves, all the ci-
devant thieves of the eighty-three departments, at the
head of whom stood the petitioners themselves. Ap
pealing to the sovereignty of the popular will, and re-

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 165
marking that no royal veto could have prevented the
taking of the Bastille, he called for the immediate exe
cution of the decree, in spite and in defiance of the
King. He demanded procedure against the Directory
for having signed a paper which tended to oppose the
legislators of the people. He closed thus : " Fathers of
the country, disdain all sophisms. Doubt no longer the
omnipotence of a free people. If the head sleeps, how
shall the arm act ? It is the leaders who must be at
tacked. Strike at the heart. Use the musket against
conspiring princes, the rod against an insolent Direc
tory, and exorcise the demon of fanaticism by fasting."
Surely it would have been enough to commit injustice,
without making merry over it. The proposition to de
prive the priests of what had been solemnly guaranteed
to them did not become the less odious by this stroke
of pleasantry. That nothing should lack to the scandal,
it was a bishop, Fauchet, who lent his voice to Desmou
lins by reading this perfidious piece. It was ordered to
be printed and spread over the country. It is surpris
ing that after more than half a century we have still
apologists for such demagogism. Let it teach us at
least never to prefer revolution to hberty.
The King persisted in his veto. His agreeing with
the Directory increased the popular ill-will, and from
this moment he became the central object of attack.
Nothing can equal the insults and outrages which the
democratic press now heaped upon him. Prudhomme
compared the royal veto to a chain and ball, which the
Assembly were slavishly dragging about. He was held
up to derision as one who was beset night and day by a

166 Religion and the Reign of Terror. •
vindictive wife and a bigoted sister. He was rudely told
that the Bourbons owed to the nation, all their importance.
The effects of the veto were different, according to
the departments. At Paris, in spite of the Jacobins
and the mob, the Directory remained for a time the
stronger. Some churches were opened for the non-
juring priests, and the service unmolested. StiU the
cause of irreligion made progress day by day, and the
Jacobin club was constantly the theater of violent decla
mations against Christianity. In the departments the
greatest anarchy reigned. Some followed the example
of the true liberals of Paris ; while others, ignoring the
royal veto, executed the decree as if it had had the
force of law. In some places considerable numbers of
priests had been thrown into prison, where they en
dured, without a hearing, the severest captivity, and
would certainly have died of hunger had it not been
for the charities of the faithful. This created the great
est indignation in the parishes thus deprived of their
Curates. In other places, though not imprisoned, they
were violently hurried to the chief place of the district,
put under a suspicious police, and, worse still, forbidden
to celebrate mass. At Nantes they were forced to ap
pear at a roll-call twice a day. In one place they were
forbidden to assemble more than three in the same spot.
In various places the persecution fell on private persons
also. At Rennes they were fined six francs for every
attendance at an interdicted mass. Their worship was
disturbed by force. It was in vain that the non-juring
priests retired to the most obscure recesses ; they were
hunted out, and if discovered with a chalice, or any

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 167
sign of a priestly ornament, were exposed to severe
penalties and popular insult. In some localities where
the accused priests were brought before the judges they
received justice ; generally, however, they were the
objects of arbitrary measures on the part of all branches
of the pohce. The resistance of the truly liberal au
thorities served only to give greater pretext to the vio
lence of the populace. We may judge from what took
place in Paris in March, 1792, of the severe sufferings
in other parts of France of all who remained faithful to
the old-fashioned Catholic faith. A band of ruffians
had burst into the convent of Dominican nuns, threat
ening to demohsh the whole establishment if the consti
tutional priest was not immediately received. " I would
fear," writes the Prioress to the Pope, " too deeply to
affect your paternal heart were I to describe to you all
the violent measures which have been used to shake our
fidelity, the hostile mobs which surrounded us, the con
tinual menaces of nocturnal pillage, and all our fear and
terror. No ; ' I will not speak of these things, for we
rejoice to be found worthy of suffering somewhat for
the name of Jesus Christ and the honor of the Church,
our mother."
The Prioress of the schools of St. Charles in Paris
describes in an equally touching letter, the outrages she
suffered for having refused to receive the new priest,
whom she regarded as simply an intruder. The latter
had applied to a club, and secured a crowd of ruffians
to enforce his claim. On Sunday, followed by these
fellows in procession, he approached the convent, and
cried out, " Open your chapel and ring your bell." " I

168 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
refused, both," writes the Prioress. "The cries were
redoubled, the axes distributed, and the walls scaled.
My faithful companions and I, prostrate at the foot of
the cross in a retired room, lay expecting death, and offer
ing our hves to God." The Prioress had the chagrin of
seeing one of the sisters finally open the door to the
new priest. She vainly resisted for three days the new
order of things, and was ultimately compelled to dis
perse the society and take flight. If such things took
place at Paris, it is easy to imagine to what greater vio
lence the revolutionary fury was carried in the prov
inces. At Rochelle and elsewhere the nuns had been
whipped with rods. The same outrage had been suf
fered by some young ladies who had attended the pro
scribed worship. The Minister of the Interior cited a
case of a man whose corpse had been exhumed from the
cemetery and buried in the public cross-roads, for the
reason that he had refused to attend the mass of a State-
Church priest. In some cases, municipal officers forcibly
seized children from their parents and had them bap
tized by the new priests ; in others they had inflicted
fines on parents who had not presented their children
for such baptism.
This persecution did not meet every-where with gentle
lambs, ready to submit without murmur. It was man
fully resisted, and came near involving the land in civil
war. Still, if prudent measures had been adopted,
quietude might have been restored even at the begin
ning of the year 1792. All that was necessary to re
store harmony between the Assembly and the Kino-
and to pacify the provinces, was simply full liberty of

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 169
worship, honestly granted and faithfully guaranteed.
The non-juring priests expressly denied, in a public
document, all the charges of disloyalty which had been
heaped upon them- " You accuse us," said they to the
government, " of being the authors of all the dissensions
of the country, of neglecting to pay our taxes, of being
in intelligence with the foreign enemy, and of inviting
war with all our influence. How is it that of so many
priests accused, you have found no one guilty ? Surely
the hostile surveUlance of fifty thousand administrative
corps, aided by more than ten thousand clubs, would
have sufficed to detect plots if such had existed. We
declare that we are subject to all the public authorities,
and that, after the example of Christ, we regard it as a
duty to pay tribute. We declare that our most ardent
wish is for the return of peace between the Church and
the State. Our sole resistance consists in believing that
the new Constitutional worship is not the Catholic wor
ship, and in so teaching. This one point excepted, we
are entirely submissive to the civil order and to the
laws ; we are innocent not only in the eyes of God, but
also in the eyes of the law." It would have been wise
policy to take in good part these professions of so
thorough-going a loyalty, and not to alienate by perse
cution the hearts of this powerful party.
Such was the opinion of the Minister of the Interior,
Cahier Gerville, as expressed in a report which he pre
sented to the Assembly on the. 18th of February, 1792.
After reviewing the condition of the land he closed thus :
" On the one side we see fanatics, and on the other per
secutors. It seems that tolerance is exiled from the
22

1 70 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
kingdom. In all the provinces the liberty of worship
has been almost annulled. Now what matters it to the
State, whether a citizen goes to mass or not ? All that
a good constitution can do is, to favor all religions
without adopting any one. There is in France no na
tional religion. Each citizen should enjoy freely the rights
of conscience, and it is to be hoped that the time is not-
distant when each shall pay for his own worship. The
country demands laws in harmony with the codes of
free nations, and which will dispense with the necessity
of pronouncing the words priests and religion.'" This
was well said; it was the pure spirit of 1789, and sug
gested the only remedy for the troubles of the country.
It was applauded in the Assembly, though it did not
succeed in turning it from its detestable public-safety
policy. The next month the ministry was dissolved and
a new one formed, the Girondists imposing their own
men upon the King. Cahier Gerville gave place to the
rude and austere Roland,* who was less a liberal than a
democrat. On the 19th of March, 1792, the Pope had issued an
other brief full of felicitations of the refractory clergy.
The same day he sent another to the refractory Bishops,
giving them for the time being extraordinary powers.
The danger of excommunication seems to have had but
little influence on the constitutional clergy. A few,
however, hesitated. Gobel had had secret interviews with
a Papal agent ; his ignoble mind was equally capable
of a vague fear and a bold resolution. The fear of hell
brought him back to the Pope, as the fear of the popu-
* See Appendix, note 21.

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 171
lace afterward led him to a shameless apostasy. He
was a vile, cowardly aspirant. The Bishop of Rouen,
unwilling to be an agent of persecution, resigned office
without leaving his party. The constitutional clergy
was composed of two classes of men — a good number
of respectable priests who earnestly labored to revive
religion in France, and also a class of what was fitly
called the offscourings of the old Church — some of them
of bad morals, and others hot-headed clubbists. The
question of the marriage of the priests had been agi
tated for some months. It had, in fact, been resolved
legislatively ; for the Assembly had decreed that pensions
should be continued to priests who married. Several
constitutional Curates had taken advantage of this au
thorization, but the Catholic sentiment, even in the new
Church, had thereby been deeply wounded. Aubert, a
Paris Vicar, had given special prominence to his mar
riage, but had succeeded only in creating a great scandal
in his parish. He had had recourse to the noisy appro
bation of the clubs. From this resulted deplorable
scenes, well calculated to bring into disrepute the new
rehgion. The Assembly committed the ridiculous mis
take of giving a pubhc reception to the clerical couple.
In his speech the husband insinuated that the Bastille
had been taken in order to facilitate his nuptials. He
was continued in his parish in defiance of his Bishop,
by the grace of the clubs. Subsequently he was ap
pointed to another parish, despite the protests of several
Curates, and installed with great pomp; his wife occu
pied a place of honor in the choir. If the days of per
secution had not come to its aid, the new Church could

172 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
not have risen above the discredit which the insulting pa
tronage of the enemies of Christianity was fast bringing
uj)on it. It is certain that the project had been formed
of bringing religion into contempt, in order the sooner
to get rid of it. But it was necessary first to crush the
refractory priests, and from the entrance of the Girond
ists into the King's cabinet nothing had been spared to
accomplish this result.
The butcher, Legendre,* had faithfully expressed the
thought of the Jacobins when he cried out in the club,
" Let the refractory priest be punished severely. Let
him either take his head to the scaffold or his body to
the galleys. When a farmer finds a noxious worm he
puts it under foot." Easter day was an occasion for new
outrages. At Lyons a mob had broken into the churches,
and the police rewarded the rioters by closing the
chapels of all the convents. The church of St. Claire,
which had not been closed, was the theater of shameless
violence. Women were covered with mud • and then
dragged through the streets of the city; and this was
silently suffered by the magistrates. An attempt was
made to violate, directly, the conscience of the King.
Gaudet prepared an order asking him imperatively to
take a new confessor. It was to be signed by the King's
council and then presented ; but Dumouriez refused, and
defeated it. He would not allow the King to be troubled
in his conscience by the consent of his own council.
He said that he had a full right to take for his adviser
an Iman, a Rabbi, a Papist, or a Calvinist, without con
sulting any one but himself. Wisdom would have ap-
* See Appendix, note 22.

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 173
phed this rule to the whole nation ; but the Girondists,
at the moment when they were doing all in their power
to over-excite the revolutionary fever, were little dis
posed to respect rehgious scruples. The Assembly
marched straight forward to the accomplishment of its
two designs — the debasement of the royal authority,
and the outlawing of the non-conforming clergy. It
began by the destruction of what remained of the re
ligious orders. The first Assembly had not presumed
at once to abohsh the corporations of monastic teachers,
for they had well deserved of the nation. But the Leg
islative Assembly saw in them only a stronghold of the
ancient Church, and hastened to crush them into the
dust. Holy Friday was ruthlessly chosen for giving
this bitter stroke to the hearts of the Cathohcs. Bishop
Lecoz sought in vain to moderate the action and make
its execution gradual. Deputy Lagrevol increased its
severity by causing to be stricken out the exception in
favor of the Sisters of Charity, whom he stigmatized as
vermin. Tome claimed, at least, the respect of the As
sembly for the Ulustrious orders which it was abolishing,
but in the end aggravated the law by adding to it a
clause suppressing the costume which the priests had
worn from time immemorial. This latter measure was
singularly impohtic. It ignored the wonderful influence
which external signs have over an ignorant people. It
was a useless irritation. As soon as the motion of Torn6
was adopted, the Bishop of Limoges rose and declared
that he would sacrifice his episcopal vestments for the
support of a national soldier; and Fauchet, more pliant
stUl, took off immediately his little clerical cap and

174 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
put it into his pocket, to the great applause of the
spectators. Minister Roland knew well how to continue and in
crease the hostility of the Assembly against the refrac
tory priests. On the 16th of April he announced to the
Assembly that, troubles having broken out in a certain
province, public opinion had charged them on the non-
juring clergy, and had demanded their deportation. A
municipality had decreed their expulsion, and thus had
restored order, though the action was unconstitutional.
The Assembly understood this recital as an advice. A
few days later, Roland again called attention to the re
ligious troubles. He gave a terrible picture of them,
intensifying the colors at pleasure, and mercilessly de
scribed the non-juring priests as madmen, sowing every
where, in neighborhoods and families, hatred and dis
cord. He admitted frankly the illegality of the measures
which had been taken against them; but, far from
blaming these cruel acts and indignities from which
they had already suffered, he, on the contrary, presented
with manifest approbation the apology which their
authors had offered. Roland asked, not the cessation of
these unconstitutional proceedings, but that they should
be rendered legal by the enactment of more severe meas
ures, and by constraining the King to give his consent.
He plainly counseled a measure of deportation against
the non-juring clergy. Merlin warmly seconded the
advice of the minister, and proposed, to the applause of
the Assembly, that all the troublesome priests should
be placed on vessels and sent to America. Vergniaud,
after proposing the reference of the matter to a com-

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 175
mittee, said, "It is time to declare war on your enemies,
since they declare it against you, but to declare it in the
name of the law." On. the 26th of April, 1792, Fran
cois de Nantes reported the recommendations of the
Committee. It was the most ridiculously declamatory
document imaginable. It vailed, under the flowers 'of a
tawdry rhetoric, an abominable project of proscription.
The orator indulged in the most outrageous insinuations
against religion. He regretted bitterly the times when
primitive men erected altars of flowers to a primitive
god, which in his opinion was equivalent to the god of
gardens. It is impossible to form any other idea of this
piece of sentimental bombast than that it is a formal con
demnation of all positive rehgion, and especially of
Christianity. But the poor Pope is the object of special
assault. He is represented as a prince indulging in bur
lesque menaces, and ambitious of assuming the airs of
Jupiter with his thunderbolts, but whose impotent shafts
fall powerless on the buckler of Liberty, who now keeps
station on the summit of the Alps. He announced thus
his approaching downfall : " Soon the slaves of a priest
will remember that they were once citizens of Rome.
They will say, It is here that Brutus lived, and Italy will
be free." He affected to despise the influence of priests,
and yet he called them " the thirty or forty thousand
levers of counter-revolution." He demanded that the
non-jurors be confined at the -head-quarters of the de
partments, and forbidden, on pain of banishment, to
preach or to confess. The orator closed his monstrous
project of proscription by calling for the fire of Scsevola,
that he might exhibit his love of country and liberty.

176 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
He would surely have given greater proof of this, if, in
stead of burning his hand, he had never used it to write
a paper which was destined to lead to so many real suf
ferings of thousands of men.
The discussion opened on the sixteenth of May. For
many of the orators the proposed decree was too mUd.
Vergniaud thought himself indulgent in offering to
continue the salaries of priests who would go into exUe
themselves. He saw fit to indulge in the following un
generous irony : " I doubt not that in Italy they will be
received as holy and persecuted personages, and the
Pope wiU be able to see in the present we make him of
so many living saints how profound is our gratitude for
the arms, the heads, and the relics of dead saints with
which, for so many centuries, he has gratified our pious
credulity." The cause of moderation and liberty had
only two champions, Ramond and Moy. The latter,
though a skeptical priest, and imbued with the current
philosophy, had the honor, that day, of attacking the
new Constitution of the Clergy as the cause of all the
social troubles. " You will have done nothing for the
public tranquillity," said he, " until you sweep this'chaj)-
ter of theocracy from the code of your laws. The best
way to avoid religious troubles, is to preserve full relig
ious liberty, and to render all religions equal in the eyes
of the law." Ramond and Moy were violently opposed
by an obscure priest by the name of Ichon, who denied
the title of worship to the assemblies of the unsworn
Cathohcs, and compared them to reactionary clubs. A
Deputy then read to the Assembly the famous chapter
from Rousseau, in which all liberty of worship is sacri-

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 177
ficed to the popular sovereignty, and where the creed of
the majority is imposed on every citizen on pain of
death. Another Deputy caught the spirit of the hour
better still, and proposed flatly to convert the chapter
into a law. But wherefore this ? What else had been
done for more than a year but simply to comment on it,
and put it into practice ? The matter resulted in a de
cree of deportation of every priest who should be com
plained against by twenty active citizens, except in
cases where public sentiment opposed it. In the latter
case the accused was to be brought to immediate trial.
Such was the decree of the twenty-fifth of May, 1792.
It was simply an aggravation of that of the preceding
November. The war between France and the Kings of Europe had
now broken out on the frontiers. The French cause had
not at first prospered, and the Assembly' threw the
blame on the court, suspecting it of secret intelligence
with the enemy. On the twenty-ninth of May it took
from the King his guard of honor, for it ordered the
formation of a camp of twenty thousand men in the
neighborhood of Paris, a veritable revolutionary force,
which was master of the executive authority. This
decree, and that as to the deportation of the priests, were
presented to Louis XVI. at the same time. Of course
both were vetoed. Upon this, Roland read to him in
open council a haughty and imperative letter, giving
him the severest lessons of red republicanism. Roland
was perhaps excusable for disregarding court style,
and appearing in the royal presence in shoes without
buckles; but it was surely a great impropriety for him
23

178 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
to brave the King to his face. Doubtless the King had
been strengthened in his determmation to veto these
laws by a pamphlet of the Archbishop of Aix. We
read in it these noble words : " What is the crime of
these fifty thousand Frenchmen against whom banish
ment is about to be pronounced ? It is their religion.
Their crime is, to wish not to perjure themselves. Con
science is concerned ; but conscience will not obey de
crees of every sort." Roland was dismissed from the
ministry, but he received the open sympathy of the
Assembly. A new ministry, composed of obscure con
stitutionalists, was formed ; but they feebly represented
a noble cause, and consequently played involuntarily
into the hands of the extremists.
Lafayette, amazed and indignant at these events,
wrote to the Assembly from his post in the army an
eloquent letter, in which he denounced the influence of
the clubs, and besought that the royal authority and
religious liberty be respected. It was but coolly re
ceived. It was responded to by the riot which on the
twentieth of June violated the palace of the King.
This insurrection had been prepared by the munici
pality of Paris. It had met no resistance in the Assem
bly, and the royal Majesty had been odiously insulted
without for a single moment receiving serious protec
tion. The mob which invaded the Tuileries avowed
openly its design. This was to manifest its ill-will
against the King's veto. The unfortunate prince was
caused to put on a revolutionary cap, and to suffer
odious outrages, for having protected the liberty of wor
ship. Indignant at this, Lafayette hastened to Paris;

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 179
but between the distrust of the Court and the wrath of
the Jacobins he could effect no understanding. He
returned to his army with a broken heart. The grand
movement of 1789 was, for a time, ruined. Liberty had
been drowned in a raging flood of demagogism, which
was grand only on the frontier, where in truth it exhib
ited admirable deeds of martial heroism. At Paris and
in the provinces it was soon defiled with brutality and
blood. Already it had swept away the most precious
rights of man, and its irresistible waves were now dash
ing against the throne of the outraged Louis XVI.
It was now that Vergniaud pronounced against this
King the most eloquent oration which France had
heard since the death of Mirabeau. His sole excuse
was the great peril which the foreign invasion threat
ened against the nation, and he and the other Girondists
were right in suspecting the Court of moral comphcity
with the enemy. But was the real guilt with the King,
or with them ? Had not they done every thing to
drive to desperation an honest and irresolute prince,
from whom they had taken away all means of legiti
mate defense, and whose constitutional rights and Chris
tian conscience they had ruthlessly and violently tram
pled under foot ? The orator pleaded for the vetoed
decrees ; charged all the internal commotions on the
stubborn, non-juring clergy ; and treated the King as an
obstacle to the Revolution, and the occasion of the in
vasion from Germany. Deputy Dumas responded, with
reason, that the true cause of the troubles was the
suppression of religious liberty, and that the only safe
course was to follow the politics of the veto ; but it was

180 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
to little purpose to be on the side of right in July, 1792.
The fever was too high. The grandiose and poetic
eloquence of the Girondist carried the day, and, being
read all over France, gave a fatal blow to the monarchy,
and animated every-where the persecution of the non-
juring priests. Bishop Torne, who thus far had de
fended the liberty of worship, now yielded to the cur
rent, and, hke a violent Jacobin, attacked the King
because of his vetoes, and urged the suspension of the
constitution in the name of the public safety. Such
views were but too strictly put into practice.
In several departments the most iniquitous acts were
brutally inflicted against the non-jurors. The assault
of the mob on the royal palace was responded to by
corresponding violence against the priests throughout
the kingdom. They were crowded together in the
prisons of Lyons and other large cities. In some places
they suffered terribly from want of air, and from heat.
From some provinces they were lawlessly exiled. Not
being able to find secure retreats in the country many
of the refractory priests flocked to Paris. There they
assumed all sorts of disguises, and tried to earn their
bread by working at some trade, as gardening or
bakery. Others, clothed in rags, took service on boats,
and engaged in catching drift-wood in the Seine. Even
before the great storm of September several priests
were massacred. At Vans, Bravard was put to death
for having refused the oath. Abbot Noir, a young
priest of twenty-eight years, urged his father not to
weep for him, saying, " It will be more sweet for you
for your son to dio as a martyr than to live as an apos-

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 181
tatc." Thereupon he perished under the ax. At Bor
deaux an aged priest, who had once held high offices, was
thrown into a dark, unhealthy dungeon. He repeated
continually the passage in the Acts : " They went out
from the council, rejoicing to have been found worthy
to suffer outrage for the name of Jesus Christ." He
was afterward crueUy executed. Many of the perse- ,
cuted priests were heard to exclaim: "These are the
golden days of the Church ; these are the times to try
the courage of her true children."
The assault of the mob on the royal palace on the
twentieth of June, led naturally to the greater violence
of the tenth of August. The suspension of Petion from
the mayoralty of Paris, by the King, for his comphcity
in, or negligence during, the June riot — the debates re
sulting therefrom — his triumphant restoration to office —
the approach of the foreign armies — the proclamation of
the danger of the country — the arrival of the bands of
revolutionary ruffians from Marseilles — every thing con
tributed to increase from hour to hour the anarchical
fury of the people of Paris. It is now known, thanks
to reliable documents, that the municipahty of Paris,
with the Mayor at its head, took the initiative in the
storming of the Tuileries on the tenth of August. This
terrible day bore away at once the monarchy and the
Girondist party, for from that day the latter lost control
of the Assembly. From September the Mountain party,
the Terrorists, held supreme sway, though they hardly
yet numbered a majority. The Girondists, who had
opened the flood-gate of violence, were themselves trie
first to be submerged. Another unjust measure, how-

182 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
ever, must be laid to their charge. As soon as the
poor King was deposed and out of the way, they car
ried, in the Assembly, another decree, more oppressive
still than the former ones, against the non-conforming
priests. Some days previously the convents yet re
maining had been suppressed, and multitudes of nuns
thrown upon the streets without family ties or shelter.
On Sunday, August 17, a letter was read in the Assem
bly announcing that in one of the departments the non-
juring priests had been banished. Hereupon a Deputy
moved the application of a similar measure to the whole
of France. Another proposed on the twenty-third that
all priests who had not taken the oath be required to
leave the country within fifteen days. Cambon thought
this too mild still, and called for a decree banishing all
the non-jurors to the swamps of Guiana ; but Vergniaud
and some others protested in the name of justice, a
name which it would have been better had they plead
for sooner. It was easy to foresee that just as 1792
had overturned in great part the work of 1789, so 1793
was destined to sweep away what remained. The
policy of the Girondists was to be pushed to its legiti
mate excesses, and this was their own severest punish
ment. The violent measures proposed in the Assembly
scarcely needed to be passed. A riotous people aggra
vated and executed them only too faithfully not many
days afterward.
The Legislative Assembly, before wholly losing con
trol of the political movement, realized one reform
which was destined to survive all its other decrees, for
it answered the true wants of new France. Heretofore,

Religion and tlie Reign of Terror. 183
when the Catholic was the State religion, it had been
necessary to apply to the priests for the verification of
the chief events in the lives of the citizens — such as birth,
marriage, and death. As the constitution now regarded
all rehgions as on the same footing, the Assembly de
creed " that for the future the civil authorities should
receive and keep the records of the births, marriages,
and deaths." The country was fully ripe for this
change, and it is to be regretted that the Legislators
who made it, themselves so often denied its spirit, by con
founding the spiritual with the temporal, and by pun
ishing not only treasonable plottings, which was their
duty, but also religious opinion, which was their unpar
donable crime.
The tenible massacres of September, 1792, may
rightly be called the St. Bartholomew of demagogism.
It does not enter into our plan to describe, after so
many eloquent historians, these frightful scenes. They
show us an age, polished and benevolent on the surface,
plunging itself into blood and crime, as if to remind us
of what terrible passions lie asleep in the human heart,
and are ready to burst into fearful activity at the first
call. It was fondly thought that the harsh manners
of the sixteenth century had been greatly softened in
all classes, and that civilization had sufficiently worn
away the claws of the tiger. What surprise, then, to
see the masses of Paris rushing out of the alleys and
suburbs, as cruel, as athirst for blood, as the people of
the days of the St. Bartholomew massacre, who had
been trained by bigoted monks. The fact is, that be
tween a people without a God and a superstitious, fanat-

184 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
ical people there is very little difference. The Jacobin
of the atheistical philosophy is the worthy heir of the
Jacobin of the sixteenth century ; he is but the accom
plice of James Clement, the monk, who assassinated
Henry III. in the name of religion. Instead of excusing
one crime by another, and of justifying a second by the
first under color of a just revenge, it is our duty to
condemn wherever there is guilt, and to protest with
all our power against that effemination of moral and
historical truth which extenuates and explains away
stubborn facts that deserve to be condemned without
measure. We will leave to others the task of painting the city
of Paris, plunged into stupor, covered, hke a vast prison-
house, by the law of " the suspected" with a vail of unut
terable terror, and traversed day and night by drunken
bands, who violate and ransack private houses, and
thus prepare the colossal massacre which the munici
pality had actually determined upon. As happens in
all tragic events which deeply move society, so also
here, the strangest contrasts of human nature came to
the surface : women pushing heroism to its utmost
limits ; barbarous hangmen seized with sudden tender
ness, and becoming as earnest in saving as they had
been a moment before in destroying lives, and then
returning with equal ardor to their cruel work ; acts of
the highest sublimity, as well as Saturnalian follies such
as the past had never heard of; devotion of the purest
order, and the vilest and most atrocious selfishness;
even massacres for the sake of robbery. No possible
horror was lacking ; and no description will ever do

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 185
justice to the awful reality of those days of blood and
crime. That which it mostly concerns us to mention, is
the fact, that the massacres of September were at first
and chiefly directed against the non-conforming priests.
One of the precincts of Paris voted openly and in plain
words the massacre of the priests. The resolution ran
as follows : " In view of the imminent dangers of the
country, and the infernal maneuvers of the priests, be
it resolved that all the priests and suspected persons
confined • in the prisons of Paris, Orleans, and other
cities, be put to death."
It is only necessary to read the sincere and moving
account of Sicard to be thoroughly convinced that the
non-conforming priests were the first and designed vic
tims of the massacres. This apt expression of one of
the rioters to a prisoner, namely, If you are a priest
you are done for, is the best explanation of those
abominable days. At a half dozen different prisons in
Paris the priests were butchered en masse, and the
provinces followed the example of the capital. Among
the many of the massacred at Rheims, Abbot Paquot
responded thus, to those who were pressing him to take
the oath: "My choice is made. I prefer death to per
jury ; if I had two hves I might give one of them
to you, but as I have but one I shall keep it
for God." The non-juring priests showed in these
circumstances the most noble courage. They refused,
in the face of the sword and ax of the assassins, to
pronounce against their conscience an oath which, in
all cases would have saved their lives. Nothing is
more glorious in all the annals of martyrdom than
24

186 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
some of these scenes. They combined an emulation of
holy heroism with a heart-touching piety. The vener
able Archbishop of Aries, thanking God for the duty
of offering his blood for his cause — those priests con
fessing to each other, and giving each other the kiss of
peace before laying their heads on the block — those
answers, kind but firm, and worthy of the days of
Irenaeus — all those noble manifestations of a rehgion
at that time in such ill repute — all this throws a truly
celestial light on the close of an incredulous century,
and reveals the presence of God with an extraordinary
power at the very moment when an infamous attempt
is about to be made to banish his worship from society.
From the blood of all the multitudes of those mas
sacred persons a warning voice arises. It says to all
holders of civU power, Beware of violating the con
science ! for it wiU surely rise pure and triumphant
over your assaults, and leave you covered with defeat
and shame. Many of the priests who had escaped the
assassins fled to foreign parts, where they met in gen
eral with a large hospitality, especially in England.
Many, however, still remained in France to celebrate
secretly, and in the midst of the greatest perils, a pro
scribed and persecuted worship. The Legislative As
sembly, which the voice of Vergniaud had not suc
ceeded in awakening out of the torpor which had fallen
upon it since the commencement of the massacres, was
now soon to be replaced by the National Convention ;
that is to say, the Reign of Tenor was about to come
in its legalized and most fearful form.

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 187

CHAPTER H.
THE CHURCH DURING THE NATIONAL CONVENTION UNTIL
THE ABOLITION OF THE SALARIES OF THE CLERGY.
During the first period of the Convention the non-
juring priests were involved in the general proscription
which hung over all those who were attached by inter
est or conviction to the ancient rigime. It was not
necessary to take new measures against them; it was
enough to enforce the decrees already passed by the
Legislative Assembly. For this reason they became
less a subject of debate in the Convention, although
their positive sufferings were augmenting from day to
day. It was evident from the first day that, feeling
certain of crushing the non-jurors, the Convention was
beginning to look with disfavor also on the Constitu
tional Clergy, whom it regarded as a sort of last ram
part of the old system of superstition and privilege,
which it was fully determined to destroy, root and
branch. We shall see that when the time for striking
the blow comes, the question of religion will again be
agitated by the press and in the clubs. If we have
been severe on the Legislative Assembly we will not
be tempted to be indulgent toward the Convention.
With it finished emphatically, and for long years, the.
reign of law. Its only business seemed to be to sanc
tion the reign of the clubs and the faubourgs. It was

188 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
but the passive instrument of the imperative clamors of
a seditious and cruel populace. I confess that I find
nothing to admire in these revels of demagogism ; I
hate them as I hate the tyranny of the Cesars, which
was likewise the reign of the mob. When historians,
grave rather than serious, tell me that in the midst of
these massacres the great French Revolution was ad
vancing and establishing itself, I ask, what kind of a
shapeless chimera it was that was making progress in
the hands of Marat and Robespierre in 1793, and after
ward under the direction of Napoleon. Surely it was
not the regime of Mirabeau and Lafayette for that pro
claimed right and liberty. It was only a regime of
blind and terrible force, which replaced old iniquities by
new ones, and reintroduced despotism instead of over
turning it. If pointed to the vast portions of the soil
which were taken from the few and distributed among
the many and the poor, we reply that this good work
was but the fruit of a measure taken already by the
Constituent Assembly in the memorable night of Au
gust 4, 1789. Surely the torrents of blood which had
flowed had not added much to the value of the newly
parceled soil. But we are reminded of the philanthropic
decrees of the Convention : and truly it did well in
enlarging the hospitals ; but is this a sufficient excuse
for its having multiphed the grave-yards, and thrown
into them daily the horrible offals of the scaffold ? It
laid well the foundations of our great establishments of
instruction ; but had it itself lasted long it would have
rendered both science and public education impossible,
by keeping the people in a perpetual fever of revolu-

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 189
tion. But after all these objections, we are pointed to
the heroic resistance against foreign invasion. This, we
admit, was truly sublime ; but it was done, as has been
well said, by those who, saved from the crimes of the
interior, escaped to the frontiers and purified themselves
in the fire of the enemy. Let us admit that at this
period of the Revolution there was one feature of real
grandeur, I mean energy ; but it was an energy unin
fluenced by any moral principle. It was the intoxica
tion of a powerful race, who had many wrongs to
avenge, and who were exasperated by an imminent
peril. Beneficent and sublime in the face of the enemy
abroad, the Revolution was tenible and merciless to
ward its imagined or real enemies at home. This
energy brought forth miracles of courage on the Rhine
and elsewhere, but it reveled in unheard-of crimes at
Paris and Lyons. If we admire it without reserve in
the armies, we curse it without reserve in the clubs and
at the scaffold, where it satiated an ever-increasing
thirst for blood. Let us not forget, however, that this
energy was, after all, mere force, and nothing more,
and that those. who praise the Convention because it
was energetic, will also praise Napoleon because he was
strong — both phenomena equally fatal to liberty. Nor
was the Convention simply energetic, it was violently
fanatical. It had every feature of fanaticism ; its intol
erance extended to the proscription even of thoughts
and feelings. The broad sweep which was given to the
law against " the suspected " was an attempt to strike
not only acts, but also thoughts. Nothing could be more
like the Spanish inquisition than the revolutionary pro-

190 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
cedure under the Convention. The punishment of death
was constantly threatened, and executed, on such as
thought in such and such a manner. Let us not be
deceived ; this period of the Revolution was a war of
religion, a war of opinion, for demagogism became a
sort of cruel and ferocious idolatry, fully as intolerant
of schism or heresy as the Dominican of the fourteenth
century. Hence the large proportions of the struggle.
The Convention practiced also the ample and conven
ient morality of all fanaticism : the end at which it
aimed justified in its eyes all the means it employed,
even the most atrocious. The doctrine of the " pubhc
safety" caused all its crimes ; and it no more hesitated to
strike down its own members, and to immolate to the
clamor of the clubs its most illustrious orators, than it
hesitated, after the mock of a trial, to send to the scaf
fold the unfortunate King. It did not judge, it killed ;
and before killing, outraged. This was its whole policy,
and as it united in itself all the powers of a government,
it could pursue to their utmost extreme its own furious
passions, or those of an unbridled demagogism, of which
itself was the emanation, and often the instrument.
Despotism alone was destined to rise out of the
weariness and disgust of such a rigime. For a long
time the hideous figure of the Convention has stood as
a terrifying phantom between modern society and the
realization of liberty. We should dispel this miscon
ception which deceives the people, annuls the salutary
lesson so dearly paid for, and is made to excuse all sorts
of political reaction. Only render liberty hideous, and
you have well merited of all despotisms. Now this is

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 191
precisely what those do who excuse the crimes of the
Revolution, and compose for the public a sort of demo
cratic martyrology, made up of names which, though
terrible, are none the less infamous. I admit that in
the Convention the Girondists change their course ; but
they can only be pardoned from the moment when,
abandoning their own principles, they come to the
defense of the right which for so long they had trampled
under foot. At the trial of the King the conduct of
the most of them is without courage. They lack the
boldness to save him openly ; they stop at a half-way
measure, and finally sacrifice him to their parliamentary
influence. If the whole party had spoken as Lanjuinais
the Convention would not have passed out of their
hands ; they could have controlled it. The trae way to
triumph over Robespierre was not to hurl against him
eloquent philippics, but to arrest him at once by a de
termined vote, the very day when he presumed to de
clare that it was the duty of the nation not to judge the
King, but to kill him. Our heart is entirely with the
Girondists when they struggle with the eloquence of
Vergniaud, the energy of Guadet, and the j'ust indigna
tion of Ducos, against the pressure of the lawless clubs,
and against that abominable municipality of Paris
which, since the September massacres, is little else than
a gang of assassins ; still we cannot forget that these
same men, under the Legislative Assembly, had had
recourse to this dangerous force of insurrection, and
that the austere Petion favored the riot of August 10.
It is only since the thirty-first of May, 1793, that our
sympathies are wholly with the Girondists. They have

192 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
fallen victims to arbitrary principles to which they them
selves had too much resorted. Proscribed as a body,
those who could not escape fell under the ax of the
executioner. The sudden loss of so much youth, talent,
and noble though misguided zeal, wUl always be a source
of grief to France.
But if we except a few names, such as the honest
Carnot, (whose silence, however, in the face of so many
wrongs cannot be excused,) what one of all the radical
left which now controlled the Convention can be pro
posed as an object of admiration ? Danton was the in
carnation of the audacity which he preached, but he
could never wash his hands of the blood of the Septem
ber massacres. Camille Desmoulins is ever the terrible
joker whose pleasantry kills, and a final gleam of cou
rageous pity can scarcely undo the injustice of his hfe.
Robespierre, when closely studied, will always appear
as one of the worst enemies which liberty ever had.
This sophistical tribune never loses an opportunity of
offering incense to a false popular sovereignty, and of
sacrificing to it all the rights which make men free. I
know of nothing more hideous than the kind of frater
nity which he proclaims, in speeches that smell both of
the oil and of blood. He rises only upon the dead
bodies of his opponents, and he never forgets that they
are his rivals. This mixture of the proconsul and the
soured academician is contemptible. His ideas are run
mad; they are the reduction to the absurd of Rous
seau's Contrat Social. He is none the less odious for
his austerity — for the plain wooden writing-desk of his
study ; for, the speeches there written were to bring

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 193
heads to the executioner's block. As to Marat,* "all
dripping with gall, with calumny, and blood," if there
was once a French Academy to hsten to him, and a
people to bear him in triumph, it is simply the shame of
our history. Neither the fine figure of St. Just, the
calm hangman, nor the sentimental Barrere, f with his
two speeches in his pocket, ready to speak whichever
way the popular wind should blow, nor the elegance of
Garat, nor the bodily infirmities of Couthon, have any
attraction for me. I ask, what liberty it is which the
Convention did not resolutely, cruelly, and, in the end,
uselessly, trample under foot ? I ask, what one of the
principles of 1789 did it not violate and suppress, from
the liberty of assemblage and of the press to the liberty
of worship ? Did it not push to the extreme the system
of centralization, so that when Napoleon came to the
mastery he found, ready to his hand and fully mounted,
the most perfect machine of despotism ? Vergniaud,
whose eyes were opened too late, had admirably de
fined the liberahsm of the Convention. " It said to all,"
so runs his language, " You are free, but think as we
think on questions of politics, or we will denounce you
to the vengeance of the people. You are free, but bow
your head to the idol which we worship, or we will de
nounce you to the vengeance of the people. You are
free, but unite with us in persecuting those whose pro
bity and talents we fear, or we wUl denounce you to
the vengeance of the people." Surely one might well
fear that, like Saturn, the Revolution would devour its
0 See Appendix, note 23. f Ibid., note 24.
25

194 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
own children, and engender in the end only despotism,
with all the accompanying evils.
Before returning to the history of the Church in these
stormy times, let us rehearse the principal measures
adopted by the Convention for crushing all opposition.
After the execution of the King, January 21, 1793,
there had been created, March 9, in the midst of the
commencing dissensions in the Assembly between the
Girondists and the Mountainists, a terrible instrument
of injustice, namely, a revolutionary tribunal, against
whose decisions there was no appeal. This was defined
by Lanjuinais as " a decree which was monstrous from
the circumstances of the nation, monstrous in its viola
tion of all the rights of man, and monstrous by the
abominable irregularity of not admitting appeal in
criminal cases." The courageous Deputy asked in vain
that, at furthest, this terrible tribunal be allowed only
in the department of the capital ; for it was soon estab
lished all over France. It was simply a machine of
irresistible and murderous proscription ; for nothing was
more derisive than the picked and sordid jury which
was granted, but which was not even aUowed to delib
erate with closed doors. The Committee of Public
Safety had been instituted, May 22, 1793, at the de
mand of the rash Girondist Isnard. The party of the
Girondists had been expelled from the Convention and
outlawed on the second of June, under the pressure of
successive riots which had convulsed Paris. The radical
left were then masters of the Convention, and had con
trol of the Committee of Public Safety, which assured
in their hands absolute power, and covered all their

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 195
measures with a cloak of legality. With these two
formidable instruments, this Committee and the Revolu
tionary Tribunal, they could speechly crush all opposi
tion whatever. The refractory clergy were of course
the first to fall under the stroke of proscription.
The disposition of the Convention in regard to relig
ion was similar to that of the Legislative Assembly. It
contained a good number of declared Atheists, who de
sired to efface al> remains of the ancient beliefs. The
sole representatives of Christianity were a few lay and
clerical Jansenists, and some Constitutional Bishops, of
whom several apostatized openly and shamelessly as
soon as the hour of trial arrived. The disciples of
Rousseau stuck to their sentimental Deism, which was
in perfect accord with intolerance. Robespierre was
opposed to shameless moral impropiety, and lost no op
portunity of rendering homage to the Supreme Being.
The Girondists, with one or two exceptions, were fer
vent disciples of the philosophy of the eighteenth cen
tury, and some of them professed a sort of irreverent
disdain for all positive rehgion whatever. " Such was
Isnard, who denied any other God than the law. These
sentiments were boldly expressed in one of the first
debates of the Convention. A proposition to exclude
religious instruction from the public schools had been
opposed by Maillane, a Catholic, whereupon Dupont, a
Girondist, responded . with great earnestness, and pro
fessed an ardent hatred of Christianity. " What," said
he, " shall thrones be overturned, scepters broken, and
kings executed, and yet the altars of the gods remain
untouched? When the thrones are overturned these

196 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
altars are left naked, and without support. Do you
think, citizen legislators, to base the republic on any
other altar than that of the country ? Nature and rea
son, these are the gods of man. These are our gods."
Dupont did not need after this to assert that he was an
Atheist. He concluded by asking for the abolition of
all tyranny, and the foundation of true liberty on the
negation of all prejudices. The French, according to
him, would be free only when they had fully thrown off
the yoke of priests, and were able to die like d'Alem-
bert, who wished only the philosopher Condorcet * to
close his eyes. This discourse provoked, it is true, some
murmurs, but it pleased the majority of the Convention.
Ducos expressed the same opinions in more moderate
language, saying that the return of prejudices was the
true counter-revolution. One of his reasons for exclud
ing religious instruction from the schools may be very
easily reconciled with a respect for religion, for he said
that as the schools should be for citizens of different
Churches without distinction, the intervention of a priest
would always be offensive to those of a religion to
which he did not belong. But was it needful for the
orator to go on and insult rehgion itself? " The first
condition," said he, " of pubhc instruction is to teach
nothing but truth, and this alone is enough to exclude
the clergy. For my part, I confess I would rather trust
them with the finances of the nation than with the -edu
cation of the youth. I would rather ruin the pubhc
treasury than pervert and corrupt the public spirit. I
will cite as appropriate here the story which Plutarch
° See Appendix, note 25,

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 197
relates of a flute-player, who was paid simply for play
ing, and doubly for keeping silence, for the reason that
he played false." Such were the sentiments of the
Girondists on the subject of religion. It may easily be
inferred that they would have httle hesitation about
violating the liberty of worship. The Constitutional
Clergy could readily foresee that the day of trial would
finally come for them also, for it was against religion
itself that the hostihty was directed.
By such manifestations, however, the Convention of
fended against pubhc opinion not only in the West and
South, but also in Paris itself. Fickle and ardent, the
working class of this great city passed for the moment
from their hatred of the clergy to a strange attachment
for the ancient rites of the Church. Several wards
complained bitterly against a decree of the municipality
passed in December, 1792, forbidding the celebration of
the midnight mass. The movement was so large that
recourse was had to a pecuniary reward for such as
would abstain from this mass. An attempt to abohsh
a festival resulted only in a great scandal. Some
women attempted to hang a man, whom they blamed
for this attempt. The festival of St. Genevieve was
celebrated with great enthusiasm by a vast concourse
of people. Many hundreds could not get inside of that
church which, next year, was to be disgraced by the
revels of the worship of reason. But it required the
stimulus of demagogism and terror to effect this change
in popular opinion. Impiety descended from the higher
to the lower classes, rather than the contrary. And we
shall see that when calm was restored in the govern-

198 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
ment the Catholic worship re-established itself with an
astonishing facility.
During this period of the Revolution religious perse
cution did not cease for a single moment. It tended to
reach all clergymen indiscriminately, but the non-jurors
had for -a long time the honor of the greatest sufferings.
The formula of the oath had been modified since the
abohtion of royalty so as to read simply, to liberty and
to equality ; but this was very httle more acceptable
than that which required a formal acceptation of the
new Constitution of the Clergy, since it involved an
approval of the whole system of things which the Con
vention had founded on the immolation of the King,
and supported by the terrible laws of proscription.
The conscience was alarmed at such an approval. The
number of non-juring priests did not diminish, and their
sufferings continually increased. The revolts of La
Vendee and Lyons occasioned increased harshness
against them. They were regarded as the chief agents
of counter-revolution at home and abroad. A severe
decree was made against such emigrants as should be
caught on French soil, and domiciliary visits were au
thorized in all houses where they might be suspected of
lurking. In March, 1793, it was decreed that whoever
recognized a returned emigrant or priest might arrest
and bring him to the nearest prison to be executed in
the next twenty-four hours. The priests who had left
the country fell under the terrible stroke of the law
against emigrants, which declared them banished for
ever, dead politically, and as having forfeited to the
State all their property. The more the country was

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 199
threatened by invasion from abroad, and sedition in the
interior, the more cruel and barbarous was the treat
ment of the non-juring priests.
The Legislative Assembly had decreed their extradi
tion, and this was the occasion of several murders. The
mob, infuriated by the clubs, attacked them on their pas
sage, demanded of them the oath, and too often massa
cred them on the spot for their firm and heroic refusal.
Sometimes they were robbed before embarkation. Can
non shot were even fired on the ships which were bear
ing them away. This happened at Havre, Dieppe,
Rouen, and elsewhere. The journey of the priests to
the place of imprisonment until they could be trans
ported was a time of continued suffering. In March,
1793, a large company were sent to Nantes. On ar
riving in this city the unfortunate men were thrown
pell-mell upon a boat, where they received the worst of
treatment, and would have died of starvation but for
the charity of certain citizens. The gangrene broke
out among them, and their sole consolation consisted in
taking with each other the communion twice a day.
Finally they were conducted to a sea-port, but not till
after death had greatly thinned their ranks. The Con
vention had decreed the deportation of the non-jurors
to Guiana. In July, 1793, Danton asked a change in
the order. " We ought not," said he, " to avenge our
selves for the poison we have received from America by
sending thither another poison not less mortal. It is in
the tenitory of the Holy Father that this sacerdotal
mephitism should be concentrated." Lacroix proposed
that the priests should be cast into prison, and made to

200 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
gain their bread by hard labor; but Robespierre in
sisted on the execution of the " wise decree " which
would free France from the contagious pestilence of fanat
ical priests. He looked upon them as wild beasts, which
the least change in the political tide might let loose on
the vitals of the nation. The matter was referred to a
committee, but lack of money rendered the deportation
impossible. The refractory priests were crowded upon
boats, or sent en masse to the scaffold. At Lyons, Collot
d'Herbois * condemned to death one hundred and twenty
of them in a single day. At Arras, Lebon f shed their
blood in torrents, and large numbers of them were
drowned at Nantes. The Revolution was equally cruel
toward the nuns. A large number of them, who had
been confined in a single prison, responded nobly in
these words to their persecutors, who charged them
with fanaticism : " It is fanatics who slaughter and Mil,
but we pray for such." " You shall be sent abroad."
"Wherever we are sent we will pray." "Whither
would you prefer to be sent ? " " Where there are the
most of suffering ones to console, and these are nowhere
more than in France." " If you remain here it is to
die." " Then we wUl die." These pious women sung
aloud, and joyfully, sacred hymns at the foot of the
scaffold. It required a courage fuUy equal to that of the
young volunteers who marched out to death at the notes
of the Marseillaise. Calamities hke these exalt human
nature, and render it either atrocious or subhme. This
epoch engendered both heroism and crime ; the heroism
was found in both parties. Often simple lay Christians
* See Appendix, note 26. f Ibid., note 21.

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 201
rivaled the courage of the priests and nuns. This was
seen in a company who were once attending the pro
scribed worship, in a cavern. Some one announced that
the soldiers of the republic could hear the songs of
praise. The people simply said to the priest: '¦'¦That
makes no difference, Father" and the song continued.
To sing a hymn in such circumstances required as much
courage as to serve a cannon under the fire of the enemy.
During the reign of terror the Convention had very
little occasion to deal theoretically with the rights of
conscience. It is true, it devoted some attention to the
subject on the occasion of the Declaration of Rights
which was to preface the new constitution it was pre
paring for France. Condorcet had prepared the first
sketch of this ultrardemocratic document. It rejected
with disdain the idea of an Upper House, as well as every
thing else which could impose a check or act as a bal
ance of power in the government. The members of the
Assembly, as well as all other officers of the nation,
were to spring from the votes of the primary assembhes.
Every citizen who could get fifty others to second his
wish had the right to convene special primary assem
bhes. The legislative and the executive powers, as they
sprang from the same source, were co-ordinate, and con
stituted a dangerous duality. Theoretically, the Decla
ration of Rights consecrated all just principles; but
practically, these abstractions amounted to nothing.
The discussion of these mere theories gave occasion to
several eccentric speeches, which would be possible only
in a time of extreme enthusiasm. Anacharsis Clootz *
* See Appendix, note 28.
26

202 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
was allowed to develop in the Convention his fantas
tical ideas as to the divinity of the human race in general,
and of the French people in particular. " The words
French and universal," said Clootz, " have become more
truly synonymous than the names of Christian and
Catholic. I hold that you have a very inadequate idea
of the • nature of the sans-culottes if you admit that
there is a divine or creative Being. Whoever has the
weakness to believe in God is incapable of believing in
the divinity of the human race, the only sovereign."
Despite his enthusiasm for the name of Frenchman, he
proposed to substitute for it that of German, as being
more comprehensive, and embracing a whole family of
nations. He proposed seriously that the Convention
should adopt his ideas, and decree that every indi
vidual and every society who should accept them
should have right of membership in the republic of men,
of Germans, and of Universals. And this speech of
Clootz was listened to without laughter ! But why
should we be astonished ? We have witnessed in our
own day the reappearance of this same apotheosis of the
race, with a mysticism which far surpasses that of the
" orator of the human race."
The constitution drawn up by Cond'oreet did not sur
vive the fall of the Girondists. Robespiene concocted
a new one, which, passing over in silence the guarantees
of the former, deified not the human race in general, but
the multitude. His speech, on presentmg it, abounded
from beginning to end with the most abject flattery of
the masses, whom he declared to be iinpeccable and in
fallible. " Lay down as a first principle," said he, " that

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 203
the people are good, but that their delegates are cor
ruptible, and that it is in the virtue and sovereignty of
the people that we must seek for a preservative against
the vices and despotism of the government." Such a
plan was a suppression of the representative system, or,
at least, its entire subordination to the primary meet
ings of the populace. Robespierre desired that the Na
tional Legislature should deliberate in the presence of
the whole people, though it seems that the clamors of
the galleries ought to have sufficed to turn him from
such a thought. His project was an assault on all real
liberties, and especially on the right of property, which
he defined as the power to possess what the law grants.
This strange constitution was presented on the tenth,
and adopted on the twenty-third of June, 1793. Surely
it was the lamest constitution ever given to a great
people. However, it was destined never to be put
into force. There is one feature of it which "has
met with much praise: I mean its so-called frater
nal, social, and humanitarian color; and it does, in
fact abound in that pretentious sentimentality which
never and nowhere better blossomed than at the foot of
the scaffold. Its conclusion has been thought to be
admirable, namely : " The French republic honors loyal
ty, courage, old age, filial piety, and misfortune. It
puts the treasure of its constitution under the guardian
ship of all the virtues." However, the most sacred of
these virtues seems to have been the right of insurrec
tion, at least if we may judge from the practice of the
times. And in fact this was the only resource left to
liberty ; for the citizen was not protected effectually in a

204 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
single one of his rights. He was dehvered over to the
despotism of an irresponsible Assembly, which had no
other check than the clubs of Paris. All the govern
mental powers were in its hands ; the mstrument of
tyranny was perfect.
If we examine what concerns the liberty of worship
in these two drafts of constitutions, we will find that of
Condorcet httle better than that of Robespierre, as re
cast by Herault de Sechelles. The debates showed as
httle respect for this sacred right among the Girondists
as among the Terrorists propter. In May an obscure
Deputy had moved that the article in the constitution
of Condorcet which conceded the rights of conscience
should be stricken out, on the ground, that whereas the
subjective liberty of the conscience could never be in
terfered with, the objective practice of worship would
infallibly conflict with the spirit of an age which was
soon to have no other worship than that of hberty and
public morality. And Vergniaud supported the motion.
To hear him, the days of intolerance were forever past ;
a strange position at a time when an unmerciful perse
cution was raging all over the land! Danton was of
the same mind, and thundered against superstition, and
in favor of fresh persecution. According to him the
surest sign of progress in religious hberty was the
hatred of the populace against the clergy. The priests
are persecuted, therefore rehgious liberty is complete ;
a sophism which has often reappeared in France.
The discussion of the right of worship came up again
on the eighteenth of June. Banere demanded that
liberty of worship be formally inserted in the Declara-

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 205
tion of Rights, and cited with approval the example of
the thirteen States of North America. But Robespierre
opposed the motion with great rancor. " I fear," said
he, "that conspirators may find in the article which
concedes liberty of worship, the means of overturning
the public hberty. I fear that counter-revolutionists
will disguise their attempts under reUgious forms. It
would be a hypocritical mask in which conspirators
would assault hberty." At furthest, however, these
conspirators, whatever they did, would not be able
more fatally and perfidiously to stab liberty than did
this austere tribune, who himself also wore a hypocriti
cal mask. Despite his efforts, the right of worship re
mained in the Constitution ; but of course it remained a
dead letter, at a time when the man who had combated
it was omnipotent in France.
Some months previously a proposition had been made
by Cambon,* in a committee of finance, which, had it
been adopted, would have prevented many evils. It
was, to leave every Church to pay for its own worship.
But the motion was opposed. Danton, the Terrorist,
said : " It has been declared that the priests should not
be salaried out of the public treasury. Appeal has been
made to philosophical ideas which are dear to me, for I
recognize no other God than the God of the universe,
no other worship than that of reason and hberty ; but
man, unhappy in the lot of life, seeks after eternal en
joyments, and imagines that in another life his joys will
be multiplied in proportion to his miseries in this.
After you shall have instructed and ripened the people
* See Appendix, note 29.

206 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
for some time, then it will be time to speak to them of
morals and philosophy ; but until then it is barbarous,
it is a crime, to take from the people the priests in whom
they yet find some consolation. It would, therefore, be
wise, I think, for the Convention to publish to the peo
ple an address, declaring that it has no wish to destroy
but only to perfect, and that if it pursues fanaticism it
is only because it wishes hberty of rehgious opinions."
But Danton was greatly mistaken in imagining that
Cambon's project of withholding the salaries of the
priests would have quickly crippled Christianity. Had
it been done respectfully, and had hberty of worship
been honestly guaranteed, the Revolution would have
been saved. Robespierre was of the same opinion as
Danton. The piece of rhetoric in which he defends his
position is perhaps the best we have from his pen, for
it was written with the most thorough conviction. The
separation of Church and State will always be a stum
bling-block to the consistent disciples of Rousseau.
Robespierre begins by expressing his disdain for the
superstitions of the clergy. "I am," says he, "no
fonder than others of the power of the priests. It is
one more added to the chains of humanity ; but it is an
invisible chain acting on the soul, and reason alone can
break it. The lawgiver may aid reason, but must not
take its place or anticipate it." Taking a rapid survey
of the country, he rejoiced in the progress which phi
losophy had already made. " Even those who remain
attached to Christianity," said he, "if we except the
counter-revolutionists, teach now only the imposing
dogmas which come to the support of the morality, the

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 207
virtue, and. equality which were formerly taught by the
Son of Mary to his Jewish fellow-citizens." Thus, ac
cording to Robespierre, France was already very near
to that religion without mysteries, to that rational wor
ship of the Supreme Being, which was the ideal of
Rousseau. If there was yet mingled with this high
phUosophy an element of superstition, so much the bet
ter, for it rendered the system palatable to the people.
He referred with approval to the policy of ancient legis
lators in assuming for their systems the sanction of
Heaven. But he forgot that from the time that the
Roman augurs laughed, not secretly, as in the time of
Cicero, but openly,, and in the market-places, this pious
trickery of philosophy to impose on the people, had very
little success. Religion will have nothing to do with the
hypocritical respect of pohticians who support it from
motives of State. Robespierre lays here the foundation
of the Concordat system of Napoleon, who was in this
respect his faithful disciple. He was likewise the
teacher of Napoleon in that part of his writings which
describes the dangers, to a strongly centralized govern
ment, of the independence of the Church from the
State. " What could be more fatal to the public tran
quillity," asked he, with all the sincerity of a partisan of
despotic sovereignty, " than the realization of this
theory of individual worship ? You seem to fear the
influence of the priests, but your plan would increase it ;
for as soon as they cease to be priests of the pubhc they
would become those of individuals, and have with the
same the most intimate relations." He then proceeded
to picture to the alarmed Jacobins the spectacle of in-

208 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
dividual hberty taking advantage of the separation of
Church and State, and forming minorities into parties,
to resist the sway of the majority. And he was not
mistaken. The system of a non-salaried Church is in
fact fatal to tyranny. Robespiene opposed, as was his
custom, the poor to the rich, declaring that as the poor
are the more religious, it would be a great hardship to
them not to salary the Church. The only one of his
arguments which had weight, was drawn from the pub
lic faith which had been pledged to the system of sal
aries ; but not to mention that this faith had already
been broken in the case of the non-jurors, it would have
been easy to remunerate the priests individually so far
as to satisfy the claims of justice, and yet leave the
Church without salary from the State. It was impor
tant for our purpose to signahze the hostility of Robes
piene to the separation of Church and State. It is a
great honor for this principle, to have had for an adver
sary such a man, and for such reasons. However, the in
conveniences of the State-Church system grew more and
more apparent, and the separation could not be long
postponed. From now till the time of the abrogation of the CivU
Constitution of the Clergy, the Convention took advan
tage of it to make their authority bitterly felt by the
State Church. The former Assembly had continued the
salaries of such priests as took wives ; this was equiva
lent to declaring their marriage .legal. The Con
stitutional Bishops were mostly opposed to this, and
especially was this the case with Fauchet. His opposi
tion became a matter of debate in the Convention, in

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 209
July, 1773. Lacroix declared that the Bishops, being
salaried by the government, ought not to oppose any of
its laws. Danton was more emphatic : " We have con
tinued to the Bishops their salaries," said he, " now let
them imitate Christ and the Apostles. These rendered
to Cesar what belonged to Cesar. Very well ! the na
tion is greater than all the Cesars." It was in vain urged
that the marriage of priests, being a matter of Church
doctrine, a Bishop might withhold his nuptial blessing
from the marriages of priests, and yet not offend against
the civil laws. Matters went from bad to worse, and
the height of the Reign of Terror was not far in the
distance. In order to understand the character of those orgies
of impiety which were so fatal to the Revolution, it is
necessary to cast a glance at the condition of the differ
ent parties. On the overthrow of the Girondists, June
2, 1793, the radical extremists remained masters of
the whole machinery of government. And they were
faced by dangers which led them to the exertion of all
their power. The proscription of the escaped Girondists
caused several insurrections. Lyons was. in full revolt,
and it required an army to reduce it. Toulon surrender
ed to the English. La Vendee, entirely in revolt, made
common cause with the foreign coalition which was
pressing upon France at the North, at the Alps, and at
the Pyrenees. More than once the fate of the nation
was at stake. At Paris itself the assassination of Marat
by a pure and noble young woman, showed what enthu
siasm the cause of the Girondists could excite.
It is well known by what miracles of energy the Rev-
27

210 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
olution made face to all their dangers. Lyons and Tou
lon were taken by rapid sieges. A new system of
democratic tactics, which consisted in hurhng heavy
masses on a single point, drove back the allied armies.
Finally, after a succession of battles, the upper hand was
gained in La Vendee toward the close of 1793. The
victories of Wattignies in Flanders, and Cholet in La
Vendee, terminated victoriously the campaign. At the
same time great reforms in civU matters evinced the un
conquerable faith of the Revolution in the future. The
Normal and .Polytechnic Schools were established, and
a vast plan of instruction elaborated. The foundations
of the Civil Code were laid. Attention was given even
to the fine arts, and vast museums opened. Uniformity
of weights and measures was established, a great and
lasting reform. This terrible energy of the Revolution
on the frontiers, and these useful reforms at home, are
its greatest glory. But with what different feelings do
we view the bloody orgies which attended it. We shall
always believe them to have been unnecessary. No, we
will never admit that France could not rise to the high
est courage without plunging herself into a cruel deli
rium. We do not see that victory deserted her flag the
day when a single color ceased to swallow up the other
two — the day when it ceased to bathe in the blood of the
scaffold. Those judges bring dishonor on the country
who pretend that it could not have been saved except
at this price. Let them not forget that the crimes to
which they attribute such honor excited many more
dangers than they surmounted.
It is from the month of September, 1793, that the

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 211
Reign of Terror was fully in play. It came forth, full
armed, from the sitting of the fifth of this month, on oc
casion of one of those imperious demands of a deputation
from the people of Paris, which completely swayed the
Convention. " Let us make terror the order of the day,"
exclaimed the unprincipled and cowardly Barrere. The
decree which he proposed organized a revolutionary army
of six thousand men, who were charged with the duty of
crushing every-where the counter-revolution. The pain
of death was pronounced against whoever should trade
in assignats. To hasten its judgments the Revolutionary
Tribunal was divided into four sections. The nocturnal
searching of houses was authorized, terror became the
sum of the politics of the day. It hung over the heads
of the generals in the field. If they did not gain vic
tories, or if they failed to make a good use of them, they
were recalled and sent to the scaffold, as in the cases of
Custine* andHouchard. If a Deputy showed signs of
mercy, or hesitation, he was taken from his seat and
executed. No home was safe day or night. No one
knew when to feel secure from the lightning-stroke of
terror. It feU on the middle classes as weU as on the
aristocracy. It filled the prisons with a crowd of pris
oners, on whom the insatiable guillotine made its daily
feasts. But even all this could not hinder the gayetyso
natural to the French, from making game of their fiend
ish hangmen. On the third of October the Convention
decreed death within twenty-four hours on every returned
emigrant priest on whom any counter-revolutionary sign
might be found, or who should be suspected of relations
* See Appendix, note 30.

212 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
with the enemy. The evidence of two witnesses was
declared sufficient. In February, 1794, it was declared
that, in cases of arrested priests, no recourse to the Court
of Appeals should be allowed. In Optober of the pre
vious year Marie Antoinette, after having suffered all
the shame of a terrible captivity, was dragged before a
merciless tribunal, and quickly handed over to the exe
cutioner. Her noble dignity was unabashed before her
outragers, and even touched the hearts of the female
monsters who had assembled to rejoice in her disgrace.
A few days -later the noble bearing of the Girondists,
who sang a patriotic hymn while on their way to the
scaffold, struck fear to the hearts even of the Terrorists.
Never had they appeared greater than on the car of
death. The noble Bailly and Barnave followed them
very soon. The first two generations of the revolution
were thus swept away, to give scope to the third. It
seemed not enough to strike the noblest of the living;
the bones of the dead were insulted. The monuments
and ashes of the long line of French kings, and other
noble personages, were taken from their long resting-place
in the Church of St. Denis and cast into a common ditch.
We should not be surprised if, at this time, the revolu
tionists, in their rage to break entirely with the past, at
tempted to treat God as they had already treated royalty.
It was the municipahty of Paris that in November,
1793, took the initiative in the atheistical movement. Its
action was governed less by fanaticism than by calcu
lating policy. The flattering Chaumette * and the vile
Hebert had more at heart to out do Robespierre than
* See Appendix, note 31.

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 213
to serve the cause of Atheism. Anacharsis Clootz alone
was sincere ; he assaulted religion from personal ha
tred. Hebert * aspired to the role of Marat. He hoped
to be borne to the highest place on the shoulders of the
rabble. This coarse blasphemer was a mere sycophant
who spoke the- language of the gutters to please the
sovereign mob. He and Chaumette imagined that the
surest way to attain their purpose would be to attack the
Supreme Being, who was supported by Robespierre with
all the resources of his pedantry. In this way they
might cast their foe into the shade, or distance and leave
him among the apologists of the exploded past. The
anti-religious furor had found, in the continued resist
ance of the priests of the old Church, the means of ever-
increasing growth. This served as a pretext for the
attack on religion itself. It was easy to involve the
Constitutional priest in the general odium of his caste,
and to represent God himself as the great enemy of sans-
culottism. As the Convention had listened to, and even
applauded the boldest attacks on the ancient faith, it
seemed an easy task to gain it entirely to the cause of
Atheism. With the Convention and the faubourgs on
their side, the Jacobins would be obliged to follow also,
and this would be the fall of Robespiene, or, in case he
foUowed the movement, his moral abdication. The plan
was well laid, as was proved by its several days of suc
cess ; but neither Hebert nor Chaumette, nor both of
them, were equal to Robespierre. They fell in the
struggle, but not before they had succeeded in bringing
about the most hideous scandal.
* See Appendix, note 32.

214 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
The Hebertists in their impiety did not go beyond the
natural tendency of the philosophy of the eighteenth
century. Already this had exhibited itself more than
once in the National Assembly. They simply abased it
from the sphere of ideas into the unclean minds of the
mob, and translated it into indecent orgies. It is cer
tain that they could little shock an Assembly which
had already decreed to abolish the Christian era, and,
erasing the name of Christ, to make the new era date
from the foundation of the republic. Nothing better
' than this proves that the Revolution was determined to
enter into a war with the old divinities, and to propose
itself as the new religion of the future. The new calen
dar, which had been presented by Romme, and adoj>ted
on the fifth of August, 1793, fixed the beginning of the
new era on the twenty-second of September, 1792, a day
which, curiously enough, coincided with the autumnal
equinox and the foundation of the republic. Decades,
or weeks of ten days each, took the place of the ordi:
nary week. The months were called by philosophical
names, such as Justice, Equality, etc. By way of ex
ception June was called the Oath of the Tennis-court,
and July memorized the taking of the Bastille. These
names of the months were changed, on the third
of November, on motion of Fabre d'Eglantine, who
caused the Assembly to adopt a less abstract nomencla
ture — one which should recall the succession of the sea
sons. To the months were given poetical names. The
first three, or autumn months, were named Vendimiaire,
Brumaire, and Frimaire, recalling the vintage, the
haze, and the hoar-frost. The next three, or those of

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 215
winter, were termed Nivose, Pluviose, and Ventose, in
reference to snow, rain, and wind. The spring months
were Germinal, Florial, and Prairial, in allusion to
germination, flowers, and meadows. The last three
months, Messidor, Thermidor, and Fructidor, were
those of summer, and marked the seasons of harvest, ol
heat, and of fruit. The motives which prompted this
bold innovation were honestly explained by Fabre
d'Eglantine. " Long use," said he, " has filled the
memories of the people with a large number of long
venerated images, which have been, and are yet to-day,
the source of religious errors. It is therefore necessary
to substitute for these fictions of ignorance the realities
of reason, and for the prestige of priestcraft the truth of
nature." He avowed his intention of counteracting the
influence the priests obtained by the association of their
festivals with the chief epochs of the year. " When the
festival of the dead is to be celebrated," said he, " it is
not amid the young life of spring that the priests play
their farce, but it is at the close of the beautiful days,
when a gray and dull sky fills our mind with a tender
sadness. Then, taking advantage of the farewells of
nature, they seize our attention, and, through the clap
trap of their festivals, paint to our minds all that their
impudence has imagined of mystical and delightful for
the predestinated, that is to say, the imbecile, and of
terrible for the sinner, that is to say, the clear-headed."
After mentioning other cases where the Church had
taken advantage of the seasons in fixing its festivals,
Fabre d'Eglantine opposed to the old religious system
his new agricultural calendar, which was designed

216 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
equally, but in a contrary design, to fill the imagination
of the people with grand images. The year was to
close with five grand festivals, bearing the expressive
name of Sansculotides, which were to occupy the sur
plus days beyond the decimal Dumber 360. They were
the festivals of genius, of labor, of action, of reward,
and of opinion. The latter was a sort of political car
nival of twenty-four hours, during which it was lawful
for any citizen to write or say whatever he pleased
about any public officer. It was for those in power,
the last judgment of the year under the presidency of
ridicule. The propositions of Fabre d'Eglantine were
decreed with enthusiasm by the Convention. Thus the
National Assembly changed itself into a council of
philosophy, and made creeds by authority with as httle
regard for conscience as had ever been done by the
councils of the Romish Church. To interfere thus with
the rehgious habits of the people was to inaugurate the
most intolerable of despotisms, to confound absolutely
the spiritual and the temporal powers, and to inaugurate
what might properly be called the Islamism of wicked
ness. The Convention thus resuscitated the most intol
erant features of the former hierarchy, and fondly be
lieved itseU liberal because it had rejected, and sought
to put down, the worship of the God of the Christians.
The municipality had some reasons for believing that
it would be seconded, if it pushed even to the furthest
extreme the irreligious movement. It broached the
matter by provoking numerous and clamoring anti-
religious petitions. On the 28th of August, 1793, a
deputation of teachers presented itself to the Conven-

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 217
tion to plead for a system of gratuitous and obliga
tory instruction. One of the children who accompanied
them demanded that, instead of being preached to in the
name of the pretended God, they be taught the principles
of equality, the rights of man, and the constitution of the
country. Such a profanation of infancy should have ex
cited the most lively indignation ; but instead of that, the
deputation, hke all similar ones, was warmly applauded,
whatever a few of the Deputies may have thought who yet
remained attached to the religion of their fathers. These
surely must have felt that silence on such an occasion
was cowardice. Some days after this scandal a deputa
tion from Nevers appeared in the Assembly bearing the
spoils of churches, and demanding the suppression of
the Catholic worship. At one of the clubs a renegade
Bishop was heard to exclaim, " The priests are vile
wretches ; I know them better than others, for I have
been one of them." Some days previously a Constitu
tional Bishop presented to the Convention " his spouse,"
boasting that he had taken her from among the sans
culottes. He was warmly applauded, and came near
getting an addition of two thousand francs to his sal
ary. Nothing would have been more natural, for he
had well merited of the Convention by dishonoring his
caste. Thus the movement was turned against all the
clergy, the constitutional as well as the refractory.
The Atheists sought in every way to obtain apostasies,
and in that way defame religion through its own minis
ters. An ex-priest formally demanded of the munici
pality the privilege of changing his name from Erasmus
to Apostate. Chaumette and Hebert planned, in secret
28

218 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
meetings with Clootz, Momoro, Bourdon de l'Oise, and
others, a great public spectacle. It was no less than the
inauguration of the worship of reason in open Conven
tion, by introducing certain priests, who were to cast at
the foot of the national tribune the symbols of super
stition. The farce was played on the seventh of No
vember. As the Convention was presided over by Laloi,
who was in perfect accord with the municipality, the
leaders of the scheme had reason to expect favorable
replies. The scene was opened by the reading of a
letter from a country Curate by the name of Parens,
who declared himself ready to abjure, provided that he
was assured of a pension. " I am a priest," said he ; "I
am a Curate, that is to say, a quack. Thus far I have
been quack in good faith ; I have deceived, because I
myself had been deceived. Now that my eyes are
opened, I confess that I would rather not be a dishonest
quack. However, poverty might constrain me to it.
It seems to me that it would be well to assure a living
to such as are willing to render justice to truth." This
doughty confessor was unwilling to be impious gratui
tously, and seemed disinclined to change his trade with
out assurance of salary. And this piece of debasement
was applauded by a National Assembly ! After the little
farce was to follow the grand comedy. The president
announced to the Convention that the regular authori
ties of the municipality of Paris were present at the bar
of the house in company with Bishop Gobel, together
with his vicars and several priests. Momoro declared
with great parade that these citizens wished permission
to regenerate themselves and become men. Under the

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 219
guidance of reason they had come to cast off the char
acter which superstition had imposed upon them.
" Thus," said he, " the French Republic will soon have
no other worship than that of reason, equality, and
eternal truth." Gobel arose amid a shower of applause.
He was all the more contemptible on this occasion
for the reason that he yielded to no momentary and
overpowering gush of enthusiasm, for he was no more
an Atheist than he was a Christian ; he only desired to
save his life amid the revolutionary tumult. " The will
of the people," said he, " was my first law ; submission
to their wUl my first duty." It is, therefore, under the
influence of fear that he abandons Christianity, and
sacrifices to the idol of the moment, namely, the popu
lar will, that God in whom he does not cease to beheve.
He had so expressed himself to Bishop Gregory a few
days previously. The cowardly apostate floated con
tinually between the fear of the scaffold and the fear of
hell, the latter of course gaining the upper hand when
he was taken to the guUlotine. To-day, however, his
words were greeted with unbounded applause, for he
had well merited of the Atheists by dishonoring the
first bishopric of France. " Citizens," said the presi
dent to Gobel and the other priests about him, " citi
zens, you have just sacrificed on the altar of the country
these antiquated gewgaws; you are worthy of the re
public." Thereupon ex-Bishop Gobel assumed the re
publican cap, and received the fraternal embrace. Ig
noble sentiments may sometimes ex-cite almost as much
momentary enthusiasm as real heroism. Several priests
now vied with each other, who should first resign their

220 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
character as clergymen. Bishop Lindet surpassed all.
He pretended that he had accepted a bishopric only to
serve his country, and that he had never been a quack,
or the dupe of superstition. It was, therefore, very easy
to renounce what he had never truly beheved. He was
followed by Julien of Toulouse, a Protestant Pastor,
who spoke in a similar strain, and said that he had
never been any thing but an officer of morality, profess
ing the most absolute tolerance. " I have exercised,"
said he, " the functions of a Protestant minister ; I de
clare that I shall profess them no longer, and that
henceforth I shall have no other temple than the sanc
tuary of the laws, no other divinity than liberty, no
other worship than civU order, and no other gospel
than the repubhcan constitution." It is thus shamefuUy
that Julien represented in the Convention, a martyr
Church which had never flinched before caresses or
sufferings. Such is the lesson that this base mind
brought from the wilds of the desert, where he had
once had the honor of celebrating an outlawed worship.
What a contrast between this day of ignominy and the
glorious days of his youth, when he had suffered for his
belief! He had doubtless long since fallen from his
faith, and was thus unprepared for an hour requiring
moral heroism.
It could not well be that amid all this turpitude the
Christian conscience should remain without witness.
It made its inflexible voice heard at a profaned tribune,
and despite the cries of rage which fain would have
hushed it. Its mere apparition was a tenible rebuke
for the cowardly scene which had just been witnessed.

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 221
It was Gregory, Bishop of Blois, who gave this grand
spectacle to his country. Of a mind ardent and gen
erous, he had more than once pushed his enthusiasm to
imprudence ; and, though he had not voted for the death
of the King, yet in an unfortunate moment of excite
ment he had rejoiced in his downfall. He was, never
theless, a sincere Christian and a noble soul. He had
never denied a single one of his convictions, much less
his God. He still wore the ecclesiastical costume, which
of itself was at this period an act of courage. Occupied
on this occasion in the Educational Committee, he was
entirely ignorant of what had taken place in the hall of
the Convention. Immediately on his entrance he was
besieged by a crowd of radical Deputies, who pressed
him with frantic gestures to follow the "good example "
of Gobel. Every-where the words were heard, " You
must mount the rostrum." "And why?" asked he.
" To renounce your character of Bishop, your religious
charlatanism," was the reply. "Miserable blasphemers,"
said he, " I have never been a charlatan. Loving my
rehgion, I have preached the truth, and shall remain
faithful to it." Hoping to constrain him to follow the
current, the president gave him the privilege of speak
ing without his asking it. He ascended the rostrum,
and immediately a deathly sUence took the place of the
clamorous tumult. " I have entered the Assembly,"
said he, " with very vague notions of what took place
before my arrival. I hear invitations to make a sacri
fice for my country ; I am accustomed to that. Is the
question as to attachment to the cause of hberty ? I
have proved that by my life. Is my salary as Bishop

222 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
at stake ? I abandon that to you without regret. Is
my rehgion called in question ? That matter is outside
of your domain, and you have no right to attack it.
I hear it spoken of as fanaticism and superstition.
I have combated these always ; but if you will define
these words, you will see that fanaticism and supersti
tion are directly opposed to religion. As to me, Catho
lic by conviction and by feeling, priest by choice, I
have been selected by the people for the office of
Bishop ; but it is neither from them nor from you that
I hold my mission. I have consented to bear the bur
den of the episcopacy in a time when it involved extra
ordinary difficulties. I was implored to accept it ; I am
implored to-day to make an abdication which will not,
which cannot, be extorted from me. I have endeavored
to do good in my diocese, acting from principles which
are dear to me, and which I defy you to take from me.
I shall remain Bishop to continue my work. I invoke
the hberty of conscience."
This discourse was interrupted at almost every word.
It excited cries of frantic rage. " I doubt," says Greg
ory in his Mimoires, " whether the pencil of Milton,
accustomed as it was to depict demoniac spectacles,
could have done justice to this scene. Descending from
the rostrum I returned to my place. The Deputies
shunned me as if I had been infected with leprosy.
Wherever I looked I saw eyes glaring on me with fury ;
menaces and insults poured upon me in a torrent. Op
pressed with the sight of the outrages committed against
rehgion, I thanked God that he had sustained my feeble
ness and given me strength to confess Jesus Christ. I

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 223
declare that in pronouncing this discourse I believed
myself to be pronouncing my death sentence." The
same evening and the following days the residence of
Gregory was besieged by emissaries summoning him to
yield to the universal wish. A hostUe placard was
posted on the walls of Paris denouncing him to the
Revolutionary Tribunal. Fourcroy, his colleague in
the Educational Committee, blamed him publicly for
having checked the current of opinion. He said, "We
must crush this infamous rehgion." Gregory was an
object of special dislike, for the reason that he wished
to Christianize the Revolution. But he wavered not in
the hour of storm. Deep down in the hearts the epis
copal costume of the Christian Deputy was much more re
spected than the revolutionary cap of the apostate Gobel.
And he received the confidence of some of the ringlead
ers of the atheistical movement, who trembled in secret
at the thought of the God whom they were insulting.
In the sittings which followed that of the seventh of
November, scandalous abjurations succeeded each other
without interruption. That of the Bishop of Haute
Vienne was distinguished by its abjectness. He strove
to pass for a vile hypocrite in order to induce all to
believe that he had always been impious. "And I
aver," said he, " I was philosopher, though Bishop. If
I did not long since reveal my secret, it is because the
people were superstitious, and the government inquisi
torial. Thanks to thee, august radical wing, it is finally
permitted to say the whole truth above-board. An
other provincial Bishop, Lalande, declared that hence
forth he would proclaim only the eternal dogmas which

224 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
are traced in the great book of nature and reason
Chabot, the married Capuchin, came to make, in his own
name and in that of his wife, a very unnecessary re
cantation ; for no one doubted his perfect impiety.
Abbot Sieyes finally felt himself obliged to break the
prudent sUence which he had observed for so long a
time. He said that he had been a victim of supersti
tion. This, however, had not prevented him from ac
cepting several benefices, and the pension which he still
was receiving amounted to ten thousand francs. " No
man in the world," added he, " can say he has been
deceived by me." This meant that for a long time he
had celebrated a mass in which he no longer believed.
After the abjurations came the patriotic offerings
which had been torn from the treasures of the churches.
Multitudes flocked to the Convention and to the muni
cipality, bearing precious vases, copes, sacerdotal orna
ments, and all objects of value which had been con
nected with worship. It was decided to open a public
depot for them, and a committee was appointed to re
ceive and classify the spoils of superstition. The bear
ers of these spoils generally took advantage of the
occasion to make a speech. " Dionysius of Syracuse,"
said the orator from Sens, "took from Jupiter his
mantle of gold, under pretext that it was too cold for
winter and too warm for summer ; we also take from
our saints and their ministers the splendid vestments
which, doubtless, are to them a matter of embarrass
ment. An orator from another locality brought, in
guise of a patriotic gift, among other things, the re
puted head of St. Denis, and felt constrained to say

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 225
that, for his part, he had never been tempted to
kiss the fetid relic. He continued, in terms equally
elegant, "This skull and these sacred tatters which
accompany it are now to cease to be the ridiculous
objects of the veneration of the people. The gold
and silver which envelop them are to contribute to
estabhsh the empire of reason and liberty." It was
a great harvest for Pere Luchene, the infamous jour
nal of Hebert ; its obscene slang was heard in open
Convention. The Protestants of Paris saw fit to follow the impulse
of the moment. Two of their number, representing the
others, bore to the municipal authorities the vessels of
silver which had served for the administration of bap
tism and the Lord's supper. The orator of the occasion
said: "All ranks united drank out of these cups of
equality and fraternity ; my ministry has always had
for its object to propagate such principles. Shame on
all the clap-trap of falsehood and puerility which igno
rance and cunning have clothed with the pompous name
of theology." The President replied, saying that if any
religion could be preserved it would surely be that one
which had best guarded the principles of equality ; but
that as reason was now prevailing men would henceforth
know no other worship than that of liberty and equality.
After the Protestants, the Jews, unwilling to remain in
the background, brought their offerings also. It was an
emulation in wickedness that, for the moment, pervaded
all classes.
The apostasies constituted the first act in the
comedy gotten up by the municipality of Paris. It
29

226 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
was now necessary to pass to the second. It was not
enough to have beaten down the ancient idols ; it was
found needful to inaugurate with parade a new worship,
that of Reason and Nature. In other words, it was ne
cessary to amuse and entertain the people in order to
prevent them from returning, like a dog, to their vomit.
Ex-Bishop Lindet had proposed, the very day of the
abjurations, the replacement of the rehgious by civic
festivals. To the poet Chenier was confided the task of
filling the vacuum left by the fall of the ancient ritual,
but it was soon perceived that something more was
required than rhetorical flowers and academical strophes.
One of the wards of Paris decided that on every tenth
day, the festival which took the place of the old Sunday,
there should be a patriotic homily on morality and the
Constitution ; but this was a recreation very insufficient
for a people who were fond of spectacles. The muni-
cipaUty determined to get up a great theatrical parade
which would speak to the eye and seduce the imagina
tion. The opera was put in requisition. It furnished
for the occasion a vestal, to represent the goddess of
Reason, and give a little animation to this religion of
nonentity. It was in the cathedral of Notre Dame that
the municipality erected the stage for enacting this con
temptible profanation. The Temple of Philosophy was
constructed in the choir. It was ornamented with the
effigies of the sages, and reposed on the summit of a
miniature mountain. The Torch of Truth blazed on the
corner of a rock. Young ladies in white, and crowned
with oak leaves, surrounded the verdure-draped seat of
the goddess of Reason, and chanted in her honor a

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 227
frigid hymn composed by Chenier for the occasion.
It began thus :
" Descend, 0 Liberty, daughter of nature,
The people have reconquered their power immortal ;
Upon the pompous ruins of ancient imposture,
Their hands erect thy altar."
A poor lyric for the inauguration of a new religion !
" To-day," said Momoro in a journal, " we may say that
the day of rest has slain the Sabbath. It has just re
ceived the death-stroke in the ci-devant metropolitan
church, at present the Temple of Reason." The members
of the Convention, not having been able to be present at
Notre Dame, were honored in the evening with a visit
by the goddess. The trivial ceremonies of the morning
were repeated. The President gave to the goddess the
fraternal embrace. Thereupon the whole company shed
tears, and sang, and acted odiously and ridiculously.
There remained of that day only the remembrance of a
stupid parody, which of itself was no small vengeance
for that holy religion which had been trampled under
foot. It was in vain that at Paris and hi the provinces
it was attempted to reanimate the fervor by replacing
the actresses by prostitutes. Ennui and disgust struck
a fatal blow at the new worship from the very start.
It was attempted to enliven it by debauchery. The
church of St. Eustache was transformed into a vast hall
of revelry. Apostate priests were seen dancing with
harlots around bright fires fed by holy books and
rituals, copes and relics. And this delirium was propa
gated hke a sort of death-dance throughout the nation.
At Lyons an ass, clothed in sacerdotal robes, was led

228 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
in a procession through the streets. On the twenty-
second of November the same masquerades which a
few days before had disgraced the Convention, were
re-enacted in its midst. A procession of persons,
dressed in pontifical robes, was preceded by a num
ber of sappers and cannoneers. This was followed by
an immense crowd, marching in two ranks, and cov
ered with mock clerical regalia, copes, and chasubles
of gilded velvet. Upon hurdles were borne a num
ber of ciboria and costly rehc-caskets. Martial in
struments executed national airs. A banner, waved
to the melodious sounds of a popular song, pictured
forth the vanishment of fanaticism, whUe the vigor
ous execution of the revolutionary dance announced
the triumph of the new worship. At the sight of this
edifying spectacle the President of the Convention ex
claimed, in joy, that the deputation had in a single hour
dashed into annihUation eighteen centuries of error. A
young child paid its homage to the Assembly, and was
overwhelmed with felicitations for having recited the
Declaration of Rights. To it was voted the first repub
lican catechism which should be published. This flow
of sensibihty for the poor httle panot of Atheism was a
worthy climax to the ridiculous farce.
The municipality attempted to profit by the popular
enthusiasm for Marat. " Several of the wards of Paris,"
said the base Hebert at the tribune of the Jacobin
club, " are anxious to render homage to the ashes of the
friend of the people. The population prostrate them
selves before his statue. Very well, since the people
must be amused by processions and religious ceremonies

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 229
why shall we delay to decree them to the martyr of
democracy ? " On the motion of David, who expressed
himself in terms of the vUest enthusiasm, the Conven
tion decreed that the remains of Marat should be trans
ported to the Pantheon, a national Church dedicated to
the great men of the nation. The veneration for this
monster knew no bounds. Hymns were written in his
honor. On divers stamps he was placed by the side* of
Christ. Men swore by the sacred heart of Marat.
The new worship was complete : it had prostitutes for
goddesses, and a man of violence and blood for a martyr
and saint. AU it yet lacked was to engage in persecu
tion ; and it faUed not in this worthy business.
There had for a long whUe been no limit to the viola
tions of the rehgious hberties of the non-conforming
Cathohcs. It had now come to the point that rehgion
in itself, after having been most cruelly" outraged, was
to faU under the wrath of the laws. It was to be spared
under none of its forms. The municipality was em
boldened in its persecutions by the favor with which
the Convention had received the accounts of Fouche's
atrocities in and about Lyons. This future minister of
royalty wrote as follows to _ his colleagues : "The taste
for republican virtues and austere forms has penetrated
all classes, now that they are rid of the corrupting in
fluence of the priests. Some of these impostors are in
clined to continue playing their rehgious comedies, but
the sans-culottes watch them, overturn all their stages,
and plant on their ruins the tree of liberty. Long live
the republic!" Fouche* had caused the cross to be
* See Appendix, note 33.

230 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
demolished in the grave-yards, and the statue of Sleep to
be substituted in its place — a consoling image for men
like him, who felt the need of believing that after death
there would be neither resurrection, nor punishment for
crime. The municipahty judged that what had not
been disapproved of in the provinces would be found
good in Paris. It decreed hke measures for the grave
yards of the capital. It ordered an officer, who should
wear the republican cap, to be put in charge of all
funeral processions. A standard was to be borne before
the hearse, upon which were inscribed the following
words : " The just man never dies ; he lives in the
memory of his fellow-citizens." One of the wards of
Paris complained that the devout and fanatical still
persisted in visiting the fonts of consecrated water, and
demanded of the Common CouncU that the scandal be
stopped, and that the imbeciles be deprived of all hope
of a revival of fanaticism. The municipality decreed
that armed force should be used to put a stop to the
practice. But this was not enough. A general decree
was now wanted which should entirely abohsh the hb
erty of worship, and erect the service of Reason into an
oppressive rehgion of State. To strike the rehgious
sentiment of the Catholics with the most defiant out
rage, the municipality had sent to the mint the precious
mantle of St. Genevieve, the cherished patron saint of
Paris, and had ordered the destruction of all the images
of saints which ornamented the churches. The two
grand portals of Notre Dame were saved from mutila
tion only because Dupuis was pleased to see in their
work of sculpture a representation of the planetary

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 231
system, by which he explained the origin of all relig
ions. It was decreed to demohsh the towers, for the
reason that their prominence above the other buildings
was a violation of the principles of equality. The mo
tion of a " virtuous citizen," who desired to see all the
priests incarcerated as suspected persons, was received
with favor in the same sitting. One of the wards peti
tioned that the Church of St. Anthony be dedicated to
Reason, and that an altar be erected in it on which there
should burn a perpetual fire. Thus the practices of
Asiatic paganism threatened to reappear, at the very
moment when the Atheists supposed they were putting
down all superstition for ever. The municipahty prof
ited by this occasion to decree that no material symbol
whatever should be erected in any temple.
In the sitting of the 26th of November, 1793, the
same council dared to strike with interdiction every
other worship than that of Reason. Chaumette, in some
prefatory remarks, denounced the priests and harlots as
equally hostile to the interests of the republic. He
painted in lively colors the dangerousness of the clergy.
" They are capable," said he, " of all crimes, and avail
themselves of poison ; they will work miracles if you
do not watch them. Consequently, I demand that the
Council declare that to its knowledge the people of
Paris are ripe for the rehgion of Reason, and that if
there takes place in the city any movement in favor of
fanaticism, all the priests shall be imprisoned, seeing
that it has been declared that no other worship is
recognized than that of Reason." The decree which
followed this elegant discourse was as follows : " First,

232 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
all the churches and temples of all the rehgions and wor
ships which have heretofore existed in Paris shall imme
diately be closed ; second, all the priests or ministers of
all religions whatever shall be held personally responsi
ble for all the troubles that may arise on account of
religious opinions ; third, whoever shall demand the
opening, whether of a church or of a temple, shall be
arrested as a suspected person ; fourth, the Revolution
ary Committees shall be invited to keep special watch
over aU the priests ; and fifth, the Convention shall be
petitioned to pass a law excluding priests from every
manner of public employment, as well as from all em
ployment in manufactories of arms." A member of
the Council moved to amend by excluding the priests
from every employment whatever, which would have
been equivalent to starving them to death ; but this
was rejected. And surely the law needed nothing to
complete its monstrous character. Such was this Chau
mette, a man whom the great and popular historian
Michelet dares to present to us as one of the founders of
the religion of the future, and of true religious liberty.
The fact that he sprang " from the holy mud of Paris "
is not enough to constitute him a great servant of lib
erty. This decree remains for ever for him an indelible
stain. It is true, he was incontestably a model of im
piety ; but this glory will hardly justify his canoniza
tion. He was only a miserable copyist of Diderot and
other worse men. By this famous decree the munici
pality had, to use a fashionable figure of the day, ar
rived at the summit of its capitol. But the Tarpeian
rock was not far distant. Robespierre had sworn its

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 233
ruin, and he felt himseK supported not only by the
Jacobins, his subservient tools, but also by the Conven
tion, which began to become jealous of this popular
municipal power which affected to play the dictator.
We have explained for what reasons he was the sworn
enemy of Chaumette and Hebert. Every thing in
them repelled him : their growing popularity wounded
his vanity ; their Atheism conflicted with his favorite
Deism, and, with his correct and pedantic conduct, he
could not but be affected with contempt for their shame
less orgies of vice.
The struggle broke out at the Jacobin Club Novem
ber 21, 1793. Hebert and Momoro, disquieted at the
silent opposition of Robespierre, sought to turn the
stroke which menaced them upon the heads of the
priests and of the Princess Ehzabeth. But Robespierre
declared that the dangers of the republic at this hour
came neither from the priests nor the impure remnants of
the race of the tyrant. He manifested, in fact, the great
est contempt for the pious princess, and dared to style her
the despicable sister of Capet. This expression is an in
delible stigma on the name of the cowardly tribune, and
wrings a cry of indignation even from his warmest
apologists. Passing to the priests, he expressed lively
pleasure that so many of them were ready to throw off
their old character and take offices in the government,
and even to become presidents of popular societies.
" Fear not their fanaticism," said he, " but rather their
ambition ; not the garment they wear, but the new skin
they have assumed. Fanaticism is a ferocious and ca
pricious animal ; it flees before reason. But pursue it
30

234 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
with boisterous cries, and it turns back upon you."
Robespierre did not dare to blame the popular move
ment which had led to the abandonment of the old
worship and the spoliation of the churches, but he
attacked those who took advantage of it to gain per
sonal importance. "By what right," asked he, "do
men, thus far unknown to the Revolution, seek in the
midst of these changes the means of usurping a false
popularity, and of exciting patriots to false measures
which create discord and trouble ? By what right do
they degrade the solemn homage rendered to truth into
ridiculous farces ? Why allow them to abase the dig
nity of the people, and attach the trappings of folly to
the scepter of philosophy ? " Hebert might well trem
ble at words which so distinctly designated himself.
He might weU see the edge of the guillotine hanging
above him when the terrible orator brought against his
party the dangerous charge of dishonoring the Revolu
tion in the eyes of foreign powers. The pohtical drift
of the speech appeared more especially when Robes
pierre insisted on the maintenance of the hberty of
worship. He declared that the Convention intended to
defend this right both against its opponents and against
its own abuses. Moreover, the priests would so much
the longer continue to say the mass the more they were
hindered. "He who wishes to hinder them," said he,
" is more fanatical than they who say the mass." If the
Revolution had to fight fanaticism it had equally to
strive against Atheism, which takes from virtue its hope,
from vice its punishment, and from liberty its glorious
sanction. If God did not already exist, it would be

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 235
necessary to invent him. What, therefore, was to be
feared above aU, was the counter-fanaticism which de
graded France in the eyes of her enemies, and was their
surest coadjutor.
The municipality of Paris could not have asked a
more explicit declaration of war. Robespierre had
taken position. He closed his speech by demanding a
purification of the Jacobin club. Each member was to
be examined, and retained or rejected by a vote. No
mistake needed to be made ; hves were at stake in that
tumultuous examination where Robespierre held the
decisive balance of power. The municipality attempted
to pay audacity with defiance. A few days later, it
passed the decree of Chaumette suppressing all worship
but that of Reason. This provoked from Robespierre a
terrible speech in the Jacobin club. He renewed his
accusation of intrigue with foreign enemies. He spoke
as a master. " We wiU not suffer," said he, " the stand
ard of persecution to be raised against any religion, nor
aristocracy to be confounded with a rehgious opinion.
The Convention wiU maintain the liberty of worship."
But he hastened to prevent this hberty from being un
derstood too seriously by adding, that the Convention
would impose silence upon religious controversy. A
strange contradiction, of which the absurdity is less fla
grant than its duration in France persistent. Robes
pierre, to use his own expressions, tore without mercy
the mask of patriotism from the hideous figure of the
supporters of foreign despotism, who by their ignoble
farces had desired to represent a free people as a people
of Atheists, and to transform a political revolution into

236 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
a miserable religious quarrel. They had compromised
the nation in the eyes of the world by giving the enemy
good reason for saying, " See, the French have sworn to
maintain universal tolerance and the liberty of worship,
and yet they persecute all religions." Robespierre's
success was complete and immediate. Hebert repu
diated without shame, that very evening, the atheistical
movement which he himself had been the foremost to
inaugurate. He dared to speak as follows, in the face
of Paris inundated with the numbers of his vUe journal,
Pere Duchene : " Already it has been said that the Pa
risians are without faith, without religion, and that they
have substituted Marat in the place of Jesus. Let us
refute these calumnies."
The same day, in the City Council, Chaumette had
declared himself in favor of religious hberty, and ex
hibited as much unction in defending it as he had pre
viously shown in suppressing it. The hall in which he
spoke had scarcely yet ceased to echo the sounds of his
atheistical harangues. He was consistent with himself
in only one thing, his abuse of Christianity, for his
main reason for upholding hberty of opinion was, that
by abandoning the sect of the Nazarenes to contemptu
ous neglect, they would occasion it to die of itself;
whereas if persecuted, it would revive to new life.
Chaumette concluded by demanding that the Council
should ignore all meddling with the different religions.
" Inform us not," said he, " if such a one goes to mass,.
to the synagogue, or to the sermon ; inform us simply
whether he is a republican. Let us not meddle with his
whims ; let us govern, let us assure him the exercise of

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 237
his rights, even that of being superstitious. 1 ask,
therefore, that the Council decree, first, that it will hear
no proposition relative to any worship, or any religious
or metaphysical idea ; and second, that inasmuch as the
exercise of worship is free, it has never meant, and never
means in the future, to hinder citizens from renting
buildings for, and paying the minister of, any worship
whatever, provided that the manifestation of this wor
ship does not disturb the public peace." Never before
had Hebert in his younger days played in third rate
theaters a more contemptible comedy than the one he
that day played on the bloody stage of the munici
pality. His utterances excited violent opposition among
his astonished associates. The summerset was too sud
den, the conversion too hurried. However, his propo
sition prevailed. It was adopted without opposition, to
inform Robespiene that henceforth he would have no
trouble in crushing such contemptible foes.
The recantation of the municipahty prepared the way
for that of the Convention. In the sitting of Novem
ber 26, Danton had expressed himself forcibly against
scenes of abjuration in open Convention, and formally
asked that no more anti-religious farces be allowed in
the Assembly. He uttered this remarkable sentence :
" If we have not honored the priest of error and fanati
cism, we also do not desire to honor the priest of incre
dulity." This was the first word in favor of clemency
which had fallen from the lips of Danton. It was in
vain that he raised his thundering voice more than
usual, and called for an increase of violence against the
enemies of the republic ; he had mounted the first step

238 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
of the scaffold. Robespiene did not pardon this first
show of rival conservative sentiment at the moment
when he himself was aiming at the destruction of the
extreme Hebertist radicals. Before attacking Danton,
however, he used his aid in the mean time for the de
struction of the Atheism of the municipality. Some
days later he inserted these significant words in a mani
festo which he wrote, and which was sent by the Con
vention to the people of Europe : " Your masters tell
you that the French people have proscribed aU relig
ions ; that they have substituted the worship of mere
men for that of the Divinity. They lie. The French
people and their representatives respect the liberty of
all religions, and proscribe none. They abhor intoler
ance and persecution under whatever pretext." Bar
rere, Robespierre, and Cambon now united, and finally
succeeded in inducing the Convention to pass a decree
which to some extent protected the general hberty of
worship. It amounted to httle more than a return to
the state of things which existed before the orgies of
Atheism had been inaugurated by Hebert and Chau
mette. Though the proscription of religion was to
some extent cheeked, still the hberty allowed was
merely religious hberty as understood in 1793.
This sort of liberty was like the ancient gods of
Mexico, it was bloodthirsty. After swallowing up the
Girondists it called for the vUe Atheistical chque of
Hebert, and then the group of Dantonists. Only a
word of indulgence, or perhaps a mere sigh of weariness
in bloodshed, was needed to ruin Danton. Robespierre
would not pardon him for having been the sublimest

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 239
revolutionist, the most terrible and striking embodiment
of a nation aroused and in wrath. He pardoned stUl less
Camille Desmoulins for having been the most sparkling
writer of Paris, and for having, though after much per
nicious excess, finally turned his brilliant wit to the
service of clemency. His irony and eloquence at this
period have not been equaled since Pascal, and the five
numbers of the Old Cordelier may be styled the Pro
vincial Letters of the Revolution. One may well im
agine the delight they afforded to the oppressed. Yes,
if Camille had been less great as a writer he would have
been less guilty in the eyes of the cruel and plodding
pedant of the Jacobins. At least, he might have been
saved from the guillotine had he not declined, with a
sarcasm, the insulting protection of his enemy. But to
have pleaded in favor of pardon so inopportunely, at the
very moment when Robespierre was about to develop
in the Convention his famous theory of a republic based
on the two principles of virtue and terror, was to have
committed an unpardonable crime. The future high
priest of the Supreme Being was ascending thus by
bloody steps to the altar of his god. To arrive there he
marched over the dead bodies of his friends, of those at
whose table he had sat, and whose marriage contracts
he had signed. Master in the Jacobin Club, and in the
Committees, this most pure, this inconuptible saint of
demagogism, was always ready with some furtive plan
of conspiracy, in the elastic meshes of which he entan
gled all his adversaries, or, more truly, all his rivals.
The procedure was infallible in the midst of a trembhng
Assembly. St. Just, the right arm of Robespierre,

240 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
would mount the tribune and read in his monotonous
voice a report, every sentence of which fell heavy and
tenible hke the strokes of the executioner's ax. The
report was, in the Convention, what the guillotine was in
the judiciary. In both cases it was extermination at
the instant. The machine of death worked as well in
the hands of St. Just* and Banere as in those of
Samson. The Hebertists were cast into prison March 13, 1794
after the attempted insurrection of the Cordeliers. Dan
ton and his friends were incarcerated on the thirtieth
St. Just was the accuser in both cases. As to the trial,
we need not speak ; it was the most infamous mockery
of justice. By the end of April the guillotine had done
its work, and Robespierre could breathe freely, foi
there was little to check the rigime which could crush
a Danton. Before whom should the Revolutionary
Tribunal hesitate which had cut down him who first
called for its estabUshment? Surely the blow which
had fallen on the Dantonists was well merited in view
of eternal justice ; but that the instrument of punish
ment was Robespierre, and that his motive was simply
that he wished to push crime further — this exasperates
the conscience. The blood of Danton will silence for
ever the apologists of his rival. It is in vain to try to
color the act with pohcy, and to say that Robespierre
thought he was serving the Revolution ; it is none the
Jess certain that on that day he obeyed the basest pas
sion. It is not so much the fanatic as the man of envy
that, in him, is supremely detestable.
* See Appendix, note 34.

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 241
He awaited till after this triumph before giving to
France the religion which was dear to his heart. The
repubhcan armies had driven the enemy beyond the
Rhine, and saved Alsace. The insurrection in La Ven
dee had been conquered by Kleber and Marceau at
Mans. Toulon had been retaken, thanks to the skill of
a young officer, then a very ardent Jacobin— Napoleon.
On the frontiers France was at ease, but in the interior
she was bowed under the yoke of tenor. This tenor,
this prostration of the nation, was for Robespierre a
mark of the goodness of Providence. He had no longer
to fear the rhetorical battle-ax of Danton, or the keen,
poisoned anows of Desmouhns. He could now expa
tiate in the Convention as in the Jacobin Club, and play
the high priest without being laughed at. Fouquier
Tinville,* the remorseless public accuser, guaranteed
him against ridicule. On the sixth of April, 1794, Cou-
thon, who was a sort of John the Baptist to the new
messiah of the Tenorists, announced that the Commit
tee of Public Safety had decreed a festival in honor of
the Eternal. On the seventh of May, Robespierre read
his memorable report on this subject. It is his master
piece. His whole soul is there exhibited with all his
parade of virtue and morality, and his hateful passions.
He pours insult upon the memories of his fallen rivals,
the Girondists and Dantons. He exhibits here his en
thusiasm for Rousseau, his antipathy for the aristocratic
Atheists of the Encyclopedia, and gives us a good ex
ample of his oratorical style, rich in personifications,
generally clumsy, but sometimes rising to real elo-
* See Appendix, note 35.
31

242 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
quence. Every line is imbued with that sentimental
demagogism which always walks in company with sus
picion and proscription. But what mostly concerns us
in this discourse is, the pretension of the dictator to
establish by legislation a new religion of State, an ab
stract religion, consisting of few but sharply defined
dogmas, and which is to be officially professed by the
country. Robespierre estabhshes in words which com
pel our admiration, the connection which has always
existed between Atheism and the death of liberty.
" Who," exclaimed he, " has given you the mission to
teach to the people that the Divinity does not exist ?
What advantage in teaching man that a bhnd fate pre
sides over events, and strikes alike virtue and vice ?
Does such an idea inspire him with purer and nobler
sentiments, with more of patriotism and bravery against
the foe, than the belief in the immortality of the soul ?
The thought of the Supreme Being and of immortality
is a perpetual motive to just living ; it is therefore social
and republican. What have the conspirators put in the
place of that which they destroyed ? Nothing but
chaos, void, and violence. They despised and depraved
the people." Robespierre concluded that the Conven
tion ought to decree the worship of the Supreme Being,
and inaugurate it by a grand public festival. This was
simply to revive the Civil Constitution of the Clergy,
and adapt it to his chilly system of Deism. It was the
consecration of the theory of Rousseau as found in the
Contrat Social. It was a new phase of the old Gallican
theory of the unity of Church and State. In another
part of his speech Robespierre develops the theory of

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 243
the utility of religion to the State. " In the eyes of the
legislator," said he, "whatever is useful and good in
practice is the truth. The greatest benefit to society
would be to create in man a hvely instinct on moral
subjects, which should induce him, unaided by the slow
process of reasoning, to do the good and eschew the
evil. Now that which creates this instinct, and thus
comes to the aid of human authority, is the religious
sentiment, which gives to the precepts of virtue the sanc
tion of a Being higher than man." From this it ap
pears that Robespiene desired the State to recognize
the idea of God, not because it is true, but because it is
an effective aid in governing a people. In this the
ardent demagogue fell back into the ancient tradition.
He recognized the Supreme Being, as Napoleon soon
after recognized the Papacy, for the good of the State,
and the greater safety of the government. His dis
course closed with an encomium of the liberty of wor
ship, very much out of place at a time when he was
calling for a national religion, and in a speech where he
was prodigal of insults to fanaticism, that is to say,
Christianity. Had the new worship only succeeded in
establishing itself fully, it would soon have passed from
sarcasms to open persecution, and thus put into full
practice the whole system of the Contrat Social. Al
ready some imprudent ones had spoken of a law of
sacrilege, to be enacted against all who should speak
evil, or profane the name, of the Supreme Being. A
friend of Robespierre had even dared to call for a
decree of banishment against all who would not believe
in God. The Convention ordered translations of the

244 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
speech of Robespierre to be sent to all Europe, and, of
course, decreed the festival of the Supreme Being. The
municipality followed the example, and testified its zeal
by ordering the name of God to be inscribed on all tem
ples which had previously been dedicated to Reason.
The festival took place on the 8th of June, 1794.
No pains had been spared to render it grand and
sublime, and yet it was doomed to fall into ridiculous
puerilities. Robespierre presided in the Convention on
the occasion, and was dressed in a beautiful suit of blue.
His head was covered with plumes, and in his hand he
held, as did also all the Deputies, a bunch of flowers,
fruit, and ears of grain. The morning was beautiful with
sunshine. The Convention took seats in an amphithea
ter which had been erected in the court of the TuUeries.
Robespierre kept them waiting a while, but finally made
his appearance. His usually gloomy countenance wore
that morning an expression of benignity and happiness.
After a pompous speech, in which he told the republican
Frenchmen that the Supreme Being had never before
witnessed on earth a spectacle more worthy of his at
tention, he descended from his place, and seizing a
torch, set on fire the images of Atheism, Discord, and
Selfishness. From amid their smoke and ashes there
arose triumphant the statue of Wisdom; but unfortu
nately, and, as some thought, ominously, it was sadly
smoked. The high priest returned and delivered a
second speech, after which the whole Assembly set out
in procession to the field of Mars. The Convention was
encircled by a tricolored ribbon borne by children or
namented with violets, by young persons girdled with

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 245
oak leaves, and by aged people crowned with ivy and
olive. After the Delegates, came a rural car laden with
implements of agriculture. It was drawn by the in
evitable republican oxen with gilded horns, and fol
lowed by the equally inevitable young ladies in white.
Robespierre's pride seemed to be redoubled, and he
affected to walk far in advance of his colleagues. Some
of them approached and lavished on him the keenest
sarcasms ; some laughed at the new pontiff, and said, in
allusion to the smoked statue of Wisdom, that his wis
dom had become darkened ; others uttered the word
tyrant, and remarked that there were Brutuses still.
One said to him these prophetic words : " The Tarpeian
rock is close to the capitol." Arrived at the Field of
Mars, the Convention took position upon an artificial
" mountain." The President expatiated, the young la
dies in white chanted, the aged pronounced their bene
diction, the cannons thundered, and the whole affair
closed with the cry of Long live the republic! From
all this theatrical pomp, from these ridiculous symbols
and chilly rites, France learned one lesson, namely, that
it is easier to decree a change of rehgion than to effect
it. Deism can never establish a worship, and all at
tempts in this direction will fall under the ridicule and
contempt of the public. The festival was found by many
to be dull and long, especially by those who were of
fended at the prominent role played in it by Robes
pierre. It is said that one of his colleagues, less patient
than the rest, said to him in terms of profane emphasis,
" You begin already to bore us with your Supreme
Being." What vexed very many that day was, the

246 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
prospect of having in France a tyrannical dictatorship.
That very day Robespiene seemed to be at the summit
of power; and yet he was only and simply preparing
his fall.
It is not our business to trace its history. The abom
inable decree of June the 12th, (24 Prairial,) by which
he obtained of the Convention the suppression of aU
legal forms in the trials of the accused before the Revo
lutionary Tribunal, made to fall upon his own head all
the crimes to which it led. It substituted in the place
of evidence a mere " inspection " of the accused, and
organized a sort of terror within terror. Though he
was, designedly, much absent from the trials, he was
none the less guilty, for the machine of death was of his
own constructing. That he was overthrown by men no
better than himself does not excuse him, and the 27th
of July, (9 Thermidor,) the day of his fall, was none the
less a deliverance. If the reaction toward arbitrary
power began from that moment, where does the blame
rest, if not on the detested demagogue who had dis
gusted France with liberty by changing it into a re
morseless demon, which was only satisfied when feast
ing on massacres ? It is at this period especially that
the priests, both non-jurors and jurors, falhng under the
general title of " the suspected," were thrown into prison,
and in large numbers delivered to the guillotine. The
Revolutionary Tribunal sent also to the scaffold the
crazy inventors of new religions, many of whom now
appeared; for whenever a people is deprived of true
religion, gross superstitions are sure to spring up among
the masses. The ridiculous affair of Catherine Theot,

Religion and the Reign of Terror. %A\7
the aged prophetess, with her two acolytes, is well
known. She claimed high intimacy with the Divinity,
and celebrated a stupidly mysterious worship, in which
a predominant role was given to Robespierre, though
doubtless without his knowledge. For the rest, he had
his devotees, especially of the female sex, who by their
imprudence did him great harm. When once his de
struction had been sworn, advantage was taken of the
idolatrous devotion shown to him by the populace.
Michelet seems astonished at the reappearance of these
crude mystical mummeries after the nation had so long
been under the healthful influence of Voltaire, and at
the close of a century of light. He forgets that in
reahty any religion whatever seems to the masses better
than the cold light of doubt, which reveals only the
abyss of nonentity. Between total incredulity and the
coarsest superstition, there is but a single step. A peo
ple deprived of their God will soon invent idols. With
the fall of Robespierre closes the period of the civil
religion. An attempt at a separation of Church and
State immediately follows.

BOOK THIRD.
THE PERIOD OF THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH
AND STATE.

CHAPTER I.

MEASURES OF THE CONVENTION IN REGARD TO RELIG
ION FROM THE FALL OF ROBESPIERRE TO THE EX
PIRATION OF ITS POWERS.
The situation of France immediately after the faU of
Robespierre was very pecuhar. The party which had
triumphed held in the main the pnnciples of him who
had fallen. It had long labored for their triumph, and
largely put them into practice. It numbered in its
ranks some of the most dreaded chiefs of the Revolu
tion. Its most prominent leader, Tallien,* was not free
from the blood of the great massacres. The party
merely grew weary of tenor a little later than Danton,
and a httle sooner than St. Just and Robespierre. This
was the sole difference between it and those whom it
had put down. Its policy was stUl arbitrary, and it
was determined to enforce its own view of hberty.
Though desiring to avoid as much as convenient the
use of the guillotine, it by no means thought of discard-
* See Appendix, note 36.
32

250 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
ing it altogether for pohtical offenses. However, it was
no longer possible to continue the reign of tenor. Pub
lic opinion, when once freed from constraint, took its
natural course, and would not be satisfied with half
measures. It had no difficulty, now that the men of
strong conviction had been put down, in managing and
shaping the measures of the intriguing democrats, who
had a long list of crimes to be pardoned. Such men
were Talhen, and many of his friends. Moreover, a
large fraction of the Convention itself had now for some
time been httle more than an echo of the opinion with
out. Victims of terror rather than its instruments,
these timid Deputies had cursed the necessity which
had compelled them by cowardly silence, and even by
votes, to sanction so many crimes. So great was the
pressure exerted on many of the Deputies in the darkest
days of tenor, that, fearing to take seats with either
party, on the right or on the left, they remained crowded
together in the middle space at the foot of the tribune.
They knew that the Moderates of to-day might be de
clared suspected as traitors on the morrow. These
courageous gentlemen belonged, in advance, to the party
of moderation. The moderation then in vogue, how
ever, was far from a truly hberal regime. ' Though un
willing that the prisons should longer remain crowded
with the innocent, and that the guillotine should receive
its daily feast of human bodies, it stUl remained implac
able toward all known foes. PubUc opinion was, there
fore, earnestly on the side of the Convention in the
famous insurrection of the 5th of October, 1795, (13
Vendemiaire,) and against the Royalist party. It is

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 251
true, it had also been with the Convention at the time
of the closing of the Jacobin Club. Too often, however,
the reaction which set in on the fall of Robespierre was
but a continuation of the Reign of Terror. This was
well seen in the South, where the vengeance of the so-
called Moderates was almost equal to the crimes of the
Tenorists. As to matters of religion, the fall of Robespierre in
Thermidor induced no very rapid change. Persecution
was no longer so atrocious, but still all the laws of pro
scription remained unrepealed, even when liberty of wor
ship had been theoretically re-estabhshed — a liberty
which was suspended on the shghtest suspicion. Pubhc
opinion had not yet returned to Christianity. The re
action of Thermidor was imbued fully with the infidel
philosophy of the day. Frivolous and ardent for pleas
ure, it was more anxious to open the theaters and dan
cing halls than the temples of God. It was regarded as
an eminently praiseworthy act to inaugurate the famous
" ball of the victims," and devote the memory of Robes
pierre to execration. While dancing to the honor of
the dead, they thought httle of the poor priests who
were yet languishing in prison or exile. Madame Tal-
lien, displaying at the opera her frail beauty and lightly
attired classic form, was a fit symbol of the liberty in
vogue. She was a fine personification of that liberalism,
vain and without principle, elegant and without serious
ness, which sought its manifestation in extravagance of
costume and unlimited license. True greatness and
heroism existed only in the armies. Had it not been
for the incomparable troops and the able young generals

252 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
in command, the Revolution would have rapidly passed
from blood and terror to a condition of moral conup-
tion still more infamous. War purified and saved it,
and in turn, itself overthrew it. It is precisely at this
period, so gloomy in the interior, and seemingly unfa
vorable to a return to rehgious thought, that the Chris
tian worship, under its various forms, sprang up of itself,
and, taking advantage of an imperfect hberty, devel
oped itself in an extraordinary manner. Let us take a
survey of the difficulties with which it had to contend,
and of the advantages it derived from its freedom from
government protection. We will see that moral inde
pendence is so great a boon that it compensates, to some
extent, for the greatest infractions of the rights of con
science. We have mentioned, as they were enacted, the various
decrees of the Convention against religious hberty.
They formed a Draconian code, whose severity was not
exceeded by that of the Jesuits against the Protestants
under the old rigime. During the hideous Hebertist
movement both non-jurors and jurors fell under a com
mon proscription, and the prisons were filled with priests
of both Churches. The Civil Constitution of the Clergy
existed only in the letter of the Constitution, and wor
ship was rendered as impracticable for the jurors as for
the non-jurors. Apostasy and persecution had thinned
the ranks of the clergy ; no salaries were paid, and
many priests were on the point of starvation, inasmuch
as they had been excluded from all pubhc functions.
The law of October 3d, 1793, which condemned to
death within twenty-four hours, on the evidence of two

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 253
witnesses, every priest in any way connected with riots,
or with the emigrants, was still in force. Every priest
accused of "incivism" was condemned to deportation.
Nothing could be more dangerous than the vagueness
of such an expression, for in the time of Hebert and
Chaumette it was incivism even to declare one's self a
Christian. Priests who would not renounce their faith
had for this reason been thrown into dungeons. How
ever, the bloodier part of the law against the priests was
virtually abrogated at the fall of Robespierre ; but that
clause inflicting deportation on obnoxious priests, and
death on those who aided or concealed them, stUl re
mained. Immediately after this event multitudes of
priests passed the frontiers and entered France. This
fact was commented on in the Convention, and an effort
made to revive against them the most cruel measures of
tenor, but with imperfect success.
While the rigime of the prisons grew milder in
Paris, the unfortunate priests whjp were waiting de
portation in the roadstead of Aix were subjected to the
greatest cruelties. Their intolerable sufferings were
protracted more than a year after the fall of the great
Tenorist. In February, 1794, the convoy of which
they formed a part, was directed toward Rochefort.
Their long journey was a continued torture. They
were incessantly hissed and maltreated by a riotous
populace. They were frequently insulted by infamous
parodies of sacred things. At Limoges a procession
was caused to pass before them consisting of donkeys
arrayed in pontifical robes, at the head of which
marched a huge swine wearing the triple crown. They

254 Religion and the Reign cf Terror.
slept at night in prisons or other inadequate quarters,
with very little bedding.
At Rochefort the priests were thrown pell-mell among
the galley slaves, and shared their infamy, though not
their food, for they received scarcely the meanest neces
saries of hfe. Before going aboard the boats they were
robbed of almost every thing they possessed, especially
of whatever belonged to the practice of rehgion. They
succeeded in saving only a single Testament and a
Prayer Book, which they preserved carefully, and passed
secretly from hand to hand. The sailors, having discov
ered an ivory image of Christ, decapitated it. These
men were chosen from among the violent spirits of the
Revolution. They insulted the priests at every meal
by chanting a political song in mockery of the blessing.
But the severest trial for these poor priests was the
strict interdiction of all acts of devotion. They were
forbidden to kneel down, and if they were seen to move
their hps in prayer^they were loaded with irons. The
officers inflicted on them hard task-service, which was
all the more difficult for the reason that they had lost
all physical vigor, and, on the impure and scanty food
they received, could by no possibility repair it. At
night they were confined in narrow and ill-aired dun
geons. The scurvy and fever broke out among them,
and the sick were thrown together into a boat which
was a hospital only in name. The least resistance was
cruelly punished by coarse under-officers. A priest was
even shot dead without the form of a trial, and others
were cast into irons for having sent a remonstrance to
the city. To these physical evils, which were greatly

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 255
increased by the terrible winter of 1795, were added an
inteUectual and moral prostration which led more than
one captive to a sort of brutish insanity. Such was the
condition of these men at the time when the so-called
Gilded Youth were filling Paris with their noisy license.
Had the violent party been heard, new partners of their
exile would have been sent out. Happily, their cause
found in the Convention more *han one generous advo
cate ; but it was only after many efforts that a repara
tive decree was obtained.
Early in the fall of 1794 a Deputy had demanded a
reprieve in favor of the two hundred priests awaiting
transportation on the Loire, among whom were several
of the Constitutional Clergy. The orator spoke with
earnestness against their condemnation, and asked what
was the difference between such a measure and the pro
scriptions of Robespierre, or even of Louis XIV. Some
time later Gregory took the liberty, on occasion of a
petition of an imprisoned priest eighty years of age, to
express his indignation at the continued sufferings of
the priests. He informed the Convention that out of
the one hundred and eighty-seven who had been con
fined at Rochefort only seventy-six had survived their
mistreatment. " If one should ask," said he, " in order
to grant a man liberty, whether he is a lawyer or a
physician, every body would be indignant. Why ask
whether he is a priest ? Whatever an individual may
be, if he is a bad citizen strike him, if he is a good
citizen protect him. So long as we act otherwise we
will have only the rigime of tyrants."
Some days subsequently, December 21st, 1794, this

256 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
noble Deputy mounted the tribune, not to plead for
a particular petition, but to defend the right of con
science in all its extent. Gregory possessed not the
higher gifts of eloquence ; his speech lacked the brill
iancy and passion which stir an assembly ; but his un
questioned patriotism, and his known loyalty and intre
pidity in the accomphshment of duty, had concihated
for him universal respeet. The discourse of that day
was one of the noblest acts of his pohtical life. The
defects of his gifts were redeemed by the strength of his
principles ; and by the nobleness of his convictions and
the energy of his indignation, he rose to the height of
true eloquence. His speech breathed the spirit of 1789,
and, in addition thereto, was imbued with a truly Chris
tian inspiration. Never was the great principle of re
ligious hberty defended under more moving circum
stances or with more largeness of spirit. " You have
founded the republic," said he ; " there yet remains a
great task to accomplish — to consolidate its existence.
To unite the hearts of the citizens, to strengthen the
union of all the members of the great famUy, is a
greater work than to gain a battle." The orator
showed that the surest way to obtain peace abroad was
to establish it at home, and that the surest way to per
petuate the internal dissensions was to continue and
perpetuate, by persecution, the distinctions of caste
which, under the new rigime, ought altogether to dis
appear. And this was done so long as individuals were
stricken down for the mere fact of belonging to the
classes of nobles or priests — so long as particular shades
of religious opinions were opposed by force. " To wish,"

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 257
said he, " to govern thought by authority is a chimerical
undertaking, for it is beyond the sphere of human force.
It is a tyrannical work, for no one has a right to assign
bounds to the thoughts of another." Worship, being
but the manifestation of religious thought, ought to be
entirely free. No particular worship should be priv-
Ueged, but aU forms should be protected, however
absurd in themselves, so long as they do not interfere
with the pubhc peace. Gregory showed with great
force how much France had suffered from contrary
principles under Louis XIV., and how, on the contrary,
Holland and America had prospered under the rigime
of religious hberty. Persecution has never served any
other end than to strengthen the opinions assailed.
" Its inevitable effect," said he, " is to degrade a peo
ple ; it is the first step toward slavery. A nation with
out the rights of conscience will soon be without liberty.
The inexorable voice of history imprints on the brows
of all persecutors the brand of infamy."
The orator had been heard with patience so long as he
spoke of abstract principles ; but this ceased as soon as
he touched on the actual condition of the nation, and
portrayed the sad effects of revolutionary persecution.
" What," asked he, " is the actual state of things in this
regard ? Liberty of worship exists in Turkey, it exists
not in France. Is this a fruit of that philosophy of
tolerance of which the greatest representative was car
ried in triumph to the Pantheon ? Is this the liberty
promised to all nations, and which our armies bear to the"
enslaved of Europe ? Let us beware. Revolutionary
persecution will produce no better effects, than that
33

258 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
which banished the Huguenots ; it will expatriate citi
zens, and impoverish the land." Gregory warded off
the charge of superstition and fanaticism by remarking
that these terms are merely relative in their popular use,
and that every one is always the fanatic of some one
else ; for example, in the time of Clootz one was a fa
natic even for believing in God. He provoked a real
storm of wrath among the extremists of the left when
he defended the priests who had remained faithful to
their rehgion, and exposed the cowardice of the apos
tates. "What is termed superstition," said he, "is
surely as respectable as the declamations which, a year
ago, were multiphed at our bar, and of which the sub
stance was about this : I declare to you that for long
years I have been an impostor and trifler ; for this rea
son I demand .that you accord me your esteem, and give
me a position." The warm applause of the spectators
sustained the orator against the wrath of the extremists.
He referred, with right, to his own example. If some
had, through their eloquence, raised armies to quell the
insurrection of La Vendee, he felt assured that, by his
obscure correspondence and influence as priest, he had
prevented insurrections of a like magnitude. When the
Convention grew boisterous, and desired to quench the
orator's voice, he cried out, " Has it come to pass that
Charles IX. and Louis XP7. are about to rise from their
graves ? Tell us whether, as the Protestants formerly,
we are, now, to be forced to flee our country and beg an
"asylum and hberty on foreign shores ? " Drowning the
clamors with his earnest voice, he continued : " What
should we do so long as it is impossible to unite aU

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 259
hearts in one Church ? We must guarantee a full and
unlimited Uberty for all sects." Gregory terminated his
discourse by rendering homage to Christianity, showing
its salutary tendency to develop a sohd patriotism and
a spirit of obedience to magistrates and law. During
the three quarters of an hour whUe he was pronouncing
his speech the radical members were in a perfect parox
ysm of rage ; they seemed like criminals on the wheel of
torture. The speech was not successful in immediately
winning the Convention, but in pamphlet form it acted
powerfully on the nation, and finally imposed its con
clusions on the government.
We have seen that under the Constituent Assembly
the great obstacle to the estabhshment of hberty of
worship was, the salaried State Church which it itself
had created. At the opening of the Legislative Assem
bly, and amid the difficulties arising from this Church
system, and from the oath required of the priests, the
true solution of the trouble was, at times, caught sight of
both within and without the Assembly. We have cited
the admirable letter of the Poet Chenier. But the
country was too excited to hear the voice of wisdom
which counseled the entire separation of Church and
State. The same idea reappeared even in the Conven
tion. It was pleaded for at the tribune by Cambon; but
Robespierre, with the true instinct of revolutionary des
potism, rejected it. Who knows what he might have
obtained of the Convention, if he had not fallen in Ther
midor ? Perhaps he would have realized the dream of
Rousseau, and given to his pale Deism the State treas^
ury for support, and the guillotine for sanction. After

260 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
his fall, it sufficed that he had defended the salarying of
the worship to induce the Convention to reject it. In
fact, this was done on the 20th of September, 1794, on a
simple motion of Cambon. It would seem that such a
measure should have excited considerable debate, inas
much as it was very far-reaching in its effects, and
swept away the whole system of the Contrat Social,
which had caused so much of misfortune to the Revolu
tion. But it did not ; it was passed as a sort of matter
of course. And yet this motion caused to triumph, for
the first time in France, the true notion of the State. It
is impossible to exaggerate its importance. The reason
why it excited so little attention in the Convention was
simply that the question had already been resolved by
events rather than by principles. The Convention saw
that the State-Church system had been worse than a
faUure ; that the whole subject was troublesome and
expensive, and, as it were, in despair or disgust, or per
haps in mere indifference, it voted the following decree :
" The French Repubhc pays no longer either the ex
penses or the salaries of any worship whatever." The
most complete religious liberty was the legitimate con
sequence of such a measure. The Convention, however,
was still too much irritated against the refractory priests
to put a stop to the persecutions.
The discourse of Gregory, despite its seeming check,
prepared the way for a return to more healthful princi
ples, though it did not prevent the Convention from
issuing a severe decree in January, 1795, against the
non-juring priests who had returned into France. The
cause so earnestly pleaded by the Bishop of Blois found,

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 261
a few months later, a more fortunate advocate in
the person of Boissy d'Anglas, who succeeded all the
better in the Convention for speaking, not in the
character of a Christian, but in that of a skeptical phi
losopher. He wished to free the Revolution from the
inconsistencies in which it had become involved by the
entanglement of Church and State. He presented his
famous motion on the 21st of February, 1795. His
speech was received with as much applause as that of
Gregory had excited indignation, though both pleaded
for the same principles. Boissy d'Anglas knew how to
pave his way by indulging in contempt for the whole
system of Christianity. He gave clearly to understand
that he was far from pleading for liberty of conscience
in the interest of rehgion. This he treated as an idle
chimera, destined soon to disappear in the hght of phi
losophy. The new system of general education would
dispel from the minds of the people these vain remnants
of a time of inteUectual slavery. " Soon," said he, " the
religion of Socrates, of Marcus Aurehus, and of Cicero
will be the rehgion of the world." The surest method,
as he thought, to retard this happy change would be to
use, against rehgion, any other arms than those of rea
son. It was in vain for the orator to express his un
bounded contempt of Christianity ; the action he was
taking was an involuntary acknowledgment of the in
vincible power of the system. After the government
had in vain tried to crush it by violence it was found
necessary to make terms with it, and grant it peace.
After Boissy d'Anglas had thus paid his homage to
revolutionary passion, he presented with great force the

262 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
advantages of rehgious hberty, and of the separation of
Church and State. He referred in direct terms to the
fatal error of the Constituent Assembly on this subject.
This body should have delivered the political realm
from the influence of rehgion, allowed each citizen to
worship as he pleased, and salaried no worship what
ever ; but it had wished to create instead of destroy, to
organize instead of abolish. It had created for religion
a pompous and expensive estabhshment, which itself
had been destroyed by fanaticism. He painted in hvely
colors the recent rehgious persecution, so much the
more shameful as it had been committed in regenerated
France. He accused it of having crowded the prisons
with women, children, and thousands of useful laborers.
In these circumstances it was necessary to hold fast
the principle, that the Church should be banished from
the administration, and never aUowed to return. The
sole law for the Church was the common law. Let re
hgious associations be treated as other associations,
without any exception in their favor or to their detri
ment. Religious practices, however enoneous, should
not be treated as crimes. The human heart is a sacred
asylum, into which the eye of the government should
not seek to penetrate. Such were the political princi
ples advocated by this philosopher. The great princi
ple of liberty of conscience could not have been more
effectually defended. Despite some calls for an ad
journment, the main principles for which he pleaded were,
with some unfortunate modifications, made into law
during that very sitting. The law, as passed, provided
as follows : The exercise of no worship would be dis-

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 263
turbed ; no worship would be salaried, no buUdings fur
nished by the government for any worship ; the eccle
siastical costume would not be tolerated ; the ceremonies
of worship would not be permitted except in the locality
chosen for that purpose ; no external sign designating
the place of worship would be allowed; no perpetual
endowment of Churches would be suffered ; and every
assemblage of citizens for worship would be subject to the
surveUlance of the regular civil authorities. Such is the
substance of the decree which, despite its incomplete
ness and the opposition it encountered in the local au
thorities, allowed religion to i spring up anew on the
tormented soU of France. Under its favor all branches
of the Church were allowed every-where to celebrate
their worship. In another place we wiU describe this
fine rehgious movement.
This law of February, 1795, (3 Ventose,) was far in
advance of the real sentiments of the Convention.
Revolutionary passion, ever ready to break out afresh,
often silenced the voice of reason. Hence the many
contradictory laws on matters of rehgion. Thus whUe
one Deputy obtained a modification of the law of de
portation, another complained bitterly of the open cele
bration of the non-juring worship, and boasted that he
had picked up in a single night a large number of the
offending priests. He asked that precaution be taken
against the influence of these "infamous mountebanks."
Jean-Bon St. Andre attacked the law itself. Fanati
cism, he thought, was all the more dangerous as that it
now demanded rights and justice. Talhen, though
heaping upon the priests gross insult, asked that the

264 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
Convention give them not too much prominence by
continually meddhng with their cause. These instances
show very well the general disposition of the Conven
tion ; for every measure proposed or taken against the
refractory clergy reacted against hberty in general. In
a Journal of the day, issued under the influence of
Gregory, we are told that in the departments the pubhc
offices were filled with petty infidel tyrants ; that the
persecution was only diminished, but not stopped ; and
that every day the Cathohcs were insulted by the public
functionaries. They found great difficulty in re-estab
lishing their worship. In several towns the authorities
refused them a place for worship, though they eagerly
hastened to furnish quarters for theaters and other
public amusements. In one province an officer over
turned an altar as soon as it had been erected; in an
other some innocent priests were thrown into prison by
a representative of the people. In Correze the officers
charged the Cathohcs who wished to renew their wor
ship, with incivism, and styled their rehgion an absurd
antiquated ceremony. On pretense that it disturbed
the public peace they banished all worship to private
houses. These and many similar details that might be given,
show how imperfectly the sentiment of general liberty
was-as yet awakened. And yet the events which were
now taking place in the west of France were sufficient
to teach the partisans of the Revolution, that the surest
means of pacifying and gaining to the republican cause
the whole people, was simply to practice an unhmited
religious tolerance. In the region of Cherbourg and

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 265
Brest the authorities had, with the happiest effects, de
cided to allow perfect hberty to all sects whatever.
Similar measures had been taken by General Hoche in
La Vendee. "It were to he desired," said he, "that
the priests had not been incessantly cried out against ;
to deprive the people of them is to perpetuate the war
indefinitely. If we do not admit rehgious freedom we
must renounce the hope of peace in these parts. Let us
once totally forget the priests, and there will soon be an
end both of the priests and of the war. Persecute
them as a class and you wUl have both priests and war
for a thousand years to come. If a guilty priest is pun
ished, as a priest, the inhabitants are shocked ; if he is
punished as a citizen, as a man, no one says a word."
"The people of La Vendee," said Lamennais very
justly, " did not revolt against hberty. I love to re
gard La Vendee and the republic as two sisters
who combat, simply because of a misunderstanding.
The one represents religious liberty, the other politi
cal hberty. Lf the Revolution had left to La Vendee
her priests and Churches it would have found in her a
warm partisan. The spirit of La Vendee is religious
repubhcanism." What was thus true of La Vendee
was true of all France. Unfortunately the revolution
ists, in sacrificing at every occasion one of the most
sacred of liberties^ failed to see that they were rendering
hberty itself hateful.
On the 1st of May, 1795, a proposed decree, very
severe against the priests who had returned to France,
was introduced into the Assembly. It contained one
article which, on being refened to a committee, gave
34

266 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
occasion to an important report by Lanjuinais some
weeks later. In the short debate which thereupon en
sued the cause of rehgious hberty triumphed, and
the law of February 21st, (3 Ventose,) received the
most happy extension. It provided that the national
Churches should be at the service of all the different
worships at fixed different hours. The ministers who
wished to celebrate worship had only to apply for per
mission, and take an oath of submission to the civU
laws. In September, 1795, further important liberal
measures were taken in regard to affairs of Church, so
that on the whole rehgious hberty would have been
securely guaranteed had not other measures of a con
trary tendency been unfortunately enacted.
The most grave of these measures was the law of the
Decade Festivals, the atheistical Sunday, which was in
fact a sly attempt to undermine Christianity in France.
It was Hebertism, so far as it could be revived after the
fall of Robespierre. It sought its object in an indirect
way, and substituted influence for violence. Its authors,
however, did not attempt to conceal their design, and
the Convention, in confiding the organization of the fes
tivals to the Committee of Pubhc Instruction, showed
clearly the importance it attached to them. It was an
attempt to shape the public spirit in a different mold.
The fixing of the festivals on another day than the
Christian Sunday, revealed a spirit of hostility to rehg
ion. This is clear from the words of one of the advo
cates of the law. " All prejudices," said he, " tend to
destroy liberty, and the most dangerous are those which
are founded on mystical ideas;" that is, religious doc-

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 267
trines. But how to destroy them was the question.
Not by violence, for opinions are not put down by
force. The surest method of opposing a dike to the
prejudices which were springing up afresh in France
was to inaugurate a system of grand and pompous na
tional festivals, a sort of republican worship. A Dele
gate, writing to the Convention from Joinville, whither
he had been sent on business, speaks thus against the
cause of religion : " We must have a remedy which wUl
produce a radical cure. Such a one exists only in pub
lic instruction. The decade festivals offer so much the
better an opportunity, because instruction wUl then take
the form of pleasure. Lose not a moment in organizing
them." Some weeks later the following sentiments
were uttered in the Legislature : '" Let us take care ;
even as the superstition which we replace by our civic
festivals charmed the mind and heart by its prestige, so
should we impress on our festivals a grand and im
posing character, in order the more effectually to destroy
the dangerous iUusions of fanaticism." In February,
1795, a committee exhorted the Convention thus : " Tyr
anny and superstition have desolated the earth ; you
ought to enlighten its ignorance. Upon the ruins of all
errors you ought to estabhsh the dominion of the truths
of nature, by founding a pure worship, to be celebrated
under the open heavens — the sole worship worthy of the
Supreme Being and of free man."
This, as well as all previous attempts to supplant
Christianity, was destined to fall into impotence and
ridicule. The sentiment of the Infinite, alone, is capable
of founding a worship. Outside of their pleasures and

268 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
interests, men assemble and form unions only under the
influence of the Divine. They can never be brought
together and moved by empty abstractions. Neither
the patriotic hymns nor the lectures on pohties and
agriculture, were sufficient to conjure the incurable
ennui of these festivals ; the people grew weary even of
the touching spectacle of Old Age contrasting with ChUd-
hood. The solemn Anniversary of Reproduction tended
somewhat to unwrinkle the brows; but the inevitable
homily on the rights of citizens or on the cultivation of
potatoes, was a poor substitute for those sacred texts for
which the soul is athirst, and in which it finds an echo
from its celestial home. The Committee of Pubhc In
struction relied much on the civic repasts ; but it forgot
that all the attraction of these depended on the refresh
ments therewith connected, and that the people were
wearied to death of the repubhcan tirades. Boissy
d'Anglas, it is true, proposed to give a httle variety to
the pleasures of the day by presenting a symbolical
rose to Innocence ; but the remedy was very trifling.
Of these festivals, which were really estabhshed only
under the Directory, there was destined to remain only
the remembrance of the most laughable of parodies.
They had only one serious result ; they gave occasion
to infidel fanaticism to interfere with the free celebra
tion of Christian worship.
One of the chief works of the last period of the Con
vention was the elaboration of a new constitution. The
constitution of 1793 had become the platform of the
Ultra-radical or Mountain party, a platform stained with
blood and crime, and whose triumph had brought the

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 269.
Reign of Terror. It was in the name of this constitu
tion that the national representation had twice been
violated. It bore the imprint of the hot demagogy
from which it sprang. It had, therefore, now become
odious to a nation desirous of repose. The new consti
tution was the work of the Moderate party, and was
presented in the Convention by Boissy D'Anglas. It
was easy to see that three years of contest had over
turned many a revolutionary prejudice. Thus, the di
vision of the Legislature into an upper and a lower
house, so disdainfuUy rejected by the Constituents in
1789, was adopted almost without opposition. No one
protested against the interdiction of great popular asso
ciations, which, during the first period of the Revolution,
had formed a sort of permanent demagogic opposition
to the regular authorities. There was no desire to re
suscitate the Club of the Jacobins, or the too famous
City Council of Paris. The communal assemblies were
replaced by administrative boards of three or five
members. The legislative power was intrusted to two
councils, the Anciens and the Cinq-cents, (the senate
and the five hundred,) and the executive power to a Di
rectory of five members chosen by the councils.
This constitution, of which we give but the general
features, was far better than its predecessors, though it
was still disfigured by grave imperfections. The two
councUs were composed of elements too similar to se
cure a real counteipoise, and the executive power was a
mere commission of the councils which was destined to
struggle continually for an increase of its power. We
will soon see how unfortunate for France was the

270 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
rigime resulting from this imperfect constitution, and
from the lack of moral honesty in the rulers.
As to religious liberty, the new constitution asserted
the great principles which had triumphed in the Con
vention after the fall of Robespiene. It contained the
words, Every one is free in the exercise of his worship.
The words, Tlie republic salaries no worship, conse
crated one of the most precious and most dearly bought
of the conquests of the Revolution.
The adoption of the constitution, which took place
August 17th, 1795, changed in no respect the con
dition of the unfortunate non-juring priests. An officer
in Haute Loire, who had suspended, to their detriment,
the public law, was justified by the Convention. It
was against these unhappy men that it directed one of
its very last acts. After the riot of October 5th,
which had been occasioned by the decision of the Con
vention, that two thirds of its members should have
seats in the new councils, it passed, on motion of Tal-
lien, a decree which excluded from pubhc functions
every ex-noble and every individual who had provoked
or sanctioned illiberal measures, and required the sum
mary execution of the laws against the refractory
priests. Thus closed the labors of this great and terrible As
sembly, which had sat from September 21st, 1792,
to October the 26th, 1795. It had, we must confess,
saved the territory of France ; but for, a long time, it
had been compromising the Revolution by rendering it
an object of terror to the world. It had consecrated
glorious principles, and accomplished admirable works,

. Religion and the Reign of Terror. 271
but it had left the nation weary and demoralized.
Despotic in the extreme, it had disgraced its last hours
by one of those measures of pubhc safety which so often
had led it to crime, and which had been more pernicious
to liberty than all the united forces of the coalition.
These decrees of pubhc safety were destined to be fol
lowed by coups d'etat ; for the road for usurpation was
already weU prepared. Such must be the fate of every
Revolution which, by putting God out of sight, and
trampling under foot the rights of conscience, deprives
itself of aU lasting foundation upon which to build.

272 Religion and the Reign of Terror.

CHAPTER H.
EELATIONS OF CHURCH AND STATE UNDER THE
DIRECTORT.
The constitution of the year IU, despite its imperfec
tions, might have given hberty and peace to the country ;
for in the two free legislative councUs it had ample
means of peacefully conecting itself. But woe to the
country which in its impatience destroys this phable in
strument of reform ! Respect for an assembly, however,
is closely connected with respect- for law, and the latter
depends on the moral development of the people. Now
the fact is, that from the first outbreak of the Revolu
tion France had never been so deeply demoralized as at
this time under the Directory. What had been lacking
in 1789 was neither enthusiasm nor generosity; the
weak point lay in too great an absence of those inflexi
ble principles which are derived from a higher sphere
than that of noble human impulses. With man there is
no absolute stability except in the depths of the con
science, where the moral sentiment is blended with the
voice of God. It is well known to what extent God
was absent from a Revolution which was born, of the
eighteenth century. When, therefore, after years of
struggle and fatigue, the impulsion of enthusiasm had
died away, there remained in the hearts of the nation no
firm principle which could serve as a rock to break the

- Religion and the Reign of Terror. 273
force of popular or governmental passions. The country
became a prey to insunections and coups d'itat, until
finally a coup d'etat, better planned than the others
gave to these shameful crises the merited solution. A
lawless repubhcan hypocrisy characterized this sad
epoch. To find complete sincerity anywhere outside of
the ranks of the priests who suffered for their faith, it
was necessary to descend to the low region of " Grac-
cus" Babeuf and his accomphces, where an agrarian
demagogue cried aloud with the savage ferocity of a
famished wUd beast. The Directory contained only
two good men, Carnot and Barthelemy, but it soon rid
itself of this anomaly. The other three were Barras,*
Rewbell, and La Reveilliere Lepaux. Banas was the
leading spirit, and united in his character the vices of
the aristocracy and the insatiable thirsts of demagogy ;
RewbeU was the politician, and La Reveilliere Lepaux
attempted to play the apostle in the name of his ridicu
lous and intolerant Theophilanthropy. It is easy to fore
see what would become of the government in the hands
of such men, sunounded as they were by a sycophantic
courtier crowd, who saw no better means of flattering
them than to improve on their vices. In the interior
there was but one policy, the arbitrary. They resorted
but little to the guillotine, for France was tired of that,
but they were as daring in their contempt of law as the
Committee of Pubhc Safety in the worst days of terror.
Abroad, the Directory showed itself to be lacking in
good faith and moderation, and exceedingly unskillful in
negotiation. It had the happiness of discovering th
* See Appendix, note 31?.
35

274 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
greatest captain of modern times ; it could depend on
the sword of Bonaparte, however, only until he had ac
quired glory enough to justify him in despising its
orders. Under the command of this incomparable gen
eral the French manifested the wonderful aptitudes of
their genius for rapidly and skillfully conducted wars of
conquest ; but all of these triumphs did not remedy the
abjectness and poverty of their civil and moral hfe.
With few exceptions, no great citizens were produced in
these armies which drove Europe before them. Most
of the generals who had distinguished themselves in
battle showed, when they returned home, a sneering
contempt for right, and were ready, like Pichegru and
Augereau, to become the instruments of betraying and
oppressing the republic. The young Corsican hero,
who had already fixed upon himself all eyes, and won
all prestige, was beginning to manifest in his dealings
with the parties, and in his negotiations with princes,
that total absence of conviction, that contempt of right,
that deep shrewdness which is moderate by calculation,
and resorts to violence as soon as that will better serve
the purpose — in fact all those qualities of force and
cunning which, together, made him so dear and so fatal
to France. Has he not given a full portrait of himseK
in the following confidential words, which he wrote in
reference to the coup d'itat of Fructidor, (4th of Sep
tember, 1797,) by which the Directory violated the
membership of the Legislative Councils ? " Firmness,"
said he, " would have sufficed. Let force be used when
one cannot get along without it ; but when one has the
alternative, justice is preferable." No, military glory,

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 275
the natural lot of a brilliant and energetic race, a glory
which should be ennobled by a defense of liberty, con
stitutes in and of itself none of the true attributes of a
great nation. There was reason, for awhile, to hope that
the moderate and liberal opinion which was represented
in the councils, and which manifested itself among the
people as often as the ballot-box was respected, would
rescue the country. But, unfortunately, too many of
the chiefs in the government lacked honesty of purpose,
and were ready to plot with the Directory against the
republic. It was the question, of religion upon which took place
the most violent shock between the liberty-loving party
(which was composed of the newly elected third of the
two Councils, together with the Moderates who had be
longed to the Convention) and the violent party, the
latter consisting of the majority both in the CouncUs
and in the Directory. All who did not desire to keep
the country in a continual state of revolution were very
anxious to avoid troubling the conscience of the people.
Worship had been revived throughout the land, and it
was easy to see how indestructible is the religious senti
ment. Simple common sense was enough to enable all
who were honest to see that the best policy was to
leave religion to itself, and to repeal all persecuting
laws. The way to this course was open, since the Conf»
vention had dissolved the union of Church and State.
There was no surer way of rallying to the new govern
ment the religiously-inclined inhabitants of the West
and South, and of defeating the intrigues of the emi
grated royalists, who had no better card in their hands

276 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
than repubhcan intolerance. Such was the favorite
pohcy of the moderate minority in the Councils, and
multitudes of petitions for the same course of policy
were sent by the people to the Council of the Five
Hundred. But the majority of the Councils and of the
Directory were far from sincerely respecting the liberty
of worship. The pure Jacobins, like Barras and Rew-
bell, hated religion in itself, and regarded the God of
ancient France, as well as the Supreme Being of Robes
pierre, as among the phantoms which had definitively
vanished before the sunlight of revelation. They had
no patience for doctrines which threw an unfavorable
hght over the future of the impious. We have already
mentioned that La Reveillere Lepaux had his own spe
cial divinity to protect. He was a pihilosophical invent
or of religion ; that is to say, he belonged to the class
of the most intolerant. To make place for a ridiculous
worship which he patronized, he was ready to overturn
every rival altar. But he had little confidence in the
attractive power of that sentimental pastoral system
which he wished to substitute for the worship of the
God of the Bible ; he relied much more on measures
of proscription than on the flower garlands and the
bowls of milk — those touching symbols of his new sys
tem of Theophilanthropy. Every thing indicated that
*here would be a violent struggle between the Moderate
party, which honestly desired hberty of worship, and
the Directory, which desired violently to deprive France
of her ancient rehgion.
Scarcely had the two Councils passed, in August,
1796, a law against the extreme Jacobins on the one

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 277
hand, and the royalists on the other, when an abomina
ble decree against the refractory priests was presented.
The extremists seemed to wish to punish these men for
a crime which was no longer possible, inasmuch as the
Church rigime, to which they had formerly refused
assent, had months ago been abolished. The simple
fact is, they wished to persecute for the mere pleas
ure of the thing. The reporting and discussion of
the decree were accompanied by exhibitions of the
most hideous and unjustifiable passions. The law
itself required that every refractory priest, that is, the
majority in the country, should leave France within
twenty days on pain of being treated as a returned emi
grant, that is, condemned to death. Such a law was
among the most infamous violations of conscience that
had yet been attempted. The debate which it excited
was very lively. The radicals objected to an exception
which ifmade in favor of priests of over sixty years.
" These old, gray-headed priests," said one of the orators,
" inspire all the more respect, exert a greater influence ;
their blessings are more highly prized. The women
adore these grand lamas, these aged idols, and the
wives react on their husbands ; hence the greater evU."
Despite the earnest efforts of the partisans of modera
tion, the decree, in its worst form, was voted by the
Council of the .Five Hundred. On being presented,
however, to the Ancients, or Senate, it was delayed, and
finally rejected.
The attitude of the Directory to the Holy See re
vealed the same violent and imprudent conduct which
marked its home policy. General Bonaparte, after his

278 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
first victories in Italy, had decided to treat with the
Itahan governments, so as not to have enemies in his
rear whom he was not yet able to conquer. For this
purpose he entered into conference with a Court which
had thus far been the bitterest enemy of the French
Revolution. The young general was too consummate a
politician to insist on conditions which could not be
obtained, in a negotiation which he was personally in
terested in concluding. On condition of respecting, in
some degree, the dominions of the Pope, he obtained
one hundred precious paintings and statues for the
museums of Paris, besides a large supply of provisions
and money.
Bonaparte was much displeased at the conduct of the
Directory after the armistice which he had concluded at
Bologna in June, 1796. The Pope accorded without
delay the sacrifice of sums of money, which he was then
poorly prepared to sustain, and parted cheerfully with his
treasures of art. But he could not accept the new con
ditions which were pressed upon him by the Directory.
This body required him to retract the briefs in which he
had condemned the CivU Constitution of the Clergy.
This was most unreasonable. As temporal prince he
might make sacrifices, but as head of the Church he
could not, without dishonor, submit a doctrinal decision
to the fluctuations of politics. The Directory had thus
offended, and put in question the interests of, the whole
Cathohc Church. It was aiming to impose on the chief
of the Church the same tyranny which had been at
tempted against the conscience of the non-juring clergy.
In this" it is easy to recognize the imbecile presumption

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 279
of a sectary hke La Reveilliere Lepaux.* The Pope,
though sick at the time, convened his Consistory. It
was decided unanimously that he could not grant the
demands of the Directory without essentially compro
mising the interests of religion. The unhappy Pope ex
claimed, in view of his troubles, " We regard the crown
of martyrdom as of higher worth than that which we
wear on our head." It was well understood at Rome
that the Directory desired war, since it had asked what
could not be granted. The Papal States were, there
fore, put in a state of defense, though against all hope
of success. Bonaparte, who had not yet won enough
victories to despise the authority of the Directory, wrote
in a tone of great harshness to this easily- frightened
court of old men. He enumerated his victories, and
threatened to crown them with the overthrow of the
Papal power. Indirectly, however, through the media
tion of Cardinal Mattei, he acted in a conciliatory spirit.
The latter rephed with great dignity to his haughty
demands : " Sire, your prosperity and successes have
blinded you. Not content with having shorn to the
skin the flock, you now wish to devour them. You re
quire that the Pope shall sacrifice both his own and the
souls of those who are confided to him. You would
destroy the foundation of the Christian rehgion. Con
sternated at this preposterous demand, the Holy Father
has fled to the bosom of God for wisdom in this time of
need. Doubtless the Holy Spirit wiU enhghten him,
and remind him of the example of the martyrs." These
were noble words. * See Appendix, note 38.

280 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
The victories won over the wretched Papal troops
conferred little glory, and Bonaparte hastened to con
clude a peace, in spite of the angry suggestions of the
Directory, who desired above all things the overthrow
of the Papacy. In a dispatch from Paris to the general
of the army of Italy, under date of February, 1797, we
find the following words : " You have too much expe
rience in politics not to have felt as deeply as we that
the Roman religion will always be the irreconcilable
enemy of the republic. The Directory invites you to
do all that may seem to you possible, without rekin
dling the fires of fanaticism, to destroy the Papal govern
ment, either by putting Rome under another power, or,
which will perhaps be better, by establishing for it a
form of government which wiU render the yoke of the
priests contemptible and odious." There could be no
more frank an avowal of a design in the Directory to
make war against an opinion, a doctrine ; but Bonaparte
knew too well the danger of a premature overthrow of
the Papal throne. He, therefore, waved matters of doc
trine, and on the 17th of February, 1797, signed with
the Papal power a treaty of peace. By this treaty of
Tolentino the Pope abandoned Bologna, Ferrara, and
Romagna, renounced his claims on Avignon, made a
large contribution of military supplies, and yielded
many precious objects of art.
The elections of 1797 had fortified in the government
the party of moderation. Several of the new delegates,
such as Camille Jordan* and Royer Collard, f were
strangers to the violent measures of the Revolution.
° See Appendix, note 39. f Ibid., note 40.

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 281
They were especially strangers to antireligious passions,
and represented constituents who were attached to Chris
tianity, and more and more weary of the intolerance of
the Directory. The legislative session began with a
revision of the revolutionary laws. On the 13th of
June, a report was made which complained loudly of
the neglect into which education had fallen. An in
creasing number of parents refused to send their chil
dren to schools which were under infidel auspices.
CamUle Jordan became the organ of the complaints
which were every-where made against the infractions of
the Uberty of worship. He pronounced a memorable
discourse in favor of indiscriminate liberty of conscience
for all citizens, and feared not to bonow arguments from
the exceUency of Christianity. "Be not astonished,"
said he, " at the importance attached to rehgious ideas
by men who are accustomed to find in them the nourish
ment of their souls. It is from them that they derive
joys which are independent of the power of man or the
strokes of fate. A need of these consolations is especially
felt in times of revolution ; then it is that the unhappy
have great need of hope. Religion lights up the house
of mourning, and even dispels the night of the grave.
Legislators, how small are your benefits compared to
this. For you it is an unspeakable advantage that
religion exists. It exerts a powerful influence ; it alone
speaks efficaciously of morality to the people ; it pre
pares your work ; it could accomplish it without your
help. Laws are but the supplement of the ethics of
nations. If you desire to erect a dike against the fear
ful progress of crime, and disorder, you must guarantee
36

282 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
complete religious liberty." Jordan then proceeded in
the most ' reasonable manner to explain in detail how
this liberty should be respected. He insisted with em
phasis on the absurdity of the decree forbidding the
priests to assemble the people for worship by the ring
ing of bells. " Why," said he ironically, " shall we op
pose a superstition of philosophy to the superstition
which attaches the women of our vUlages to the sound
of their parish bells ? " From the time of the Atheist
delirium of Chaumette funeral ceremonies had been sub
jected to impious or ridiculous regulations. " Yes, I
can conceive," said the orator with noble emotions, " I
can conceive why those tyrants who covered France
with grave-yards desired to despoil them of solemnity ;
why they threw, with so httle decency, the last remains
of man into an ignoble ditch. They felt a necessity of
despising humanity, and of smothering those generous
sentiments whose revival would be to them so terrible."
This discourse was a marked event. It excited the
rage of the remnants of the Jacobins. The final discus
sion of the matter took place two months later, July
8th, 1797. General Jordan opened the opposition on
the part of the extreme revolutionists, by a most violent
speech against the proposed modification of the perse
cuting laws. He regarded the influence of rehgion as
evil and only evil. But Boissy D'Anglas, skeptic as he
was, stood up for the cause of justice. In the midst of
this discussion was heard the grave voice of a young
Deputy, who was destined to exert for long years on
the- liberal party a telling influence. Royer Collard
made his debut at the tribune in the defense of the

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 283
noblest of causes. One finds in this first discourse that
austere vigor, that masterly breadth which were so
characteristic of him, and which sometimes ran the risk
of losing something of force by too much of abstract-
ness. He showed very forcibly that the rehgious senti
ment had proved itself superior to aU the violence of
the Revolution ; that it had existed in France from
before the foundation of the monarchy, and had now
survived its downfall ; and that to persecute it could
only bring ruin upon the persecutors. He closed with
these admirable words : " Justice, Confidence, Generos
ity, you who are so much decried by tyranny, you are
not only the noblest sentiments of the human soul, you
constitute also the most philosophic principle of govern
ment, the wisest combination of pohtics, the profoundest
diplomacy. To the savage voice of demagogy, crying
out, Audacity, more audacity, audacity still; let us re
spond by this consolatory and victorious cry, which
will find an echo throughout the nation: Justice, more
justice, justice still." The Assembly, by a strong ma
jority, repealed the most of the intolerant laws which
yet disgraced the code of France. Liberty of con
science obtained a signal triumph, and would have borne
the happiest fruits had it not been suddenly checked by
the coup d'itat of September the 4th, (18 Fructidor,)
in which the Directory, backed by military influence,
triumphed over hberty, and violated the persons of the
national representation. It is certain that one of the
principal causes of this act of usurpation was the legis
lative re-establishment of the liberty of worship.
It is not our business to treat of the circumstances of

284 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
this monstrous conspiracy. This violation of the Na
tional Legislature, so coolly plotted by the holders of
power, was infinitely more guilty than any popular in
surrection. The combination of cool stratagem and
violence, renders the crime the more odious. We wiU
throw a veU over these ill-fated days, when a drunken
soldiery made a mock of the right they were trampling
under foot, and repeated without blushing the sentiment
that tlie saber was the law. These events are a shame
to the armies which countenanced them, and the country
which endured them. The victims alone came out pure
and glorious. The majority of the generals applauded
the coup d'itat of Fructidor ; the reserve of Bonaparte
was simply a phase of his ambitious calculations. It
was simply the criticism of a consummate player on an
ill-combined move, and not the indignation of a friend
of liberty. The coup d'itat had no plausible pretext.
The CouncU of the Five Hundred desired to return to
measures of moderation ; the Directory wished to con
tinue the rigime of revolutionary violence. The ques
tion was, whether the republic should become liberal, or
whether it should continue in an arbitrary course, which,
as under the ancient rigime, trampled under foot, on
pretext of State necessity, aU the principles of right.
The act of violence was a victory of revolutionary dic
tatorship over reviving hberty. If it did not shed blood
it was none the less cruel, for the banishment which it in
flicted on its victims was nothing else than a condemna
tion to death — a long torture. From that day the repubhc
was lost. The unjust and immoral Directory, which as
sumed to represent it, could not even maintain public

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 285
order. Preoccupied with the desire of remaining in
power, it compromised the country. Accustomed to
moderation in nothing, it rendered peace impossible,
and broke the treaty of Campo Formio when it was
scarcely concluded. With the finest armies and best
generals in the world, it lost the fruits of many victories,
because it was guided in its choice of officers solely by
the desire of rewarding its creatures, and of getting rid
of its rivals. Nothing but the unhoped-for stroke of
fortune in the victory of Massena, in 1799, over Suwar-
row at Zurich, averted a great disaster. The brilliant
but sterile expedition of Egypt, after having served the
interests of the Directors, who were disquieted at the
proximity of the eclipsing glory of the Corsican, turned
in the end to the profit of that absorbing personality,
who soon possessed himself of all the forces of the
nation. The Directory could preserve the fruits of the
Fructidor eoup d'itat only by a series of similar and
equaUy disgraceful strokes of poUcy. The elections of
1798, which had sent to the Councils a large number of
Moderates and Liberals, were annulled by an infamous
decree. It was in vain that the Directory multiplied its
arbitrary measures, suspended the hberty of the press,
and practiced the search of private houses. The coun
try was tired of such a system. The new elections, in
1799, gave a majority in both CouncUs against the
Directory. La Reveilliere Lepaux and Merlin submitted to the
opposition, and retired from the Directory. Sieyes be
came the leading spirit. But soon, new disappointment
was felt. The new Councils enacted the abominable law

286 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
of hostages, which made the relatives of the emigrated
or suspected responsible for intrigues over which they
had no control. In reahty, the opposition to the Di
rectory came not so much from the Moderate party
which had been decimated in Fructidor, as from the
disappointed Jacobins. It was not a collision of princi
ples, but of ambitions. The country was weary of
strifes of which it was always the victim, and was,
therefore, ready to surrender itself to whoever would
give it repose. Sieyes aspired to this role of pacifica
tor, but was forced to take a secondary place as soon
as Bonaparte had landed in France. The conqueror at
the Pyramids, was admirably prepared for entering into
the situation, and profiting by it. He possessed the
prestige of glory, a genius for administration as well as
for war, the gift of winning hearts, and besides was des
titute of principles which could interfere with his un
measured but profoundly-calculating ambition.
The coup d'itat of the 10th of November, 1799, (18
Brumaire,) which overthrew the Directory, put Bona
parte in command of the army, and made him First
Consul, was the merited solution of the crisis of Fructi
dor. It was not so much a deliverance as a chastise
ment with glorious compensations. But these compen
sations were soon to be lost; for the moderation which
alone could preserve them was incompatible with the
ardent genius of him who showed himself on the very
day of his triumph unwilling to accept the restraint of
moral law. I know of nothing more sad in aU modern
history than the scenes which preceded this fatal date : the
conspirators vying with each other in violating the na-

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 287
tional representation, and adjourning its sittings to St.
Cloud, that its dying voice might awaken no echo in
Paris, — the Legislature itself, unable to cast honor on
its defeat, and speaking only the noisy language of the
Clubs, when it should have resounded with senatorial
utterances of right, — General Bonaparte stammering
at the Tribune of the Five Hundred, and trembling
before the obscured image of hberty until he gave the
concerted signal of rescue to his grenadiers, — all of this
in the name of the pririciples of 1789, — what a pitiable
comedy to introduce an epopee ! Happy the people
which has not seen and reseen similar spectacles!
Vaunt as much as you please the order estabhshed in
the finances and on the highways — celebrate the miracle
of Marengo — but go not further, and ask us not to ap
plaud this violent act of Bonaparte, as the triumphant
conclusion of the French Revolution. " Our fathers
died in other hopes."
As to the attitude of the Directory to rehgious hberty
during the two years and two months which intervened
between its act of violence against the National Legisla
ture and its overthrow in the usurpation of Bonaparte in
November, 1799, little need be said, except that it was
intensely intolerant. It seemed to have nothing so much
at heart as to have the late hberal laws repealed, and to
inaugurate anew the severest measures against the refrac
tory priests, that is, those who persisted in loyalty to
their convictions. In his message to the subservient,
mutilated Legislature, the Theophilanthropist Director,
La Reveilhere Lepaux, stigmatized in these words, the
laws on liberty of conscience which had recently been

288 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
voted by the national representatives : " Superstition
and fanaticism," said he, " have been called back by the
very persons who, under the monarchy, had contributed
to destroy them." An oath was now required of
priests, which contained, in addition to a promise of
submission to the laws, a declaration of hatred to all
royalty. About two hundred priests, together with the
fifty-three anested moderatist representatives, were de
ported to the swamps of Sinnamari. Almost all of
them died in a few months. In France the persecution
was renewed with vigor. Search of private houses
was instituted, and priests were again crowded together
in the prisons and on the galleys. Genissieu proposed
to treat as emigrants all priests subject to deportation
who should not forthwith present themselves for punish
ment. "These eternal enemies of our laws and tran-
quUlity," said he, "must be taught that death awaits
them if they dare to remain on our territory." This
proposition was received and referred to a committee.
A fraction of the Legislature would have willingly ex
tended the deportation to all priests whatever.
It was not simply as factions that the priests were
persecuted, but as the ministers of a hated rehgion.
The institution of the tenth-day festivals furnished a
ready pretext for vexing the adherents of Christianity.
Representative Duhot, who for his ardent and bitter
zeal against the Sabbath deserves the title of Knight of
the Decades, caused to be passed in November, 1798, a
decree which rendered the observance of the Atheist
festivals obligatory. The Jacobins of the Five Hun
dred, not content with exacting the celebration of these

Religion and the Reign of Terror. "" 289
days, desired also the formal interdiction of the observ
ance of the Sabbath. But this was rejected on the ob
servation of a few Deputies, that this would place
France below the States of the Church in point of
rehgious liberty. Duhot observed that " the closing of
the shops was the exterior sign of a worship ;" he
therefore concluded that the observance of the Sabbath
was an infraction of the laws of the country. " What,"
cried he with astonishment, "weeks after the great
priest of Rome, long assaulted by philosophy, and now
dethroned by your armies, has been obliged to carry
from place to place his vagabond piety, do his servants
dare still to exercise among us their insolent despotism !
Yes, they forbid to labor on the Sabbath, and hinder
Catholic laborers from working in the shops on that
day." Such discourses show to what degradation the
French tribune had fallen. The Assembly took into
serious consideration a proposition to transfer to the
tenth days all the rehgious festivals, and sent with ap
probation to a committee a motion forbidding the clos
ure of shops on the sacred days of the Church. A
decree was demanded which should severely punish any
disrespect shown to the tenth-day festivals. An effort
was also made to forbid fairs on these days, in order to
shock the rehgious sentiment by forcing them upon the
Sabbath. A Deputy was found who even proposed
that legal protection should be granted only to such
merchants as would take oath to use exclusively the
new repubhcan weights and measures, and to keep their
stores open on the Sabbath. Thus one would have had
the beautiful spectacle of non-jurors of the shop as well
37

290 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
as of the temple. Even this was not enough. An ob
scure Deputy demanded that instead of counting past
ages from the birth of Christ, they should be reckoned
backward from the foundation of the Republic. All of
these odious propositions were heard and refened to a
committee which would certainly have caused them to
be converted into law, had not the storm of Brumaire
and the usurpation of Bonaparte swept them away.
Moreover, the violent party were well able to bear in
patience the slow process of legislation, for the Direc
tory aided them and practiced in the whole country a
vexatious and cruel persecution. In the faU of 1797
Gregory had complained of a circular of Gohier, the
Minister of the Interior, which required the clergymen
of all Churches to transfer to the tenth days the cele
bration of their worship. "How many unhappy priests,"
exclaims Gregory in his Memoirs, "have been pur
sued, imprisoned, and transported beyond the seas, for
having refused to obey the orders of municipalities and
administrations, requiring them to transfer their divine
rites to the tenth days ! " It is easy to imagine to
what a height measures of this character, which affected
the most minute details of daily hfe, and were continu
ally repeated, must have wounded and exasperated the
rehgious sentiment.
The events which had just taken place in Italy were
of a nature to give the climax to the discontent and
indignation of all friends of Cathohcism. The treaty of
Tolentino with the Holy Father, had proved to be only
a truce. Doubtless it would have been otherwise had
Bonaparte remained in Italy. The Directory, free from

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 291
aU control after their coup d'itat of Fructidor, 1797,
pursued with ardor their favorite plan of overthrowing
the Papacy. They began openly to favor the revolu
tionary party at Rome. General Duphot, Embassador
of the Republic to Rome, had been killed in a riot,
though it has never been known whether he had striven
to calm or to invite it. This furnished the desired
occasion for rupture. General Berthier marched into
Rome in February, 1798. The Vatican was plundered,
and occupied by troops. The unhappy Pope, Pius VI.,
though weighed down with age and disease, was taken
away from Rome, transfened to Tuscany, and afterward
to France, where he died at Valence. His death was-
humiliating for his person, but glorious and useful for his
cause ; for his presence and sufferings excited the most
hvely enthusiasm and sympathy even in the land of
his exile. The members of the Directory had occasion
to learn that nothing is more dangerous than to make
martyrs, for it was precisely these assaults on rehgion
which did the most to dishonor and ruin them. They
fell into infamy and impotence. Their pohcy had been
so odious that some honest persons even thought the
usurpation of Bonaparte to be a riddance. Nothing
condemns them so severely as the satisfaction with
which the country saw them displaced by a military
dictatorship. It was necessary that they should have
thoroughly disgusted France, before she could have con
descended to applaud so sad a termination of the grand
liberal movement of 1789.

292 Religion and the Reign of Terror.

CHAPTER HI.
THE AXTARS RESTORED BT LIBERTY.
Entire rehgious hberty did not exist a single day dur
ing the whole course of the Revolution. Even under
the rigime of the separation of Church and State it was
seriously trammeled by the general government. And
in many cases the legal impediments were rendered ten
fold more severe by the passions and injustice of the
provincial magistrates. These acted almost every-where
in the interest of the anti-religious tendency. Notwith
standing these obstacles, as soon as religion became
free from the civil administration, and was left to itself,
it recovered itself with astonishing rapidity from the
discredit into which it had faUen. France witnessed at
the close of the eighteenth century the unexpected spec
tacle of a powerful revival of Christian faith. Nothing
is more false than to attribute the restoration of Chris
tianity in France to the happy policy of Bonaparte.
No, when once freed from the State, it restored itself
spontaneously on a soil yet trembling and covered with
ruins. The First Consul, in his efforts to regulate and
take into his service the influence of the Church, only
succeeded in arresting one of the finest religious move
ments which our country ever witnessed.
Assuredly it was a very difficult task to re-establish
religion without other aid than that of free convictions,

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 293
in a country where Sensualism seemed to be the goal of
philosophy, and where a scoffing impiety had reigned in
the refined circles, and, like an overflowing torrent,
swept among the lower classes. The task was not merely
to combat the vicious doctrines then in vogue, but to
conquer the base passions which sprang from them. At
the close of the Reign of Terror the moral condition of
France was truly deplorable. The nation had begun
by making of hberty a rehgion. Disgusted finally
with the crimes committed in its name, and possessing
no longer that faith which gives consolation in disap
pointment, and saves the soul from universal and mor
bid doubt, the people seem to have lost the faculty of
believing in God. Thus the greatest bond of moral re
straint was broken.
This skepticism, however, could not still the tumult
uous vital force of the nation. From the moment that
the restraint of terror ceased, Paris became inspired with
a sort of frenzy for pleasure. She cast aside the red
cap of terror, but bore into her festivals the enthusiasm
which had rendered it so cruel. It was another illustra
tion of how closely licentiousness and sanguinary vio
lence are allied. The writers of the time agree in de
picting Parisian society as possessed of a sort of feverish
impatience for the ignoble pleasures of life, and as aban
doning itsetf without shame to their pursuit. Never
did debauchery parade itself with more audacity in
open day. In its Palais Royal Paris possessed a veri
table bazar of vice. Gambling and prostitution collected
there a luxurious youth, who had all the corruption of
the ancient rigime without the redeeming trait of that

294 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
elegance which imposes a sort of outward restraint.
What was graver still, the institution of the family was
seriously undermined, thanks to the unheard of facUity
of divorce, and the almost equal footing of natural and
legitimate children. There was one divorce to eleven
marriages, and the bonds which were so easily dissolved
were little respected while they did exist. A journal of
the time gave the true explanation of this deplorable
situation. " We are the only people in the world," said
the Eclair, " who ever attempted to do without rehgion.
But what is already our sad experience ? Every tenth
day [this Sabbath of the infidels] we are astounded by
the recital of more crimes and assassinations than were
committed formerly in a whole year. At the risk of
speaking an obsolete language, and of receiving insult
for response, we declare that we must cease striving
to destroy the remnants of rehgion if we desire to pre
vent the entire dissolution of society." The restorers of
religion found a great obstacle in the wide-spread preju
dice, that Christianity is inconsistent with free institu
tions. Unfortunately the intrigues of the emigrated
royalist clergy gave ample ground for the prejudice,
and the revolutionists unjustly involved all the clergy
in the same condemnation. But a main cause of the
bitter and continued persecution was, the deep convic
tion on the part of the violent party that the only way
to justify or efface the memory of its past cruelties was,
to crush and destroy every trace of the object of its
oppression. But in spite of all these obstacles Chris
tianity was destined to win signal viotories as soon as it
obtained even partial justice and limited liberty.

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 295
As the reader will remember, the Catholic Church
was yet divided into two hostile sections. Even after
the abrogation of the too famous CivU Constitution of
the Clergy, which had caused the schism, the strife be
tween the jurors and the non-jurors had continued with
equal ardor. The former had retained their semi-Pres
byterian organization, the latter had redoubled their
attachment to the Pope. This animosity shall not pre
vent us from doing justice to the glorious part which
both clerical parties took in the revival of faith in
France. In the ardor of their differences they were
unable to appreciate and esteem each other ; but it is
the prerogative of history to overlook these sad misun
derstandings, which separated and alienated noble hearts.
The jurors were wrong in regarding their refractory
brethren as wholly illiberal and royalist, and in over
looking their pious courage ; while the non-jurors were
unjust in refusing to recognize the pure and sincere zeal
with which their opponents labored for the restoration
of worship in France. It would seem that the common
persecution they suffered during the Reign of Terror
should have reconciled them; but this was not the
case ; their dissensions continued even on the galleys
and in the prisons. It is our duty now to bring them
together, and extend to both parties an equal respect
for their heroic devotion to the service of rehgion.
Others may ransack the tombs and revive posthumous
calumnies ; for our part, at this distance of time, we have
only applause for their equally generous, equally diverse,
efforts to restore to France that God whom she for a
time had seemed to abandon, but whom she found her-

296 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
seU unable to dispense with. In fact, no great nation can
definitively abjure rehgious ideas; the madness which,
for a moment, may lead thereto, is but the crisis of a
fever which would bring death if it lingered any length
of time. Moreover, the effort itself to destroy religion
only increases its strength. Like the phenix, it rises in
renewed youth out of its own ashes.
A philosophy hostUe to Christianity attempted to
turn to its own profit the revival of religious sentiments,
but gained for its pains only the shame of faUure. It
attempted to estabhsh a worship which should rival the
ancient religion, but succeeded only in giving a pitiable
comedy, which promptly vanished in the presence of
empty benches and its own inanity. The complete
check of TheophUanthropy demonstrates, practicaUy
and conclusively, the powerlessness of a behef without
mysteries and dogmas, to found a rehgion. The worst
mythologies of Asia have succeeded in uniting whole
nations, for the reason that, notwithstanding their impure
and bloody legends, they assumed to speak in the name
of Divinity, and enjoyed in times of ignorance the pres
tige of revelations from Heaven. They satisfied, though
in a very perverted manner, the natural and indestructi
ble thirst of the human heart for direct supernatural
communication with God. Hence their success. But a
rehgion which is only a cold, theoretical system, a pure
creature of the reason, is fit only to remain in that
chilly sphere. Every attempt to warm it into hfe mis
erably fails. While the ardent apologists of the tenth-
day festivals began anew underhandedly the shameful
work of Hebert and Chaumette, the Theophilanthropists

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 297
attempted in a timid manner to resuscitate the worship
of the Supreme Being, which had been interrupted by
the fall of Robespierre ; the former were the offspring of
Diderot and Helvetius, the latter, of Rousseau and Ro
bespierre. It is well known how numerous were the
Deists at this time in France, England, and Germany.
But it is only amid the confusion and fever of a revolu
tion, when all creeds seem to be overthrown, that such
an attempt would be made as that of substituting for
Christianity the rehgion of the Contrat Social.
An attempt to prepare the pubhc mind for the new
rehgion was made by a free use of the press. The ad
vantages of a worship wholly free from superstition, and
consisting simply in the adoration of God and the prac
tice of virtue, were abundantly set forth. It was at the
close of the year 1796 that the passage from theory to
practice took place. Among the five heads of families
who united to estabhsh the new rehgion was Haiiy, a
brother of the famous chemist, director of the asylum
for the blind. A former chapel which was connected
with the institution, served for the celebration of the
first pubhc worship. Soon they obtained permission
from the government, which was very partial to the
sect, to share with the Cathohc priests the use of the
churches, founding their claim on the ground that as
the Constitution was not more favorable to one religion
than to another, the churches, being pubhc edifices,
should belong equally to all opinions. The Theophi
lanthropists obtained thus the enjoyment of twelve
churches, among which was the cathedral. The diffi
cult task was, not to obtain, but to fill them. They,
38

298 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
therefore, strove to give to their worship all the attrac
tion of which it was capable. They engraved on the
walls of the temples choice maxims of natural morality
from all schools of philosophy and from all religions.
An altar was erected in the center of the edifice, and
upon it were placed, sometimes flowers, and sometimes
fruit, according to the season. But these pastoral rites
were intermingled with grander solemnities. Infants
were dedicated to the Supreme Being. At marriage
the affianced were bound together by garlands of flow
ers, whose extremities were held by their relatives and
friends. At Bourges it was contrived that during the
nuptial ceremony two doves should be made to appear
at the altar, a touching symbol of conjugal affection.
At the obsequies of a Theophilanthropist, a flower was
suspended from the funeral urn. But the essential part
of the new worship was the reading and the discourse.
The preacher was required to be married or a widower ;
but in addition to this guarantee of maturity, his dis
courses were subjected before dehvery to the censorship
of a committee. The new order of priests delivered
their messages extempore or by reading. These con
sisted of homilies on tolerance, filial piety, probity in
commerce, and similar subjects. Touching funeral eulo
gies of eminent citizens were a part of the programme.
That the priests might have a pleasing aspect they were
clothed in a white robe with a violet girdle. This flat
tering appearance not sufficing to redeem the monotony
of their discourses, they were intermingled with hymns
to the seasons and virtues. Fine opera singers were
hired, whose voices might attract the multitude. When

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 299
the money failed, the members of the sect undertook
the singing themselves, but their devotion was poorly
rewarded, for they discovered by the empty seats that
the audiences had come to hear the fine voices, and not
for the edifying homihes. TheophUanthropy lived only
from the patronage of the government. La Reveilliere
Lepaux, the Director, was its most useful adherent, and
gained for it a certain number and prestige ; for apos
tles who are in power are always sure to succeed in
gaining proselytes. If the Directory insisted with so
much earnestness on the outward observance of the
tenth days, it was in part to shackle the hberty of
Cathohcism to the profit of the new religion. The
latter, however, after having transferred its worship to
the tenth days found itself compelled to return to the
Sabbath, so strong was the force of habit among the
people. The agents of the government aided the sect
with aU their influence. The Minister of the Interior
pushed his zeal so far, as to distribute throughout the
country at government expense the Manual of the
Theophilanthropists. Pecuniary aid was also given to
pay the orators, and to indemnify the public for the
ennui of listening to them. Societies were estabhshed
in and about Paris, at Bourges and Poitiers. In Yonne
they furnished an intolerant administration, a pretext
for persecuting the Catholics. But neither the favors of
power nor the- prestige which noted personages, such as
Groupil de -Prefeln, Julien of Toulouse, and Bernardin
de St. Pierre, brought to the sect, sufficed to prevent
this ridiculous rehgion from falling into neglect and
abandonment. The order of the Consuls, of October,

300 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
1802, which closed the temples to the Theophilanthro
pists, did them the signal service of saving their worship
from dying of mere inanition. It was fitting that a wor
ship which had lived only by the smUes of power should
fall by its disfavor. It had quieted and satisfied neither
the ancient convictions nor the new passions. Its pas
toral sentimentalism was incapable of awakening' the
religious curiosity of France, even when one of her chief
magistrates had accepted the pastoral staff of the white-
robed and violet-girded priests, which, however, was,
after all, a singular way of appealing for favor to the
land of Voltaire and Beaumarchais. It was the ancient
religion, which the demagogues had vainly believed
they had destroyed, that arose and defeated these
efforts of its enemies. In losing its civil power and
wealth, and in suffering, instead of inflicting, persecu
tion, it arose and purified itself, and no longer gave just
occasion for those terrible charges of guilt which in its
prosperous days had so fatally shaken it.
We have seen that the revival of rehgion at the close
of the last century was promoted by the efforts of the
refractory as well as of the juring clergy. How great
had continued to be the influence of the former not only
in the South and West, where they were in the major
ity, but also in the great cities, and particularly in
Paris, is perfectly evident from the multiplicity and
barbarity of the measures that had been taken against
them. They ceased not, however, to celebrate the
sacred rites, often in a barn or a garret. Nothing was
better fitted to animate their zeal than these dangers
and difficulties. A thousand ingenious methods hnd

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 301
been contrived for conveying to the victims of the
Tenorists the last consolations of religion. How often
has a secret, furtively-exchanged sign from a disguised
priest suddenly appearing at a window or along the
passage of the death-car, conveyed to the victims the
blessings of the Church ! It would be false to attribute
to rjolitical passions this attachment of the people for
the refractory clergy. It is certain that it was shared
by sincere adherents of the Revolution. The letters of
Charlotte Corday, recently published by Casimir Per-
rier, reveal in this republican heroine a lively repug
nance to the Constitutional Clergy. The political or
ganization received by the latter from the revolutionists
might well have excited grave religious scruples. It is,
therefore, not astonishing that notwithstanding their
unfortunate connivance at the counter-revolution, the
refractory clergy retained an immense influence in the
nation. This fact became visible as soon as any meas
ure of hberty of conscience was guaranteed. Though
still much trammeled, they re-established the ancient
worship wherever it was at all practicable, and espe
cially in the large cities. They acted strictly independ
ently of the Constitutional Clergy, kept up against
them a vigorous controversy, and obtained from their
ranks many recantations. " The extraordinary earnest
ness," read we in a journal of the day, published by this
party, " manifested by the faithful to profit by our re
covered liberty — the holy joy they manifested, lightly
esteeming the lack of exterior pomp in our worship, and
regarding the inward glory as its chief ornament, —
every thing proves how vital was the power of religion

302 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
in the hearts. The churches reopened, are very simple
in their decoration ; their brightest luster comes from
the piety of those who fill them." At Paris the re-
establishment of the non-jurors' worship encountered
scarcely any obstacle. At Easter, 1796, the attendance
on then- churches was considerable, and at the same
time next year still larger. About thirty churches and
several oratories were given over to this -recently perse
cuted worship. The Church of St. Roch was recovered
in May, 1797. "Men, women, chUdren, poor and rich,
turned workmen, and the church quickly arose from its
ruins." The Bishop of St. Papoul consecrated seventy
priests. Thus the refractory Church restored itself
spontaneously in open republic without the aid of Bona
parte. In the provinces it obtained equally great suc
cesses, though it met also serious opposition. At Ver
sailles and Marseilles riots occurred, and many priests
were thrown into prison. At Limoges the incarcerated
priests were confined in solitude, and subjected to every
sort of ill-treatment. Women were imprisoned for hav
ing heard mass. The tribunal of Versailles concluded
to liberate the arrested priests, so fully were they found
to enjoy the esteem of the population. Their prison
had become a temple, so many were the people that
flocked to it. In one place a priest was snatched from
the altar at which he was officiating, but the populace
rescued him. At Bolbec military measures were taken
to prevent the midnight mass, but the body of troops
sent to stop the service were so affected by it as to
change their purpose, and take part in it with great
reverence. Violence could not check the current of

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 303
public opinion, which pronounced itself continually with
greater emphasis in favor of liberty of conscience. To
this current the discourses of Camille Jordan, Royer
Collard, and Portalis,* greatly added. But the Direc
tory and the Jacobins strove all the more to check it.
The following order, in regard to the refractory priests,
was sent to the national Commissioners in June, 1796 :
"Wear out their patience, envelop them in your sur
veillance, disquiet them by day, and trouble them by
night." Nevertheless had it not been for the Direc
tory's coup d'itat of September, 1797, the ancient
Church would have been reorganized along-side of the
Constitutional Churches, throughout the land. This
turned back for awhUe the happy religious movement.
Barbarous decrees were launched forth, and many
priests banished ; but still the persecuted worship was
held in secret, and counted its adherents by multitudes.
If, instead of having been reorganized by Bonaparte
after the coup d'itat of Brumaire, (November, 1799,) the
nation had been permitted to enjoy true liberty, there
would have sprung up from her persecution and suffer
ings a self-regenerated and glorious Church. She had
already erected her altars throughout the land ; it was
of liberty only, and not of forced governmental reorgan
ization, that she had need. The escaped priests, who
had lived of the charities of the English or of the Pope,
would doubtless have returned in large numbers, and
with many prejudices. The latter, however, would have
soon died away under the benign influence of toleration.
Of means for defraying the non-jurors' worship, there
* See Appendix, note 41.

304 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
was no scarcity, and had peace and any degree of pros
perity returned, there would have resulted under the
smiles of liberty a flourishing and well-disciphned
Church. And surely the enjoyment of liberty could not have
been otherwise than favorable to the 'new, or Constitu
tional Church — to that one which, whUe holding fast to
Cathohc orthodoxy, had cheerfully sided with the cause
of freedom. True, she had many wounds to heal, for in
the days of trial she had suffered from apostasies.
WhUe enjoying the smUes of government patronage she
had been disgraced by numerous bad priests, but the
salutary ordeal of persecution had freed her from the
hypocrites. Soon after the fall of Robespierre, when a
measure of hberty was allowed, she engaged earnestly
in the work of repairing her losses. The man who was
especially active in this holy work was Gregory, the
Deputy to the Constituent Assembly and to the Con
vention, and Bishop of Blois. He has been calumniated
and outraged ; the most vUe malice pursued him even
to his death-bed. We admit that he sometimes pushed
his love of free institutions to an excess unbecoming a
priest, or even a true hberal ; but, to be just, we must
make allowance for the circumstances. His clerical
opponents were not less extreme. One may charge
Gregory with unfortunate words, but never with a base
or unjust action. He was pure of the blood of the
King, though he carried too far his indulgence for his
unjust judges. He never lost an opportunity of advo
cating hberty of conscience for his bitterest adversaries.
He was always a champion of right and justice, whether

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 305
it was in pleading the cause of the slaves, of the Jews,
or of his dissenting brethren of the clergy. His noble
attitude on the day of the abjuration in the darkest
hours of terror, would alone suffice to conciliate for him
universal respect. His indefatigable zeal to reorganize
the Constitutional Church merits equal admiration.
Aided by several colleagues, and especially by Lecoz, a
wise, moderate, and eloquent man, Gregory accom
plished in a short time a truly important work. He
combined firmness with wisdom; and no one has ever
done more in France to reconcile religion and liberty.
The writings of Gregory contain a vivid description
of the deplorable state into which religion had faUen
during the Reign of Terror. The sufferings endured,
were trifling in comparison with the disgrace of the
apostasies. Most of the Churches had lost their Bishop,
either by death or exile. The people had almost lost
the habit of worship. But scarcely had any degree of
liberty been allowed, when Gregory convoked at Paris,
May 15th, 1795, a number of Bishops. These men
in union published two encyclical letters, designed to
obviate various disorders, set aside the unworthy priests,
and provisionally organize the Church. In one of the
letters these pious Bishops say, " Let those to whom
God has given grace to remain faithful in the midst of
the tenors of death, rejoice to have been worthy to suf
fer something for Jesus Christ. We Bishops especially,
pastors of souls, are responsible to God, to the Church,
and to posterity for our efforts to revive the faith."
Elsewhere in this document, which is worthy of the
first ages of the Church, we read, "Let the Pastors
39

306 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
show their zeal to proclaim Jesus Christ ; let them ex
hort the faithful to a careful study of the New Testa
ment ; let them by their conduct render their ministry
respected." The Bishops caused to be translated the
fine treatise of St. Cyprian, De Lapsis, which seemed to
have been written for the exigencies of that very time.
Multitudes of answers were sent to the circulars, and
the faithful Bishops and priests joined hands in the
work of raising up the Church. A journal for mutual
communication was estabhshed, and Gregory conceived
the happy thought of establishing a society of Christian
philosophy for the purpose of circulating works in de
fense of rehgion. In most of the cities the people
flocked to the services with unprecedented ardor. The
temples did not suffice to contain them. There seemed
to be a desire to prolong indefinitely the acts of devotion,
and tears filled the eyes of all. At Sens all labors
ceased, and the Church of St. Peter was crowded with
prostrate penitents bewailing their past unfaithfulness.
One could have witnessed scenes as full of pathos as
those which took place at Jerusalem when the Jews, on
returning from exile, were able again to worship the
God of their fathers in their own land. The Bishops,
by their circulars, favored and directed the good move
ment. "Having no longer any pohtical connections,"
so wrote Gregory to his colleagues, "you will not be
tempted to stay yourself on the ann of flesh. God
alone will be your strength. The splendor of the pre
cious metals will no longer dazzle in our temples.
Credulous simplicity will no longer confound with true
piety that which too often was only its poison. Let

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 307
religion revive among us ; let it revive pure as it came
from the hands of Christ. We are placed as it were
again at the origin of the Church." "We declare,"
wrote Bishop Lecoz, " that being subjects of a kingdom
not of this world, we wUl not dispute for temporal inter
ests. Christianity does not meddle with governments ;
it conflicts with none, and lives peaceably under all."
This was the spirit that animated the Constitutional
Church as revived by Gregory and his colleagues. Un
connected with the State, it was yet warmly patriotic,
and spontaneously celebrated the victories of the repub
lic. In honor of the peace established after the battle
of Marengo more than thirty thousand persons attended
the Te Deum which was sung at Notre Dame. This
Church made no concessions to the prejudices of the
day, and was marked by great moral strictness. Its
firm attachment to the great doctrines of Christianity is
unquestionable. It is true, it was very free from an Ultramontane
spirit, and it would have seen without displeasure the
final overthrow of the temporal power of the Papacy, as
appears from the following extract from the official
journal in 1798 : " The destiny of rehgion has for a long
while been involved in all the passions which reign in
courts. Christianity is henceforth to shine in its own
glory, and since the Popes are happily to be nothing
more than spiritual Bishops, the ministers of rehgion
will be more sure than ever of attaching to them inevo-
cably the hearts of the nations." The Ac Church,
though extremely Gallican in principles, never for a
moment broke its communion with the chief of Catholi-

308 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
cism, nor ceased to pray the Holy Father to render peace
to the Church by avoiding radical measures. Not that
it had not felt a true spirit of reform, for it aspired to
develop in its bosom a genuine piety which should lay
less stress on forms than on substance, on symbols than
on reahty. Gregory strove to put a stop to supersti
tious pilgrimages, saying that it was " less praiseworthy
to have visited Jerusalem than to have well lived at
Jerusalem." He strove likewise to check the venera
tion of rehcs. It was very natural that at this time an
effort should be made to render more strict and solemn
the admission of the young to the first communion. It
was decided to sunound this rite with better guaran
tees, and to prepare for it by solid instruction. Gregory
desired that the heads of families should daily use pray
ers in French, in their homes. He labored to multiply
the means of instruction, founding many popular libra
ries. Thus was manifested an earnest protest against
formalism, that plague of modern Christianity. The
Bishops were indefatigable in their labors. Gregory-
had preached within a short space of time fifty episcopal
sermons, and given confirmation to forty-five thousand
persons, in the bounds of his own diocese. These were
truly apostolical labors, and they were abundantly re
warded. We have the beBt of evidence for the fact,
that within three years worship had been re-established
in forty thousand communities in France. True, the
ancient splendor was lacking. Many of the ministers
lived in t^jftgreatest poverty. More than one endured
privations similar to those of that aged priest who was
founcrone day in his garret mending his black hose with

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 309
white thread. In an official letter to the people the
Bishop of Blois said, "The disasters and evils which
weigh down your Pastors force us to say to you, as St.
Paul to the Galatians, ' Let him who is taught give to
him who teaches.' But whatever may be the fruits of
your thankfulness to those venerable Pastors who have
lost and suffered all things for Jesus Christ, they, as we,
will continue to hold to you the language of the Apostle
to the Thessalonians, ' Such is our love for you that we
desire not only to preach to you the Gospel, but also to
give our lives for you, for you are very dear to us.' "
This branch of the Church had expressly prohibited
itself from receiving money for special services, prayers,
blessings, and the mass, and confided entirely in the
enlightened liberality of the faithful. And its confi
dence was rewarded, for though the Church suffered
much at first, yet in the end the voluntary gifts proved
sufficient. This ministry of labor and poverty rejoiced
the souls of those who shared it. One priest, almost
seventy years old, declared that in this work of toil and
sacrifice he had as it were renewed his youth. To these
trials of poverty are to be added the severer ones re
sulting from the intolerance of the petty local magis
trates. Early in the Revolution one of the departments
made the foUowing decree : " Whereas there is nothing
more impohtic and antisocial than the tolerance of any
worship whatever, be it therefore decreed that all pri
vate and pubhc signs of worship shall disappear."
After the fall of Robespiene such an open outrage was
no longer possible, though in many places the spirit of
intolerance remained the same. In many provinces the

310 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
law of the tenth-day festivals was the occasion of great
suffering to the Catholics. In Eure the Commissioner
of the Directory expressed the will of the government
thus : " All ministers are invited to transfer their festi
vals and religious services to the tenth days. For a
republican this invitation is an order ; to act otherwise
would be an ill-timed return toward Ultramontanism,
and a check to the progress of reason. Instead of kill
ing fanaticism, you would give it new hfe. You would
dig for the nation a gulf into which you yourselves
would fall." This was the basest violation of con
science, and could not, therefore, reach its object. A
priest in Yonne made the following noble response : " I
cannot obey the invitation to transfer . the Sabbath to
the tenth days. As minister of the Catholic religion, I
demand for it the free exercise which is guaranteed by
the Constitution. As citizen, I demand of the magis
trates of the people to be maintained in the enjoyment
of my right." The obhgation to share the churches with
the Theophilanthropists was another sore trial. It is
necessary to take into account all these, and many other
obstacles, in order to arrive at a just appreciation of the
progress which religion made under the auspices of de
voted men in these troublous times. How much greater
would have been the result had the Church been in the
enjoyment of unrestricted liberty !
It is sometimes thought that the independency of the
Church on the State is incompatible with order in its
organization. This is abundantly refuted by the two
National Councils which assembled at Paris in 1797 and
1801. More respectable assemblies were never held in

Religion and, the Reign of Terror. 311
Christendom. They were not made up of opulent prel
ates ; it was at the price of the severest sacrifices that
most of the members had made the journey. They
were men who had borne the heat of the day, and en
dured bitter persecutions. They were exposed to the
hatred of the adherents of the ancient regime because of
their liberal patriotism, and to the outrages of the fa
natics of the new, because of their unconquerable attach
ment to the faith of their fathers.
Though it is not our business to write the history of
these two Councils, we may, however, refer to the re
sults. The first was convoked at Paris by the Bishops
in 1797, and had been preceded by regular elections in
the provincial synods. It was opened in Notre Dame
in August by a sermon by Lecoz. The pious Bishop
expressed his joy at the spectacle of the recently pro
scribed rehgion rising, hke Christ, from its tomb.
" Who of you," said he, " would have dared to indulge
in the faintest expectation that in a little time one
would see united in this holy place these venerable
Bishops, these pious Pastors, all these intrepid priests
who, lately the victims of a violent tempest, and the
objects of a most horrible proscription, were wandering
from cavern to cavern, or pining in dark and sickly
prisons, and weeping, not over their captivity, not over
the burden of their chains, but over the desolating ces
sation of worship ? " Then, painting the joy that had
been manifested throughout the country on the revival
of worship, he closed with a touching exhortation to
harmonious action, addressed to the refractory clergy.
Among the first acts of the Council was the sending of

312 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
two letters, one to the Pope, and the other to the non-
juring clergy, urging both to the necessity of concilia
tory co-operation. It showed itself very moderate in its
measures, and generously hberal toward all its oppo
nents. It desired to introduce prayers in the vulgar
tongue in the reorganized Church, and took stringent
measures for introducing and securing strict morals both
in the clergy and in the membership.
The second Council was opened on the 29th of June,
1801, in the presence of a vast multitude. The session,
however, which was intended to complete the work of
Church reorganization in France, had scarcely begun,
when it was compeUed to dissolve itself on the order of
the First Consul, who had just concluded a Concordat
with the Pope. This was an act of simple tyranny.
The time had come when Bonaparte desired to prevent
all freedom of speech both in Church and State. We
will see, in a subsequent chapter, by what acts of dic
tatorial domination the pacification which this Coun
cil was designed to complete, was, I will not say, real
ized, but forcibly imposed. We will here merely state
that on the eve of this Concordat the Constitutional
Church was in full opening prosperity, and that it owed,
most assuredly, its increasing influence to its independ
ency of the State. The venerable President of the first
Council spoke as follows, in his call for the second:
" Some of you are alarmed that the Church has been
despoiled of its property. For this let us rather adore
Divine Providence. For a long time the wicked have
dared to assert that the religion of Christ was supported
only by the vast possessions of its ministers. For a

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 313
long time, also, the Church herself has groaned to see
entering into her sanctuary men who seemed to be in
fluenced only by her wealth. The Lord has desired by
a single stroke to stop both the blasphemies of the un
believing and the scandalous cupidity of his ministers.
He has desired to perpetuate, without the influence or
aid of wealth, a rehgion which was founded without it.
When Christ called the twelve, to what was it that he
called them ? Wealth and honors ? No ; but to labor,
pain, and self-denial ; and to crosses, for their recompense.
If then we, the ministers of Christ, are reduced to this
apostolical condition, should we murmur? Ah, let us
rather rejoice, and bless this admirable providence.
The Lord has re-established the evangelical poverty of
his ministers." Who will not recognize in this noble
language, an echo of the primitive times, when the moral
power of the Church was measured by her political and
pecuniary insignificance ?
The Protestant Churches had participated in all the
fluctuations of religious liberty. After having obtained
from the Constituent Assembly, aU possible reparation
for the great act of cruel oppression which Louis XIV.
had inflicted upon them, they enjoyed the privilege of
public worship as long as the right of conscience was
respected. Protestantism was not regarded as favora
ble to the ancient rigime, and encountered no prejudices
on the part of the first revolutionists. With the excep
tion of a few large cities, as Montauban and Nimes, the
Protestants consisted, in good part, not of the peasantry,
but of that liberal and energetic citizen-class which de
sired to found in France, not the demagogy of the Ter-
40

314 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
rorists, but the reign of true liberty. Barnave had
represented and nobly served them in the Constituent
Assembly. Rabaut St. Etienne had also acted there an
equally honorable though less brilliant part. In the
Convention, the young Pastor Lasource had stood
among the first ranks of the Girondists, and had per
ished on the scaffold with Rabaut. Both in Alsace and
in Gard the interests of Protestantism had largely suf
fered during the dehrium of the Revolution. There is
never a large body of men which doesjiot include a few
violent or ignoble individuals who hide their true quali
ties in times of peace, but who discover themselves
when the hour of trial arrives. It is not, therefore, as
tonishing that Protestantism as well as Cathohcism had
to mourn over shameful defections and apostasies. It
had lost much of the fervor which had once inspired it
with a noble heroism. The pale and cold Deism which
had invaded England and Germany began to affect it.
Finding sympathy and tolerance only in the camp of
the philosophers, it had to some extent yielded to their
influence. The ancient belief of course remained, but it
had been shaken. Many a heart once full of ardent
faith, was filled with revolutionary passions. Matthew
Dumas, in his mission of pacification, at the time of the
troubles at Toulouse and Montauban in 1790, reports
that he found not a little hinderance to his work in
several violent Protestants. He mentions in particular
a preacher at Toulouse, Jean Bon St. Andre, afterward
a fanatical Terrorist member of the Convention, who
responded thus to his prudent counsel : " It is now more
"than a hundred years that we have been waiting the

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 315
hour of vengeance." A man like this had already re
nounced the spirit of a religion which commands to for
give one's enemies. It was a colleague of him, Julien,
who seconded Bishop Gobel on the infamous day of the
public apostasies. And the example was not without
imitators. The Protestant Church of Paris had freely
sympathized with the Revolution. The Legislative
Assembly had attended, in a body, a solemn service of
thanksgiving held in his church by the Pastor Marron.
Unfortunately, this Church did not remain faithful dur
ing the time of the orgies of Hebert and Chaumette ;
the sacerdotal cups, as well as the baptismal vases, were
canied to the mint in the name of the Church officers.
Thanks to God, these disgraces were neither many nor
lasting. The majority of the clergy remained firm in
the faith. Simple peasants often distinguished them
selves by their fidelity. Rabaut the Younger cites a
touching example. In Gard an aged cultivator had
been thrown into prison for having ceased his labor on
the Sabbath. The next Sabbath he presented himself in
Sunday attire to the authorities, and asked them to im
prison him again, saying that he could not work on that
day. During the period between the estabhshment of
the Directory and its overthrow by Bonaparte the Prot
estant Churches were in a state of reconstruction. They
shared in the misfortunes of the times, but a revival of
faith would have soon placed them in prosperity. It
was surely not the Concordat which recalled them to
life, for this served only to confine them in galhng
bonds. Protestantism was erect and active, as well as
Catholicism, before the hour when Napoleon conde-

316 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
scended to meddle with rehgion only to put it into
chains. It seems to us that the facts of this chapter sufficiently
refute the oft-repeated assertion, that it was the Fust
Consul who raised the altars out of the dust into which
they had been cast by the revolutionary infidels. The
Bishops of the Gallican Church, in their assembly at
Paris in 1799, seem to have foreseen this falsification of
history, so obstinately maintained by sycophantic and
inveterate prejudice, when they inserted these emphatic
words in their circular letter : " There is no more relig
ion ! Let us efface this blasphemy." And it is in fact a
blasphemy to make rehgion depend on politics, and
falsely to attribute its revival to a happy calculation of
reviving despotism.

BOOK FOURTH.
THE CONCORDAT.

CHAPTER I.
PREPARATION FOR THE CONCORDAT.
Whatever by its greatness transcends the ordinary
standards of men and things is usually magnified still
further, and as it were transfigured, by the imagination
of the public ; in respect to such phenomena the legend
is almost contemporary with history. Such is the case
with that marvelous epoch of our history which saw
rise so suddenly out of the whirlpool of revolution a ri
gime of power and order, encircled at its very dawn with
that radiant halo of military glory which is so dear to
the French. From the very start to the final grand ca
tastrophe of this incomparable reign which includes in
itself all successes and all reverses, every thing tended
to give it an ideal character, and to assimilate it to a
sublime classic tragedy. In admiring what was great,
however, we run into danger of excusing what was fatal,
on the ground that punishment followed closely upon
the faults, and that that which was but transitory
should not be severely judged. In this we forget that
the spirit of a reign may survive it, and that nothing is

318 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
more pernicious for a nation than a false ideal, than
blind admirations which corrupt the moral sense and
pervert history. The memory of Napoleon has too long
floated between the indiscriminating extremes of adora
tion and hate — a proof that the just judgment is not yet
attained. Idolatrous worshipers give occasion for fanat
ical enemies. The time has come for an equitable appre
ciation. We should not wait for disasters before de
nouncing wrongs, but rather signahze in the very start,
in the midst of the splendid triumphs of this extraordi
nary man, the shadow which finally obscured every thing,
namely, that insolent contempt of every superior princi
ple, of all right, of all hberty. The partial outbreaks of
despotism, however odious sometimes, are yet infinitely
less grave than the active genius which inspires ' them.
Now, never has this genius appeared more complete,
more resolute, than in tho person of the young general
who overthrew the Directory by the coup d'itat of
Brumaire. This will appear clearly from the sketch
which we propose to draw of his pohcy in matters of
rehgion. Ordinarily the period of the Consulate from No
vember 9th, 1799, to May 18th, 1804, is set apart for
special praise, because of the wisdom, patriotism, and
reparative power which characterized it. Prominent
among the acts of this period which have been highly
lauded, is the Concordat which the First Consul made
with the Pope. Both from this general appreciation of
the period of the Consulate, and from the particular esti
mation of this special act, we beg leave to dissent. It
is not a fact that the Consulate was truly reparative ; it

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 319
prepared the way for all that followed ; and if arbitrary
power was not yet fully established, it is because the
despot was waiting Jbr the fruit to ripen before plucking
it ; but, like a skillful cultivator, he spared no pains to
bring about this desired result. If by a reparative gov
ernment is meant, a government which, putting a stop to
tyranny, makes to be felt anew the curb of law, represses
by a prompt and weU-organized police the greatest of
disorders, gives security to private individuals, restores
prosperity to the finances, and in a word, gives to the
country, with internal tranquilhty, a peace crowned with
the glory of a Marengo, we are ready to accord this
praise to the Consulate. We understand very well that
France, wearied and humiliated under the Directory,
could feel deep and ardent thankfulness for these bene
fits, and overlook the price at which they were bought ;
could so ardently feel the necessity of social order and
security as to accept with enthusiasm a despotism which
was absolute from the very start. In fact, during this
whole period the word republic was nothing more than
an empty sound, one of those cunning deceptions of
which Augustus made so skillful a use. To escape from
revolutionary agitation was the deep, universal desire.
The new power satisfied perfectly this desire, though in
a superficial and precarious way. It is at this point that
it was not reparative ; for military despotism substituted
for anarchy is revolution still, with all its worst fea
tures, with its predilections and passions, all the more
dangerous as they meet with no restraint to their ready
indulgence. It is anarchy from above in the place of the .
anarchy of the masses ; it is the principle of disorder in

320 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
the central force, which, because of the order that rules
in the subordinate parts of the administrative machine,
renders it so much the more easy for the errors or
crimes of the chief of the State to be executed with a
remorseless and inemediable facility. I know of no
more perilous combination than arbitrariness in the di
recting chief, and regularity in the subordinate instru
ments. Now this was precisely the politics of the Con
sulate, as it was afterward the spirit of the Empire. The
results of the reign of Napoleon suffice to convince us
that there is no truly reparative rigime but that of
liberty, that is to say, the rigime of law, under the con
trol of the real representatives of the people. I call
reparative the government of a William of Orange, or
the presidency of a Washington, because these great
men founded society on the respect for right, and/gave
to it for safeguard a well-regulated liberty, that is, a
liberty which regulates itself; on the contrary, I call
anarchical and destructive every rigime of mere good
pleasure, whether it be democratic, aristocratic, republi
can, or monarchical ; and I regard it all the more dan
gerous in proportion as it has more cunningly organized
the country it controls. Remorseless facts demonstrate
these principles. France, conquered and humiliated so
'.ow as to treat with the enemy in her own capital, is a
cruel and bloody lesson for those who separate order
and peace from hberty, and who imagine that great
military exploits suffice to regenerate and strengthen a
nation. I do not deny that the government of Napo
leon accepted and consecrated some of the precious
conquests of the Revolution ; it firmly maintained law

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 321
for all ranks and sects, the admission of all classes to
the public service, the abohtion of religious privileges,
and equality as far as it could exist without hberty.
But for liberty it had no tolerance whatever. It is,
therefore, a mockery to describe the government of Na
poleon as a representative of the principles of 1789.
The First Consul has clearly enough explained himself
on this head. At the time of the vote giving him the
Consulate for life, Lafayette and La Tour Maubourg
placed their votes on the condition that the liberty of
the press should be guaranteed. " Judge from that,"
said Napoleon to one of his confidants, " how much is
to be expected from those men who are always making
a hobby of the metaphysics of 1789. Liberty of the
press ! " An ironical smile expressed well the extent of
his respect for this great liberty.
The Consular Constitution is the masterpiece of that
political school which puts the arbitrary at the head,
and a cunning organization in the body, of the govern
ment, substituting for the parliament which controls, an
administration which executes and gives to the will of
the sovereign, not a counterpoise which checks, but a
marvelous organism for the instantaneous realization of
its volitions. A guiding head and strong, docile arms,
a single will and supple instruments, such were the
essence of the system. In the main this constitution
was the work of Sieyes. It placed all real power in the
hands of the executive chief, and based the government
on the merest mockery of popular elections. It put a
stop to all free parliamentary discussion, and the Council
of the executive was powerless to do any thing but give
41

322 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
advice. But advice was of httle avaU. What was
needed was not so much advice as a real limitation of
the executive volition. As it was, the only man in
France who enjoyed full freedom was he who had in
his hands also absolute power. From this head every
thing proceeded, and to him every thing returned. It
would have been better not to interpose between him
and the country that phantom of national representa
tion which served only to give an appearance of legality
to his merest caprices. The Revolution had given him
a country entirely dissolved into its simplest elements,
and without those great corporate bodies which always
impose some check on despotism. The part of the Con
sular system most highly lauded is doubtless that which
organized the internal administration, but it was pre
cisely this which served so efficaciously to enslave the
nation. The executive chief, by means of his prefects,
sub-prefects, and mayors, was present in every part of
the nation. This system made all the resources of the
ch-cumference converge to the center, and bore back
from the center the decisions of sovereign power, thus
establishing the most perfect order in servitude. The
stroke of a single hand at the center was instantly felt
in all the ramifications of the administrative organism.
The wise management of the treasury would have been
a signal benefit, had it in some degree been left in the
control of the nation ; but as it was, it became an occa
sion of evil by putting into the hands of an irresponsible
master the means of daring every thing. The judica
ture was wisely organized, though it was powerless
against absolutism. In fine, France possessed in this

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 323
system of centralization without counterpoise the most
perfect organization of despotism which ever existed, a
system which still continues to be the most formidable
obstacle to a return to liberty. The Civil Code consti
tutes one of the brightest glories of this epoch, but this
wise digest would have lost nothing in value had it
given better guarantees to personal hberty. It is in
fected with the vice of the government. When taken
in connection with the criminal code it furnished many
resources to despotism.
From the beginning of the Consulate it was easy to
foresee to what extremes the intoxication of absolute
power would lead the ambitious chief. After the faUure
of an attempt at assassination, he declared in open State
CouncU that he would put himself above the law in
order to strike a grand blow at the Jacobins, though he
knew perfectly that they had nothing to do with the
conspiracy, saying in self-justification that royahst in
trigues were a mere skin-disease, whereas the Jacobin
spirit was an internal, deep-seated malady, which needed
a radical cure. To those who opposed to these iniqui
tous measures the principles of simple justice, he ex
claimed bluntly, "The metaphysicians are a class of
men to whom we owe aU our evils ! I must treat this
matter as a statesman." And he dared to say this in
the hall where laws were made ! Thus we find trans
mitted from the ancient rigime to the Terrorists, and
from the Terrorists to Bonaparte, this pernicious doc
trine of public safety ; which is nothing more nor less
than the will of the stronger determined on accomplish
ing his own good pleasure. This malady of the interior

324 Religion, and, the Reign of Terror.
which the First Consul wished to cure, had never offered
a worse phase than that of sacrificing eternal right to
the passions of the moment, and had presented few
more criminal manifestations than that armed abduction
and murder in March, 1804, of Conde, the Due d'En-
ghien, which was so coolly accomplished, and afterward,
more coolly still, discussed and justified as an excellent
measure for deterring the enemies of the new power.
It was very fortunate that Bonaparte was not cruel by
nature, for the nation had no other guarantee than his
temperament. Every treaty which he signed was pre
carious. He made it for the moment for the sake of
convenience, and when it was his pleasure he broke it.
He was the genius of war, and the blood and treasure
of France were at his disposal. For a man like Napo
leon, the temptation to use to excess his power was
almost irresistible. And his counselors seconded his
natural proclivity. The spirit of the Consular govern
ment is well expressed in this saying of its chief, " There
must be no opposition."
It is certain that from the day of the entrance of the
First Consul into the TuUeries, he cherished only a
single thought — to consolidate and perpetuate his abso
lute authority. The memoirs of the times abound in
sarcastic allusions at the progress of the pohtical
comedy. Nothing could be more bunghng than the
first essays at a princely court at Mahnaison and St.
Cloud. Novice courtiers made sorry attempts at the
toilet of dukes or counts. The coarse language of the
Clubs contrasted sadly with fawning flatteries from the
same mouth. On his return from a triumphal tour in

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 325
Belgium and Normandy, the First Consul remarked to
his brother, " I have been able to learn all the abjectness
of the French, and to assure myself that I can obtain
from their servility all that it may please me to ask."
His first demands, however, exceeded proper bounds.
Jealous of personal power, he was unwilling even to
found a dynasty, so that he might be perfectly free to
transmit his crown to whomever he should please, and
that there might not be a single regulation for the future
before which he should have to yield. This determina
tion raised the most violent storms in his family, and
made him to be cursed in wrath by gentle and pacific
men like his brother Joseph. These sad scenes are re
produced in the curious memoirs of Miot de Melitto.
They enable us to understand the following sad words
of the author, which, moreover, are but a true echo of
the sentiments of many eminent men of that day :
" What a sad end for that Revolution which was begun
with such an enthusiasm for liberty, such a generous
patriotism ! What ! so much blood shed on the battle
field and on the scaffold, so many fortunes destroyed, so
many sacrifices of all that man holds dear, shall these
only end in giving us a change of masters, in substitut
ing a family unknown ten years ago, and which was
scarcely French at the opening of the Revolution, in the
place of the dynasty which has ruled over France for
eight centuries ! Is, then, our condition so miserable
that we have no refuge but in despotism ? Have we no
resource against our evils but in giving to the Bona-
partes every thing, without receiving any guarantee in
return?" And what adds special force to these

326 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
words is, that they were written by a Counselor of
State. It was of importance for our purpose to describe the
pohtical situation which gave birth to the Concordat.
It, as well as aU the other measures of this epoch, was
the offspring of personal ambition, and simply formed a
part of that scheme of reaction and monarchical restora
tion which was so deeply conceived, and so energeti
cally executed, by General Bonaparte. Lafayette ex
pressed its true character the day he addressed to the
First Consul, in aUusion to his negotiations with the
Pope, this playful remark : " You desire to get the little
phial broken upon your head." "We shall see, we
shall see," replied Bonaparte. Bourrienne, in relating
this anecdote, adds : " Such was the real origin of the
Concordat." And this can scarcely be doubted, when
we consider the rehgious opinions of the First Consul,
as gathered from his correspondence and from his occa
sional blunt remarks, whether in privacy or in open
coimcU. Rehgion is always regarded by him as an
instrument of government, a means of controlling and
winning the masses. He assigns to himself the first
place in that domain which belongs to God alone. We
cannot certainly accuse him of Atheism ; his strong in-
teUigence rejected the absurdity of supposing a world
so marvelous as ours to be the offspring of chance. " It
is the privilege of intelligence," says weU the historian
Thiers, " to recognize marks of intelligence in the uni
verse ; and a great mind is more capable than a nanow
one of seeing God in his works." Moreover, Atheism
is the enemy of order, subordination, and obedience in

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 327
the State as well as in the Church, and for this reason it
could not fail to displease the intensely-governmental
genius of Napoleon. Open rebellion against the Sover
eign of the skies would have been a bad social example.
The Consul was, therefore, sincere whenever he spoke
of the Divine Majesty as it is revealed in the spectacle
of creation, or in that starry heaven which, on one occa
sion, he pointed out to Monge with unfeigned emotion.
But more than this we must not demand of the man of
war and politics. This religious sentiment, which, vague
as it was, made itself felt in his soul, he determined to
make use of, not so much in satisfying it, as in making it
contribute to his personal advancement. Now this was
the surest way of misconceiving and violating it.
Whenever religion is viewed not as the supreme end,
but as a means of reahzing temporal or personal ends, it
is misconceived in its very essence. We love to believe
that on the rock of St. Helena a divine ray penetrated
the tqrmented heart of the great captive ; but it is cer
tain that up to the day of his fall, he considered religion
only in its relations to his politics, arid that he gave it
his protection or disfavor according as he found it more
useful to his interests. In religion, as in every thing
else, he saw only himself, and himself alone. Before, as
well as after, the Concordat, the same view pervades his
discourses. The young man, who is yet only a general
of fortune, expresses himself as the chief of a great em
pire. Of him in regard to religion we have acts and words
of the most contrary character, according to the occasion.*
During his first campaign in Italy, when he had to
* See Appendix, note 42.

328 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
deal with the dignitaries of the Church, he spoke with
profound respect of the beauty and of the spirit of the
Gospel; but this did not hinder him on his return to
Paris, when he was in the presence of an administration
which was the sworn enemy of Christianity, and of a
scoffing populace which held the same opinions, from
ranking among the chief benefits of the Revolution the
destruction of rehgion itself. The following words form
the beginning of the discourse he pronounced when pre
sented to the Directory, namely : " The French people,
in order to obtain a constitution founded on reason, had
to conquer eighteen centuries of prejudice. The consti
tution of 1795, and yourselves, have triumphed over
these obstacles. Religion, feudalism, and royalty have
successively governed Europe for twenty centuries ;
but from the peace which you have just concluded will
date the era of representative governments." We see
here rehgion placed on the same footing as feudalism
and royalty, and classed among the scourges fii the
human race. The young general now passed with his
army into Egypt. On his way he captured Malta, and
addressed some pious -words to the Bishop of the island,
so as to render as palatable as possible his recommenda
tions of a prompt submission to the new power. But
scarcely had he set foot on the land of the pyramids
when he addressed to his soldiers a famous proclama
tion, in which he recommended them to act among the
people who believe the Koran as they had acted among
Christians and Jews, and to show to their Muftis and
Imans the same respect which they had shown to Bishops
and Rabbis in Europe. " Show," said he, " the same

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 329
toleration for the ceremonies prescribed by the Koran,
and for the mosques, as you have done for the convents
and the synagogues, for the rehgion of Moses and that
of Christ." In an address to the Egyptians he spoke of
the sentiments of the French in these words : " We too
are true Mussulmans. Was it not we who destroyed
the Pope, him who said that war must be made upon
the Mussulmans ? Was it not we who destroyed the
Knights of Malta, because those idiots beheved that
God had decreed that they should make war upon the
Mussulmans ? " He was not content with neutrality,
but even desired that one of the great Mohammedan
festivals should be celebrated at Cairo with more than
usual pomp. Thus in some respect he reahzed the
famous verse of Voltaire in his Zaire, and was a Chris
tian in Italy, a free-thinker at Paris, and a Mussulman
on the shores of the NUe.
At a later time, even after the Concordat, he ex
plained his views in open State Council with all de
sirable clearness. "As to me," said he, "it is not the
mystery of the incarnation that I see in religion, but
the mystery of social order ; it attributes to Heaven the
doctrine of equahty which prevents the rich from being
massacred by the poor. Religion is, moreover, a sort
of vaccine inoculation, which, by satisfying our taste
for the marvelous, insures us against becoming the
dupes of quacks and sorcerers ; the priests are of more
account than the Cagliostros, the Kants, and all the
dreamers of Germany." In the eyes of Napoleon this
mystery of social order was simply submission to
the civU power. This was for him the essential doc-
42

330 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
trine, the foundation itself, of rehgion. Now it was
in the priests that he found the most efficient pohce for
enforcing this dogma of civil submission. When the
Emperor of Austria heard of the conclusion of the
second Concordat, he exclaimed that he approved highly
of Napoleon's pohcy, that he knew by experience that
priests could not be dispensed with in a weU-ordered
State, and that, for himself, he needed, in order to make
his authority respected, the services of two armies,
one white, and the other black. On that day the two
Emperors understood each other. To this same utili
tarian view of religion Napoleon constantly recuned in
his speeches and conespondence. While yet a republi
can general he praised those priests " who held that the
pohtical code of the Gospel consisted in the liberty and
supremacy of the people, and who sought to quiet, in
stead of agitating, the masses." In fact, by holding this
democratic position, they served his pohcy of the mo
ment, which was to found republics in Italy, and he
wearied not in praising them. He compared them to
Fenelon, and declared that " such priests were the finest
gift which Heaven could present to a government."
The fact was, he loved this republicanism of the priests
only as a sign of their readiness to accept what he dic
tated. He did not long require this particular political
faith of them, and the cardinal virtue which he most
admired in them was their willingness to conform to
' the changes of the civil power. " I know of no charac
ter more respectable, more worthy of the veneration of
men," so wrote he to the Bishop of Malta after the con
quest of the island, " than that of a priest who, full of

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 331
the true spirit of the Gospel, feels it to be his duty to
obey the civil power, and to maintain peace in his
diocese." The true thought of Napoleon, that which inspired
the Concordat, is clearly revealed in the words which he
addressed to the priests of MUan in June, 1800, on the
eve of the battle of Marengo. He speaks for Paris and
for Rome, and the discourse is a sort of preface to the
Concordat. " I have desired to see you aU in a body,"
said he, " that I might have the satisfaction of informing
you personally of the sentiments which animate me in
regard to the Apostohcal Roman Catholic rehgion.
Convinced that this rehgion is the only one which can
procure true happiness to a well-ordered society, and
strengthen the basis of good government, I assure you
that I shall apply myself to protect and defend it at all
times, and by all means. You, the ministers of that
rehgion, which is verily also my own, I esteem as
my dearest friends. I declare to you that I will hold
as a disturber of the pubhc peace, and as an enemy of
the common good, and that as such I will punish in the
most rigorous manner, and even, if need be, with the
pain of death, whosoever shaU disparage in the shghtest
manner our common rehgion, or shall aUow himself the
least indignity against your sacred persons. My formal
intention is, that the Cathohc rehgion shall be preserved
in its entirety, that it shaU be pubUcly exercised, and
that it shall continue in the enjoyment of this right as
fully and as inviolably as at the time when I first en
tered these favored lands. Now that I possess full
powers, I am determined to make use of all the means

332 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
which I shall deem most fit for assuring and guarantee
ing that rehgion. Modern philosophers have striven to
persuade France that Catholicism is the implacable
enemy of all republican government. Hence resulted
that cruel persecution which the republic, inflicted on
this religion and its ministers ; hence all those horrors to
which that unfortunate nation has been a prey. The
diversity of opinion on matters of rehgion which reigned
in France at the time of the Revolution was one of the
chief causes of those disorders. Experience has dis
abused the French. For my part, I also am a phUoso-
pher, and I know that in any society whatever no man
can pass for just or virtuous who is ignorant of whence
he came, and of whither he is to go. Reason alone
cannot teach him that. Without rehgion we continu
ally grope in darkness, and the Cathohc rehgion is the
only one which gives man certain light as to his origin
and ultimate destiny. No society can exist without
morality ; there is no sound morahty but in religion ;
therefore religion alone can give to a State a firm and
durable support. A society' without rehgion is like a
ship without a compass. France, instructed by her
misfortunes, has welcomed back to her bosom the Cath
olic rehgion. I cannot deny that I have contributed to
this good work. I assure you that the French churches
have been reopened, that the CathoUc rehgion is put
ting on its ancient splendor, and that the people behold
with reverence the holy Pastors returning full of zeal
into the midst of their abandoned flocks. When I shall
be able to speak with the Pope, I hope I shall have the
happiness of removing all the obstacles which may yet

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 333
interpose between France and her entire reconciliation
with the head of the Church. Such is what I wished to
say to you in reference to the Catholic religion. I de
sire that the expression of these sentiments may remain
engraved in your minds, that you may see fit to put
them in order, and that they be given to the public by
the press, in order that my dispositions may be known not
only in France and Italy, but also throughout Europe."
The First Consul spoke hke a true confessor of the
faith. He was speaking, however, for the purpose of
making an impression on Europe, and though he seemed
so thorough-going in his orthodoxy, yet he did not rise
above the sphere of pohtics. He made a conciliatory
advance to the Cathohc Church, and he counted on her
responding to it. It was an affair of negotiation which
was about to be engaged in ; it was the act of a states
man, in which the Christian had nothing to do. If he,
the armed representative of France, fears not to threaten
the pain of death for the shghtest rehgious offenses, it is
because the orator, as was his custom, made himself all
things to all men. For the Itahan priests he made
himself an Itahan. His eye was on the momentary
effect. If this is doubted, we have only to hsten to him
a few months later, not on a State occasion beneath the
vaults of the cathedral of MUan, but at Mahnaison, in
familiar conversation with his friends. It was at the
time when the negotiations with Rome were in full
activity. The First Consul had turned the conversa
tion to matters of religion. He had stigmatized purely
philosophical opinions, such as Deism, with the epithet
of ideology, which for him was the highest expression

334 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
of contempt. He had spoken of the emotion which he
had recently felt on hearing the church bell of Rueil,
and concluded with the words, " so strong is the force
of habit and education ! " A man so occupied as Napo
leon does not speak of his ideas and emotions for the
mere pleasure of expressing them. One might be cer
tain that he had a hidden but definite object in view.
In fact, these remarks were intended as a preface to a
grave communication. " I said to myself," added he
immediately, " what a deep impression must such things
make on the simple and credulous ! Answer that, you
philosophers and theorists. A nation must have a re
ligion ; this religion should be in the hands of the gov
ernment. Fifty emigrated Bishops who are in the pay
of the English, rule now the French clergy. We must
destroy their influence, and to this end the influence of
the Pope is necessary. He shall depose them, or induce
them to resign. It shaU be declared that the Catholic
religion being that of a majority of the French, the
government prefers to regulate its exercise. The First
Consul will nominate five Bishops, the Pope wUl ap
point them ; they will choose the Curates, and the State
wUl salary them. An oath will be exacted. The priests
who wUl not take it shall be banished. It may be said
that I am a Papist. I am nothing. I was a Moham
medan in Egypt ; I shall be a Cathohc here, for the good
of the people. I do not beheve in rehgions, but the
idea of a God — " And pointing to the skies he asked,
" Who made all that ? " He then proceeded to develop
the advantages of his plan : " The educated classes will
not oppose Catholicism. They are indifferent. I will

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 335
spare myself great obstacles in the interior, and abroad
I will be able by means of the Pope to — " He arrested
himself, and his silence was significant. He then closed
the conversation abruptly with these words : " There
exists no longer either good faith or religious belief.
It is an affair purely political." The new Cyrus took
care by this frank avowal to show clearly in what sense
he restored rehgion. He often repeated to his secretary
Bourrienne : " You will see what profit I shall derive
of the priests." For the rest, he was fully determined
to break the pride of " these sacred personages," for
whom he had expressed in Milan such an entire de
votion. At the very moment when he was negotiating
the Concordat he remarked one day to Carnot, on occa
sion of a slight show of clerical opposition : " The priests
and nobles are at a great game. If I should let loose
upon them the people, they would all be devoured in the
twinkling of an eye." v
We have clearly enough shown the great pohtical
reason which led the First Consul to treat with the
Pope : he wished to turn to his profit the power of the
religious sentiment, the indestructibility of which he
clearly saw. Moreover, he could not have left religion
in the enjoyment of liberty, without limiting his own
arbitrary power. Rather let us say, religious hberty is
not possible except where public liberty, in its widest
sense, exists also. For what is a free Church ? Is it
not an association which comes together from time to
time, and uses the hberty of writing and speaking ? It
cannot dispense with the essential rights of a free people
— the right of association and reunion, the liberty of the

336 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
press, and aU the other attributes of modern society. It is
to the honor of religion that it is incapable of enjoying
liberty as a monopoly, and for this reason it is the in
terest of the Church to desire it for all. The dictator
of Brumaire was logically bound to impose on rehgion
the same claims which he was forging for the whole
body of the nation. He could not tolerate the abomi
nable disorder, that a free word should be spoken in any
point of the country, and that in the presence of his
creature Prefects there should be free Bishops. The suf
ferance of a single free association would have been a
blemish on the map. It was necessary to hasten to erase
it, in order to celebrate the jubilee of a perfected central
ization, reaching in its potency from one frontier to the
other. The same hand which re-established the throne
was bound, not to re-establish the altar, (for that was
already erect, and never had purer incense burned upon
it,) but to chain it to the throne. In his mad desire for
absolute dominion and omnipotence, the great Despot
could not consent to let even the rehgious domain
escape his grasp. But he was soon to see, that it is
easier to attempt such a usurpation than to succeed in
it. Judge of it by the following bitter words, which
reveal the difficulties with which. he met in his attempt
to obtain the lion's share of every thing. " See," said he
to his State Council, " see the insolence of the priests ;
in sharing their authority with what they call the tem
poral power, they reserve to themselves the right of
acting on the intelligence, the nobler part of man, and
presume to confine me to acting merely on the body.
They keep the soul, and throw me the carcass ! "

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 337
After these necessary preliminaries, we hasten to state
the several steps in the negotiation of the Concordat.
It was necessary to deal with the different phases of
opinion at Paris and at Rome. For the first and most
difficult negotiation the Consul used his personal in
fluence ; for the rest he made use of adroit agents, armed
with ambiguous promises and efficacious threats.
We have seen in how prosperous a condition was the
GaUican Church at the time when Napoleon overthrew
the Directory. And the work was rapidly going for
ward. The refractory clergy were also at the good
work, especially in the West and South. Though the
two bodies were yet far from united, there is no reason
to believe that, had the enjoyment of hberty been al
lowed, they would not have come to a speedy under
standing. At all events the Pope could have brought
it about by fewer concessions than were eventually ex
acted from him in the Concordat. The first measures
of Napoleon's government were of a beneficent charac
ter. Commissions appointed to hear the complaints of
the banished priests, indicated that the era of proscrip
tion was past. The ashes of Pope Pius VI. were deliv
ered to his former subjects, and solemnly transported to
Rome. Some days later a wise decree substituted, in
the place of the poUtico-rehgious oath which had created
so much trouble, a simple formula of fidelity to the Con
stitution, which would raise no conscientious scruples.
A decree opening the churches to Christian worship
was strictly enforced. For a moment there was hope
that real hberty would be continued. We have shown
how this hope was suddenly disappointed. Already
43

338 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
the hberty of the press was suppressed, and with it all
those safeguards which it alone can preserve. It was
evident that a religious as well as pohtical reaction was
now to be inaugurated.
Scarcely had the First Consul returned from his mem
orable Italian campaign when he interfered in affairs of
Church in the -spirit we have already indicated. He
was a novice in such matters, but he had a resolute will,
and the power to execute it. He hastily collected a
little ecclesiastico-theological library, and as would seem,
profited by it more rapidly still. He had the Latin
works of Bossuet translated for his own use, and studied
thoroughly the so-called hberties of the Galhcan Church.
The fact that he highly approved of them is sufficient to
show how httle of hberalism they really contain. But
he presumed afterward to complete them, in a manner
which would have shocked Bossuet, and which sanc
tioned the most exclusive Ultramontanism. This theo
logical apprenticeship of General Bonaparte has been
much admired. I cannot admire it any more highly
than I can admire the role of Constantine at the Council
of Nice. These essays at controversy in the mouths of
the masters of the world make upon me a very sad im
pression. To present theological arguments when one
has his hand on the sword, is to go out of one's sphere.
You are not reason but force, therefore speak not the
language of reason. You are able and determined to
constrain, do not, therefore, attempt to persuade. To
every one his role. Be a dictator, but, pray, do not con
found the general who gives Orders, with the Church
father who cites texts. The parties are not equal.

Religion and, the Reign of Terror. 339
The plan of Bonaparte seems to have been promptly
conceived. He had long sought an occasion to treat
with the Pope. It would be erroneous to suppose that
the parish beU of Rueil, and the recollections of his
chUdhood, had any thing to do in this matter. His let
ters at the time of the treaty of Tolentino are full of
indifference and contempt for the same venerable Popish
institution m which he now found so much to admire,
In September, 1796, he wrote to Cacault of "playing
tricks with the old fox ;" whereas in February, 1797, he
informed the Pope that his Holiness would have no
more faithful aUy than the French Republic, and on
the same day he wrote, to the Directory that the old
machine would soon inevitably go to pieces of itself.
It was the profound and cunning politician that after
ward found this machine so useful.
The plan of the Concordat has often been lauded as a
work of deep and original thought. Nothing is more
false. When closely examined it reveals httle else than
the old Galhcan tradition, that is to say, the entire sub
ordination of religion to the civil power. It was the
very system of Louis XIV. as revived by the Con
stituent Assembly. In fact, the Concordat was simply
a sanction of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy minus
its democratic elements, which were no longer in fashion.
The elements which had displeased at the Vatican were
now equally offensive at the Tuileries. A functionary
clergy closely dependent on the State, and a sufficient
salary paid by the State to the Bishops and Curates —
such was the plan sketched out by the First Consul; or
rather, bonowed from his Gallican library.

340 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
The Concordat was desired not, by France, but by
Bonaparte himself. No current of opinion urged him
to the step ; on the coritrary, public opinion was un
favorable to an official worship. But he arrogated to
himself the right of settling a great question of con
science — a most grave usurpation. The worthy portion
of the Constitutional Clergy asked only to be permitted
peacefully and freely to pursue the work of restoring
the Church in France. The men of 1789, the true lib
erals, regarded with marked disfavor the project of the
Concordat. The illustrious Lafayette made an attempt
to persuade the First Consul to abandon his project of
creating an official religion, and " to accept in its integ
rity the American principle of perfect equality among
the Churches, all remaining independent of the govern
ment, and the societies forming themselves at their
pleasure under the direction of the Pastors whom they
freely chose and paid." Nothing could better show
the wide difference between the spirit of 1789 and that
of 1801, than the way in which Bonaparte received this
counsel of Lafayette. Bourrienne records the following
words, in which the First Consul expressed to him his
impression of the interview : " Lafayette may be right in
theory ; but what is theory ? It is a folly when applied
to masses of men ; moreover, he is always imagining him
self in America, as if the French were Americans. It
is not likely that he can teach me what is needed for
this country. The Catholic rehgion predominates here,
and besides, I have need of the Pope ; he will do what
I shall wish." If the liberals were opposed to the
Concordat, the masses cared little for it — were en-

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 341
tirely indifferent. " At the accession of Bonaparte,"
says Madame de Stael, "the most sincere partisans of
Cathohcism, after their long sufferings from political in
quisition, aspired only after complete religious liberty.
The general wish of the nation was, that persecution
against the priests should cease, that no oath should be
exacted of them, and finally, that the government should
in no way meddle with private opinion or pubhc wor
ship. Hence, the Consular government would have
satisfied the pubhc by granting toleration as it exists in
America. But the Fust Consul knew that by giving to
the Church a political character, its influence would
second the interests of despotism. What he desired
was to prepare his way to the throne. He needed a
clergy as he needed chamberlains."
To those who advised him to treat all religions alike,
he rephed, that in a religious country the government
could not be indifferent. But what a sad doctrine is
this, that the State should interfere in deciding religious
disputes ! History gives no more certain lesson than
that the way to prolong for ever theological strifes is
for the State authoritatively to decide them. And in
fact it would have been quite unworthy the great war
rior to renew the tragi-comedy of Byzantine history.
His ambition was not so low. He cared very httle
about these disputes of religion. He himself explained
his real motives : " There has never been a State," said
he, " without religion, without worship, without priests.
Is it not better to organize the worship and discipline
the priests, than to have matters as they are ? Instead
of banishing the priests who oppose the government, is

342 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
it not better to win them over? I tell you that the
priests who accept office will break connection with the
former incumbents, and be interested in preventing
their return." When urged to put himself at the head
of the clergy, and by a single word make France Prot
estant, he rephed, " Should I not on the contrary do the
very opposite of Henry VHI. ? You do not under
stand the matter ; the half of France would remain
Cathohc. We would have interminable quanels." His
continual answer to all opposers was, " I need a Pope, a
Pope who will conciliate and not divide, who will unite
the people, and give them to the government. And for
this I need the real Roman Cathohc Pope." I need a
Pope. Such was the cherished thought of the First
Consul. He needed a Pope on the earth as he needed a
God in the heavens— a religion which would crown his
power, impress on the people wholesome notions of
authority, and enable him to keep up his pohce at less
expense, and to collect his taxes with less difficulty!
When it was suggested that the Roman clergy might
be too much under the influence of the Pope, he replied,
"With the armies and the good wishes of France I
shall always sufficiently be the master. If I shall re
store the altars, if I shall protect the priests, if I shall
feed them, and treat them as the ministers of religion
deserve to be treated in every country, they will do
what I shall require of them in the interest of the
public repose. They will calm the people, unite them
under their authority, and place them under my hand."
To feed the priests, and in exchange therefor to have
them put into the hands of the civil power by the Pope —

Religion and the Reign of Terror-. 343
this was what the First Consul called restoring religion.
The clergy are to kiss the hand which feeds them !
Bonaparte did not presume to hold such soldier lan
guage to Gregory. He condescended so far as to ask
of him a report on religious affairs, though he was
fuUy decided to make no account of it. We may judge
of his sincerity by an expression which he made at
the very time of the negotiations with Rome. " What
we are doing," said he to a councilor of State, "will
strike a mortal blow at the Papacy." He was, there
fore, befooling the Pope ; he was doing as he had
some years previously advised the French minister at
Rome to do : he was " playing tricks with the old
fox." Such were the edifying preliminaries of this
religious peace, whose not less edifying meanderings
remain to be traced.
But all the French nation could not have the ad
vantage of being directly persuaded by the forcible
and original eloquence of the First Consul. It was
therefore to be feared that public opinion might pro
nounce itself against him, unless it were carefully
watched and controlled. The hberty of the press was
consequently suspended, and it was easy to forbid all
free discussion of religious questions. The word of
order was given to the Prefects. A circular of one of
these officers to the Journalists deserves to be placed
among the annals of administrative curiosities. " The
interests of earth," so wrote this functionary, "suffice
for the aliment of your journals ; prove your respect
for those of heaven by abstaining from discussing
them." In conclusion, he menaced immediate suspen-

344 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
sion against all journals which did not keep silence on
religious questions. The moment for State communi
cations to the official bodies had not yet arrived. It
was in secrecy and sUence that the so-called religious
peace was preparing. Silentium faciunt et pacem
appellant.

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 345

CHAPTER H.
CONCLUSION OF THE CONCORDAT.
We already know the basis of the negotiation — the
CivU Constitution of the Clergy slightly amended.
The dioceses were to be reduced so as to conespond to
the number of the Departments, each Prefect having a
Bishop within his jurisdiction. The ancient Concor
dats were revived, giving the right of nominating the
Bishops to the Prince, and that of confirming them to
the Pope. The Pope was easily induced to change the
bounds of the diocese, for thereby he was a great gainer,
and received what he never before had succeeded in
obtaining : it placed the episcopacy in entire depend
ence upon him, and realized what Ultramontanism had
not even dreamed of. But there were two concessions
demanded of the Pope which met with strong resistance.
To the honor of the First Consul, let us admit that he
firmly desired the equahty before the law of all rehgious
behefs. He opposed a return to an exclusive and per
secuting Church. Besides, such a reaction was no longer
possible, even in enslaved France. But the Papacy held
as a primary truth that Catholicism alone should be
tolerated and protected. Such was then, is now, and
will ever be, the doctrine of that Church so long as it
retains a theocratic government. On this point it long
resisted. The other point demanded of the Pope, and
44

346 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
which was not less bitter, was to confirm the nomina
tions of Bishops who had belonged to the Constitutional
Clergy, against whom the Church had exhausted her
thunders. This would amount to a humihating retrac
tion. The Papacy never granted it frankly. Her re
sistance was long and obstinate. But the First Consul
would not yield.
The occupant of the Papal chair at this time,
Pius VH.,* was of a very respectable character, with
out arrogance, but possessing that gentle firmness which
at times becomes invincible. His reputation was with
out spot ; he had formed himself in the shadow of the
cloister, and had deservedly obtained the highest post
in the Church. His fine, regular features bore the im
press of a pure and melancholy spirit. He could have
well personated a persecuted Church, and become one
of those living protestations which are so dangerous to
despotism : it would have been dangerous to make a
martyr of such a man. His head seemed crowned in
advance with a nascent aureola ; but this did not hinder
him from possessing a good degree of Itahan finesse.
General Bonaparte had inspired him with warm sympa
thies, which the worst of treatment never whoUy
quenched. As Bishop of Imola he had pubhshed, at the
time of the French invasion, a sermon full of repubUcan
sentiments. It was a rare good fortune for the First
Consul that the choice of the conclave of Cardinals
which was assembled at Venice to eleot a successor to
Pius VI. fell upon Cardinal Chiaramonti. The Prelate
who had been most active in bringing about this choice
* See Appendix, note 43.

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 347
was the eloquent and shrewd Gonzalvi. He had been
rewarded. At the opening of the transactions with
Bonaparte he was Secretary of the Papal State. He
was ardently attached to the interests of Pius VH.
The Papal embassador to France was Spina, Bishop of
Genoa, a cunning, timid priest, deeply interested in
preserving the temporal power of the Pope. This man
was to treat at Paris with Talleyrand, the married ex-
Prelate, and with Abbot Bernier, once the head of the
revolt in La Vendee, now a very warm partisan of
Bonaparte. The First Consul's envoy at Rome was
Cacault, a disabused revolutionist, who knew perfectly
the Papal Court, and who was almost an Itahan in cun
ning. He was well fitted for the difficult role of media
ting between the warm impatience of Bonaparte and the
vexatious slowness of the Holy See.
Abbot Bernier opened the negotiation by communi
cating to Bishop Spina the plan of Bonaparte, which,
besides the articles already mentioned, required the
Pope to renounce his claim on the confiscated Church
property. This and the two other points previously
noticed, were persistently opposed by Spina. Weary of
these delays, the First Consul sent his plan directly to
Rome. He received in answer a direct refusal of the
points of concession on which he insisted. He became
in consequence violently initated. He directed Cacault,
his envoy at Rome, to demand of the Pope the ratifica
tion of his plan within three days, and in case of refusal,
he was directed to leave Rome and retire to Florence.
Cacault, who was a cool, prudent man, and earnestly
desirous of reconciling the parties, was deeply perplexed

348 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
at this harsh dispatch. He knew that the friendship of
the Church was of immense interest to Bonaparte. The
brief time of three days having elapsed, he persuaded
Pius VII. to send to Paris, with conciliatory proposals,
Cardinal Gonzalvi, and leaving at Rome his private
secretary, so as to keep up the negotiation, betook him
self to Florence. The sequel proved that his counsel to
the Pope was very prudent. The timid Gonzalvi had a
great dread of passing the Alps. He felt as if he were
passing into a land of barbarians. But his surprise was
very great when he found himseK warmly welcomed
into a brilhant capital where the services of rehgion
were in open practice. His spirits revived. His first
interview with the First Consul was opened under the
lowering frowns of the latter ; but these marks of dis
pleasure gave place before its close to that fine smile of
satisfaction which was one of the warrior's greatest
seductions. The menaces of rupture being thus followed by a
more conciliatory spirit, contributed greatly to incline
Rome to the side of concession. Foreign agents, how
ever, did all they could to counteract this tendency.
Both in society and among the people the following
biting satire was constantly repeated :
Pio (VI.) per conservar la fede
Perde la sede ;
Pio (VII.) per conservar la sede
Perde la fede.
Attempts were made to strengthen the yielding spirit
of the Pope by showing him falsified proclamations
of Bonaparte while in Egypt, wherein he boasted of

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 349
having destroyed the Holy See. But surely his authentic
ones were heterodox enough to inspire fear. But coun
sels favorable to the French prevailed. The motives,
however, which led to the necessary concessions were
not of a very high order. The Pope was led to hope that
Bonaparte would give him a larger temporal domain ;
moreover, as before has been stated, the proposed Con
cordat gave him an authority over the Bishops which
the Papacy never before possessed. Such were the
motives of the contracting parties.
The Concordat was signed July 15, 1801, by Cardinal
Gonzalvi and Joseph Bonaparte, whom his brother had
charged with that duty. Some of its language is as
follows : " The government of the Repubhc recognizes
that the Apostohcal Roman Catholic rehgion is the re
ligion of the great majority of the French. His Holi
ness recognizes likewise that this same Church has re
ceived, and expects yet at this time the greatest good
and glory from ite estabhshment in France, and from
the personal professions of the same by the First Consul
of the Repubhc. Consequently, after this mutual ac
knowledgment, they have agreed, as well for the good
of religion, as for the maintenance of internal tranquil-
Uty, upon what follows, namely : The Apostohcal Ro
man Cathohc religion shall be freely exercised in France.
Its worship shall be pubhc, and in conformity with the
police regulations which the government shall judge
necessary for the public peace. The First Consul of
the Republic shall, within three months after the publi
cation of the bull of his Holiness, make nominations to
the newly-circumscribed archbishoprics and bishoprics.

350 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
His Holiness shaU confer on them canonical investiture
according to the forms used for France before the
change of the government." In other parts of the Con
cordat it was provided, among other things, that the
Bishops might appoint to the curacies, though their
choice was to be limited to persons acceptable to the
government ; that the Pope should in no way trouble
those who had obtained confiscated Church property,
and that a new Concordat would be necessary in case
any of the successors of the First Consul should be
Protestant. The essential articles of this Concordat were simply a
revival of the ancient treaties between the Popes and
the rulers of France. The contracting parties, however,
soon found in it occasion for bitter contention. As to
the Church, it was completely enslaved to the two
powers, the civil and the Papal. The civil power was
master of a functionary clergy, and could use against all
the displeasing efforts of the Pope the clause which sub
jected the. worship to regulations of pohce. As to the
Pope, he stUl possessed, as in ancient times, the impor
tant power of refusing his buUs. The result showed of
how little value is a religious peace which is imposed by
authority, However powerful were the two contractors, the one
pohticaUy, the other ecclesiastically, they found much
difficulty in putting their treaty into effect. The Pope
was slow and hesitating. The first work of Bonaparte
was to cause the Concordat to be accepted by the
Legislature as a treaty with a foreign power. But in
this he met with decided opposition. Even the Council

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 351
of State, to whom it was presented August 6, 1801,
received it coldly, and in silence. A Second embarrass
ment arose from the Council of the Constitutional
Clergy, which was just then in session in Paris. It was
necessary to silence and dissolve this body in order to
be able to say that before the Concordat religion was in
the lowest decline, and anxiously awaiting the salutary
appearance of the new Cyrus. The Council was dis
solved on the 16th of August, before the Concordat was
made pubhc. The opposition of the Legislative corps,
which had not the power of debating, but only that of
voting, was very marked. It showed its displeasure at
the Concordat by calling to the chair the infidel Dupuis^
Moreover, the French generals made the Concordat the
subject of open ridicule. The result of this opposition
is well known. It was necessary to resort to a second
coup d'itat. Advantage was taken of an ambiguity of
the Constitution to renew, out of such material as should
please the Executive, the Legislative corps and the
Tribunate. The subservient Legislature thus obtained
ratified the Concordat without difficulty.
As to the Pope, besides his scruples, he met with
more than one annoying obstacle. The ancient Bishops,
who had fled to England and Germany, sent to him
earnest protests against being deposed from dioceses
which " had been confided to their carev by the provi
dence of the most high God." In the end, however, he
disregarded their protests; and himself also committed a
coup d'itat in accepting a Concordat which, though in
some respects disagreeable, greatly increased his power
over the clergy.

352 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
It remained now only to have the Concordat ratified,
and to put it into operation. At this point a grave
measure, emanating from the First Consul, was taken,
which showed how precarious was this so-called peace
between Church and State. In fact, the Concordat was
hardly concluded when it was set aside by one of the
contracting parties — the one which had the power.
The organic articles which were presented to the
Legislature at the same time with the Concordat, tended
to the complete enslavement of the Church to the civU
power. These Articles constitute a most perfect system
of despotic centrahzation, as apphed to the Churches to
which the nation gave tolerance. A brief analysis of
their scope will be of interest, as it wiU show what was
understood by religious liberty by the French authori
ties in 1802.
At first glance these laws seem nothing more than a
reproduction of the rules which regulated the relations
of Church and State under the ancient regime. They
do not surpass the extent of authority which Louis XIV.
had claimed. But we must not forget, that whereas
formerly the Church derived very great power, and
even a sort of independence, from her vast and untax
able landed property, she was now reduced to a state of
utter poverty and abject dependence. One of the good
features of these laws was, the emphatic tolerance which
they gave to dissenters from Cathohcism. Protestants
were put on legal equality with Cathohcs. Respect for
the religious minority was pushed so far as to forbid, in
all towns where as ingle Protestant temple existed, the
parading of the pompous Cathohc ceremonies outside of

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 353
the church inclosures. In this respect the First Consul
showed himself the true heir of the French Revolution.
But this and a few other provisions aside, the Organic
laws formed simply a net-work of administrative despot
ism. All direct correspondence with the head of the
Church was cut off. The Holy Father could not ad
dress a single word to the French Bishops without get
ting it first countersigned by the government at Paris.
His Legates had to obtain from the same source a special
approval. No decree of a Council could be executed
without first obtaining a civU sanction. The govern
ment assumed the right of forbidding whatever it should
judge not to be good for the public tranquillity, a vague
expression, which could be extended even to doctrinal
decisions, since they might occasion controversial agita
tion. No national or diocesan convention, or other de:
liberative body of the clergy, could be held without
special authorization. Even a private chapel could not
be opened without governmental license. The right
of freely going and coming, so dear to the French, was
refused to the Bishops. They were not allowed to
leave their dioceses without special permission. The
government, full of paternal interest in providing for
the service of the altars, required a hst of all the stu
dents of theology, and prescribed that early in their
studies they should be thoroughly instructed in the
principles of Gallicanism as opposed to Ultramontanism.
Even the costume of the priests was regulated by law.
They were required to dress in black, and in the
" French style." To all these laws were affixed suitable
penal sanctions.
v 45

354 Religion, and the Reign of Terror.
Such was the liberty of the Church as restored by
Bonaparte. A clergy cut off from their spiritual head,
forbidden free deliberation, curbed in their missionary
activity, trained under the jealous eye of the govern
ment, nominated and incessantly watched over by the
same, preaching only what shall please the same, de
pending absolutely on the hand which feeds them, — such
is the Catholic Church of the organic laws. Now, aU
these infractions of rehgious liberty were ostensibly only
so many precautions against a foreign potentate. And
so long as the head of Cathohcism shall be a temporal
prince, governments will have a pretext for such infrac
tions of religious liberty. The Pope, as a temporal ruler,
will always have interests which conflict with those of
this or that other power. Catholics will, therefore, be
constantly exposed to violations of their liberty so long
as the temporal power of the Papacy exists.
But the Organic laws were much more than precau
tions against the domination of a foreign power. They
enslaved religion itself without cause. This is clearly
seen in the fact that they oppressed Protestantism as
much as they oppressed Popery. Protestantism, also,
could not extend itself, or make doctrinal decisions,
• without the approval of the government. No mention
at all is made in the Organic laws of Churches which
might choose to remain free, and not receive salaries from
the State. Protestantism, moreover, seemed glad enough
to fall into the arms" of the State, and enjoy even
a restricted liberty, the liberty of a public legal ex
istence. France, wearied of anarchy, seemed to be
satisfied to receive a servitude gilded with glory in

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 355
heu of that liberty for which she had so long fought
in vain.
The Concordat and the organic laws were presented to
the Legislature in April, 1 802. The tribune who defended
them most ably was Portalis. His pohshed discourse
was but a digest of the views of the First Consul. He
presented, at some length, the necessity of a rehgion of
some kind, and the excellence of Christianity in particu
lar, as a means of inculcating in the public a spirit of
obedience. His whole speech, however, turned on this
point of utility for the pubhc peace. He forgot that it
is first, and above aU, obedience to God that Christianity
teaches, and that for this very reason it is of all relig
ions the most hostUe to despotism. But there was httle
necessity of persuasion. The purged and subservient
Legislature were willing to vote whatever was required
of them by their master.
At Easter, April 18, 1802, the Concordat was pub
hshed, and a solemn Te Deum chanted with great pomp
in Notre Dame in honor of peace and the re-establish
ment of worship. Immense multitudes surrounded the
Church and filled the streets. Acclamations were
showered upon the Great Consul, as he was termed.
Long lines of carriages, filled with the fau- ladies of the.
official circles, followed the chariot of the First Consul
and the Papal Legate. But the affair was very displeas
ing to many of the generals. Moreau, Lannes, Auge-
reau, Oudinot, and others openly expressed their repug
nance, and it required all the authority of Bonaparte to
induce some of them to remain in the carriages when
they learned that they were to go to mass. Many who

356 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
were present indulged either in ridicule or grief. The
ceremony was cold and stately. The whole affair was
but a solemn mockery, for the element of faith was en
tirely lacking in the chief actors. The attitude of the
First Consul was calm, grave, and majestic, much as if
he felt that in restoring rehgion he was performing an
act of signal condescension, and rendering quite an
honor to God. He forgot that it is not proudly upright
and in the attitude of a great chieftain, but rather on
one's knees and with heart conviction, that the interests
of rehgion are advanced. Such official services are a
great profanation of the temple of God. On his return
from Notre Dame, and after the banquet which cele
brated the peace of consciences, the First Consul, highly
satisfied with the success of his Concordat, asked some
of his generals their opinion of the ceremony. " Did it
not to-day seem," exclaimed he, " that every thing was
re-estabhshed in its ancient order ?" " It was a fine piece
of mummery," answered Delmas ; " nothing was lacking
but the two mUlions of Frenchmen who have died for
hberty, which is now also dead."
With reference to this affair Bishop Gregory remarks :
"The Concordat, a work of iniquity hke that of 1516,
was proclaimed in the Cathedral of Paris. Archbishop
Boisgelin preached a sermon, in which he stated that
religion, which had left France with the emigrating
clergy, had also returned with them. This falsehood
shocked the two classes of the clergy who had remained
in France true to their duties through all the storms of
revolution. The Concordat was celebrated in prose and
verse by all the flatterers, and by aU who were ambitious

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 357
of the favors of the government. There was no end to
the laudation of him who had raised up the altars ; he
was called the envoy of the Most High, the man of
right, the Cyrus, the Constantine, the Charlemagne, of
modern times." These words of this faithful Cathohc
Bishop are very significant.
But the illusion that Bonaparte had been actuated by
respect for religion in itseK, could not be long enter-
tertained. It was in vain that he said to the Protestant
clergy, that he would permit whoever of his successors
in any way violated the liberty of worship to be treated
as a Nero. His real motive was but too clearly revealed
in the proclamation which accompanied the publication
of the Concordat. " Ministers of a religion of peace,"
said he, " let the most profound forgetfulness cover your
dissensions, misfortunes, and faults. Let that religion
which unites you together, attach you indissolubly to
the interests of your country. Use for your country all
the influence which your ministry gives you over the
people. Inspire the young citizens with a love for our
institutions, and a respect for the authorities which have
been created to protect them. Let them learn of you
that the God of peace is the God of armies, and that he
fights with those who defend the independence and hb
erty of France." The meaning of this is only too clear.
Not content with placing rehgion under the hand of his
government, he wished to put God under his banner
also, and make him march with the French eagles. He
desired to have a French, or rather, a Napoleonic god,
whose ministers would docUely second his pohtical
ambition.

358 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
Vast numbers of Cathohcs had little confidence in,
and stUl less enthusiasm for, the ecclesiastical measures of
the First Consul. They were perfectly convinced that
they did not spring from a respect for religion. It was
futile and vain to attempt to deceive the people, and
to reduce rehgion to a mere instrument of domination ;
she will not act such a dishonorable role. She will
contribute to public peace, only when she is loved for
her own sake, and when she is sufficiently respected to
be herself served instead of being used as a mere, instru
ment for other interests.

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 359

CHAPTER HI.
EFFECTS OF THE CONCORDAT — CONCLUSION.
We shaU speak of events which took place after the
conclusion of the Concordat only so far as they iUus-
trate its true bearing. But it is of importance to show
that this mischievous treaty, which was ostensibly de
signed to procure the peace of consciences, perpetuated
in France on the contrary a most shameful violation of
conscience, and excited between the two contracting
parties difficulties which deeply agitated the Church.
We have seen that the Concordat made no provision
for any Church which would not consent to a union
with the State. The first effect of this treaty was, a
more complete suppression of the hberty of worship
than had taken place in the darkest period of the Reign
of Tenor. I know that religious hberty was at this
time poorly represented, namely, by the TheophUan-
thropists. This sect still numbered a few societies
which were not willing to be connected with the State,
and which desired simply the liberty of worshiping ac
cording to their convictions. This worship, however
objectionable from a theological stand-point, was entirely
moral, and, therefore, should have escaped the oppres
sion of the government. The Theophilanthropists were
perfectly justifiable in claiming the liberty of worship.
From this moment the ridiculous features of their funda-

360 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
mental theories disappeared, and the only point in ques
tion was, whether they should be allowed the enjoyment
of one of the most sacred rights of man. The leaders of
the sect, after being turned out of the national churches,
applied in vain to the government for permission to
celebrate their worship in a house rented by themselves.
All their protests in the name of liberty of conscience
were fruitless. Most justly they exclaimed, " What has
become of the liberty of worship, if it is permitted only
to follow one of the State religions ? " But this was the
will of the authorities. " I do not wish a dominant re
ligion," said Bonaparte to his Council, " nor do I wish
that new ones should be established. The Cathohcs, the
Reformed and the Lutheran Churches, which the Con
cordat recognizes, are religions enough." At the con
clusion of one of his ill-humored speeches to the Council
of State, he said abruptly, " Make a decree closing the
Theophilanthropist worship." This same hostility to
the liberty of worship is revealed, besides, in the harsh
manner in which he treated the persistent applications
of the Jews for the rights of conscience. " For the
Jews," said he, " we must have laws of exception."
And the Jews escaped these oppressive laws of excep
tion only by finally consenting to become a State relig
ion — to be salaried by the State, and' subjected to the
surveillance and regulating intervention of the same.
As to the effect of Napoleon's salarying the Protest
ant Churches, we are of opinion that it was decidedly
pernicious. They had the same protection as the Cath
olics, but were also subjected to the same servitude.
An account of the condition of the Protestant Churches,

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 361
pubhshed by Rabaut the Younger in 1807, shows that
in the majority of them worship had been continued
even during the fever heat of the Revolution. And the
simple enjoyment of hberty according to the principles
of 1789, would have sufficed to put them into a flourish
ing condition without any pecuniary aid from the State.
But the Protestants did not feel at first all the cramping
effects of the Organic laws of 1802. Happy in the modi
cum of privilege they enjoyed, they did not go even to
the end of their chain. They were glad of the honor
of possessing temples in the presence of the Cathohc
Churches. But less honor and more hberty would have
been preferable. The Organic laws, however, were
finally deeply felt. Protestantism was, as it were, de
capitated in its interior organization by the privation of
those large deliberative assemblies which had contrib
uted so much to its glory in the past. This was an
injury which all the persecutions of the Cathohcs had
never succeeded in inflicting, for the Churches of the
desert had never given up their synodal organization.
The laws of Napoleon admitted that the Protestants
might hold synods ; but as the government reserved to
itself the organizing of them, it was but a chimerical
promise whose reahzation is yet awaited after a lapse of
sixty years. The First Consul was no friend of delib
erative assembhes ; he never convoked them of any
class whatever, except when he wished ^o obtain of
them some signal act of collective cowardice. For this
purpose the Legislative corps was an excellent tool;
but the trial which he made of a Church Council in
1811 turned out too unfavorably to tempt him to con-
46

362 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
voke a synod. Notwithstanding all this, however, the
Protestants remained sincerely attached to him. They
showed him more thanks than were deserved, for more
than once he made use of their Churches as a bugbear
for frightening the Pope. In a letter to Pius VH.,
dated January 7, 1806, Napoleon enumerates his griev
ances against the Court of Rome. The letter contains
these significant words : " I have experienced on the
part of your Holiness only refusals on all subjects, even
on those which were of the highest importance to the
cause of rehgion ; as, for example, when the question
was, how to hinder Protestantism from raising its head
in France." He regarded himself as the absolute master
of the Reformed Churches. "I am the chief of the
Protestant ministers," said he, " since I appoint them."
Unfortunately the Lutheran and Calvinistic Churches
did but too much by their imprudent flatteries to en
courage him in cherishing this delusion.
I know of no more disheartening reading than the
ecclesiastical documents of this period. One finds in
them the same profanation of holy things, the same
perversion of sacred texts to purposes of servile flattery,
which disgraced the Church of the Byzantine empire.
The leader of this harmonious choir of sycophants in
France was the Legate of the Pope. In the circular in
which this Prelate established the festival of St. Napo
leon on the*15th of August, he attributed openly to the
Emperor the honor of having borne the ark of the cov
enant across the Jordan after its wanderings in the
wUderness of revolution. "If your children ask of
you," added the Legate, "who has so happily accora-

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 363
plished such great things for Christianity, tell them that
it is our Emperor — he who has imitated the illustrious
Cyrus and Darius in restoring the temple of God."
This theme of the new Cyrus was varied to heart sick
ness, in the episcopal charges. A grave sign of the
depth of this servility was manifested in the belhgerent
tone of the ministers of a religion of peace, on the break
ing out anew of war. The Enghsh were devoted to the
wrath of the Most High. Perfidious Albion was com
pared to Tyre and Sidon, and the threats of the proph
ets turned against her with an astonishing dexterity.
" The voice of the blood of our brothers," read we in
one of the episcopal charges, "cries for vengeance
against the Enghsh." The Cardinal-Archbishop of
Tours declared to his diocese, that the war then break
ing out was a war of peace. The homage of the clergy
to Napoleon was never surpassed in abjectness. " One
cannot render too much honor," wrote Portalis in an
official paper in 1803, "or manifest too much thanks,
respect, and love to the restorer of the Church and State."
The clergy received him at the threshold of the temple
with the chanting of the hymn, Behold, I send my angel
who shall prepare my way. After the aspersion he was
conducted to the high altar, where the Salvum was in
toned. On important occasions special protestations of
devotion were exacted of the clergy. At the time of a
heavy conscription Portalis, the Minister of Pubhc Wor
ship, wrote to the Bishops a circular, in which are found
these words : " At a moment like this it is the duty of
the ministers of religion to enlighten and instruct the
citizens, and to make them more than ever feel how

364 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
much thanks, attachment, and love they owe to a gov
ernment which has restored rehgion, protected the vir
tuous, and repaid the evils which for so long have
afflicted France." The addresses of the clergy to Na
poleon equaled those of the most fawning courtiers.
In the audience which he granted them he expressed
his hvely satisfaction, and more especiaUy the pleasure
he felt in seeing them dressed in long gowns. The
sacred militia had adopted the uniform which he had
decreed, and in fact they received his orders generaUy
with as much readiness as his soldiers. The Bishop of
Dijon directed his Curates to charge the conscience of
the young conscripts with the duty of fidelity to the
State, as the civU officer charged their honor. " The
latter," said he, "will attach their temporal mterest to
their fidelity; and you, their eternal salvation. Thus
wUl be estabhshed a rigime in which morahty arises
from legislation, and in which perfect unity of action
will exist between the two powers, spiritual and tem
poral, which are in fact made for each other." Surely
never was rehgion more servilely lashed to the chariot
of State. What least asylum could be left for hberty
in a country where the two powers were thus united
together, the Bishop being no longer any thing else
than a pohce officer in a long gown! How abject a
position for the Church ! And yet this was practically all
the role she played after the conclusion of the so-much-
vaunted Concordat, which, as some wiU have it, restored
the honor of rehgion.
The chief of the State felt himself as much at home in
the temples of God as in his own palace. He caused

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 365
the bulletins of the grand army to be read from the
pulpits. When he desired to repair its losses by the
formidable conscriptions which his Senate so subserv
iently voted him, he demanded* of the Bishops that they
should aid his Prefects in enrolling the refractory ones.
The government severely blamed aU who showed sym
pathy for the young boys, so many of whom were hur
ried off immaturely to the wars. It caused a conscript
to be seized in the sacristy by a squad of soldiers at the
moment when he was about to confess himself. For
the rest, the priests frequently aided the military in
this sad business. When we consider the degree of
abasement to which the majority of the Concordat
clergy stooped, we must heartily subscribe to these
words of Bishop Gregory, notwithstanding their se
verity. " Is it not these same men," exclaimed he, " who
ordered so many Te Deums for victories, and for every
kind of scenes of carnage, even those of the sacrilegious
war of Spain ? Is it not these same men who at the
faU of the potentate, spit upon him to whom so lately
they had burnt incense, as did also so many Senators,
CouncUors, Prefects, and Judges? Is it not the same
ones who, after having exhausted the vocabulary of
servihty, worn all Uveries, professed all doctrines, and
made court to aU parties, finaUy managed to survive aU
the wrecks ? "
The famous Imperial Catechism which was imposed by
the new empire on the whole French Church, is but too
weU known. It was a new method of saying, Sinitepar-
vulos ad me venire, Let the httle children come unto me.
The curious chapter on the duties of French Christians

366 Religion and the Reign of Terror*
to their Emperor has obtained a deserved notoriety ; it
is, however, always profitable to recall these crimes
against conscience, which combine the ridiculous with
the odious. " For the first time since the estabhshment
of Christianity," says Gregory, " one witnessed the scan
dal of a Catechism gotten up expressly in the interest of
one man, one famUy." Let us make some extracts from
this edifying book.
" Question. What are the duties of Christians in
regard to the Princes who govern them, and what
are in particular our duties toward Napoleon I., our
Emperor? Answer. Christians owe to the Princes
who govern them, and we in particular owe to
Napoleon I., our Emperor, love, respect, obedience,
fidelity, military service, and the ordinary tributes for
the preservation and expenses of the empire and his
throne. To honor and serve our Emperor is, therefore,
to honor and serve God himself. Question. Are there
not special reasons which should attach us more
strongly stiU to Napoleon I., our Emperor? Answer.
Yes ; for it is he whom God has raised up in difficult
times to re-estabhsh the public service of the holy re
hgion of our fathers, and to be its protector. He has
brought back and preserved pubhc order by his pro
found and vigUant wisdom ; he defends the State by
his powerful arm ; and he has become the helper of the
Lord by the consecration which he received from the
sovereign Pontiff, the head of the universal Church.
Question. What should we think of those who may be
lacking in their duty toward our Emperor ? Answer.
According to the Apostle Paul, such persons would

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 367
resist the order estabhshed by God himself, and render
themselves worthy of eternal damnation."
It is thus that the new despotism profaned at once
both rehgion and the youth, and showed itself doubly
sacrilegious. Nothing was now lacking but to elevate
on the Vend&me column the statue of the god Mars
under the features of General Bonaparte, and to demand
its adoration after the example of the Roman Cesars.
The Papacy pushed condescension so far as openly to
approve the notorious Catechism, and the Legate recom
mended its use in all the dioceses.
But it is always a difficult and perilous task to under
take to control spiritual forces. The Spirit moves where
it will, and mocks the most cunningly-contrived net
work of tyranny. Hence a perpetual inquietude for the
despot who desires himself to regulate, to dominate, and
to inspire every thing. Napoleon would have wished
that no pubhc word should be heard in all his empire
without previously having received the seal of his Pre
fects. The latter were to watch very carefully the
charges and other official acts of the Bishops. The
government complained that the modern philosophy
was too often attacked in sermons. The chief of the
State corrected, himself, the documents which issued
from the Archbishopric of Paris. The greatest vigi
lance was recommended to the Bishops as to those
priests who entered the pulpit and enjoyed the so-much-
feared right of addressing the people. They were for
bidden all controversy. A preacher was thrown into
prison for having made a philippic against Voltaire and
Rousseau, and the higher authority did not blame the

368 Religion and the Reign of Terror:
act in itself, but only its administrative irregularity. A
Prefect who was given to gustatory indulgence, blamed
his Bishop for having insisted so strongly on fasting
during Lent. Even the missions did not escape the
watchful eye of the government. In 1807 the home
missions were suppressed, on pretext that they agitated
the people. As to foreign missions, Napoleon desired
that they should be authorized only so far as they
might be profitable to the State as well as to rehgion.
The Emperor was not content with keeping a vigUant
watch over the official papers of his Bishops : as at times
he turned journalist, so also on occasion he essayed to
handle the episcopal crook. He wrote to his uncle,
Cardinal Fesch,* who had recently been raised to the
See of Lyons, a curious sketch of an edifying sermon,
the object of which should be to restore peace in the
diocese. " Preach to the people," wrote he, " that every
sentiment which leads to pride is a sin ; that to wish to
humble one's neighbor is to violate the Gospel," etc.,
etc. This homily on humility did not, however, hinder
this novice Church father from writing in the following
spirit, a few days later, " As to certain stubborn refrac
tories, as soon as they are discovered I will have them
put out of the way." In his correspondence we find at
times very curious specimens of despotism. On one
occasion he ordered a Bishop to give such instructions
as would, change the spirit of his diocese. To change
the spirit of a whole diocese seemed to him as easy as
to change the uniform of his guard. He had but an
imperfect conception of his impotence to rule in that
* See Appendix, note 44.

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 369
domain of ideology, for which he had indulged so much
sarcasm and contempt. Finding himself unable to work
changes of opinion by order, he resorted to the vulgar
• and arbitrary measures which characterize all tyranny.
He arrested and incarcerated priests, and then inquired
of his Minister of Worship for the canonical forms to
degrade them. Later, and at the height of his contest
with the Holy See, he spoke only of having the refrac
tory priests shot. He formally declared that such
would be the fate of all who respected the bull of ex
communication. Happily these menaces were not exe
cuted, but it is not enough known that he treated the
priests more than severely. Before the Concordat, a
priest who had preached Ultramontanism in the pulpit
of St. Roch was thrust into an asylum as insane. The
clergy of Paris having presented themselves at the
Tuileries to make complaint to the First Consul, re
ceived this answer: "The Prefect has* acted only by
order of the government. I wished to show you that
when I take the matter in hand it is necessary that the
priests submit to the civil power." He took the matter
in hand, it would seem, pretty often ; for during his brief
reign more than five hundred priests were imprisoned
without trial. With the exception of shedding blood,
he pursued in Church matters the worst revolutionary
pohcy. The Concordat had not reconciled the two hostUe
parties of the clergy, and this occasioned frequent arbi
trary mpsures on the part of the government. It re
mains for us to show, that it succeeded no better in
establishing lasting peace between France and the Holy
47

370 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
See. The Organio Articles were the first ferment of dis
cord ; for they had been made by one of the parties to
the detriment of the other, without any antecedent un
derstanding. We do not deny that the civil power was
justifiable in taking precautions against the encroach
ments of the Papacy ; this wUl always be necessary so
long as the Pope is a temporal Prince. But what we
do object to is, that the civil power should add at pleas
ure to the articles of a treaty just concluded, and thus
profiting by its power, seize the lion's share. With his
usual audacity the First Consul had pursued this very
course, and had thus left in the heart of his late ally a
bitterness utterly inconsistent with friendly relations.
A treaty violated as soon as concluded, brings not peace
but war. The good understanding continued so long
as it seemed profitable to Napoleon, in order to obtain
new concessions to the furtherance of his personal am
bition. According to the playful expression of General
Lafayette, he desired the little phial, and wished to
astonish the world by causing to be consecrated by the
hands of the Pope in Notre Dame, I will not say the
representative, but the victorious son, of the French
Revolution. He resorted to the same temptation to
allure Pius VH. to yield to his views, by which he had
induced him to sanction the Concordat. It is well
known, the great positiveness which vague promises
assume for those who are deeply interested in them.
Nothing was easier than to delude the aged Pope, who
felt conscientiously bound to use every effort" t*> regain
his lost territory. He would have run to the end of the
world for the shadow of a lost province ; he, therefore..

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 371
readily concluded, that to repair his losses was well
worth the trouble of saying a mass in Paris, and so
much the more as no sacrifice of conscience was re
quired. It cannot be doubted that it was in the hope
of regaining the territory which had been taken from
him, that he resolved on the voyage to France ; for,
among other reasons, the petition which he presented to
the government commenced thus : " We have a long
whUe doubted whether, yielding to the repeated invita
tions of your Majesty to open to you the desires of our
heart, we should make mention of the lands belonging
to the Holy See." These words reveal the artfulness of
the pohcy of the First Consul, who had induced the
Pope to hope so much, without making any positive
promise. The petition turns chiefly on the poverty of
the Holy See, and the necessity which induced it to ask
the restoration of its temporal dominions. The Holy
Father promised Napoleon the glory of a Charlemagne,
if he would imitate his munificence to the Church.
Such were the hopes that procured the coronation of
Napoleon. But Portalis respectfully declined the claims
of the Pope, on the ground of the rights of the new gov
ernment which had been estabhshed in Italy. These
rights were, however, but very slightly respected when
the Emperor wished to increase his own dominions.
The Holy Father returned to Rome in bitter disappoint
ment, and ill disposed to fresh concessions, which, how
ever, the Emperor was soon going to ask.
Two incidents contributed to embitter the relations
between Napoleon and the Pope. Joseph Bonaparte,
the youngest of the Emperor's brothers, had married a

372 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
very beautiful and worthy American lady of Baltimore.
This marriage had violently irritated the despot, who
wished that henceforth his blood should be mingled
only with that of the most ancient royal families. He
asked the Pope to annul the marriage on the ground
that it had been contracted with a Protestant. But the
reasons for the divorce did not seem sufficient at Rome.
The Holy Father showed himself more faithful to relig
ious liberty than the so-called son of the Rev.olution.
" The difference of worship," so wrote he to Paris, " con
sidered by the Church as a reason for nullifying a mar
riage, does not verify itself between two baptized per
sons, even though one of them is not a Cathohc."
Napoleon insisted with emphasis, though without
success. The second incident was Napoleon's imperious desire
of concluding between the new kingdom of Italy and
the Pope, a Concordat which should be fully as favor
able to the civil power as that of 1802. The Pope had
a thousand reasons to be less in haste than he. Matters
grew worse and worse. On the 13th of February, 1806,
the Emperor wrote to the Pope a letter which was an
insult to the whole Cathohc Church. " Our relations
ought to be such," so wrote Napoleon, "that your
Holiness should have for me in temporal affairs the
same regard that I have for you in the spiritual sphere.
Your Holiness is sovereign of Rome, but I am its Em
peror. All my enemies should be yours also. I am
responsible to God, who has seen fit to use my arm for
the restoration of religion ; and how can I without bitter
grief see its interests compromised by the mischievous

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 373
slowness of the Court of Rome? For the sake of
worldly interests you are letting souls perish. Those
shall answer for it before God, who are so zealous in
protecting Protestant marriages." The reader will not
forget that it is the pretented representative of a revo
lution, made in the name of hberty, who speaks thus to
the Roman hierarchy. What a strange change of
role ! The rest of the letter is in the same spirit.
" Though at Rome whole days may be spent in guilty
idleness," said he, " yet I, to whom God has given
charge to watch over religion after its many assaults,
cannot and will not remain indifferent to that which
contributes to the weal and salvation of my people. I
cannot allow to be delayed a whole year, that which
should be done in two weeks." The Holy See re
sponded with firmness, protesting especially against the
claim of Napoleon of being Emperor of Rome. The
Pope used the only powerful arm which remained to
him : the refusal of buUs to confirm the newly-nominated
Bishops sufficed to throw into commotion the whole
Church of France. Already there was talk at Rome of
excommunication. Napoleon determined to strike a
grand blow. In a letter, which on this occasion he
wrote to the Viceroy of Italy, he overpassed all bounds.
He declared that the Pope who should excommunicate
him would for him cease to be the true Pope, and that
he would regard him only as antichrist, and thank God
for his impotence. The following words reveal his dis
position in regard to orthodoxy: "If such a thing
should be done, I would separate my people from all
communion with Rome, and I would establish such a

374 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
pohce as to stop all clandestine circulation of Papal
documents. What does Pius VH. expect to gain from
denouncing me to aU Christendom, from excommuni
cating me ? Does he think that then their arms will
fall from the hands of my soldiers ? The present Pope
took the trouble to come to my coronation at Paris, but
he wishes that I should restore him his lost territories.
I could not and would not do it. The present Pope is
even yet too powerful ; priests are not fit for governing.
Why will not the Pope render to Cesar the things of
Cesar ? Is he greater than Christ ? The time may not
be far distant, if he persists in giving me trouble, when
I wUl no longer recognize his authority except as Bishop
of Rome, and as only an equal to the Bishops of my
government. I will not fear to call together in council
the Gallican, the Italian, the German, and the Polish
Churches for the purpose of managing my affairs with
out a Pope. The duties of the tiara are in fact only
humiliation and prayer. Christ did not command pU-
grimage to Rome, as Mohammed did to Mecca." This
surely is admirable frankness. For the moment Napo
leon is the representative of the Revolution, not that of
Mirabeau, which proclaimed liberty of worship, but that
which fabricated a State Church, and enslaved it be
neath the foot of the State. For the nonce, he was but
a crowned anarchist.
This was the precariousness of the condition created
by the Concordat. The gravest interests of rehgion
depended on the whims of a shrewd but changeable
man, who earnestly espoused whatever policy the pas
sion of the moment presented. His fertile genius was

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 375
expert in clothing his favorite idea of the moment with
the most perfect reasonableness, and producing for the
time being the most obstinate and sincere conviction.
He thought himself fully justified in meddling with the
dehcate matters of the soul and conscience, and he set
tled them usuaUy in such a rash and arbitrary manner
as continually to involve himself in endless and danger
ous strifes.
The result of the discussion of the Emperor with
Rome is weU known. The Pope, as soon as the general
European war broke out, ceased to act as a faithful and
reliable ally. And it would have been unreasonable to
expect him to act otherwise — to espouse with warmth
the cause of his oppressor. The enemies of France did
not faU to intrigue with the Pope, but they only suc
ceeded in compromising the little power which he still
retained. The Papal city was occupied by French
troops, at first provisionally, at the time of the invasion
of Naples, and afterward definitively. On the 16th of
March, 1808, the Papal troops were incorporated into
the imperial army by virtue of an insolent decree. The
Pope responded to these outrages in his Allocution of
the 8th of July, expressing with emphasis his unshaken
attachment to his people, and inviting the Emperor to
give heed to wiser counsels. But this was only the
prologue of the tragedy. The decree which united the
Papal States to the empire accomphshed the measure of
bitterness which had been increasing from the day when
the French soldiers crossed the threshold of the pontifi
cal palace to anest Cardinal Pacca, the secretary of his
Holiness. The bull of excommunication, already a long

376 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
time prepared, was affixed to the walls of Rome. We
regret to see in this bull complaints as to the non-resto
ration of the Papal territories. On that day it would
have been wiser to forget the temporal prince, and to
personate only the spiritual power in conflict with des
potism. On this ground the Pope would have had
a grand advantage over his enemy.
How profound the impression on the Catholic con
science which this violence of the Emperor must have
produced throughout Christendom! But stUl worse
than this mihtary violence was the moral violence prac
ticed at Savona, and afterward at Fontainebleau, on the
aged and imprisoned Pope. By culpable persistency
the Emperor succeeded, by the aid of some mercenary
Prelates, in extorting from this captive Pontiff the dis
avowal of his own cause. The shameful Concordat
concluded at Fontainebleau in 1813, which surrendered
to the State all the hberties of the Church, is a much
greater disgrace to the iron arm which imposed it than
to the trembling hand by which it was signed. The
authoritative dissolution of the Council held at Paris in
1811, on the day when it seriously recognized the spir
itual sovereignty of the Holy Father ; the banishing of
the Cardinals who refused to violate the canon law by
assisting at the second marriage of Napoleon ; the cap
tivity of Cardinal Pacca, as severe as the persecuted
priests had previously suffered at Aix and Rochefort —
all these intolerant measures reveal the triumph of the
worst revolutionary passions under the monarchical
restoration, and in the bosom of a servile but brilliant
Court, presided over by an Austrian Archduchess.

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 377
The result of this Concordat is its own sufficient con
demnation. We may apply to the profound politician
who conceived it, the criterion which he himself always
held as decisive, namely, that of success. Not only
may we say to him, " You have trampled upon right
and liberty ; this we know touches you very little ; but
what is more, you have not succeeded." Moreover, he
has confessed it himself, and in words which may well
be cited at the close of this chapter. "When Napo
leon," says M. de Pradt, "found himself involved in
constantly-increasing rehgious strifes ; when, after hav
ing labored to conciliate every thing, he found that he
had only sown seeds of discord ; when, after having
counted on the support of the clergy, he found them
full of prejudices against him ; then he began to inquire
why the result was so different from that which he had
so confidently expected: and after collecting the sad
fruit of his experience, he acknowledged with deep
grief the mistake he had committed in occupying him
self with rehgion otherwise than as an advocate of the
hberty of worship. He often repeated, 'The greatest
mistake of my reign is to have made the Concordat;
but it is too late now to repent of it. One reaps only
what one has sown.' "
WhUe Napoleon was regretting the Concordat, one of
the most intelligent representatives of the Papacy ex
pressed singularly bold views as to the separation of the
two powers, even at Rome. "However unwelcome
might be the loss of the temporal domains of the Holy
See," wrote Cardinal Pacca in his memoirs, " I was of
opinion that the Lord would make it a great benefit to
48

378 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
the Church. I thought that the fall of the temporal
power of the Popes would destroy, or at least enfeeble
that jealousy and blind antipathy which exist almost
every-where against the clergy and the Court of Rome ;
that the Pontiffs, dehvered from the heavy burdens of
temporal cares, would consecrate thenceforth all their
attention to the spiritual good of their flock ; that the
Church, deprived of the pomp of honors and riches,
would no longer see the ranks of her clergy filled except
by such as ' desire a good work ;' and that the Popes
would no longer have so much regard to rank and
courtly recommendations in the choice of their councU-
ors and ministers, and in the Papal promotions in gen
eral, of which one could often say that though the
priesthood was multiphed, yet the joy of the Church
was not increased. In fine, one would no longer have
reason to fear that the ecclesiastical decisions might be
influenced by unworthy pohtical and material con
siderations." Would to heaven that this experience, so dearly
bought by both the contracting powers in the Concor
dat, had not so soon been lost ! We would then not see
as we do now, after the lapse of more than half a cen
tury, fuUy as many inextricable difficulties presented in
the relations of the civU to the rehgious power, as existed
at the close of the French Revolution.

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 379

CONCLUSION.
In returning from Notre Dame after the solemnities in
honor of the ratification of the Concordat, Napoleon
made this remark : " Now the French Revolution is fin
ished." This book has shown how erroneous was this
view. Not only was the French Revolution not com
pleted, but it had been arrested in the very net in
which it had become entangled at the outset, and in
some measure confirmed in its most fatal error. That
which most decidedly had found its end, was the rigime
of intolerance and persecution ; the legal equality of
Protestantism with Catholicism was established irrevo
cably. But in respect, to sincere' religious liberty, the
Revolution had scarcely begun. With the exception of
a short and stormy period, during which the separation
of Church and State had been proclaimed and realized
with surprising success in the midst of great obstacles,
the heavy hand of the civU power had not for a single mo
ment ceased to weigh upon the rehgious conscience. And
as this conscience is the ultimate fountain of hberty, des
potism had taken the surest of precautions against all
moral independence. Persecution had been succeeded
by enslaving protection. The great corporations, which
in the past had guaranteed some independence to the
Church and nobihty, had disappeared, and there re
mained as opposed to the State nothing but disarmed
individuals, to whom all right of association and discus
sion was severely interdicted. Nothing was easier than
for the civil power to shape at its pleasure this plastic

380 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
clay ; but the State soon had reason to feel how fragUe
is every edifice constructed of such materials. The true
cement was lacking, that of liberty, and liberty in its
highest character, that of the soul. No, the Revolution
was not complete in 1801.
Nor is it yet at this day. Neither general liberty nor
rehgious liberty in particular, has received a sufficient
consecration. On the first point, all disinterested friends
of the liberal cause, of whatever school, are agreed,
there being few indeed who are entirely satisfied with
our present condition. The cunent of opinion in favor
of larger and better guaranteed hberties is irresistible,
whatever may be said or done to check it. Neither
force nor favor wiU effectually check it for a single day.
On the second point the interest is less lively ; there is
too much indifference as to religious liberty, and there
are yet many so-called liberals who seem to fear it. It is
certain that in the France of 1864 the hberty of worship
does not exist. The Organic laws are still in force, and
they put into the hand of the State a powerful means of
cramping the Churches which it salaries. Every asso
ciation for worship is under the necessity of procuring a
previous authorization. And the government seems to
regard it as among its sacred duties, jealously to watch
over, and too often to check, all religious manifestations
outside of the State Churches. The perplexing and
vexatious contests which result from the traditional
relations of the State and Church are incessantly
renewed. The experience of the reigns which preceded that of
Napoleon III. would seem sufficiently conclusive. Was

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 381
not the Bourbon monarchy under Louis XVIH. and
Charles X. in great part ruined by. its close alliance
with the ultra-Catholic party ? Both the State and the
Church lost credit by this pernicious pohtical union.
The monarchy of Louis Phihppe cannot be admired
either for its distrust of, or its concessions to, the same
party. Its relations to the Cathohc Church were often
far from honest and frank, and it was rewarded by a
disaffection which was very dangerous in the hour of
trial. Under the present government the matter has
been httle better. A struggle, silent or open, and al
ways dangerous, has from time to time broken out
between the Church and the State, while the religious
sentiment itself has either grown torpid, or been per
verted too much to the defense of earthly interests.
The clashing of personal interests in the midst of a
sluggishness of convictions, a movement of intrigues in
the absence of sober thought — such is the result of our
abnormal condition.
The soul itself of France is bound and hampered by
the administrative net-work which guards it on every
side, and nowhere allows free expression, either by word
or association, to political behef or to rehgious faith.
Let the authorities beware. This moral captivity ener
vates the nation, and will finally either turn its activity
into pernicious and base channels, of which a vile litera
ture is the surest sign, or plunge it into the terrible
distraction of war. It is time to emancipate this noble
and generous soul of France, and to free the giant from
the innumerable fetters with which it is bound, as if it
were asleep in the land Lilliput. Such is the noble task-

382 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
and the earnest aspiration of the true hberahsm of to
day. We could wish above all that it might escape from the
grave misunderstanding which has induced it to sacrifice
the substance for the shadow. Constitutional guarantees
have high worth when there is any thing real to guaran
tee, namely, the positive liberty of the individual, his
effectual protection in the exercise of all his rights and
faculties. AU effort wUl be in vain so long as our ad
ministrative system remains unchanged, so long as the
citizen is sacrificed to the State. It is the sort of hb
erty that existed at Sparta, at Rome, and in the France
of Napoleon I. ; it is at bottom a despotism, all the
more insupportable as, it piques itself on being liberal.
The first empire, though falling at Waterloo, yet left its
pohtical system deeply stamped on the national spirit.
While retiring from the country it thrust back, hke the
Parthian, a mortal dart. This dart must be torn out of
the vitals of the nation before we enjoy true hberty.
Now as there is nothing more characteristic of this fatal
system than the enslavement of rehgion, it is the safest
course to begin the reform at this very point, and pos
itively to anest the empire of civU law as soon as it
approaches the threshold of the domains of conscience.
All hberahsm which does not begin by enfranchising
the conscience ,is counterfeit ; it takes up and continues
the fatal French tradition, that which prevailed from
Louis XIV. to the time of the First Consul.
We have hoped to serve not only the cause of relig- •
ion, but also that of liberalism in its highest interests, by
disengaging from the confusion of facts, the great lesson

Religion and the Reign of Terror. 383
which results from the rehgious and ecclesiastical strug
gles of the French Revolution. This lesson is con
tained in that famous formula, A free Church in a free
State, which imposes itself with more or less force on all
generous spirits. Let it be well understood, there can
be no free State without a free Church — I mean one
that is entirely free, without salary, without fetters,
without " organic laws," and under the simple sway of
the common law. Thus wUl be guaranteed against the
encroachments of monarchical as well as of demagogic
despotism, the sacred asylum of rehgious hberty, which
is the fountain of all other hberties; and universal
suffrage will be taught that for its tumultuous waves,
as weU as for the waves of the ocean, there is a higher
authority which says, Thus far and no farther. The
false idol of popular sovereignty, Vox populi, vox Dei,
will be broken. Such a reform wUl react on the whole
pohtical organization, and wiU estabhsh the true line
of demarkation between the rights of government and
the personal hberty of individuals. Then the Church,
existing in its normal condition, and deriving its life
from liberty, wUl find it to its highest interest to serve
and defend the civil authority. Thus wUl be cemented
that holy and fruitful alhance between religion and
liberaUsm, the want of which was so fatal to the
French Revolution, and the realization of which would
inaugurate for our country the new and definitive era
to which we aspire. Then, truly, the French Revolu
tion wUl have been accomphshed, for it wiU have
emancipated the conscience, and made thereof the
immovable rock upon which the whole State edifice

384 Religion and the Reign of Terror.
reposes. We wUl close by repeating the noble thought
of Mirabeau : God is as necessary as liberty for the
French people. The great orator was too much the
child of his era to give to these words the whole of their
significancy. It is for us, who have seen what he did
not see, and who know how precarious is that liberty
which is viewed only as a human right, — how prompt it
is to grow feeble and venal ; — it is for us, the heirs and
admirers of that great Revolution which we desire to
accomplish by correcting and completing it, to declare
again with the fullness of absolute conviction, that God
is indeed as necessary as hberty for the French people.
Nothing but the Divine idea can safeguard liberty ; and
the necessary condition of this effectual guardianship is,
that liberty itself be regarded as of God. Every thing,
therefore, brings us back to the principle : A free Church
in a free State.

APPENDIX.

These Notes are compiled from the " New American Cyclopedia "
" Brockhaus's Eeal-Encyclopadie," "Herzog'8 Keal-Encyclopadie
fiir Protestantische Theologie," and various other sources.
Note 1. — Voltaire. See page 25.
This notorious and profane wit was born at Paris, February
20, 1694. Educated under the direction of dissolute priests,
his heart and mind were early perverted by the influence of
bad examples and false philosophy. Subjected in Ms youth
to several imprisonments for trifling offenses, he conceived a
bitter hostility to arbitrary power, and gave abundant expres
sion thereto both in his historical and in his anti-religious writ
ings throughout his long life. Voltaire was not simply unbe
lieving, he was impious. His critical knowledge was super
ficial, and to supply this lack he resorted to ridicule and
contempt, speaking of man without modesty, and of God
without respect. He hesitated at nothing — lies, calumnies, or
perfidious accusations ; and so lacking was he in moral senti
ment, that he was the first to laugh at his own unworthy acts.
Though professing to believe in an eternal God, this being
became in his hands a mere puppet, a blind fatality indifferent
to the affairs of men. Condorcet says, " He remained in almost
absolute doubt as to the personal existence of the soul after
the death of the body." With all his bad qualities, however,
he was not entirely destitute of virtues : he hated injustice,
and loved humanity. Witness his efforts in behalf of the
persecuted Calas and Labarre. When old age began to ap
proach, sadness preyed upon his spirit. His popularity de-
49

386 APPENDIX.
clined, and strangers ceased to throng to his little court. The
thought of death, which he could not always banish, was
attended only with doubt and uncertainty. But he succeeded
well in hiding his gloom under a laughing countenance ; yet
it was most real, and at times betrayed itself. " I have one
thing more to say in my general confession," wrote he to a
friend, " and that is, my gayety has always been forced." It
was perhaps in one of these states of gloom that he became for
a moment reconciled to the Catholic Church, and partook of
the eucharist. Kestored to health and hope, he was ashamed
of himself, and represented the act to his friends as simply
a daring parody on the mysteries of religion. But no one
believed him ; philosophers shrugged their shoulders and
pitied him, while religious men were scandalized by the mis
erable profanation.
Wishing to see Paris again before he died, he set out from
Ferney in his eighty-fifth year ; but he arrived only to die,
though he was welcomed with universal enthusiasm. From
the streets, from the windows, resounded on every side, " Long
live the savior of Calas ! " " Long live the author of Zaire ! "
He was covered with garlands, and the people threw them
selves at his feet and kissed his garments. But his triumph
was of only a few weeks' duration. Princes and the great of
the earth overwhelmed him with visits. " I am smothering,"
said he, " but with roses." Dr. Franklin, the American em
bassador, visited him in the company of his grandson. " My
son," said he, " fall upon your knees before this great man ;"
and Voltaire blessed the boy with the words, " God and lib
erty." He grew feebler, but was not suffered to die in peace.
Priests surrounded him in his last agonies, and extorted from
him a confession, in which he said, " If God disposes of me I
die in the holy Cathohc religion, in which I was born, hoping
that Divine mercy will deign to pardon all my faults ; and if I
have cast scandal upon the Church I ask pardon of it and of
God." The expiring life flickered once more, and the sick
man recanted. In his last moments he is said to have with
stood a priest who asked of bim, " Do you believe in the Di-

APPENDIX. 387
vinity of Jesus Christ ? ' " For God's sake," replied Voltaire,
" speak no more of that man, and let me die in peace."
Among his latest words are said to have been these : " I die
worshiping God, loving my friends, not hating my enemies,
but detesting superstition." Though some of these details are
contested, it is still certain that this great man died May, 1778,
without the sacraments, and amid unspeakable convulsions.
The Archbishop of Paris forbade his burial in consecrated
ground, and it was with the greatest difficulty that his friends
were able to give his body secret interment in an obscure vil
lage church remote from Paris. The French government was
equally ungenerous. It forbade the newspapers to notice his
death, the theaters to play his pieces, and the Academy to pro
nounce his eulogy. But his old friend, Frederick of Prussia,
caused the Berlin Academy to do Mm honor, and the Empress
Catharine II. of Russia openly mourned the event.
The indignity offered to his remains by the priests and the
government explains, and apologizes in part for, the extraor
dinary honor subsequently rendered to his name by the revo
lutionists. The obscure church in which he was buried was
sold, and the cities of Troyes and Romilly contested for the
honor of possessing his bones. Paris, where he had died, now
petitioned the Constituent Assembly that his body might be
brought back and buried in the Pantheon, that cathedral of
philosophy. It was granted, and on July 11, 1791, the au
thorities went in a body to the city gate to welcome his mortal
remains. The coffin was placed on the site of the Bastille,
and exposed to the multitudes the rest of the day. The next
day the body of Voltaire was mounted on a triumphal car
drawn by twelve magnificently caparisoned white horses, and
drawn in procession through the city toward the Pantheon.
The National Assembly and all the chief official bodies of
the city surrounded, preceded, or followed the sarcophagus.
Nothing could surpass the enthusiasm of the day, or the ful
some laudations that were devoted to the memory of the great
scoffer by the unbelieving generation of the Revolution.— See
"Methodist Quarterly," October, 1866.

388 APPENDIX.

Note 2. — Rousseau. See page 39.
Jean Jacques Rousseau, the French skeptic whose writings
played such an important part in occasioning and in pBrvert-
ing the French Revolution, was born at Geneva, June 28, 1712.
His father being an erratic watchmaker, and his mother hav
ing died at his birth, he was brought up by an aunt. Plu
tarch, Richardson, Grotius, and Tacitus were the favorite
authors of his boyhood. An apprentice at the age of fifteen,
he fled from his hard master, and finally found a home in the
house of a Madame Warens, who gave him-facuities for educa
tion, corrupted his morals, and induced him to renounce Cal
vinism, in which he had been raised, and embrace Romanism.
In this home he spent several years in the study of Latin,
music, and general literature. In 1741, at the age of twenty-
nine, he came to Paris, led a life of shame, and supported
himself by his pen. As yet, however, he was unknown to the
great public. In 1749 the Academy of Dijon offered a prize
for an essay on the question, Whether the progress of science
and art had improved or corrupted the morals of mankind 3
Rousseau eagerly caught the subject, and assailed the cause of
civilization in strains of impassioned eloquence. He gained
the prize, and created an extraordinary sensation.
He was immediately regarded as one of the greatest men of
the age, and, though awkward in manner, admitted into all
circles of society. In 1753, returning to Geneva, he was wel
comed to his native city with, marks of the highest respect.
Here, in order to regain his rights as citizen, he again changed
his rehgion, and embraced Calvinism. But he was not long
in the enjoyment of his happiness. His jealous disposition in
volved him in bickerings with Voltaire. Soon after, he quar
reled with his infidel friends Grimm and Diderot. About this
time, when fifty years of age, he published his two most cele
brated works, Emile and the ConPrat Social, in which he vio
lently assailed the political principles of the day, as well as
the cause of civilization in general. These brought upon him

APPENDIX. 389
a shower of what he regarded as unjust persecution. The par
liament of Paris pronounced Emile impious and blasphemous,
ordered it to be burned by the hangman, and called for the
arrest of the author. He fled to Geneva ; but Geneva, imitat
ing Paris, expelled him from the Republic. Fleeing to Neuf-
chatel, he was soon involved in quarrels with the Calvinists,
and forced again to escape. Hoping to find rest in a little
island in Lake Bienne, he was, on the contrary, immediately
ordered to depart by the Senate of Berne. He now accepted
the invitation of Hume, who offered him an asylum in England.
But suspicion toward his new friend, soon arose in the diseased
mind of Rousseau. Angry correspondence followed. Mr.
Hume closed it with a letter whose last words were a cold,
contemptuous, eternal farewell. How different the feelings of
these two foes of religion, from those of Messrs. Whitefield and
Wesley during and at the close of their temporary estrange
ment ! Rousseau hastened to France, and after leading a vag
abond Hfe from city to city, ever imagining himself surrounded
by spies and enemies,, finally reached Paris. This was in 1770.
Here he spent nearly the whole of the remaining eight years of
his life. But he was very unhappy. His misanthropy contin
ually increased, and occasionally led him to acts bordering on
insanity. Desirous to escape the noise of the city, he accepted
the offer of a friend, and retired to Ermenonville, not far from
Paris, but lived only a few weeks longer. The accounts of his
death, which occurred July 2, 1778, in his sixty-seventh year,
are conflicting. Some say that he died of apoplexy after a
morning walk, others that he shot himself; others that, dying
in full possession of his senses, he asked to be borne to the
window, and casting his eyes upon the luxuriant landscape
and the serene sky, bade a calm adieu to. the world.
As to the moral character of Rousseau there can be but one
opinion — it was detestable. He was a lawless enthusiast,
leading a life of open shame. His life was strangely incon
sistent with his own favorite theories. A railer against the
refinements of civilization, he was only satisfied when moving
amid the artificiality of Paris. An opponent of theaters, he

390 APPENDIX.
wrote for them operas and dramas. An antagonist of rehgious
persecution, he assigned the penalty of death for all who dis
sented from his new religion of Deism. A pretended discov
erer of a more humane system of education for youth, he
ruthlessly abandoned his five children to the uncertain and
cold charities of the foundling asylum. The woman with
whom he lived the last thirty years of his life was a dull, un
interesting person. After having lived together twenty years,
they were finally married in form. Such was the man whose
writings did so much toward shaping the French Revolution.
As in the case of Voltaice, Ms bones were borne in triumph
to the Pantheon.

Note 3. — Taxlevkand. See page 46.
This brilliant statesman, but unworthy priest, was born at
Paris January 13, 1754. The eldest son of one of the first
noble families of Southern France, his childhood was neg
lected. Receiving in youth a hurt causing lameless for life,
Ms birthright was given to a younger brother, and Mmself
destined to the Romish priesthood. Neglecting his theologi
cal studies at the seminary of St. Sulpice, he was introduced to
society in 1774 as an abbot, and soon manifested such lawless
propensities as to occasion several months of imprisonment in
the Bastille. Changing Ms course, however, he soon became a
friend of Necker, Mirabeau, and Calonne, and in 1787 was a
member of the House of Notables. The next year he was
made Bishop of Autun, with a salary of sixty thousand francs.
A clerical Deputy in the Constituent Assembly, he was a sup
porter of the most radical liberal measures. It was he who
proposed the great patriotic festival of July 14, 1790 ; and on
this solemnity, aided by two hundred priests, who wore the
national colors over their wMte robes, he officiated at the great
altar wMch had been erected on the Cliamp de Ma/rs. His
liberal course in politics and religion caused him to be ex
communicated by tlie Pop,-. On tLu fall of t',,o King he fled

APPENDIX. 391
to England, and thence to the United States, where he amassed
quite a fortune, and studied American institutions. Through
Madame de Stael's influence the Convention allowed him to
return to France, and in 1797 he became Minister of Foreign
Affairs. When Bonaparte returned from Egypt, he procured
an interview between him and Sieyes, induced Barras to resign,
and thus greatly contributed to the coup d'etat of Brumaire
18, 1799, which laid the corner-stone of the Empire. Under
Bonaparte he was Minister of Foreign Affairs for eight years.
Released from excommunication and from Ms clerical vows in
1804, he formally took as Ms wife Madame Grant, with whom
he had already lived the last seven years. Toward the close of
Napoleon's career he became estranged from him, and in his
hour of adversity contributed to his downfall. So skillful had
been his management, that at the fall of the Empire he was
perhaps the most popular man in France, and he came in for a
large share of favor under Louis XVIH. and Louis Philippe.
Toward the close of life he returned to religious practices, and
in 1838 died, reconciled to the Church, at the ripe age of
eighty-four. The moral character of this actor in the Revolution is evi
dently none of the best. His great trait was flexibility of prin
ciple, or at least of conduct. Though it has been well re
marked that, when personal interest did not forbid, he always
remained true to the generous principles of liberty which in
spired Ms youth. The weak point of his character was ava
rice. Many shrewd sayings are attributed to Mm, and among
others tMs, which has become a sort of motto for diplomatists,
namely, that the principal object of language is to conceal thought.

Note 4. — Sieves. See page 46.
This revolutionary priest and statesman was born at Frejus
in 1748, and died at Paris in 1836. Having taken orders, he
received a canonship in Brittany in 1784, but as the Revolu
tion drew near devoted his whole attention to politics and

392

APPENDIX.

philosophy. A member of the first Assembly, he contributed
largely to the triumph of liberal principles. Though protest
ing against the trial of the King, he yielded to the current,
and voted for Ms death. In 1799 he conspired with Bona
parte to overthrow the Directory, though between these men
there existed a mutual personal enmity. On the restoration of
the Bourbons he was banished as a regicide, and retired to
Brussels ; but after the Revolution of July, 1830, he returned
to Paris, and after spending in retirement the last few years of
Ms eventful life, died at the advanced age of eighty-eight.
Of the character and principles of Sieyes, Mignet expresses
himself thus : " Matured by solitude and philosophical studies,
he was adapted to create a sect and sway a wide influence in
a time of commotion. He thoroughly knew the springs of
society. Cool in temperament, ardent for truth, he was auto
cratic, disdainful, and impatient of contradiction. With him
half truth was error. He imparted his ideas to others, and
shrouded himself in a sort of mystery. He had more disciples
than colleagues. The first Constitution was almost wholly of
his own creation." As opposed to this opinion of the philoso
pher Mignet, Talleyrand is said to have regarded Sieyes as not
profound ; and Bonaparte is reported to have said that he
would readily sell Ms visionary theories for a good round sum.

Note 5. — Gregory. See page 47.
Henry Gregory, [Gregoire,] the radical republican, and per
haps' the most noble evangelical Christian actor in the French
Revolution, was bom in 1750, and owed his early education to
the Jesuits. After having studied at Nancy, and before taking
orders, he served some time as a teacher. Having called to
himself public attention by a book in the interest of the
Jews, he was chosen 'in 1789 as a clerical Deputy to the Na
tional Assembly. A member of the Breton Club, out of which
the Jacobin was afterward developed, he advocated radical
changes both in Church and State. He even went so far as to

APPENDIX. 393
say once, that to be a King was a mortal sin. As Bishop of
Blois in the Constitutional Church, Ms services for religion are
a precious heritage of the universal Church. With Mm poli
tics and religion were closely allied. He was liberal in poli
tics, because he was warmly evangelical in religion. At the
head of the French clergy when Bonaparte came to power, he
would doubtless, by the aid of his colleagues, soon have in
troduced evangelical reforms in the Catholic Church of France,
had not the First Consul, in Ms ambition to be crowned by the
Pope, destroyed the happily-begun work, and reintroduced the
full sway of the Papacy with all its abuses. When all the
Bishops resigned, in order that Bonaparte might nominate
them anew, or others in their place, Gregory's name was left
out. Under Napoleon he was afterward a Senator, and on the
restoration of the Bourbons lived in privacy, devoted to relig
ious and scientific studies.
Gregory was true to his principles to the last, and died in
Paris, May 28, 1831, at the age of eighty, without having re
called the oath which he took in 1791. Despite the prohibi
tion of the Archbishop of Paris, faithful priests administered
to Mm the last rites of the Church.

Note 6. — Mirabeau. See page 54.
Of the life of this world-renowned character a mere note can
contain but meager outlines. Born of noble parentage in
Provence, March 9, 1749, he was treated by a tyrant father
with great brutality, and his moral education was utterly
neglected. For youthful crimes he was several times confined
in gloomy dungeons. Disowned by Ms father, he turned to
literature, and led a life of crime. From Ms career of unpar
alleled excess and wretchedness, the outbreak of the Revolu
tion called him to a brief career of triumph and glory. Re
jected by the nobility because he possessed no feif of his own,
he tMew himself upon the people, and was sent from Aix as
Deputy to the States-General. His extraordinary activity now

50

394 APPENDIX.
soon destroyed his already broken constitution. On returning
from the sitting of March 27, 1791, in wMch he had made five
speeches, his physician, Cabanis, saw immediately that his end
was at hand. He lingered but a few days. After a night of
terrific sufferings, at day-break he addressed Ms friend Cabanis :
" My friend, I shall die to-day. When one has come to such
a juncture there remains only one thing to be done ; that is, to
be perfumed, crowned with flowers, and intoxicated with
music, in order sweetly to enter into that slumber from which
there is no awaking." Ordering his bed to be brought to
the window, he looked with rapture at the brightness of the
sun and the freshness of Ms garden. " If this be not God,"
said he, " it is like him."
He died at eight o'clock the same evening, April 2, 1791.
All Paris mourned him. The funeral was, if we except
that of Napoleon, December 15, 1840, the grandest wMch
France has ever beheld. At the close of the services at St.
Eustache, twenty thousand fire-arms were discharged at once.
Every window was shattered, and the people feared that the
church would fall in upon the coffin. The body of the great
man was then borne in triumph to the Pantheon.
As to Mirabeau's character, Lamartine says : " At the foot of
the tribune he was a man devoid of shame or virtue ;_ in the
tribune, he was an honest man. The cMlling materialism of
his age had crushed in his heart the expansion, force, and
craving for imperishable things. Neither Ms character, acts,
nor thoughts have the impress of immortality. If he had
believed in God he might have died a martyr."

Note 7. — Rabaut St. ETrEMrE.' See page 63.
Rabaut St. Etienne was a Protestant clergyman, and one of
the most consistent and honorable of the revolutionists. He
was born at Nimes in 1741, and executed at Paris, December
5, 1793. He was an eloquent speaker and writer, and had the
courage to protest against the right of the Convention to try

APPENDIX. 395
the King. He was involved in the fall of the Girondists. He
fell a victim to the cause of truth and liberty.

Note 8. — James Necker. See page 68.
James Necker, the famous French financier, was bom of a
German family at Geneva, in 1732. He amassed immense
wealth as a banker, and obtained celebrity as a political and
religious writer. A Protestant himself, he married the talented
daughter of a Swiss Pastor, and became the father of the cele
brated Madame de Stael. He died at Copet, near Geneva, in
1804.

Note 9. — Barnave. See page 71.
A. P. J. M. Barnave, born at Grenoble in 1761, was a Prot
estant, and became celebrated for his eloquence and liberalism
in the early period of the Revolution. Foreseeing the Reign
of Terror, he generously endeavored to save the King, but fell
Mmself before the sweeping torrent of popular madness.
Brought before the bloody tribunal of Tinville, he defended
himself with such power as to bring even Camille Desmoulins
to tears. Arrived at the scaffold, he raised Ms eyes to heaven
and exclaimed, " Behold at length the reward for all I have
done for liberty ! " He was guillotined November 29, 1793,
at the age of thirty-one.

Note 10. — Petion. See page 72.
Jerome Peti6n, born at Chartres, 1753, distingmshed himself
in the early part of the Revolution as a violent anarchist.
Elected to the mayoralty of Paris over Lafayette, he participated
in the insurrection of August 10, and made no effort to check
the dreadful massacres of September. The first President of
the Convention, he showed signs of a milder policy, and be-

396 APPENDIX.
came involved in the fate of the Girondists. Escaping from
Paris, and failing to raise an insurrection of the people, he
wandered about for some months, and, having either starved
or shot Mmself, was finally found in a field half devoured by
wolves.

Note 11. — Lameth. See page 80.
Three brothers of tMs name took part in the Revolution.
They had all taken service under Lafayette in the American
war. I. Alexander served in the first Assembly of France,
fled with Lafayette, was imprisoned in Prussia, and returned
and held office under the Consulate. He died 1829. 2. Charles,
the next in importance, born 1757, among the first of the no
bles to join the TMrd Estate, was a moderate revolutionist, and
fled his country in 1792 ; but returning in 1800 he took mili
tary service under Napoleon, and died a partisan of Louis
Philippe in 1833. 3. Theodore, hke Ms brothers, a Constitu
tionalist, fled to Switzerland during the Reign of Terror. He
died in 1837, aged eighty-one.

Note 12. — Robespierre. See page 89.
TMs notorious Terrorist was born at Arras in 1759. His
mother dying in his childhood, and Ms father neglecting him,
he was tMown on the public, and received his education from
the charity of some priests, who enabled Mm to study eight
years at the college of Louis le Grand at Paris. Returning to
Arras he began the practice of law, and it is curious enough
to notice that his first important case was a defense of the
introduction of Franklin's lightning rods against the charge of
impiety, (1783.) Lamartine describes him as of slight figure,
angular limbs, shrill voice, forehead small and projecting, eyes
sunken and blue, wide nostrils, large mouth, thin lips, pointed
chin, and complexion sallow and livid. A Deputy of the
TMrd Estate in 1789, he was marked from the beginning as a

APPENDIX. 39f
theoretical radical. Of slender means, he occupied poor, ill-
furnished lodgings, sent one fourth of Ms meager pay of eight
een francs a day to his sister, and appeared in the tribune
in a threadbare olive-green coat, the only one he possessed.
On the death of Mirabeau he rose rapidly in influence. From
June, 1791, to April, 1792, he held the office of Public Ac
cuser. Though not a member of the Legislative Assembly, he
was none the less influential as an officer in the municipality,
and as an orator of the Jacobins. In the Convention ie led
the Jacobins in bringing the King to trial and: execution.
From tMs time till his fall he was a sort of king of the Terror
ists. Arrested and condemned-by-the Convention as a con
spirator, he was rescued by the Jacobins and taken to the
Hotel de Ville. Disappointed in his expectation that the
populace would enable Mm to overturn the Convention, he
was arrested and guillotined July 29, 1794, at the age of
thirty-six. The closing scene of his life I copy from Alison : " Henriot
descended the stair of the Hotel de Ville, but seeing the
square deserted he vented his execrations on his faithless fol
lowers, who had for the most part abandoned the King in the
same manner on the 10th of August, and hastened back to Ms
comrades. The conspirators. .finding -themselves unsupported
gave themselves up to despair. The National Guard rushed
rapidly up the stairs, and entered the room where Robespierre
and the other leaders of the revolt were assembled. Robes
pierre was sitting with Ms elbow on his knees, and Ms head
resting on his hand. Meda discharged Ms pistol, which broke
hia under jaw, and he fell under the table. St. Just implored
Le Bas to put an end to Ms life. ' Coward, follow my exam
ple,' said he, and blew out his brains. Couthon was seized
under a table, feebly attempting to strike with a knife, which
he wanted the courage to plunge in his heart. Coffinhal and
the younger Robespierre threw themselves from the windows,
and were seized in the inner court of the building. Henriot
had been tMown down the stairs by Coffinhal;. but. though
bruised and mutilated, he contrived to crawl into the entrance

398 APPENDIX.
of a sewer, from whence he was dragged out by the troops of
the Convention. Robespierre and Couthon being supposed to
be dead were dragged by the heels to the Quai Pelletier,
where it was proposed to throw them into the river ; but it
being discovered when day returned that they still breathed,
they were stretched on a board and carried to the Assembly.
The members having refused to admit them, they were con
veyed to the Committee of General Safety, where Robespierre
lay for nine hours stretched on a table, the same with that
where he had signed the death warrant of so many noble citi
zens, with Ms broken jaw still bleeding, and suffering alike
under bodily pain and the execrations and insults of those
around Mm.
"During the whole time that this cruel torture lasted he
evinced a stoical apathy. Foam merely issued from his mouth,
which the humanity of some around Mm led them to wipe off;
but his finger still with convulsive energy was fixed on the holster
of the pistol which he had not had the courage to discharge.
From thence he was sent to the Conciergerie, where he was
confined in the same cell which had been occupied by Danton,
Hebert, and Chaumette. At length he was brought with all
his associates to the Revolutionary Tribunal, and as soon as
the identity of their persons was established they were con
demned. " At four in the morning on the 29th of July all Paris was in
motion to witness the death of the tyrant. He was placed on
the chariot between Henriot and Couthon, whose remains were
as mutilated as Ms own. The crowd, which had long ceased
to attend the- executions, manifested the utmost joy at their
fate. He was conducted to, the Place de la Revolution ; the
scaffold was placed on the spot where Louis XVI. and Marie
Antoinette had suffered. The blood from his jaw burst
through the bandage and overflowed his dress ; his face was
ghastly pale. He shut his eyes, but he could not close his ears
against the imprecations of the multitude. A woman, breaking
from the crowd, exclaimed, ' Murderers of all my kindred,
your agony fills me with joy ; descend to hell covered with

APPENDIX. 399
the curses of every mother in France ? ' Twenty of Ms com
rades were executed before him. When he ascended the scaf
fold the executioner tore the bandage from his face; the
lower jaw fell upon his breast, and he uttered a yell which
filled every heart with horror. For some minutes the frightful
figure was held up to the multitude; he was then placed
under the ax, and the last sounds which reached Ms ears were
the exulting shouts, which were prolonged for some minutes
after his death.
"Along with Robespierre were executed Henriot, Couthon,
St. Just, Dumas, Coflinhal, Simon, and all the leaders of the.
revolt. St. Just alone displayed the firmness wMch had so
often been witnessed among the victims whom they had sent
to the scaffold. Couthon wept with terror. The others died
uttering blasphemies, which were drowned in the cheers of the
people. They shed tears for joy, they embraced each other in
transport; they crowded round the scaffold to behold the
bloody remains of the tyrants. ' Ves, Robespierre, there is a
God,' said a poor man as he approached the lifeless body of
one so lately the object of dread. His fall was felt by all
present as an immediate manifestation of the Divimty."

Note 13. — Camille Desmoulins. See page 84.
TMs man, who was born in Picardy in 1762, and guillotined
in Paris, April 5, 1794, was one of the most active and interest
ing characters of the whole French Revolution. He was a
schoolmate of Robespierre, and an intimate friend of Marat
and Danton. Scarcely equaled as a popular orator, he was
yet more powerful as a satirical journalist. After contributing
largely to bring the Revolution to the Reign of Terror he
became finally sick of its excesses, and for the purpose of
bringing about a milder policy, established m January, 1794, a
journal called the Old Cordelier. His eloquent denunciations
of the policy of the extremists now brought upon him the
wrath of Robespierre and the Jacobins. When Robespierre

400 APPENDIX.
proposed that Ms writings should be burned, Desmoulins ex
claimed in indignation, " To burn is not to answer," and from
that hour his fate was sealed. Once condemned to death, he
spent his remaining hours alternately in reading Rousseau and
the " Night Thoughts " of Young, in making sarcastic allu
sions to Ms enemies, and in weeping at the thought of being
separated from Ms worthy and beautiful wife, Lucile. When
the executioners came, he demeaned himself like a madman.
All the way to the scaffold he harangued the crowd, imploring
rescue. Among Ms last words were, "Behold the reward of
the first apostle of liberty. But the monsters who murder me
will not survive me long. Send this lock of hair to my
mother-in-law." His adored wife was executed a few days later.

Note 14. — Prus VI. See page 119.
This unfortunate Prelate was born in Italy in 1717, and died
in Valence, France, August 29, 1799. He was elected to the
Papal chair in 1775. He had. scarcely settled his difficulties
with the Emperor of Austria when he found a greater enemy
in the French Republic. DetMoned by the French general,
BertMer, February 15, 1798, he was conducted to France, and
imprisoned at Valence. He was graceful, affable, and learned.
His reign had been mild, and, as compared to those of other
Popes, even liberal.

Note 15. — Brienne. See page 124.
Lomeme de Brienne, a French politician and Cardinal, born
1724, deceased in Paris February 14, 1794, was made Minister
of Finance in 1787, but lost all credit in a few months, and
was dismissed. He was arrested by the revolutiomsts in 1794,
and treated with such barbarity that he died the same mght
of apoplexy.

APPENDIX. 401
Note 16. — Gobel. See page 124.
This weak and cowardly Archbishop of Paris early em
braced the Revolution, and often brought contempt both upon
himself and his cause. He was seventy years of age when, under
the pressure of fear, he abjured the Christian religion, and sacri
ficed in Ms own Cathedral Church to the Goddess of Reason.
He was arrested and condemned to death as an Atheist in
1794. During Ms imprisonment his genuine convictions, as
far as he had any, regained the ascendency, and he sought
consolation by returning to the religion which he had so
shamelessly disavowed. On his way to the scaffold he ear
nestly recited the prayers for the dying.

Note 17. — Lanjutnais. See page 134.
This French jurist and statesman was born at Rennes in
1753, and died in Paris in 1827. One of the most gifted mem
bers of the Constituent Assembly, and of the Convention, he
was a thorough Republican ; but siding with the Girondists,
he was outlawed in June, 1793. He succeeded, however, m
secreting himself for eighteen months in a closet in his own
house until the storm had passed. Though faithful to his
principles, he accepted favors from Napoleon, and afterward
from Louis XVni. He was versed in the Oriental languages,
and among many other honors, was made a member of the
PhilosopMcal Society of Philadelphia. Lamartine says of
Mm, " He was a Christian philosopher, his revolutionary ideas
being but a form of Ms evangelical faith."

Note 18. — Baillv. See page 135.
This philosopher and statesman, whose abuse and sufferings
in the hour of death will excite the indignation and sympathy
of mankind to the latest generations, was born at Paris in
1736, and executed November 12, 1793, in the same city.
51

402 appendix.
After having led a quiet, scholarly life till his fiftieth year, he
was suddenly thrown into the tumult of politics in 1789. His
noble conduct as first president of the Constituent Assembly,
and later as Mayor of Paris, is well known. Retiring before
the storm in September, 1791, he was arrested and brought to
Paris in 1793. His execution is described by Lamartine in
substance as follows : " His punishment was simply a pro
tracted assassination. His head bare, Ms hair cut off, his
hands tied behind Mm with a large rope, Ms body covered
only by a thin shirt beneath a freezing sky, he slowly trav
ersed the city of Paris, the scum of the capital raging like an
insulting torrent around the death cart. Men carried at his
side a red flag at the end of a long pole. This they dipped
from time to time in the filth of the gutters and dashed it then
into Bailly's face. Others spit upon him. His features, lacer
ated and soiled with filth and blood, almost lost the human
form. This awful march to death lasted three hours. Arrived
at the Field of Mars, which the populace had designated as
the place of his sufferings, he was forced to walk around the
field on foot, and even to kiss the ground itself. But here a
new wMm seized the mob. They ordered the guillotine to be
taken down, and to be reconstructed close to the Seine upon a
dung-heap accumulated from the sewers of Paris. The mon
sters loaded the old man's shoulders with beams, and com
pelled him to drag himself along under the weight. On the
way he fainted. He was now compelled to watch for another
hour the reconstruction of the scaffold. Meantime rain and
snow fell, and Ms body was chilled with cold. But the soul
of the martyr of liberty trembled not. He pitied his degraded
persecutors, and confided himself to immortality." His history
of astronomy is still a standard work.

Note 19. — The Girondists. See page 143.
The severe fate of these rash, inexperienced, but sincere
revolutionists will always render them a subject of tender

APPENDIX. 403
interest. As a whole they were not Christians. They were
deterred from the Church as they then saw it, by their earnest
love of freedom ; but their hearts were full of noble aspira
tions. While in prison awaiting the hour of execution their
thoughts were necessarily turned to the question of immor
tality. Some of their last words, as reported by Lamartine,
are interesting. From him I select as follows : " ' What shall
we be doing to-morrow at this time ? ' asked Ducos toward the
morning of the last day. Each had a different reply. ' We
shall sleep after the fatigues of the day,' rephed some. Fon-
frede, Gensonne, Carra, Fauchet, and Brissot spoke m confi
dence of the hnmortality of the soul. 'We are not sublime
dupes,' said Vergniaud, ' but beings who obey their moral in
stinct, and who, when they have fulfilled this duty, suffer, or
enjoy, in immortality the destinies of humamty. Let us die,
then, not with hope, but with assurance. Death is but the
greatest act of life, since it gives birth to a Mgher state of
existence.' Daylight began to pour into the windows. ' Let
us go to bed,' said Ducos ; ' life is such a trifling thing that it
is not worth the hour of sleep we lose in regretting it.' ' Let
us watch,' said Lasource ; ' eternity is so certain and so terrible
that a thousand lives would not suffice to prepare for it.' A
pious priest, Lambert, attended the prisoners. When Brissot
saw him he sprang to Mm, but dechned his offices. To the
question, ' Do you believe in the immortality of the soul, and
the providence of God ? ' he replied, ' I do believe in them,
and it is because I believe in them that I am about to die.'
Fauchet, the unfaithful Bishop, confessed Ms sins, and received
absolution. Then he in turn heard the confession of Sillery^
and pronounced his absolution. But the terrible death-cart
arrived, and, each leaving some little legacy— a watch, or a
lock of hair— to wife or friend, they went forth, and bravely
perished for the cause of liberty.

404 APPENDIX.

Note 20. — Couthon. See page 155.
Georges Couthon, one of the worst and most violent charac
ters of the Revolution, was born in 1756, and executed July 28,
1794. He was one of the most extreme of the radicals. He
was largely guilty of the blood of the Girondists, stood by St.
Just and Robespierre in the Committee of Public Safety, and
when the hour of trial came tried to stab himself, but, lacking
the courage, was borne to the gmllotine.

Note 21. — Roland. See page 170.
This stem, philosophic, pohtical extremist was born at
Lyons in 1732, and committed suicide November 15, 1793.
He was involved in the fate of the Girondists. He escaped
arrest, however ; but a few days later learning of the execu
tion of his gifted wife, he deliberately resolved not to survive
her, and going out upon the public road, seated himself at the
foot of a tree and stabbed himself with his cane-sword. In
his pocket was found a paper with these curious words :
" Whoever thou art that findest these remains, respect them as
those of a man who consecrated his life to usefulness, and who
dies as he has lived, virtuous and honest. On hearing of my
wife's death I would not live another day upon this earth so
stained with crimes." His wife's last words breathe a similar
spirit : " O liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name ! "
Both of them were examples of ancient Roman, rather than
of Christian, virtue.

Note 22. — Legendre. See page 172.
Legendre was one of the coarsest actors in the Revolution.
His previous life of sailor and butcher seem to have added to
Ms natural ferocity. He was active in the taking of the Bas
tille, in the invasion of the Tmleries June 20, 1792, in the

APPENDIX. 405
founding of the Cordelier Club, and in the Committee of
Public Safety. Subsequently becoming more moderate, he
acted as a member of the Council of the Five Hundred. He
died in 1797, and, by bequeathing his own body to the sur
geons for dissection, made it seem less strange that he had
proposed to cut up that of Louis XVI., and divide it among
the eighty-six Departments of France.

Note 23. — Marat. See page 193.
Marat was a sort of plebeian Nero. Bom in 1746 in Switz
erland, he had early obtained some reputation for proficiency
in pMIosophy and medicine. In the early part of the Revolu
tion he became noted as a demagogue journalist. His tMrst
for vulgar popularity was only equaled by his tMrst for blood.
His propositions, to hang at one time eight hundred Deputies
on as many trees of the Tuileries, to execute two hundred and
seventy thousand suspected persons to appease the people,
and that all the towns of France should imitate the massacres
of Paris, are simple examples of his general spirit. On the
defeat of Dumouriez, he proposed trying all the generals en,
masse for treason. For various excesses he was at one time
brought to trial, but the demagogue tribunal acquitted him.
By Ms very excesses in wickedness, and by his pandering to
the populace, he finally arrived at dictatorial influence, and
disposed of the lives of men at will. At last courage arose
out of despair, and a noble young woman, Charlotte Corday,
assassinated him July 13, 1793, thus freeing the world of a
monster, and France of a remorseless tyrant. But it is the
shame of the human race that after Ms death he was for a time
almost worsMped. After the fall of Robespierre, however, his
remains which had been placed in the Pantheon, were taken
thence and cast into a public sewer.

406 APPENDIX.

Note 24. — Barrere. See page 193.
Barrere, a brilliant but unprincipled revolutionist, was born
in 1755, and died at Paris 1841, aged eighty-six. He was a
leader of the Jacobins, and the author of several expressions
which became very popular, such as, "The tree of liberty
grows only when watered by the blood of tyrants," and " It is
only the dead who do not come back again." A coward, he
fawned upon Robespierre so long as he was powerful, but on
his fall required only one day to go over to the other political
pole. Rejected by Napoleon, he was compelled to live in
exile in Belgium, but the Revolution of 1830 allowed Mm
to return to France.

Note 25. — Condorcet. See page 196.
Condorcet, a materialistic theorist, with unbounded confi
dence in the perfectibility of science, was born in 1743. He
was involved in the fall of the Girondists, and poisoned him
self in 1794 to escape the guillotine.

Note 26. — Collot D'Herbois. See page 200.
Collot d'Herbois, born in 1750, at first an actor, became
afterward one of the most sanguinary of revolutionists. Sent
to Lyons with Fouche to punish the inhabitants for revolting,
he found the guillotine too slow, and, collecting the prisoners
in ranks, caused them to be mown down by cannon shot.
He confessed that on one occasion sixty were cut down by a
single shot. He was a licentious drunkard, without a redeem
ing trait. Banished to Cayenne with other scoundrels in 1795,
lie died soon after in terrible torments from having drunk a
bottle of brandy while suffering from yellow fever.

APPENDIX. 407

Note 27.— Lebon. See page 200.
Lebon, at first a humane priest, caught the intoxication of
revolution, and finally became one of the worst of Terrorists,
mingling beastly profligacy with unquenchable bloodthirsti-
ness. He was guillotined in 1795 at the age of thirty.

Note 28.— Clootz. See page 201.
Jean Baptiste Clootz, self-styled Anacharsis, a Prussian baron,
born at Cleves in 1755, and guillotined at Paris, March 23, 1794,
was a fanatical revolutionist and maudlin philanthropist, for
whom, M point of consistent absurdity, a parallel is scarcely
to be found in the whole scope of history. Educated from
childhood in Paris, and without any healthful restraint on his
enthusiastic and hnaginative nature, he early conceived the
idea of reforming the human race, and actually made journeys
in England, Germany, and Italy for its propagation. Return
ing to France in 1789, he was made a French citizen by the
Legislative Assembly, and expressed Ms thanks therefor in the
following words : " Charles I. had a successor, Louis XVI. will
have none. Tou know how to appreciate the heads of the
philosophers ; it now only remains to set a price on the heads
of tyrants." For the cause of the Revolution he lavished
freely Ms immense income, and offered to raise, Mmself, a regi
ment of Prussians. As member of the Convention, he voted
for the King's death " in the name of mankind," and added,
" I condemn likewise the infamous Frederick William H. to
death." To his political fanaticism he joined the mtensest
hatred of ChristiaMty, declaring himself publicly the "personal
enemy of Jesus Christ." Involved with Hebert and Chaumette
in the charge of corrupting the public morals, he was guillo
tined by the very mob-regime for which he had shown so
much fanatical devotion.

408 APPENDIX.
Note 29. — Cambon. See page 205.
Cambon was a violent Jacobin, who contributed to the fall
of Robespierre, and finally managed to outlive the Revolution.
He died in exile at Brussels in 1820, aged sixty-six.

Note 30. — Custine. See page 211.
Custine, a French nobleman, who ardently embraced the
Revolution, had imbibed the spirit of Liberty with Lafayette
in America. The reward he obtained for all Ms sacrifices was,
death at the hands of the Terrorist tribunal on a groundless
charge of treason. Whatever his life may have been, he
died like a Christian.

Note 31.— Chaumette. See page 212.
Chaumette was an obscene Atheist-Terrorist, born in 1765,
who figured largely . in the darkest period of the Reign of
Terror. He rejected his Christian name, and played the high
priest in the worsMp of Reason in Notre Dame. He boasted
that he could recognize the traitors by their very looks as they
passed in the streets. He was swept into eternity with the
rest of the vile atheistic herd, March 24, 1794.

Note 32. — Hebert. See page 213.
This man, who gave his name to the atheistic party, and is
generally classed with Clootz and Chaumette for moral infamy,
was born in 1755, and executed in 1794. He obtained noto
riety as the editor of a low journal, Pere Buehene, proposed
obscene questions to the Queen on her trial, and played a

APPENDIX. 409
large part in the great massacres. Atheism might well dis
pense with the honor of having had such a man for priest and
apostle.

Note 33.— Fouche. See page 229.
Fouche, at first a teacher of philosophy, then a cruel, blas
pheming Jacobin, and afterward a powerful instrument of
tyranny in the hands of Napoleon, was bom at Nantes in
1763, and died at Trieste in 1820. Brought up in a cloister,
he became a bitter persecutor of the Church, having polluted
many altars, and on one occasion even caused the Bible to be
dragged through the streets at the tail of an ass. After the
fall of Robespierre he changed Ms politics, (not Ms principles,
for he never had any,) and played an important role during the
whole of Napoleon's career.

Note 34. — St. Just. See page 240.
St. Just, the friend of Robespierre, the austere Stoic, the re
morseless Terrorist, was born in 1768, and guillotined July 27,
1794. Of noble family, careful culture, great keenness of intel
lect, of unbounded enthusiasm for, and devotion to, what he
regarded as the true principles of liberty, he was well fitted
for the cruel role he played in the triumvirate of Robespierre,
Couthon, and himself. Victim of the fatal doctrine that all
justice and right must yield to what is regarded as for the
interest of the " public safety," he was the organ of many of
the worst crimes of the Reign of Terror. He was a sort of
merciless, heartless incarnation of logic. He was executed
at the age of twenty-six.

Note 35.— Fouquier-Tinville. See page 241.
Fouqmer-Tinville, the Public Accuser of the revolutionary
tribunal, who remorselessly sent thousands to the guillotine,
52

410 APPENDIX.
was bom in Picardy, 1747, and executed on the fall of Robes
pierre in 1794. Without talent, and with a coldly sanguinary
nature, he was a proper man to execute the purposes of the
Terrorists.

Note 36. — Tallien. See page 249.
Tallien, born in 1769, known at first as an editor, later as a
violent Jacobin, became finally the cMef instrument in the
fall of Robespierre. The rise of Napoleon tMew Mm into the
shade. He died in 1820.

Note 37.— Barbas. See page 273.
Barras, of an ancient noble family of Provence, of adven
turous youth, dissipated manners, reckless, daring character, at
one time a Jacobin and Terrorist, and afterward an active
agent m inaugurating the military despotism of Bonaparte,
was born in 1755, and died in retirement in 1829.

Note 38. — La Reveilliere-Lepaux. See page 279.
This whimsical reformer and Mgh priest of Deism was born
in 1753. As member of the Convention, he defended in vain
the Girondists, eluded the wrath of Robespierre, became a Di
rector, refused to take the oath of allegiance to Napoleon, lived
then in obscurity for a time, and died in 1824.

Note 39. — Jordan. See page 280.
Camille Jordan, born at Lyons in 1769, was one of the few
French revolutionists who umted to radical republicanism a
smcere respect for and faith in. the Christian rehgion. He

APPENDIX. 411
opposed the anarchy of the Jacobins and the absolutism of
Napoleon, but held office under the restored Bourbons. He
died in 1821.

Note 40. — Roter-Collard. See page 280,
Royer-Collard was a philosopher-politician, who joined con
stitutional liberalism to a deep reverence for religion. In phi
losophy he opposed the prevalent sensualism, and was the
precursor of Cousin. He died m 1845, at the age of seventy.

Note 41. — Portalis. See page 303.
Portalis, a moderate liberal, the Minister of Religion under
Napoleon, was born in Provence in 1746, and died m 1807.

Note 42. — Napoleon. See page 327.
We make the following extract from a critique on Napo
leon's career by Dr. Charming :
" We close our view of Bonaparte's character by saying, that
his original propensities, released from restraint and pampered
by indulgence to a degree seldom allowed to mortals, grew up
into a spirit of despotism as stem and absolute as ever usurped
the human heart. The love of power and supremacy absorbed,
consumed Mm. No other passion, no domestic attachment,
no private friendship, no love of pleasure, no relish for letters
or the arts, no human sympathy, no human weakness, divided
his mind with the passion for domimon, and for dazzling
manifestations of Ms power. Before tMs, duty, honor, love,
humanity, fell prostrate. Josephine, we are told, was dear to
Mm ; but the devoted wife, who had stood firm and faitMul in
the day of Ms doubtful fortunes, was cast off in Ms prosperity
to make room for a stranger who might be more subservient

412 APPENDIX.
to Ms power. He was affectionate, we are told, to Ms brothers
and mother ; but Ms brothers, the moment they ceased to be
his tools, were disgraced ; and Ms mother, it is said, was not
allowed to sit in the presence of her imperial son. He was
sometimes softened, we are told, by the sight of the field of
battle strewn with the wounded and dead. But, if the Moloch
of his ambition claimed new heaps of slain to-morrow, it was
never denied. With all Ms sensibility, he gave millions to the
sword with as little compunction as he would have brushed
away so many insects which had infested his march. To him
all human will, desire, power, were to bend. His superiority
none might question. He insulted the fallen who had con
tracted the guilt of opposing his progress; and not even
woman's loveliness, and the digmty of a queen, could give
shelter from his contumely. His allies were Ms vassals, nor
was their vassalage concealed. Too lofty to use the arts of
concihation, preferring command to persuasion, overbearing and
all-grasping, he spread distrust, exasperation, fear, and revenge
through Europe ; and, when the day of retribution came, the
old antipathies and mutual jealousies of nations were swal
lowed up in one burning purpose to prostrate the common
tyrant, the universal foe."

Note 43. — Pius VH. See page 346.
Pius VH., born at Cesena in 1740, of the noble family of the
Chiaramonti, was made Cardinal in 1785, and during the
early period of the French Revolution manifested very liberal
political sentiments. Soon after the death of the unfortunate
Pius VI. he was elected to the Papal See by the conclave
which met at Vemce. His reign dates from March 13, 1800.
His rule, from the fall of Napoleon to his death, which hap
pened August 20, 1823, was not happy for his subjects. He
was too favorable to the despotic principles of Austria.

APPENDIX.

413

Note 44.— Fesch. See page 368.
Joseph Fesch, Cardinal Archbishop of Lyons, brother of
Napoleon's mother, was bom in Corsica in 1763, and made
Cardinal in 1803. He accompanied Pope Pius VH. to Paris
in 1804 on the occasion of the coronation of Bonaparte, en
joyed the favor of the Emperor till 1809, and spent the latter
part of his life in Rome. He died in 1839.

I IS" D EX.

Alison, his estimate of the French Revo
lution, 5.
Ambrose, St., referred to, 117.
America the only perfectly tolerant na
tion, 88.
Anglas, Boissy d', his "wholesome policy,
261-263; 268,282.
Anti-Sabbath orders, 310.
Apostasy, 21T-220 ; of Protestants, 225.
Atheism, professed, 161, 166 ; in conflict
with Deism, 283 ; worse than Paganism,
247; persecutes without excuse, 277;
its schools, 281 ; its moral fruits, 293.
Aubort, the priest, absurd marriage of, 171.
Augereau, 274.
August 4, great epoch of, 58.
Avignon, 119-121.
Babeuf, 278.
Bailly, wisdom of, 55 ; pleads for liberty,
135.
Ball, the, of the victims, 251.
Barnave, 71 ; impolicy of, 118.
Barras, 273.
Barrere, 193, 21}.
Bastille, taking of, 58.
I'ert bier, 291.
Bishops, constitutional, 124 ; of i ranee,
dissent from the Pope, 122.
Bonapaite, Joseph, his marriage, 871.
Bossuet, his politics drawn from the Bi
ble, 25, 44.
Bravard put to death, 180.
Brienne, intolerance of, 43, 124; resigns
his cardinalate, 125.
Brittany alarmed, 100.

Calas, judicial murder of, 85.
Calendar, the atheistic, 214 ; retroactive,
290.
Cambon, 182, 205, 259.
Campo Formio, 285.
Carnot, 278.
Catechism, Napoleonic, 865.
Catholic Church, declension of piety in,
32 ; feeble apologists of 38 ; its hold on
the people in 1789, 58, 100.
Cavour, his great political axiom, 77.
Cazales warns against persecution, 114.
Centralization, 150, 320; fatal effects of,
322 ; complete, 886.
Cesarism, 382.
Chabot, 224.
Channing-s opinion of Napoleon, note 42.
Chaumette, 213 ; attacks the priests, 281 ;
recants his Atheism, 286.
Chenier pleads for liberty of conscience,
153, 226.
Church Councils at Paris, 310-812.
Church and State separated, 260.
Civil Constitution of the Clergy, 91-97.
Civil War, 101.
Clergy, the high, intolerant 48, 44 ; allow
ance to be made for, 45; they flatter
Napoleon, 868.
Clergy, the lower, 46; enthusiastic for
liberty, 50.
Clootz, 201.
Comedians enfranchised, 89.
Committee, the ecclesiastical, 78 ; report
of, 81.
CoUot, 200.
Concordats of 1268 and 1516, 80.

414

INDEX.

Concordat of Napoleon, 840; its basis,
345; its provisions, 849-353; iB unpopu
lar at Paris, 351 ; proclaimed in Notre
Dame, 845 ; criticised by Gregory, 356;
led to persecution, 359 ; is bitterly re
gretted, 3TT.
Condorcet, 196, 201.
Conscience, danger of violating, 186; de
fies force, 886.
Consulate, the, 318.
Contrat Social, the germ of the French
Eevolution, 89, 62; realized, 177, 243.
Convents, 80.
Convention, the, 187; its rashness, 190 ;
its immorality, 195; its energy, 210;
its close, 270.
Corday, Charlotte, referred to, 209.
Cowpa d'etat, 271, 278, 284, 286, 851.
Courage, moral, 201.
Couthon, 155, 241.
Cowardice of Deputies, 250.
Custine, 211.
Danton, 205, 209.
" Death an eternal sleep," 230.
Deism attempts to become a religion,
242, 296.
Demagogism, 202.
Desmoulins, Camille, 84; satirizes the
clergy, 116-118, 164, 192 ; is envied by
Robespierre, 239.
Despots make a bugbear of the French
Eevolution, S.
Despotism, 319, 367-869.
Diamond necklace, the, scandal of, 34.
Directory, the, its Constitution, 269; its
members, 273; its politics, 275; its hos
tility to the Papacy, 280, 291.
Divorce rendered easy and frequent, 294
Dom Gerle, produces an excitement, 88,
86.
Ducos, 157.
Duhot, the Knight ot the Decades, 289.
Dumas, 179.
Dumouriez, 172.
Dupbot, 291.
Dupont, 195.
Dupuis saves Notre Dame, 230.
Duval, ridiculous proposition of, 155.
Elizabeth, the Princess, 283.
EmUe, the, burned, 39.
Expilly, 124, 126.
Fabre d'Eglantine explains the atheistical
policy, 215.
Fanaticism, atheistical, 183-202; a rela
tive term, 258.
Faucbet, 155 ; absurd conduct of, 173.
Fenelon, 27.
Fesch, Cardinal, 868.
Festival "of the Supreme Being," 244; of
th.- Decades, 266.
Feudalism abolished, 59.
Fouche, his violence, 229.
Francois de Nantes, irreligion of, 175.
French Eevolution, generous outset of,

50 ; sad goal of, 825 ; when to be con
cluded, 879; one of its great lessons, 884.
Gallican Church, liberties of, 29 ; council
of, at Paris, 805.
Gallois and Gensonne, their mission to
La Vendee, 146, 158.
Girondists, the, criticized, 148, 192.
" Gloria in Excelsis of the People," 47.
Gobel, Archbishop, 124; his insipid mo
rality, 126; lauds Mirabeau, 127, 170;
apostatizes, 219.
Goa as a means of ruling the masses, 248;
the only basis of society, 271 ; irksome
to the impious, 276; patronized by Na
poleon, 856.
Gonsalvi, 347.
Gouttes, Abbot, 46, 71.
Gregory, 47 ; on the rights of man, 61 ;
moderation of, 82 ; complains of popular
prejudice, 100; his character, 124, 255;
noble efforts, 256, 290; helps to re-es
tablish worship, 304r-309, 865.
Hebert, 218, 225; recants his Atheism,
236 ; his followers executed, 240.
Heroism of Gregory, 221-223.
Hoche, General, on religious liberty, 265.
Huguenots defended by a Catholic Bish
op, 257.
Humiliating epoch, 287.
Incivism, 253.
Infancy profaned, 128, 217.
Infidelity in low places, 264 ; attacks re
ligion indirectly, 266; its vain hopes,
267.
Inquisition, atheistical, 238.
Jacobins, 85.
James I. alluded to, 116.
Jansenists, 24 ; persecuted, 82, 33, 46, 140.
Jews, oppression of, 27 ; become a State
Church, 360.
Jordan, 280; eulogizes Christianity, 281,
Jourdan, the beheader, 152.
Laboulaye, remark of, 76.
Lafayette, 42 ; protects the Assembly, 85;
recommends free-churchism, 131, 132,
135, 145, 178, 321 ; his counsels to Na
poleon, 340.
Lalande, 223.
Lameth, 80 ; taunts the clergy, 84.
Lamourette, 124.
Lanjuinais, 134, 191, 194.
Lasource, the Protestant, 314
Lebon, 200,
Le Coz, 124, 173; noble efforts of, 137.
Legendre, 172.
Legislative Assembly, 141 ; parties in 142.
Lejeune, 155.
Lepaux, the Theophilanthropist, 276, 279,
Liberty according to Robespierre, 238:
rendered hateful, 265.

INDEX.

415

Liberty of Conscience claimed by the
Catholics, 149; strange notion of it,
204 ; opposed by Robespierre, 205 ; in
compatibility with despotism, 885.
Lindet, infamy of, 220, 226.
Louis XIV. dominated the Church, 97.
Louis XVI. warned hy the Pope, Ijjl ;. his
conscience violated, 180; effects of his
flight, 137, 194.
Louis Blanc, 162.
Lucon, Bishop, zeal of, 147.
Malesherbes, tolerant, 42.
Malouet, 113.
Marat, his journal, 116, 193; worshiped
228.
Marie Antoinette, 212.
Massacres at Avignon, 152; of September,
Mattei, Cardinal, intercedes for the Pope.
279.
Maury, Abbot, 70 ; confidence of, 88, 118,
149.
Menou, noble sentiments of, 86.
Michelet defines the French Revolution.
6 ; apologizes for " terror," 162 ; un
fairness of, 232, 247.
Military glory, when of worth, 275.
Mirabeau, 54, 56,60, 73, 86; his prejudice
against the Jews, 89; is inconsequent,
114 ; defines religion, 115.
Mob, the, a dangerous ally, 57, 181, 135,
180.
Monastic orders, 79 ; suppressed, 80 ; pen
sions given to the monks, 81.
Monneron, 157.
Montalembert admits the corruption of
the monks, 79.
Montesquieu, 37-39.
Moral sentiments the only basis of gov
ernment, 272.
Moy defends free-churchism, 176.
Napoleon not a representative of the
French Revolution, 19, 241, 274, 277.
284, 286, S12; not the restorer of relig
ion, 816 ; his contempt for liberty, 321-
323; is faithless, 324; his contempt of
the French, 825 ; his family discords,
325; his motive in restoring Catholi-
• cism, his religion, his opposition to free-
churchism, 826; is a radical, 328; ad
mires a subservient clergy, 230 ; is zeal
ous for Eomanism, 831 ; his speech at
Milan, 382; his emotions at hearing a
parish bell, 38i, 335 ; turns theologian.
388; "plays tricks with the old fox,"
889; needs a Pope, 342; is impatient
to make tho Concordat, 847; becomes
intolerant, 360, 862; threatens to dis
pense with a Pope, 374
Necker, 6«.
Noir. heroism of, 180.
Non-jurors, their worship molested, 161,
144 ; profess loyalty, 169 ; restore their
worship, 802.
Notables, Assembly of, 41.

Nuns persecuted, 167; heroism of, 200.
Oath, political, refused by the priestB,
111-113; modified, 198.
Organic articles, 352, 370 ; still in force,
380.
Pacca, Cardinal, 375; favors- afree Church
878.
Paganism reviving, 331.
Paquot, Christian heroism of, 185.
Parens, infamy of, 218.
Paris at its loweBt, 184, 197.
Pasquinade on the Pope, 848.
Peter-pence, 51.
Petion, 70, 191.
Penn referred to, 38.
Pichegru, 274.
Pius VI., 119-121; condemns the new
Church, 128 ; is impolitic, 126, 160, 170;
is arrested, 291.
Pius VII., 346 ; his motives in crowning
Napoleon, 870, 372.
Popular sovereignty, a Mse, pernicious,
38a
Portalis, 308, 363.
Pressense, his qualifications and stand
point, 5-12.
Priests, hard fate of, 180.
Property, ecclesiastical, origin of, 66;
confiscated, 74 ; sale of, 79.
Protestants persecuted, 41, 313 ; St. An
dre, Julien, 814; tolerated by the Or
ganic Articles, 852 ; accept the Concor
dat, 854 ; suffer from connection with
State, 360-362.
Rabaut, 63 ; president of the Assembly,
88, 314.
Radicals, their excesses, 111 ; their temp
tations, 209.
Reason, the worship of, 226-228.
Religion a people's only solace in calam
ity, 77 ; not an object of civil law, 207 ;
compels respect, 261 ; strongest -when
unsupported by the State, 292; only
basis of social order, 293; its self-re
generating power, 800 ; is degraded to a
means by Napoleon, 357.
Revenue of the' Clergy, 28.
Rewbell, 276.
Rhode Island, Its early toleration alluded
to, 88.
Eights of man, 62, 64.
Robespierre, 40, 80 ; pleads for the Jews,
89 ; favors a salaried clergy, 94, 192 ;
on depravity, 202; fears religious lib
erty, 208 ; acts ignobly, 288 ; attacks
the Atheists, 234 ; thinks a God indis
pensable, 235 ; becomes high priest,
289; theological views, 242; begins to
fall, 245, 259.
Roland, 174 ; his insolence, 177.
Romme, 214.
Rousseau, influence of hiB writings, 89 ; is
intolerant, 40; fruits of his theories,
189, 176.

416

INDEX.

Royer-Collard, 280 ; pleads for modem- Te D&wms, 59, 807.
tion, 283. Temporal domain of the Pope alienated,

Sabbath, the, persecuted, 289 ; not over
come, 299 ; anecdote, 315.
Sansculottism, 213.
St. Denis, Church of, sacked, 212.
St. Just, 193, 240.
Schism in Romanism, 123.
Sicard, 185.
Sieyes, 46, 56, 60; on liberty of con
science, 183, 224, 285, 821.
Sisters of Charity, 137.
Shamelessness of an abbot, 87.
Stael, Madame de, her estimate of tho
French Revolution, 6; on Napoleon's
Church policy, 841.
State, the, an idol of the French, 31 ; its
right over the Church as a corporate
body, 75.
State and Church, true relation of, 275,
283.
State-Church system, the, 260; perilous
to the Bourbons, 381.
States- General, 49, 52.
Talleyrand, 46; urges to confiscation of
the Church property, 69, 121 ; on liber
ty of conscience, 132, 847.
Tallien, 249; his illiberalism, 270.

Temporal power not essential to Catholi
cism, 307.
Terror, Eeign of, dawning, 188, 155; its
instruments, 195; its remorselessness,
211.
TheophUanthropy, 273-276; attempts to
become a religion, 296-300 ; iB forced
into Catholic churches, 310.
Theot, Catherine, the prophetess, 246.
Third Estate, 53, 55.
Thouret, 71, 186.
Tinville, 241.
Tithes abolished, 60.
Tocqueville, 50.
Tolerance, true principles of, 257.
Torne, Bishop, 178 ; violence of, 180.
Vacancies in the Church, 113.
Vergniaud, 152, 175 ; sarcasm of, 176 ; his
grand speech, 179; he describes tho
Convention, 193.
Vernacular, the, in worship, recommend
ed by a Bishop, 808.
Voltaire, 25; renders a signal service to
the Protestants, 36; but attacks Chris
tianity, 87; his ashes translated to the
Pantheon, 186.

THE END.