Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 1.djvu/123

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

Clement XI condemned in the Bull "Vineam Domini" (1705) the Jansenist evasion known as silentium obsequiosum, or respectful silence, and proscribed (1708) the Réflexions morales. Shortly afterwards, the King caused the Jansenist establishment of Port-Royal to be demolished (1710). Jansenism, however, had not yet been overthrown. Louis XIV then urged the Pope (November, 1711) to publish another Bull, and promised to have it accepted with due respect by the French bishops. On this assurance Clement XI established a special congregation to draw up the new constitution. After eighteen months of careful study, the famous Bull Unigenitus, destined soon to provoke an outburst of wrath on the part of the Jansenists, was promulgated in Rome (8 September, 1713). In it the Pope condemned 101 propositions from Quesnel's book as "false, misleading, scandalous, suspected and savouring of heresy, bordering upon heresy, frequently condemned; what is more, as being heretical and reviving various propositions of Jansenius, in the very sense for which they were first proscribed." Noailles at first submitted, but later, in an assembly of forty-nine bishops, who met at the instance of Fénelon in the archiepiscopal palace in Paris, he recalled his submission and with eight of his colleagues ranged himself among the appelants. The forty others voted to accept. The Parliament of Paris registered the Bull (15 February, 1714), and the Sorbonne did the same, albeit under pressure of royal authority. The French Episcopate, with the exception of twenty hesitating or stubborn members, submitted forthwith. To make an end of the matter, Louis XIV, at Fénelon's suggestion, conceived the idea of holding a national council as a means of restoring unity; but his death prevented this and deferred the hour of final pacification.

The Regent, Philip of Orléans, a man without religious or moral convictions, a "vicious braggart", as Louis XIV styled him, attempted to hold the balance between the two parties. The Jansenists profited by his neutrality. Noailles was put at the head of a "conseil de conscience pour les affaires ecclésiastiques", and four doctors of the Sorbonne who had been exiled because of their violent opposition to the Bull were recalled. The Sorbonne, which had accepted the Bull Unigenitus by a mere majority, now cancelled its acceptance (1716). The Pope through a Brief punished the Sorbonne by depriving it of all its privileges. The Parliament of Paris sided with the Faculty and suppressed the Brief, while the Sorbonne itself contested the right of the Sovereign Pontiff to withdraw lawfully granted privileges. The following year four bishops, Soanen of Senez, Colbert of Montpellier, de la Broue of Mirepoix, and de Langle of Boulogne, appealed from the Bull Unigenitus to a future general council. Their example was followed by sixteen bishops, ninety-seven doctors of the Sorbonne, a number of cures of Paris, Oratorians, Genevievans, Benedictines of Saint-Maur, Dominicans, members of female religious orders, and even lay people. This movement extended to the provinces, but not to the universities, all of which, with the exception of Nantes and Reims, supported the Papal Bull. Of the 100,000 priests then in France, hardly 3,000 were among the appelants, and 700 of these were in Paris. The great majority voted for acceptance and counted on their side more than 100 bishops. The appelants had only 20 bishops. Clement XI knew that he must act vigorously. He had used every means of persuasion and had written to the Archbishop of Paris beseeching him to set the example of submission. He even consented to a delay. But the opposition was unyielding. It was then that the Pope published the Bull Pastoralis Officii (28 August, 1718), in which he pronounced excommunication upon all who opposed the Bull Unigenitus. The same year, 2 October, Noailles and his party appealed from this second Bull, and the Faculties of the University of Paris, headed by the famous Rollin, endorsed the appeal. The Regent thought it time to intervene. He was indifferent to the question of doctrine, but was politic enough to see that censorious people like the appelants were no less dangerous to the State than to the Church. Moreover, his old teacher, the Abbé Dubois, now his Prime Minister, with an eye perhaps to the cardinal's hat, was in favour of peace. He caused to be composed a Corps de Doctrine (1720) explaining the Bull Unigenitus, and about one hundred prelates gave their adhesion to it. Noailles then accepted the Bull (19 November, 1720), "following the explanations which have been approved of by a great number of French bishops." This ambiguous and uncertain submission did not satisfy Clement XI; he died, however, without having obtained anything more definite.

Louis XV and his aged minister, the Cardinal de Fleury, opposed the sect with vigour. Authorized by them, De Tencin, Archbishop of Embrun, convoked a provincial council (1727) to examine Soanen, the aged Bishop of Senez, who in a pastoral instruction had gone to extremes. Many bishops took part in this council, notably De Belzunce, famous for the zeal he displayed during the plague of Marseilles. Although supported by twelve bishops and fifty advocates, Soanen was suspended and sent to the monastery of Chaise-Dieu where he died, insubordinate, at the age of ninety-three. After numerous evasions, ending in submission, Noailles died in 1729. The only appelants left were the Bishops Colbert of Montpellier, Caylus of Auxerre, and Bossuet of Troyes, a nephew of the great Bishop of Meaux. At the same time 700 doctors of the Sorbonne, of whom thirty-nine were bishops, ratified the earlier (1714) acceptance of the Bull Unigenitus. It was a triumph for the acceptants, that is to say, for the authority of the Pope and of the Church.

Lafitau, Histoire de la Constitution Unigenitus (Avignon, 1757); Saint-Simon, Mémoires (prejudiced and untrustworthy); Jager, Hist. de l'Eglise catholique en France (1862–68); Schill, Die Konstitution Unigenitus (Freiburg, 1876); Bower, History of the Roman Popes, XC, 233 sqq.; Barthelemy, Le Cardinal de Noailles (Paris, 1888); Le Roy, La France et Rome de 1700 a 1715 (Paris, 1892); De Crousaz-Castet, L'Eglise et l'Etat au XVIIIe siècle (Paris 1893); Thuilier, La seconde phase du Jansenisme (Paris 1901); Bliard, Dubois, cardinal et ministre (Paris, 1902); Thénon, L'Eglise au XVIIIe siècle, in Lavisse and Rambaud, L'Histoire de France (Paris, 1893–97); De Lacombe, L'opposition religieuse au début du XVIIIe siècle, in Le Correspondant, 10 April, 1904.

Accession (from Lat. accedere, to go to; hence, to be added to) is a method of acquiring ownership of a thing arising from the fact that it is in some way added to, or is the fruit of something already belonging to oneself. This may happen in three ways: (1) naturally; (2) artificially; (3) from the combined operation of nature and industry. (1) Natural.—The increase of an animal, the yield of fields, the rent of a house, etc., belong to the owner of the animal fields, and house, respectively. Thus, the offspring of a female animal is the property of her owner, even though it be the result of intercourse with a male belonging to someone else. The axiom applies in the case that partus sequitur ventrem. The Louisiana Code, in accordance with the Roman law, provided that the issue of slaves though born during the temporary use or hiring of their mothers, belonged not to the hirer but to the permanent owner. But the offspring of a slave born during a tenancy for life belonged to the tenant for life. In the same division is the species of accession due to alluvion. This is an addition to one's land made by the action of water, as by the current of a river. If this in-