25.5. 5. Of the Bounds which the Laws ought to prescribe to the Riches of
the Clergy.
As particular families may be extinct, their wealth cannot
be a perpetual inheritance. The clergy is a family which cannot be
extinct; wealth is therefore fixed to it for ever, and cannot go out of
it.
Particular families may increase; it is necessary then that their
wealth should also increase. The clergy is a family which ought not to
increase; their wealth ought then to be limited.
We have retained the regulations of the Levitical laws as to the
possessions of the clergy, except those relating to the bounds of these
possessions; indeed, among us we must ever be ignorant of the limit
beyond which any religious community can no longer be permitted to
acquire.
These endless acquisitions appear to the people so unreasonable that
he who should speak in their defence would be regarded as an idiot.
The civil laws find sometimes many difficulties in altering
established abuses, because they are connected with things worthy of
respect; in this case an indirect proceeding would be a greater proof of
the wisdom of the legislator than another which struck directly at the
thing itself. Instead of prohibiting the acquisitions of the clergy, we
should seek to give them a distaste for them; to leave them the right
and to take away the deed.
In some countries of Europe, a respect for the privileges of the
nobility has established in their favour a right of indemnity over
immovable goods acquired in mortmain. The interest of the prince has in
the same case made him exact a right of amortisation. In Castile, where
no such right prevails, the clergy have seized upon everything. In
Aragon, where there is some right of amortisation, they have obtained
less; in France, where this right and that of indemnity are established,
they have acquired less still; and it may be said that the prosperity of
this kingdom is in a great measure owing to the exercise of these two
rights. If possible, then, increase these rights, and put a stop to the
mortmain.
Render the ancient and necessary patrimony of the clergy sacred and
inviolable, let it be fixed and eternal like that body itself, but let
new inheritances be out of their power.
Permit them to break the rule when the rule has become an abuse;
suffer the abuse when it enters into the rule.
They still remember in Rome a certain memorial sent thither on some
disputes with the clergy, in which was this maxim: "The clergy ought to
contribute to the expenses of the state, let the Old Testament say what
it will." They concluded from this passage that the author of this
memorial was better versed in the language of the tax-gatherers than in
that of religion.
