ABSOLUTION.

The book of the taxes of the Roman chancery was printed at Paris in the year 1620. It is not the first edition, as some have imagined; the edition of Bois-le-duc, 1664, shows that this book was printed at Rome in the year 1514, and at Cologne in 1515; and was entitled “ Regulæ, Constitutiones, Reservationes, Cancellari S. Domini nostri Leonis Papæ decimi, noviter editæ et publicatæ.” In folio 67 it has these words: “ Taxæ Cancellariæ, per Marcellum Silber, alias Franck, Romæ, in Campo Florae, anno mdxiv, die ⅩⅤⅢ Novembris impresse, finiunt feliciter:—The Chancery Taxes, printed by Marcellus Silber, alias Franck, at Rome, in the Campus Florae, the 1Sth of November, 1514, is happily completed.” This is attested by two of the echevins of Bois-le-duc, together with the town-clerk, who had collated this edition of Rome, word for word, with that published by Stephen du Mont, bôokseller at Bois-le-duc, in the year 1664.

The edition of Bois-le-duc is entitled, “ Taxæ Cancellariæ Apostolicæ, et Taxæ Sacræ Pœnitentiariæ Apostolicæ.” In pages 95 and 96 we find the passage quoted by d’Aubigné from the Paris edition in 1530: “Absolutio pro eo qui matrem, sororem, aut aliam consanguineam vel affinem suam, aut commatrem, carnaliter cognovit, gr. v. Absolutio pro eo qui virginem defloravit, gr. vi.— The absolution of him who has lain with his mother, sister, or other relation, either in consanguinity or affinity, is taxed at gr. v. The absolution of him who has deflowered a virgin, gr. vi.” Let nobody however mistake the matter: the tax

set down in that book is not all that must be paid. The sinner must besides treat with a datary, and compound with him according to his ability. Du Pinet published an edition of this famous book in 1564, under the title of “ The Tax of the casual forfeitures of the Pope’s Shop.” It is Latin and French, and largely annotated. He was greatly to blame in not mentioning on what authentic copies he formed his edition; for it differs from the others both in the order of matters and in the denomination of monies. This mentions only tournois, ducats, and carlins; the others only gros—at least the ducat and carlin are very rarely mentioned. D’Aubigné affirms that the Paris edition says, “ The murder of a father or mother is rated at one ducat and five carlins but in the edition of Franeker, and in that of Bois-le-duc, it is “ Absolutio pro eo qui interfecit patrem, matrem, sororem, uxorem, g. v. vel vii.—The absolution of him who has murdered his father, mother, sister, wife,—at gr. v. or vii.” I am suprised, that the article of incest should be missing in the edition of Du Pinet, in which we find more enormous articles: as for instance,—“ The absolution and pardon of all acts of fornication committed by a cleric, in what manner soever, whether it be with a nun, within or without the limits of the nunnery, or with his relations in consanguinity or affinity, or with his god-daughter, or with any other woman whatsoever; and whether also the said absolution be given in the name only of the cleric himself, or of him jointly with his paramours, with a dispensation to enable him to take and hold his orders and ecclesiastical benefices, and with a clause also of inhibition,—costs thirty-six tournois and nine ducats. And if, besides the above, he receives absolution from crimes against nature, with the dispensation and clause of inhibition as before, he must pay ninety tournois, twelve ducats, and six carlins. But if he only receive absolution for the same crimes, with the dispensation and clause of inhibition, he pays only thirty-six tournois and nine ducats. A nun, having committed fornication several times within and without the bounds of her nunnery, shall be absolved, and enabled to hold all the dignities of her order, even that of abbess, by paying thirty-six tournois and nine ducats. The absolution of him who keeps a concubine, with dispensation to take and hold his orders and ecclesiastical benefices, costs twenty-one tournois, five ducats, and six carlines.” I conjecture that Du Pinet followed the edition which the Protestant princes inserted amongst the causes of their rejecting the council of Trent, and which was entitled “ Taxæ Sacræ Pœnitentiariæ.” Mr Heidegger recites some pieces of it, which exactly agree with the edition of Du Pinet.

The Roman and Spanish inquisitors have placed the “ Taxes of the Chancery,” in the third list of prohibited books, under this title—“ Praxis et Taxæ Officinæ Pœnitentiariæ Papæ, ab Hæreticis depravata.” Observe, that it is only condemned on the supposition of its having been corrupted by heretics. But let them suppose as much as they please that it has been corrupted by heretics, the editions of it which cannot be disowned, as that of Rome in 1514; that of Cologne in 1515; those of Paris in 1520, in 1545, and in 1625; and those of Venice, one in the sixth volume of the “ Oceanus Juris,” published in 1533, the other in the fifteenth volume of the same collection, reprinted in 1584,—these editions are more than sufficient to justify the reproaches of the Protestants, and to cover the Church of Rome with confusion.

There is room for much surprise that such a work has seen the day, and that even after the Protestants have made it a subject of so much triumph,

it has been authentically reprinted. Let us attend to a reproach made by a minister of Paris to the bishop of Bellay: the following are his words: “ I dare say of this book all which has been written of it by the doctor d’Espence, and even to apply to it the line

Prostat et in questu pro meretrice sedet.”

So far from shame being felt, it is continually republished and exposed to sale. I have seen three editions of that of Paris; I have among my books the edition of 1520, and that which we have seen published in 1625. I have compared them and found them conformable, particularly in the following passage, which calls for vengeance before God:—“ Et nota diligenter quod hujusmodi gratiæ et dispensationes non conceduntur pauperibus; quia non sunt ideo non possunt consol ar i.— Take particular notice that such graces and dispensations will not be conceded to the poor, who, not having the means, cannot be indulged.” These words I repeat, which are to be found in folio 23 of the ancient edition of 1520, and are also to be met with in page 208 of that of 1625, and in folio 130 of that of 1545.

The Romish controversialists, who have not a word to say against the authority of the edition of Rome, or that of Paris, are under great perplexity. This appears from the answers of the abbé Richard to the “ Préjugés” of Mr Jurieu. This minister had published the “Abominations of the Tax of the Chancery.” The abbé replies, that these were only particular facts which had never been authorized by the laws and canons of the Church of Rome. “ We find indeed,” continues he, “that Mr Jurieu quotes these taxes from an old book of the Romish chancery. But is it not extremely ridiculous, to endeavour to pass upon the world a

book of taxes for laws and canons? Would it not be making a jest of all civil law, to insert tables of taxes into the code, and reckon them in the number of laws? Would not this be doing great honour to the gentlemen concerned in them Î Let Mr Jurieu therefore inform himself what are the laws and canons of the Church of Rome; and let him know in the meantime, that these old taxes of the chancery of Rome, are not only of no authority in the church, but have always been regarded by her with horror. These taxes of the chancery began only under the pontificate of John XXII, about the year 1320; the taxes of the penitentiary appeared only towards the year 1336, under Benedict XII; and both were immediately suppressed, and ever afterwards ranked in the number of prohibited books, according to the remark of Mr du Mont, who printed them in the year 1664; which sufficiently shows the church of Rome’s abhorrence of these taxes, and that she is far from proposing or observing them for rules, as Mr Jurieu would make us believe she has done. Let him therefore consider, that the acts of the officers of the court of Rome are but particular acts, and not at all the acts of the church.” This answer is far from sufficient; for, in the first place, the church of Rome has never shown, by the suppression of these taxes, that she has had them in abhorence. They have been printed thrice at Paris, twice at Cologne, and twice at Venice; and some of these editions have been published since Claude d’Espence exclaimed publicly against the enormities of this book. We have seen, that the inquisition of Spain, and that of Rome, have condemned it only as they suppose it to have been corrupted by heretics. I must add, in the second place, that the suppression of such a work is not a sure sign of disapproving the rules it contains. This may only signify, that they repented of the publication of it, as it gave so fair a handle for the heretics to reproach the court of Rome, and to wound the Church of Rome through the sides of the pope. They ought to be esteemed mysteries of state,arcana imperii,not to be divulged. Are there not persons of the same opinion as to the ceremonies? I pass by many other considerations which a controversialist might allege against Mr Jurieu’s adversary; but I shall not content myself with observing, that Claude d’Espence exclaimed very loudly against the abomination of these taxes; I must also remark, that the Protestant controversialists cite this in all their disputes, and that the Spanish inquisition would have this passage expunged from that doctor’s book The French editor of the “ Analyse Raisonnée” of Bayle thus observes on these accusations:—“Suppose all the alleged facts are true, to what do they amount? That John XXII, Benedict XII, Alexander VI, and others, sought to make money of every thing ,5 that they trafficked in benefices, indulgences, and dispensations; that they even sold absolutions. Of what consequence to us are these reproaches? One word will suffice in reply; which is, that the memory and abominable practices of these popes are as sincerely abhorred by Roman Catholics as by the most zealous Protestant ministers.” This is no doubt true; but what becomes of the infallibility of such pontiffs, and of theauthority of the proceedings which men like them influence? Regarded merely as wicked priests, the French editor argues soundly; but alas ! these men, with the mob of Catholics, are also God’s vicegerents on earth, and spiritually incapable of error. “ Hinc illæ lachrymæ.”—Ed. ¹².