coffer.
By the way, that the Marquess knew about the poisons found with her letters, we do not have the smallest clue. Saint Croix used to consider this small coffer in which he also kept his lover's letters, as the archive of his deepest secrets, and has also precisely chosen this same place to hide his murderous weapons. But the Marquess who had no idea that her lover was a professional poison maker, could really not think that the archive containing her secrets, at the same time, was the container of the most abominable poisons.
Regarding this point, people may only compare the information written on the parcels with the one contained in the last will, to be totally convinced that Saint Croix, while he bequeathed the small coffer to the Marquess, wanted not the poison to be included in there. There was information written on every parcel; all the information was, however, written later than the draft of this will. As he, however, bequeathed this small coffer to the Marquess, there could only be letters in it, which was the unique subject of the bequeath. The Marquess has, consequently, not any pretence to the poisons, and while she claimed the small coffer, she was not so much frightened by the horrible discovery which was recently made in the same small coffer.
Among the proofs against the Marquess, there is now nothing more left than this set of papers, which bears the mention “Confession” on it, and which contains the description of the most gruesome acts. This set of papers not only can not be used in the Marquess' trial, but rather it may also not have the least influence in it. Confessions, no matter verbal or in writing, are always an inviolable, sacred secret; and people cannot simply make any use of its content in normal, civil life. Natural and divine laws secure this inviolability of confession. Christ has not called the sinners into confession, so that they run the danger, through the recognition of their sins, to lose honour and life. How would people reconcile such sad consequences with God's mercy? This law of secrecy stretches itself, however, equally to written and verbal confessions, because the principles of discretion which underlie it, state that a confession is a sacrament; and that people are obliged to confession, is valid for the two kinds of confessions.
We cannot prevent ourselves, here, to differentiate between sacred and profane writings; confessions are considered sacred, they stay under the immediate protection of religion. Everything related to confessions, is gathered by Abbot Lenglet Dufresnoy in his essay about the inviolable secrecy of confession. We want, however, to take some examples from these books as proofs that in this matter, the Princes have always used all their powers to secure the decisions of the church which is so important for the citizens' peace and the believers' salvation.
A Catalan who has been condemned to death for a murder, did not simply want to go to confession before his execution and rejected with such stubbornness all exhortations to do so, without giving any reasonable ground, that people started to believe that fear of death has disturbed his mind. Saint Thomas of Villeneuve, Archbishop of Valencia, who found himself precisely at the place where the Catalan was tried, learned about this incident and went immediately to see the unfortunate person to change his mind and save his soul. He was, however, very surprised when he finally learned the delinquent's ground for refusal. The prisoner said to him, namely, that he despised confessions, just because confessions themselves are the cause of his death sentence. No human being in the world knew about the murder for which he now will be executed. However, he felt obliged to recognize fully his misdeed to the priest in a confession, and he did not have any scruple giving precisely this priest all the details and even the place where he has buried the murdered person.
The priest was, as it has been established later on, a brother of the killed person, and in an unfortunate manner, out of revenge, betrayed the secrecy of confession and told everything to the authorities. Any denial was in such case vain; and now, because of his confessions, he must die of a shameful death. The Abbot of Saint Thomas of Villeneuve hold this detail for more important than the whole trial. This trial concerned only the punishment of an individual human being; this episode with the priest, however, was under the authority of religion itself. He allowed the priest to come before him, and after he received from this one the admission of his betrayal, he motivated the judges to retract their judgement and to declare the wrongdoer free. The confessor would be punished; however, his punishment would be softened, because he recognized, repenting, the responsibility of his action.
In the year 1579, an innkeeper in Toulouse killed one of his guests and buried him secretly in his cellar, without anyone in the house remarking anything. Shortly afterwards, he confessed the murder and told to the confessor all the details about what happened. The relatives of the deceased made, in the meantime, all the possible researches and publicly promised, finally, after many fruitless efforts, a great reward to the persons who would give them any information about the missing person. The confessor, attracted by this promise, gave them the secret information that they should only search in the innkeeper's cellar, and will find the corpse of the killed person. People really found the corpse; the innkeeper would be arrested and recognized his act under torture. However, he affirmed steadily that his confessor was the unique person in the world who could have betrayed him. The Parliament of Toulouse recognized with the greatest disapproval the irregular way through which people have brought the criminal under torture, and declared him so far as innocent until people would bring forward other proofs than the ones given by the priest against him. This priest, however, would be sentenced to die on the gallows and to have his body burned. Hence cared this wise tribunal energetically for the security of such an important sacrament.
“Even non-Christian judges in countries where the Christian religion would be tolerated, were convinced of the necessity to keep inviolable a secret confided within the frame of religion, have seen to it that the worldly judge may not make use of such confession, and that the person who desecrates it through betrayal, deserves the sharpest punishment. A young, excellent Turkish man has fell in love with the wife of an Armenian. His intelligence has kept his passion for this beautiful person for a long time in bridle, but it broke out finally into full power. With a bursting flame, he demanded her the fulfillment of his wishes and menaced to kill her and her husband, if she will not hear him. Frightened by this menace which fulfillment she could only all too certainly presage, she found refuge in deceit. She suggested him an encounter in her house at a time where her husband, as she said, would be absent. The lover went to the appointment, armed with his sword and two pistols. Suddenly, the husband appeared, and now, the matter took at once another turn, because the spouses have fortunately evaluated their chance of defeating their enemy. They buried him in their house, and no one knew about the whole incident.
Only that a greedy priest of their religion, to whom they confessed the incident with all the details, was despicable enough to misuse this avowal, that he, with the menace of betraying this unfortunate couple, little by little, deprived them of their whole fortune, and then, as he could not any more extort something from them, finally, betrayed them really to the deceased's father for a considerable amount of money. The Turkish father brought the priest's testimony immediately to the Vizier whose friend he was. This Vizier, equally moved by compassion for the unfortunate couple as by outrage for the shameful priest, called immediately for the Armenian Bishop and asked him what a confession was; how the betrayal of a confession would be punished; and what to do with such people whose crime would be discovered in this manner. The answer of the Bishop was the following:
Confession is an inviolable secret for the Christians; according to their laws, the betrayal of the same will be punished at the stake, and a person accused through betrayal of the confession secrecy is to be freed, because his confession to the priest is a religious duty which nonobservance is punishable with eternal damnation. The Vizier, satisfied with this answer, called immediately for the accused. Trembling and half dead, they threw themselves to his feet and recognized their crime; however, they excused it as a necessity imposed by their honour and accused, at the same time, the priest who misused their avowal, made them into beggars and at the same time, has betrayed them as well. Then, he called for the betraying priest to be brought before him, presented to him the Bishop who, in his presence, once again, gave him the punishment suitable for a confession betrayer and condemned him then to be burned alive,
