The Jesuits: A correspondence relative to a lecture so entitled, recently delivered before the Islington Protestant Institute by the Rev. Edward Hoare, M.A., incumbent of Christ Church, Ramsgate — John Shaqi
The Jesuits: A correspondence relative to a lecture so entitled, recently delivered before the Islington Protestant Institute by the Rev. Edward Hoare, M.A., incumbent of Christ Church, RamsgateHoare, Edward
History
The Jesuits: A correspondence relative to a lecture so entitled, recently delivered before the Islington Protestant Institute by the Rev. Edward Hoare, M.A., incumbent of Christ Church, Ramsgate
Hoare, Edward
Jesuits -- Rules; Jesuits. Constitutiones
I greatly regret my carelessness in having given you such faulty
references. Instead of referring to the _Constitutions_, part ix, c. iv,
§ 8, and c. v, § 6, I should have referred to the _Declarations_
corresponding to those passages. In the first passage, where the
Constitutions have, as you say, “obligando sub pœnâ peccati,” the
corresponding declaration says, “nec Societas approbabit, si Pontifex
præcepto quod ad peccatum obliget, non compelleret.” As to part ix, c.
v, § 6, to which I referred you in a previous letter, I find that the
declaration has the same expression as the Constitution. There is still
another place in the Constitutions in which “ad peccatum obligare”
occurs, viz., pars vi, cap. iii, § 8, and here it is again correctly
rendered in the translation published by Rivington; thus the author of
that translation has twice given the phrase its true meaning. In the
declaration on the Examen Generale the expression also occurs,—“obligatio
vera dicendi in examine, ad peccatum esse debet,” (cap. iii, § 1.) and
the meaning is plain. I have quoted from the Prague edition of 1757. I
am aware that the edition published by Rivington does not contain the
declarations.
My reference for the sentence out of Sanderson might have been more
complete. It is to be found in the Prælectiones de Conscientiæ
Obligatione, præl. vi, § 6, p. 156 of the ed. Lond. 1696; the sentence is
a parenthesis and independent of the context:—“Nemo potest jure obligari
ad id faciendum, cujus omissio non potest ei imputari ad culpam nec debet
ei imputari ad pœnam; (omnis enim obligatio aut ad culpam est aut ad
pœnam, vel etiam utramque) sed rei impossibilis omissio non potest alicui
imputari ad culpam.” I have found the same expression in the other work
of Sanderson, De Juramenti Obligatione. I must beg you to excuse the
length of the following extract:—“Præter illam obligationis distinctionem
ex origne natam, per respectum ad Jus unde oritur obligatio: est et alia
ab objecto sumpta per respectum scil. ad debitum solvendum, quo tendit et
in quod fertur obligatio. Duplex autem est debitum. Debitum officii,
quod quis ex præcepto juris tenetur facere: et Debitum supplicii, quod
quis ex sanctione juris tenetur pati, si officium suum neglexerit.
Priori sensu dicimus mutua caritatis officia esse debita, quia lex Dei
illa præcipit, juxta illud, Rom. xiii. _Nihil cuiquam debete_, _nisi ut
diligatis invicem_. Posteriori sensu dicimus peccata esse debita ut in
oratione Dominica, _Dimitte nobis_, &c. et mortem æternam esse debitam,
juxta illud, Rom. vi. _Stipendium peccati mors_. Observandum tamen
debitum posterius contrahi ex insoluto priori: ita ut siquis Debitum
officii plenarie dissolveret, faciendo id quod lex imperat, non teneretur
aliquo debito supplicii ad patiendum id quod lex minatur. Respondet
duplici huic debito duplex item obligatio scil. ad officium faciendum; et
obligatio ad supplicium preferendum: _vel quod communiter dicitur et
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account