The writer may advert here to a consideration which was overlooked in the course of the correspondence by both Mr. Hoare and himself. From first to last Mr. Hoare has considered the question simply with reference to the rules of scholarship; it is believed, however, that the ordinary principles of scholarship, i.e., of classical scholarship, have hardly any place in the discussion at all, and this for the following reason:—Christianity having introduced its new and complex subject-matter, there followed, in matter of fact, what we should beforehand expect to find, viz., a corresponding modification of the language which became its organ. Expression had to be found for the mind of the Church in a medium to which almost all her ideas were foreign and strange; she had to adapt it to her purpose in her own way; new ideas provided for themselves new forms of language; words were added, existing words acquired new meanings and were used in new combinations; and by this natural process there was brought about in the course of years, almost as great a difference, as regards idiom, between the Latin of the Church and the classical Latin, as is observable in the case of any two modern languages having a common origin. The writer is not a theological student, and is not saying this from his own knowledge; but he understands from those who are qualified to speak on the subject, and in whom he places implicit confidence, that the fact is as he has stated.
So then, possibly “obligatio ad peccatum,” meaning “an obligation binding under pain of sin,” may displease the classical Latinist, but it is a term of Theology, and beyond his province. The question is not how he would express that meaning in Latin, but how he should construe a particular phrase which he finds Theologians have adopted. It is used by Catholic [7] and Protestant writers alike, and must be understood as they understand it. Its use by St. Alphonso was but very lately brought into prominent view: a writer in the Dublin Review for October last, had occasion to animadvert on a Protestant author’s having translated these words of St. Alphonso, “nullo jure obligante ad mortale,” thus—“by no law that is obligatory,” and so having omitted to render the important words “ad mortale.” It appears from a reply by the Protestant author, that “the misprint,” as he calls it, was corrected in a second edition of his work; but that the phrase meant “obligatory under pain of mortal sin,” was admitted on all hands; and this was in a most adverse quarter.
It will be seen that for so much of the note extracted above as follows the Latin quotation, Mr. Hoare is not responsible; it was added, through mistake, by another gentleman. The circumstance will account for a contrariety of statement to be observed with reference to Const., part iv, chap, i, but which does not call for more particular notice.
It is said, with some ambiguity, “that the version thus excepted against is by no means an exclusively Protestant one, but has been adopted by most competent Roman Catholic authorities;” and Dr. Wordsworth’s work seems to be referred to in behalf of the statement. It will be found, however, that the “historical research” of that writer has only enabled him to adduce the instance of Stephen Pasquier, who is said to have given the version in a speech which he made as an advocate in a cause, in which the Jesuits were his opponents. In the Biographie Universelle, Stephen Pasquier is spoken of as “un homme passioné,” and “en titre adversaire des Jesuites.” [8]
With Mr. Hoare’s Lecture as a whole, the writer is not concerned: the friend, a Protestant, who kindly directed his attention to the single statement which he has exposed, informed him at the same time that there was little besides in the lecture that seemed to him to call for notice; a cursory glance over its pages has satisfied the writer of the correctness of that view; and statements which few, surely, can believe, will, he trusts, produce in the minds of readers an effect the very reverse of that intended.
CORRESPONDENCE.
12, Manor Road, Upper Holloway,
Feast of the Immaculate Conception, 1851.
My dear Sir,
I will not make an acquaintance so slight as ours with each other my excuse for this letter, but rather hope that my object in writing it—viz., the removal of a very great misapprehension—will, of itself, prevent your regarding it as an intrusion. A friend of mine, a protestant, was present at the lecture which you recently delivered in Islington on the Jesuits, and I learn from him that you stated, that, by the Constitutions of the Society of Jesus, the members of the society may actually be commanded by their Superiors to commit mortal sin. I do not understand from my friend that you cited any passage from the Constitutions in support of this fearful statement: I venture to think it most likely that you were content to make it on the authority of some, perhaps, respectable name, but, as not doubting its correctness, without referring to the Constitutions to verify it. I believe the passage on which the statement has been made to rest is to be found in Const. part vi., chap. 5, which Dr. Wordsworth and others have construed to mean what you say: Dr. Wordsworth having altered the text for the purpose.
Now I confidently submit that the true version of that passage is—The Constitutions do not bind under pain of mortal or venial sin, unless the Superior commands the observance of them in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, &c.