Every fair principle of interpretation with which I am acquainted seems to me to be disregarded in your translation.
Here, then, I will cite a passage from a work of the greatest authority, Rodriguez on Christian Perfection: Rodriguez was himself a Jesuit, and speaks thus of the Constitution in question: first there is this heading, “That though our rules do not oblige under penalty of sin, yet nevertheless we ought exactly to observe them”; and then he proceeds, “Our Rules and Constitutions,” he is speaking of the Society of Jesus, “do not oblige us under pain of mortal sin, nor even of venial, no more than the commands of our Superiors, unless it be, as our Constitutions declare, when they command on God’s part or by virtue of holy obedience. Yet we ought to take heed, lest for this reason we come to neglect them, &c. Our holy founder would not on the one side bind us so fast as might give us an occasion of sin, and on the other, being desirous to move us to an exact observance of them, with all possible perfection, he gives us this wholesome advice. Let the love of God, says he, succeed in the place of the fear of offending him, and let it be the desire of your greater perfection, and the greater glory of God, that moves us to perform your duty herein. He says also, in the beginning of our Rules and Constitutions, that the interior law of charity, which the Holy Ghost has writ in our hearts, ought to move us to an exact observance of them.” (Third Part, Treat. 6, chap, iii, p. 350, ed. Lond., 1699.)
How are we ever to arrive at the sense of a document, if we are not to be guided by the understanding of those whose position enables them to speak with most knowledge of its subject-matter, [intention, and end]? Ask the meaning of the chapter in whatever quarter of the Church you will, and but one reply will be made.
I cannot at all agree with you, that having this meaning the chapter is misplaced; on the contrary, I know not where a more fit place could be found for it.
Since you are doubtful as to the meaning of “obligare ad peccatum” in the place to which I have referred you, I can hardly hope that you will look more favourably upon the expression in two other places in which it occurs, viz.,—Pars. ix, cap. iv, § 5, and cap. v, § 6. But I have to submit to you the following sentence from the Protestant Bishop Sanderson’s Prælectiones: “omnis enim obligatio aut ad culpam est aut ad pœnam, vel etiam utramque.” (Præl. vi, p. 154, ed. Lond., 1686.) I shall never be induced to give this a bad meaning.
I imagined that you referred the pronoun “ea” to “peccatum mortale vel veniale,” because I found that Dr. Wordsworth did so in rendering the passage as you do; he, with much cleverness, altered ea into id.
I regret the length to which my letter has extended; I had indeed hoped that our correspondence by this time would have been brought to a more agreeable issue.
With reference to an expression at the conclusion of your letter, I must protest against your supposing that the Catholic faith is simply commensurate with our judgments, like Protestantism, and has no surer basis than opinion.
I remain, my dear Sir,
Yours faithfully,
Henry Waller.
Rev. Edward Hoare.