My dear Sir,
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 eodem recidit, obligatio ad culpam, et obligatio ad pænam.”—(De Juramenti Obligatione, præl. 1, § 12, ed. Lond. 1696.)
What I said at the end of my last letter had reference to an expression of yours with regard to the faith—“our difference of opinion”—which seemed to me objectionable, as being what is called latitudinarian; it was, perhaps, unduly observed upon by me.
I remain, my dear Sir,
Yours faithfully,
Henry Waller,
Rev. Edw. Hoare.
Ramsgate,
January 9, 1852.
My dear Sir,
I am much obliged to you for your letter, and I shall have much pleasure in referring to as many of the passages named as I can find in my own library or borrow from my friends, but it cannot be with the view of altering my lecture, as that is already published. The Latin of the Constitution is subjoined in a note, so that if I am wrong I am open to the correction of all Latin scholars.
I remain, dear Sir,
Very faithfully yours,
Edward Hoare.