

Transcribed from the 1852 Burns and Lambert edition by David Price, email
ccx074@pglaf.org





                               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_.

                                * * * * *

    “Thus men go wrong with an ingenious skill,
    Bend the straight rule to their own crooked will,
    And with a clear and shining lamp supplied,
    First put it out, then take it for their guide.”

                                             _Cowper’s Progress of Error_.

                                * * * * *

                                 LONDON:
                  BURNS AND LAMBERT, 17 PORTMAN STREET,
                             PORTMAN SQUARE.

                                  1852.

                                * * * * *

       W. Davy and Son, Printers, 8, Gilbert-street, Oxford-street.

                                * * * * *




INTRODUCTION.


IN a Lecture on the Jesuits, recently delivered before the Islington
Protestant Institute by the Rev. EDWARD HOARE, M.A., Incumbent of Christ
Church, Ramsgate, and since published, there occurs the following passage
with the note subjoined:—“It would not be fair to attach to the Order the
opinions of the individual, unless these can be proved to be fully borne
out and sanctioned by the fixed and authoritative documents of the
Society.  Nothing, however, can be clearer, than that the sentiments then
expressed, [_i.e._, alleged to have been expressed on an occasion before
referred to], were those not of the man, but of the Order; for although
there is an exceptive clause inserted in one of the Constitutions, as if
for the relief of unseared consciences, so that the Statute runs thus,
‘Conforming their will to what the Superior wills and thinks in all
things, where it cannot be defined that any kind of sin interferes;’ {3}
yet a little further on there is another section wherein that clause is
wholly nullified, and the original principle boldly asserted.  ‘Although
the Society desires that all its Constitutions, &c., should be
undeviatingly observed, according to the Institute, it desires,
nevertheless, that all its members should be secured or at least assisted
against falling into the snare of any sin which may originate from the
force of any such Constitutions or injunctions; therefore, it hath seemed
good to us in the Lord, with the express exception of the vow of
obedience to the Pope for the time being, and the other three fundamental
vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, to declare that no
Constitutions, declarations, or rule of life, can lead to an obligation
to sin, mortal or venial.’  Thus far all is well; what more can be
required?  But now mark the next passage.  ‘_Unless the Superior may
command them in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ_, _or in virtue of the
vow of obedience_; _and this he may do whenever_, _and to whomsoever_,
_he may judge it conducive either to individual good or to the universal
well-being of the Society_.  And in the place of the fear of offence, let
the love and desire of all perfection succeed; that the greater glory and
praise of Christ our Creator and Lord may follow.’  So that the poor
Jesuit may be compelled to commit what he knows to be a mortal sin at the
bidding of his Superior.  He may clearly see it to be utterly opposed to
every principle of Scripture; his own conscience may turn from it with
horror; his moral sense may utterly condemn it; he may see clearly that
he is flying in the face of the most High God; but on he must go, because
his Superior bids him; and in order to obtain an object, which the
Superior considers conducive to the interests of the Society, he must
freely consent to have his deepest convictions wholly disregarded, and
his principles of moral rectitude for ever crushed within his soul.” {4}

The present writer is the person alluded to in the note as having
complained of this shocking statement, and stated what is the true
meaning of the Constitution of which it is such an utter perversion.
What he said on the subject forms his portion of the following
correspondence.  The publication of the entire correspondence that passed
on the occasion, will, it is hoped, afford Mr. Hoare’s readers the
readiest means of determining for themselves whether the accusation he
has brought is sustainable or not.

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.

May I not fairly hope that you will look into the matter?  I make the
request for truth’s sake and charity’s sake.  Some of the lectures
delivered before the Islington Protestant Institute are, I know,
afterwards published; two delivered by you have been published; I feel
sure that I shall not have the pain of seeing this last go forth with the
statement, which I have thus taken the liberty of asking you to
reconsider, uncorrected.

                                                        I am, my dear Sir,
                                                         Yours faithfully,
                                                             HENRY WALLER.

Rev. Edward Hoare.

                                * * * * *

                                                                 Ramsgate,
                                                            Dec. 11, 1851.

My dear Sir,

You need make no apology for writing to me on the subject of my lecture,
and I am much obliged to you for so doing, as I cordially desire to
elicit truth and _nothing else_.  The passage which I quoted was, as you
suppose, the 5th chap. of the 6th part of the Constitutions, and my
authority is an edition of the Constitutions published by Rivington in
1838, which I have compared since your note with the extracts given in
Taylor’s Loyola, who has evidently used another edition, though differing
in no essential particular.

I have also carefully examined the passage with your exposition before
me, and submitted it to some of the best scholars that I know; but I
confess myself quite at a loss to translate the words in the original so
as to force upon them the meaning which you think they are intended to
convey.  Surely the expression, “Obligationem ad peccatum mortale vel
veniale inducere,” makes sin the object of the obligation, and does not
merely describe the character of the fault.  If the words were, _peccati
mortalis_, _&c._, instead of “ad peccatum, &c.,” I think that the passage
would have borne your interpretation, but as it stands, I must still
believe that the version which I gave of it was correct.  I cannot
therefore expunge it from my lecture; but as I sincerely desire to make
no false charge against an opponent, I will subjoin the Latin copy, so
that any scholars may be able to decide as to the merits of the question.

I cannot close my note without adding the expression of my deep and
heartfelt sorrow that you have been led to abandon the truth in which you
were trained, for the, as I believe, unscriptural system of the Church of
Rome.  Putting all other considerations out of the question, it is enough
to my mind to condemn the whole system when I find it adopting the
company of Jesuits, of whose morality and mischievous intrigues it had
already had, according to Clement XIV., such mournful experience.

Earnestly hoping that the Lord may guide you into the way of truth,

                                                       I remain, dear Sir,
                                                    Very faithfully yours,
                                                             EDWARD HOARE.

H. Waller, Esq.

                                * * * * *

                                             8, New Square, Lincoln’s Inn,
                                                                Dec. 1851.

My dear Sir,

I have to thank you for the manner in which you have received my
communication, but I am sorry to find that, contrary to my expectation, a
simple reference to the original text of the Constitutions has not
sufficed to show you that the version for which you contend is, as I
still believe I shall be able to convince you, founded in
misapprehension.  I attribute to you—I am bound to attribute to you a
_wish_ to see it satisfactorily proved, that the passage has not the
dreadful sense which has been given it, and which you assign to it simply
because it seems to you unavoidable.  I cannot think, then, that I have a
difficult task to accomplish.

In several places in the Constitutions the expressions, “obligatio ad
peccatum,” “obligatio peccati,” and “obligatio sub pœnâ peccati,” are
used indifferently, as equivalent to one another.  Thus, the title of
cap. v., pars vi., itself is, “Quod Constitutiones peccati obligationem
non inducunt;” obviously the same thing must be meant as by, “obligatio
ad peccatum,” in the chapter itself.  Now you admit that, “obligatio
peccati” has the same meaning as “obligatio sub pœnâ peccati;” surely
then “obligatio ad peccatum” has the same meaning too.

In pars ix., c. v., § 6, the following passage occurs: “si non compulerit
talis obedientia Summi Pontificis, _quæ ad peccatum obligare posset_;”
even in the translation which accompanies the edition of the
Constitutions to which you have referred me, this is rendered, “unless
such obedience to the Pope, as is _compulsive under the penalty of sin_,
oblige him, &c.”  What could have led the translator to put a different
meaning on the same expression in the passage we are discussing, I cannot
conceive, except I impute it to prejudice.

I do not deny that _obligare ad aliquid_ frequently means _to oblige a
person to do something_; but I deny that it does or, construed with all
the context, _can_ mean this in the particular passage.  I would beg you
to consider the whole chapter, which, I really must say, is turned, not
only into something fearful, but into something quite absurd by the
construction you give it.  Only reflect on the frightful incongruity of
any one commanding another to commit sin in the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and of the person of whom this is required complying through love
and a desire of all perfection.  I hope you will say that this had
escaped your notice, not tell me that to urge it is begging the question.
Pray read the entire chapter in accordance with the version Catholics
give of the passage in question, (if that is to be called a version which
simply declares its meaning,) and I still entertain a hope that you will
discover its excellent purport and intention.

I may observe, though I do so with some diffidence, as I have almost
forgotten my grammar, that in order to make the passage bear the sense
which you put on it, the pronoun “ea” should be, not in the plural but
the singular, as I presume you refer it to “peccatum mortale vel
veniale,” which is disjunctive; and then should be, not _id_ but _hoc_.

I find that many Protestant writers have repudiated, or at least not
adopted, the bad meaning.  Thus, Steinmetz in his Novitiate says: “Part
vi., c. 5.—Where it is decided, that the guilt of sin attached to
disobedience when the superior commands in the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ, or in virtue of obedience.”—_Novitiate_, p. 98, 2nd ed. 1847.
And in his History of the Jesuits, he does not, so far as I have been
able to find, say anything different.

I might say more in vindication of the Constitutions of the Jesuits, but
I think I have said enough to justify an expectation that you will be
convinced of the incorrectness of your statement.

As to what you say at the end of your letter, permit me to remark, that I
abandoned no positive doctrine [in which I had been trained], in
embracing the Catholic faith; and as to the hope which you very kindly
express, that the Lord may guide me into the way of truth, I must tell
you that when God led me in a remarkable manner into His Church, which is
“the ground and pillar of the truth,” He put me on that way, and that it
“is the way,” {14} I have an internal and external assurance which, I
know, cannot be had in protestantism.

                                                    I remain, my dear Sir,
                                                         Yours faithfully,
                                                             HENRY WALLER.

Rev. Edward Hoare.

                                * * * * *

                                                                 Ramsgate,
                                                            Dec. 22, 1851.

My dear Sir,

I thank you very much for your full communication, and I fear that you
will think me very much prejudiced when I state that whatever were the
intention of the writer, I still think that the version which I have
given is most in accordance with the Latin.

With reference to your criticisms, I have read the constitutions
carefully, and I cannot agree with you that the expressions “obligatio ad
peccatum”—“peccati”—and “sub pœnâ peccati”—are used indifferently in any
other portion of the book, unless it be the extract quoted by you from
the 9th part.  This appears to me a very important extract, and is the
only thing which has at all shaken my opinion.  I am, however,
exceedingly doubtful whether the translator has given its true meaning,
while at the same time I fully admit that his having so translated it is
a strong and valid argument in favour of your interpretation.

With reference to your two other points, I certainly think that the words
“obligatio peccati” might include either sense; so that the utmost that
can be gathered from the heading is that as far as it is concerned the
section may bear the harmless sense, but whether it does or not must be
decided by the contents.

I had noticed the “ea” before you mentioned it, and you will perhaps be
surprised at hearing that it failed to carry conviction to my mind.  It
does not agree with peccatum, but what does it agree with unless it be
with “Constitutiones, &c.”; and if it does, the meaning is not at all
altered, as it is the “vis constitutionum” by which the Jesuit is to be
drawn “in Iaqueum peccati.”

Then again, if this be the meaning of the passage, it appears to me very
strange that it should be placed just after the chapter on obedience, in
the middle of the Constitutions, and not at the commencement or close of
the book.  It certainly is a very extraordinary place for it, if it
really describes the obligatory force of the whole code.

On the whole, therefore, I confess myself very much at a loss upon the
subject, and am inclined to think that very possibly it may be understood
by members of the Society in the sense in which you apply it, while on
the other hand I am thoroughly convinced that the majority of Latin
scholars would translate it as I did in my lecture.  I cannot therefore
withdraw it, because I am not prepared to acknowledge any inaccuracy in
my version; but I will subjoin the Latin, and add the reference from the
9th Part, so that the matter may be fairly presented to the reader.

Once more thanking you for your communication, and deeply regretting our
difference of opinion on the great questions affecting Christian truth,

                                                       I remain, dear Sir,
                                                    Very faithfully yours,
                                                             EDWARD HOARE.

H. Waller, Esq.

                                * * * * *

                                             8, New Square, Lincoln’s Inn,
                                                           Jan. 2nd, 1852.

My dear Sir,

The festivals of this holy season have not left me leisure to reply to
your letter as I ought, until now, and deeply I regret that it should not
have called for a different answer from this.  When I wrote last, I
submitted for your consideration, not all that occurred to me in behalf
of the true meaning of the Constitution, but so much as it seemed to me
might be urged without implying a misgiving as to the charity and
fairness of mind of the person to whom it should be addressed,—a
misgiving I am unwilling to entertain with regard to you or any one.  But
it is, I confess, with greatly diminished confidence as to the result of
what I shall say, that I now proceed to add to what I have said already.

When you say that whatever were the intention of the writer, you think
the version you have given of the passage is most in accordance with the
Latin, and that though very possibly it may be differently understood by
members of the Society, you are convinced that the majority of Latin
scholars would translate it as you do, you surely forget that the
question we are concerned with is, not one of scholarship, not one of
mere words, but simply a question of fact,—What is the Constitution?  The
question is precisely, What did the founder mean, what do the members
understand?  What he meant, and what they understand, that the
Constitution is and nothing else.

However, as a mere question of Latin I should have no reason to fear the
result of an appeal to scholars, for those to whom I have submitted it,
two Oxford men and a Cambridge man, and all Protestants, agree in
construing the passage as I do; on the other hand, I suppose I may safely
assert that you cannot produce any Catholic authority for the correctness
of your version—not even Pascal.

But supposing the words capable of receiving the sense which you impute
to them, surely you are not therefore justified in making your statement,
if, as you seem to allow, another and an unexceptionable meaning is also
admissible.  Ambiguity, in some degree or other, is a property of all
language, even of inspired language; the fact does not leave us at
liberty to choose which of several possible meanings we will, but obliges
us to have recourse to recognised principles of construction, to
ascertain the determinate meaning of the author.

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.

                                * * * * *

                                                                 Ramsgate,
                                                          January 5, 1852.

My dear Sir,

I am sorry that you do not think me candid in the consideration of the
Constitution, for I have heartily desired to ascertain the truth, and
perhaps you will allow me to suggest that where there is a difference of
opinion it is scarcely fair to attribute it to want of fairness of mind
in the discussion.

The fact is, that I have given the subject much anxious study, and you
will perhaps be surprised when I tell you, that my opinion is less shaken
than it was when I wrote last, so that when I had to revise the proof I
erased a part of the note that I had previously written, and have now
simply stated your opinion and added the Latin.

With reference to your last letter I think that you can scarcely have
referred to the two passages which you mention as containing the
expression—“obligatio ad peccatum;” for in the one (ix, iv, 5.) the words
are—“sub pœnâ peccati,” and the other (ix, v, 6.) is the very one already
under discussion.

I have not the edition of Bishop Sanderson to which you refer, but if you
think it worth while to let me know the prelection in which the words
occur, I will endeavour to examine them, though I am not sure I shall be
able, as I have not all of them within reach.

I cannot imagine what I should have said which has led to the idea—“that
the Catholic faith is commensurate with our judgments, and has no surer
basis than opinion;” the basis of the Gospel is the revealed word of God,
and that remains the same whatever be man’s opinion.

                                                       I remain, dear Sir,
                                                    Very faithfully yours,
                                                             EDWARD HOARE.

H. Waller, Esq.

                                * * * * *

                                             8, New Square, Lincoln’s Inn,
                                                          January 8, 1852.

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
offici