De peste quaestiones duae explicatae

For in this way, they would achieve what they want, not only with probable but also with necessary reasons: namely, that those who sin against God or against their neighbor through the fear of any danger commit the greatest sin. For what Christian would dare to call these things into controversy, or if he were to dare, would he not be refuted by the testimony of his own conscience, even if everyone else were silent? For I do not believe there are any who think the plague should be avoided in all ways, that is, without exception, with a good conscience: a thing which I see is attacked by some just as if it were defended by others. But if there are any who feel this way, we certainly do not support their error any more than that of those who, with the opposite dogma, think the plague should never be avoided. But it is certainly the mark of a wise man to follow the golden mean, so that when you must stay, you do not flee, and when you must withdraw (for the word "flight" seems to me, in this argument, ill-suited?), you do not sin against that very charity by rashly staying, which seemed to urge you to remain. I chose to preface these things before approaching the matter itself, so that everyone might know from the very beginning what I have undertaken to defend and what to refute. But come, since there is no lack of those who believe that this whole discussion about whether the plague should be avoided or not depends on the explanation of the question of whether the plague is contagious, let us see with what reasons and arguments they so confidently