Question IV

GRATIAN. Part I. Now, therefore, the fourth question must be treated: whether his father's crime is imputed to this man, when it is established that it was committed without his knowledge? That ignorance excuses him is proved by the authorities of many. For Augustine says, [epistle XLVIII to Vincentius]:

No one's crime stains one who is ignorant of it.

Likewise, [in the same epistle]. What place is left for innocence if another's crime stains one who is ignorant of it?

Likewise it is read in the African Council, [c. 14]. It was resolved concerning infants who are baptized by heretics—for they did this by no judgment of their own—that when they have returned to the Church of God with a salutary purpose, the error of their parents should not impede them from being promoted to the ministry of the sacred altar.

Likewise in the same, [c. 24]. Those who were baptized as little children among the Donatists, when they were not yet capable of knowing the destruction of error, if, after reaching an age capable of reason, they have acknowledged the truth, abhorred the falsehood of those persons, and been received by the Church according to the ancient order through the imposition of the hand, the name of error ought not to impede such persons from receiving the office of the clergy.

Likewise Leo IV to Ebruinus and Adelfridus. Because the governance of our prelacy—as you well know—ought to be solicitous not only about the welfare of priests but also of secular persons, we therefore wish your fraternity to know that this priest now present has come to the Apostolic See and related to us in order the violence and his excommunication; he likewise indicated that his church had been taken from him without the just course of law, which another priest, having given a gift and led by the zeal of envy, presumed to usurp. His relatives, compelled by great grief on that account, soon seized that priest who held his church and gouged out his eyes. Yet the aforesaid priest says that this was done without his will or counsel. If this is so, as he testified to us with his own mouth, you must take great care that, if he was not canonically excommunicated, a canonical remission be made for him.

[See below in Gratian's Dictum after canon 9.]

Likewise from the Fourth Council of Toledo, [c. 60]. If baptized Jews afterward have prevaricated against Christ and been condemned with any penalty, it will not be proper to exclude their faithful children from their property, because it is written: “The son will not bear the iniquity of the father.”

Likewise Augustine to Boniface, [epistle XXIII]. Accordingly, when a man has now been made in himself another person distinct from the one who begot him, he is not held liable for another's sin without his own consent. Therefore, he drew guilt because he was one with and in him from whom he drew it when that which he contracted was committed. But one does not draw it from another when each is now living his own proper life, whence it is said: “The soul which has sinned, that one shall die.” But that he may be regenerated through the office of another's will, when he is offered for consecration, the one Spirit from whom the person offered is regenerated accomplishes this. Hence Gregory also in book XXVI of the Moralia, [c. 8, on c. 35 of Job]:

“Your impiety will harm the man who is like you, and your justice will help the son of man.” Human impiety harms the one whom it pollutes by perverting him, and in turn our justice helps the one whom it changes from depraved actions. For those things which cannot either corrupt a good person or change an evil person do not know how to harm or help. GRATIAN. To the contrary, the Lord says to Moses: “I am a jealous God, who visits the sins of fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation,” although Augustine asserts that this was said not from inequality of judgment but from the greatness of clemency, speaking thus: “In the law the Lord threatens that he will render the sins of fathers to their children in the third and fourth generation, not from inequality of judgment, so that some sin and others are punished, but from the greatness of clemency, since he always awaits repentance and does not correct and amend what is committed in the first generation before the third and fourth generation has arrived.” In the Digest, title On Penalties, [c. VI]: “The crime or penalty of a father can inflict no stain upon a son. For each person is subjected to lot from his own offense, nor is he constituted the successor of another's crime. The divine brothers also so rescripted to the people of Hierapolis.” Therefore, since Innocent writes concerning those baptized by heretics, “It is the law of the Church to furnish only lay communion through the imposition of the hand to those who were baptized by heretics, and not to substitute any of them into even the slightest clerical honor,” it is apparent that ignorance alone excuses infants who were baptized by heretics, so that, according to that decree of the African Council, the name of error does not impede them from receiving the clerical office. Likewise, as Augustine writes to Bishop Auxilius, [epistle 75]:

“The sins of parents which are committed by the parents after their children's birth are not imputed to the children; nor are children to be struck with a spiritual penalty for the sins of their parents.” [GRATIAN.] But to be deprived of an office or benefice of the Church is a spiritual penalty; therefore, the son does not merit this from the sin of his father. Likewise, if one who is ordained unknowingly by a simoniac is excused, as is read above in Urban's chapter, this man also is to be excused who is ordained simoniacally through ignorance. Part II. But that saying of Gregory is objected:

A church which has been consecrated by a bargain ought to be called execrated rather than consecrated.

GRATIAN. Likewise, through the sin of the citizens the treasures of Jericho are read to have been anathematized. Hence Achan, who stole a golden rule and certain other precious things, is said to have taken from what was under anathema. § 1. Likewise, through the sin of the Amalekites their animals were commanded to be killed; because Saul spared them, he heard from Samuel: “Do you not know that to resist is the sin of divination, and to refuse to obey is like the crime of idolatry?” § 2. Likewise, through the sin of the Egyptians their possessions were given over to hail, and their beasts and firstborn were consumed by death. § 3. Likewise, through the sin of the Israelites the ark of the Lord was handed over to the Philistines. Therefore, if things which lack sense—such as a church, altar, the ark of the Lord, and the stones of Jericho—are either execrated, handed over to sinners, anathematized, or devastated by hail; if things which lack the power of understanding—such as the animals of the Egyptians and Amalekites—are destroyed by death for the sins of men: it is apparent that ignorance of a crime excuses no one, especially when an advantage from it is brought to the ignorant person. For example, if someone gathered riches for his ignorant son from robbery and rapine, ignorance would not excuse the son from being compelled after his father's death to return the things wickedly acquired. § 4. Likewise, through the sin of Achan the Israelite people were delivered into the hands of their enemies. § 5. Likewise, through the sin of Eli's sons the people fell into the hand of the Philistines. § 6. Through the sin of the people their elect were also often impeded, and finally the prophets were led captive with them. Part III. § 7. The reply to these things is as follows. Insensible and irrational things are either execrated, anathematized, or destroyed by death through the sin of men, not by participation in the sin, but for the sake of a mystery, in detestation of the sin, or as a scourge of the delinquents. For the sake of a mystery, as the treasures of Jericho and the animals of the Amalekites. For Jericho is interpreted “moon” and signifies this world. “Amalekites” is interpreted “those licking blood,” and they signify the covetous, the avaricious, and demons. “Israelites” is interpreted “men seeing God,” and they signify the multitude of the saints. Therefore, the stones and treasures of Jericho are anathematized and the animals of the Amalekites are commanded to be killed in order to test the covetousness for the treasure of this world, which is designated by the stones and treasures of Jericho; and the irrational motions of the vices, which are understood through the animals of the Amalekites, ought not to pass into the lot of the saints. But the animals of the Egyptians, their possessions, and their firstborn were consumed by hail and death, so that they might be punished in those things in whose prosperity they rejoiced and so that it might be given to be understood that the world and its substance will perish. But the land of the Israelites also was turned to salt, rains were adverse to their crops, and their animals were consumed by sterility and disease, so that at least amid punishments they might perceive their author, whom they refused to recognize through benefits. In detestation of sin, however, Simon's money was condemned, to whom it was said: “May your money be with you unto perdition, because you thought the gift of God to be possessed by money.” In detestation of the same crime, also, an altar and a church which are consecrated through simony are said not so much to be consecrated as execrated, because one who pours out the oil of consecration through the intervention of money is to be believed not to consecrate but to execrate. Hence it is that blessed Gregory commanded churches consecrated by Arians to be consecrated again, because those who lacked faith could not bestow the sanctification of consecration, which is perfected only in faith in the Trinity. But the ark and the prophets were handed over to enemies through the sin of their fellow citizens. The elect also who were impeded by their murmuring suffered these things not as a penalty for crime, but as a trial and example of patience. § 8. Likewise, the people who were delivered into the hands of their enemies through the sin of Achan and the sons of Eli signify that subjects are corporally scourged so that amid those very scourges the sins of the prelates may be struck, just as Achan, discovered by lot, was overwhelmed with stones. § 9. So also Jonah's little ship is endangered so that the fugitive, discovered by lot, might be immersed in the waves. Sometimes the life of subjects is depraved through the merits of prelates, so that subjects who favor their prelates unto evil fall together with them, just as the children of Israel, long bearing the sins of the priests, finally fell with them into the hands of enemies. Likewise, David numbered the people, through which sin the sword of the Lord raged against the people. “But the glory of the king is in a broad nation; in the diminution of the people is the crushing of the prince.” He who therefore grew proud in the multitude of his nation was rightly punished in its diminution. § 10. Likewise, ignorance did not excuse the little children of the Sodomites from being consumed by heavenly fire for their fathers' crime; but through this fire the penalty was diminished for those from whom succession to their fathers' crime was taken away. At the same time, it was also demonstrated that little children are sometimes corporally scourged for the sins of their parents. The same must be understood concerning the little children who, through the sin of Dathan and Abiron, descended alive into hell. § 11. Likewise, when Ham sinned his son Canaan was cursed; when Gehazi transgressed, leprosy was transmitted to his descendants. When the Jews cried out, “His blood be upon us and upon our children,” their remnant was bound over to the penalty of the death of Christ. When Ahab sinned, his descendants also lost the throne of the kingdom; and those born of his seed in the kingdom of Judah were excluded from the Lord's genealogy until the stain of that family was purged. The hatred of Esau also, as Malachi testifies, passed to the Edomites. From all these things it is gathered that ignorance of sin excuses no one. § 12. But by these examples none are proved to be held by the sin of others except imitators of their wickedness. For whoever of the seed of Esau and of the others were converted to God and detested their fathers' wickedness experienced not hatred but God's clemency. Likewise, as Ambrose says, [sermon XI]:

“Peter's little ship, in which Judas was, is disturbed, because he who was firm through his own merits was disturbed by those of another.” [GRATIAN.] But Peter was ignorant of Judas's sin. Therefore, ignorance did not excuse him; yet this disturbance is understood not as pollution by sin but as bodily persecution, because through the demerits of evil persons the good are sometimes so oppressed that their infirmity is troubled. Accordingly, by these authorities those for whom money was given while they were ignorant are not proved to be simoniacs. Therefore, this man cannot be proved guilty of a crime of which he had no consciousness. Part IV. § 1. It must also be noted that not every ignorance excuses anyone. For one kind of ignorance is of fact, another of law. Ignorance of fact is of one thing which he was not bound to know, and of another which he was bound to know. Concerning what he was not bound to know, as the Apostle says: “If any unbeliever has invited you to dinner, eat whatever has been set before you, asking nothing. If anyone says to you, ‘This has been sacrificed to idols,’ do not eat.” Behold, the one invited to dinner was not bound to know that the meats set before him had been sacrificed to idols. Concerning what he was bound to know, such is the ignorance of the Jews and the rest of the unbelievers, who are still ignorant that the things foretold by the prophets concerning Christ have been fulfilled, whence he is still awaited by the Jews as one who will come. This excuses no one. § 2. Likewise, one ignorance of law concerns natural law, another civil law. Ignorance of natural law is damnable in all adults; but some are permitted to be ignorant of civil law, others not. Ignorance of civil law harms no one in avoiding loss if a transaction has arisen from it; thus, if a minor has given money to a son under paternal power, he recovers it, but in an adult it is regarded as a delict. § 3. Likewise, if you, even as an adult, divide with another an inheritance offered to you without a judge, thinking the testament supported by law when it was not, you will obtain the whole inheritance; or if you pay or promise, as though under a written acknowledgment of debt, that which you owed under no law, or did not owe under natural law but did under civil law, you recover it; not so if it concerns a delict. For if one thinks that the law permits him to seize his own thing, he falls under the constitution If Anyone into Such.

[PALEA.

If anyone has advanced into such audacity of fury that he violently invades possession of things lodged with the fisc or with any persons before the outcome of a judicial determination, then, if he was constituted owner, let him restore to the possessor the possession which he took away and lose ownership of that thing. But if he invaded possession of things belonging to another, let him not only return it to the possessors but also be compelled to restore the value of those same things.] GRATIAN. In this case, however, there was no ignorance of law but of fact, and of a fact which he was not bound to know. Therefore, ignorance of his father's offense excuses him from guilt for the crime, which, even if he had been bound to know it, he nevertheless could not discover because of the infirmity of his age.