Question III

GRATIAN. PART I. That an entire household is to be excommunicated for the sin of one person is proved by many examples. For on account of the sin of the Sodomites, their little children, who by the privilege of their age did not know their fathers’ flagitious deeds, were consumed by heavenly fire. § 1. Likewise, on account of the sin of the Amalekites, not only their little children but even the brute animals down to the one urinating against a wall were commanded by the Lord to be destroyed. § 2. Likewise, Dathan and Abiram were authors of schism against Moses and Aaron, and not only they themselves alone but all their substance descended with them into hell. § 3. In the New Testament too it is sometimes read that, when sins demanded it, a grave pestilence raged, which involved even those who had no consciousness of the sin. Therefore, if little children are found to have been punished so severely for the sins of their parents, there is no doubt that for the sins of the same they can equally be struck by a sentence of excommunication. § 4. To these things answer is made thus: that little children are scourged bodily for the sins of their parents appears from the words of the Gospel, where the disciples are said to have asked concerning the man born blind: “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?” In them is also fulfilled what the Lord said to Moses: “I am a jealous God, visiting the sins of the fathers upon the sons to the third and fourth generation.” Spiritually, however, little children are not held by the sins of their parents after they have been cleansed from original sin through the sacrament of regeneration. Hence through Ezekiel the Lord says: “The soul that shall have sinned, that soul shall die; the son will not bear the iniquity of the father, and the father does not bear the iniquity of the son; the justice of the just will be upon him, and the impiety of the impious will be upon him.” Whatever sins the parents committed after the son was personally separated from them are not imputed to him for punishment. Hence all posterity are said to be held by the sin of Adam because no one had yet been physically propagated from him. But because before God not the sentence of the priests but the life of the accused is sought, it is evident that one whom the stain of sin does not infect is not to be marked by a sentence. Hence also Paul, writing to the Corinthians, says: “If anyone is named a brother and is a fornicator, or avaricious, or serving idols, with such a person you ought not even to take food.” From these words it is given to be understood that unless someone has first been named concerning a crime—that is, either accused and convicted before a judge or has himself confessed concerning himself in law—he is neither to be struck by a sentence nor is one to abstain from communion with him. Therefore, an entire household is not to be excommunicated for the sin of one person. Hence Augustine writes to Bishop Auxilius, [epistle 75]:

If you have concerning this matter a judgment explored by certain reasons or testimonies of Scripture, deign to teach us how a son is rightly anathematized for the sin of his father, or a wife for that of her husband, or a servant for that of his master, or anyone in the household who has not even yet been born, if he is born at the time when the entire household is bound by anathema, and aid cannot be given to him through the washing of regeneration when he is in danger of death. For that was a bodily punishment by which we read that certain contemners of God were killed together with all their people who were participants in the same impiety. For then mortal bodies, which were some day to die in any case, were destroyed for the terror of the living. But the spiritual punishment by which what is written comes about—“The things you shall have bound upon earth will be bound also in heaven”—binds souls, concerning which it was said: “As the soul of the father, so the soul of the son is mine. The soul that shall have sinned, that soul shall die.” § 1. Perhaps you have heard that some priests of great name anathematized one of those who sinned together with his household. But perhaps, if they were questioned, they would be found capable of rendering a reason for it. But I, if anyone should ask me whether this is rightly done, do not find what I should answer him; I have never dared to do this concerning the flagitious deeds of certain persons perpetrated unanimously against the church unless I were most gravely moved. But if the Lord has revealed to you how justly it may be done, I by no means despise your youthful age and the beginnings of your ecclesiastical honor. For I, an old man, am prepared to be taught by a young man, and I, a bishop of so many years, by a colleague not yet a year old, how I can render a just reason either to God or to men if we punish with spiritual torment innocent souls for another’s crime—a crime that they do not inherit from Adam, in whom all have sinned. For although Classitianus’s son inherited from his father the guilt of the first man, to be expiated by the sacred font of baptism, nevertheless who doubts that whatever sin his father committed after he begot him does not pertain to him, since he himself was not a participant in it? What shall I say concerning the spouse? What concerning so many souls of the entire household? Hence, if one soul through that severity by which this entire household was anathematized should perish by departing from the body without baptism, the death of innumerable bodies, if innocent people were violently dragged away from the church and killed, cannot be compared to this loss. Therefore, if you can render a reason concerning this matter, would that by writing back you also furnish it to us, so that we too may be able to do so. But if you cannot, what is it to you to do through an unconsidered agitation of mind that for which, if you are questioned, you are unable to find a right answer? But I have said these things even if our son Classitianus committed something that most justly seemed to you deserving of punishment by anathema. PART II. GRATIAN. Therefore, as is shown most evidently by this authority, one is unlawfully excommunicated for the sin of another, and those who for the sin of one person render a sentence of excommunication against an entire household rest upon no reason. But an unlawful excommunication does not injure the person marked; it injures the one excommunicating. Hence Gregory writes to Magnus, Bishop of Milan, [Book II, epistle 26]:

We have learned that Lawrence, formerly our brother and fellow bishop, deprived you of communion although no faults of yours were established. And therefore, fortified by the authority of this precept of ours, perform your office securely and receive communion without any fear.

Likewise Jerome on Leviticus. Those who neglect to cut away the habit of an accursed mouth, even if they do not curse in heart, nevertheless incur uncleanness of the lips, according to the word of Isaiah, and defilements of the mouth.

Likewise. If anyone is driven away and cast outside by the incorrect judgment of those who preside over the church, if he himself did not depart beforehand—that is, if he did not so act that he deserved to depart—he is injured in nothing by the fact that he appears to have been expelled by men through an incorrect judgment. And so it comes about that sometimes he who is cast outside is within, and he who appears to be retained within is outside.

Likewise Rabanus, On Ecclesiastical Oppressions, Book I. We are not condemned forever when we are judged unjustly, as the Psalmist says: “Nor will he condemn him when judgment is rendered against him.” Many priests profess that they persecute a fault from zeal for God; but while they do this without discernment, they incur the crime of sacrilege, and while they rush headlong as though to amend, they themselves also fall much worse.

Likewise from the Council of Paris in the time of Louis. Concerning unlawful excommunication, the law of the Catholic emperor Justinian, which the Catholic Church approves and observes, decreed in constitution 128, chapter 351, that no presbyter should excommunicate anyone before the cause for which the ecclesiastical canons command this to be done is proved. But if anyone contrary to these things excommunicates someone, the one who was excommunicated is indeed to return to the grace of holy communion by the authority of the higher priest; but the one who did not excommunicate lawfully is to abstain from holy communion for as long a time as shall have seemed good to the higher priest, so that he may himself justly suffer what he did unjustly. Hence also Saint Gregory wrote, among other things, to Bishop John, who was excommunicating unjustly, saying: “After first quashing and reducing to nothing the decrees of your aforesaid sentence, by the authority of blessed Peter, prince of the Apostles, we decree that, deprived of holy communion for a period of thirty days, you implore from almighty God pardon for so great an excess with the greatest penance and tears. But if we learn that you have fulfilled this sentence of ours too remissly, know that with the Lord’s aid not merely the injustice but the contumacy of your Fraternity is to be punished more severely,” because no one is to be judged hastily or out of order—that is, without having been admonished or convicted. § 1. But concerning a summons of this kind, the emperor’s law concerning manifest crimes says: “Whoever shall have been summoned by three authoritative summonses of the judge, or called before the judge by three edicts, or by one peremptory edict in place of all—that is, one that extinguishes the case—and shall have refused to present himself before that judge by whom notice was given to him, can be judged against as contumacious. Indeed, cases cannot be retried even through an appeal whenever judgment shall have been rendered against a contumacious person.” And this ruling concerning persons summoned by three authoritative summonses was confirmed from evangelical truth by Celestine speaking to Nestorius, the Synod of Ephesus decreeing concerning the same, and blessed Gregory writing to John. § 2. Concerning a peremptory writ the African Council demonstrates in the case of Cresconius that, if after being summoned he refuses to return to wisdom, through the effect of his own contempt and contumacy he is henceforth to be excluded at once by judicial authority. Likewise blessed Gregory, concerning a sentence against a contumacious person, writing to Maximus, the presumptuous bishop of Salona, said: “We exhort you to hasten to come to us, every excuse having been set aside, so that, with justice preserved, through Christ’s revelation we may be able both to investigate and to conclude according to the canonical institutes these things of which you are accused. But act in such a way that you impose no further delays upon your coming, lest your very absence rather assign you as liable to the things that are said and compel us to render against you from the council a harsher judgment—that is, as against a contumacious person—not only on account of the aforesaid crimes from which you evade clearing yourself, but also on account of the fault of disobedience.”

Likewise Origen on Leviticus, [homily 14, on c. 24]. When anyone departs from truth, from the fear of God, from faith, and from charity, he departs from the camp of the church even if he is by no means cast out by the voice of the bishop; just as, conversely, someone is cast outside by an incorrect judgment, but if he did not depart beforehand—that is, did not act so that he deserved to depart—he is injured in nothing. For sometimes he who is cast outside is within, and he who is outside appears to be retained within.

Likewise Augustine, [sermon 11 On the Words of the Lord]. Concerning those who are separated from the church, he does not say, “Not perceiving the things that are of the Spirit,” lest it be referred to the perception of knowledge; but it was said: “Not having the Spirit.” § 1. This assuredly would not be said except of persons separated from the church, who were said not to possess the Spirit. But neither is he to be said to be in the church and to pertain to this fellowship of the Spirit who is mingled with Christ’s sheep with a feigned heart. “For the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee deceit.” For not only do those not pertain to the church who are manifest through the open sacrilege of separation, but also those who, bodily mingled in her unity, are separated through a most evil life.

Likewise from the Fifth Synod, [conference 5]. It is certain that one who has been shown to be impious is altogether separated from God, just as one who has been anathematized as impious is also separated. For anathema signifies nothing other than separation from God. PART III. GRATIAN. Therefore, as appears from the foregoing, an unlawful excommunication does not injure him who is marked but him by whom he is marked; and through this, those who are innocent cannot be condemned for another’s crime, as the households of powerful men are accustomed to be marked by the imprudent for the sins of their lords. But it is further objected that not only the innocent but not even criminals are to be struck by a sentence of malediction. For Christ says in the Gospel: “Pray for those who persecute and calumniate you; do good to those who hate you.” Likewise the Apostle: “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.” Likewise: “Revilers will not possess the kingdom of God.”

Likewise Jerome in the epistle to Titus, [at the beginning of c. 3]. If, therefore, Michael did not dare to bring a judgment of blasphemy against the devil, who is certainly most worthy of a curse, how much more ought we to be pure from every curse? The devil deserved a curse, but blasphemy ought not to have gone forth through the mouth of an archangel. Read again the ancient books and see which tribes were placed upon Mount Gerizim to bless the people and which upon the other mountain to curse. Reuben, who had defiled his parent’s bed, and Zebulun, the last son of Leah, and the children of the handmaids are placed upon Mount Ebal so that they might curse those who are worthy of a curse.

The same in the book of Judges. Therefore, since among the individual faithful there is such diversity of purpose, it appears to me that this is signified in this place: that those halves who walk beside Mount Gerizim—the one chosen for blessing—figuratively indicate those who come to salvation not from fear of punishment but from desire for blessings and promises; but those other halves who walk beside Mount Ebal, upon which the curses were pronounced, indicate those others who, by fear of evils and dread of punishments, fulfill the things written in the law and come to salvation. GRATIAN. But he who commanded prayer for persecutors struck our first parents with the curse of death for transgression of the command. Cain too, because he added fratricide to the first transgression, received back a sentence of malediction from the Lord. The Lord also said to Abraham: “I will curse those cursing you, and I will bless those blessing you.” In the Gospel too, when he came hungry to a fig tree and did not find fruit upon it, by his curse he condemned it to perpetual sterility. § 1. Likewise Noah, when he learned that his shameful parts had been mocked by Ham, cursed his son Canaan, saying: “Cursed be Canaan; let him be the servant of his brothers.” Likewise Isaac, when he blessed his son Jacob, said: “He who shall have cursed you, let him be cursed; and he who shall have blessed you, let him be filled with blessings.” § 2. Likewise, as is read in the Book of Numbers, Moses, at God’s command, divided the twelve tribes of the children of Israel into two parts and ordered six tribes, walking beside Mount Ebal, to proclaim aloud the curse of those transgressing the law; but he commanded the others, walking beside the other mountain, to cry aloud the blessings of those observing it. § 3. In the New Testament too the Apostle Peter is read to have cursed Simon when he said: “Let your money be with you unto perdition.” Paul too, who had said, “Bless and do not curse,” ordered the Corinthian fornicator to be excommunicated. Likewise, in another epistle he says: “If anyone shall not have followed the doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha.” Likewise to the Galatians: “If an angel coming from heaven shall have evangelized to you anything other, let him be anathema.” § 4. A distinction, therefore, is to be made between the curse that is prohibited and the curse that is rationally pronounced by the Lord and by holy men. The curse that is prohibited is that which proceeds from a desire for vengeance and hatred of the persecutor, not from love of justice. But the curse by which the saints curse is that which proceeds from love of justice, not from the spite of vengeance. Hence Gregory says in Book III of the Morals:

When holy men pronounce a sentence of malediction, they burst forth into it not from a desire for vengeance but from an examination of justice. Inwardly they regard the subtle judgment and recognize with what curse they ought to strike the evils arising outwardly; and they do not sin by that curse in which they do not disagree with the inner judge. Likewise: § 1. Sacred Scripture recalls a curse in two ways: namely, one that it approves and another that it condemns. For a curse is pronounced in one way by a judgment of justice, as it was pronounced against the very first sinner when he heard: “Cursed is the earth in your work, etc.,” and as it is said to Abraham: “I will curse those cursing you.” But in another way a curse is pronounced that is brought forth not by a judgment of justice but by the spite of vengeance; we are admonished to cease from this by the voice of Paul preaching, who says: “Bless and do not curse.”

Likewise Pope Pelagius to Bishop Angellius. By the example of apostolic authority we have learned that the spirits of those who err and send others into error are to be handed over to Satan, so that they may unlearn blasphemy.

Likewise Pope Anacletus, [epistle 3]. Both priests and all the rest of the faithful ought to have the greatest care for those who are perishing, so that either they may be corrected from their sins by their reproof, or, if they appear incorrigible, may be separated from the church.

Likewise Gregory, [Pope Gregory, Book II, epistle 37, to Bishop Natalis]. Your Beatitude complains without merit concerning the clause of excommunication—which nevertheless, after the condition of grade had been interposed, was annexed for the second or third time now, so to speak, from necessity—since the Apostle Paul says: “Having in readiness to avenge every disobedience.”

Likewise Jerome, [on the Epistle to the Galatians, c. 5]. Rotten flesh is to be cut away, and a mangy sheep is to be driven from the folds, lest the whole house, lump, body, and flock burn, be corrupted, rot, and perish. Arius was one spark in Alexandria, but because it was not immediately extinguished, its flame laid waste the whole world.

Likewise Augustine, [in the book On Rebuke and Grace, c. 15]. Therefore, let subjects be corrected by their prelates with different corrections proceeding from charity, lesser or greater according to the diversity of their faults, because even that which is called condemnation, which episcopal judgment effects—a penalty greater than which there is none in the church—can, if God wills, turn out and advance toward a most salutary correction. For we do not know what may happen on the following day. Or must one despair concerning anyone before the end of this life? Or can God be contradicted, so that he should not look upon him and give him repentance and, after receiving the sacrifice of a troubled spirit and a contrite heart, absolve from the guilt of even a just condemnation the condemned man whom he himself does not condemn? Nevertheless, the necessity of the shepherd requires that, lest dreadful contagions creep through many, he separate the diseased sheep from the healthy ones, perhaps to be healed by that very separation by him to whom nothing is impossible. For, not knowing who pertains to the number of the predestined and who does not pertain, we ought to be affected by the disposition of charity in such a way that we will all to be saved.

Likewise Prosper, [Book On the Contemplative Life, c. 7]. But behold, if the crimes of any persons—when the criminals themselves are unwilling to confess—become known from any source, whatever crimes have not been healed by the gentle medicine of patience are to be burned and treated, as it were, by a certain fire of pious rebuke. But if the remedy of one enduring calmly and rebuking piously has not advanced among those who, after having been borne with for a long time and rebuked wholesomely, have been unwilling to be corrected, they ought to be cut off by the iron of excommunication like parts of a putrid body; lest, just as flesh deadened by diseases, if it shall not have been cut off, corrupts the health of the remaining flesh by the contagion of its putrefaction, so these persons who disdain to be amended and persist in their disease, if they remain in the fellowship of the holy with depraved morals, should kill them by the example of their perdition.

Likewise Pope Nicholas to King Lothair. Are you not to be struck by strict vengeance, you who are recognized to have imitated Lamech’s adultery and flagitious deed in two wives? The Lord did not destroy this until seventy-seven generations later by his saving advent, whereas Cain’s fratricide was abolished in the seventh generation by the waters of the cataclysm.

Likewise from the Council of Agde, [c. 37]. Therefore, we have decreed that homicides and false witnesses are to be removed from ecclesiastical communion unless they wash away the crimes committed by the satisfaction of penance.

Likewise from the First Council of Toledo, [c. 11]. If any of the powerful shall have despoiled a cleric, any poorer person, or a religious, and the bishop shall have commanded him to come to him so that he may be heard, and he shall have despised the command, let written notices at once pass in turn among all the bishops of the province and whomever they shall have been able to reach, so that he himself may be regarded as excommunicated until he obeys and restores the property of another.

[PALEA.

From the sayings of Pope Gregory. Whoever deceitfully lays his hand upon the Lord’s anointed—that is, a bishop or presbyter—because he commits grave sacrilege, and if anyone lays waste, attacks, or burns the church of God, because this too is most grave sacrilege, it pleased the holy synod that first all his goods be made public by proscription; then, enclosed in one place—that is, in a monastery—let him do penance all the days of his life.]

Likewise Pope Callixtus. If anyone shall have attempted to capture pilgrims to Rome and other pilgrims visiting the thresholds of the Apostles and the oratories of other saints, or to despoil them of the things that they carry, or to molest merchants with new exactions of tolls and road dues, let him lack Christian communion until he has made satisfaction.

Likewise Urban. Admonished by the examples of paternal traditions and discharging the debt of pastoral office, we establish that churches with their goods, both persons and possessions—namely, clerics and monks and their converts—and also pilgrims with the things that they carry are to be safe and without molestation. But if anyone shall have presumed to act against this and, after he has recognized his crime, shall not have amended it competently within the space of thirty days, let him be barred from the thresholds of the church and struck by the sword of anathema.

Likewise Pope Nicholas to all bishops. Those who shall have plundered travelers or pilgrims to any saint—whether clerics, monks, women, or unarmed poor persons—or shall have seized their goods or met them for evil are to be struck by the bond of anathema unless they make worthy amends. § 1. But let that peace which we call the truce of God be observed just as it has been established by the archbishops of each province. But whoever breaks it is to be subjected to excommunication. PART IV. GRATIAN. But because the discussion concerns heretics, it must be seen what the difference is between schism and heresy, who are heretics, and how many sects of heretics there are. Jerome assigns the difference between schism and heresy in the epistle to the Galatians, saying:

I judge this to be the difference between heresy and schism: heresy possesses a perverse dogma; schism separates from the church because of episcopal dissension. This can indeed be understood to differ in some part at the beginning; but no schism fails to fashion some heresy for itself, so that it may appear to have withdrawn from the church rightly. Moreover, Jerome defines in the same epistle whence heresy is so called, saying:

Heresy in Greek is so called from choice, because each person chooses for himself that discipline which he thinks is better. Therefore, whoever understands Scripture otherwise than the meaning of the Holy Spirit, by whom it was written, demands, although he has not withdrawn from the church, can nevertheless be called a heretic; and he is among the works of the flesh, choosing those things that are worse. PART V. GRATIAN. But showing who are properly called heretics, Augustine says, [in the book On the Usefulness of Believing, c. 1]:

A heretic is one who, for the sake of some temporal advantage and especially of his own glory and primacy, either begets or follows false and novel opinions. But he who believes men of this kind has been deceived by a certain appearance of truth.

The same, [to Glorius, Eleusius, and others, epistle 162]. The Apostle said: “Avoid a heretical man after the first and second correction, because such a man is subverted and sins, condemned by himself.” But those who defend their opinion, although false and perverse, with no obstinate animosity—especially an opinion that they produced not by the audacity of their own presumption but received from parents who had been seduced and fallen into error—and who seek the truth with cautious solicitude, prepared to be corrected when they find it, are by no means to be reckoned among heretics.

Likewise Leo, [Pope Leo, epistle 10 to Flavian]. But what is more iniquitous than to hold impious opinions and not to believe those who are wiser and more learned? But those fall into this folly who, when they are hindered by something obscure from recognizing the truth, recur not to the prophetic voices, not to the apostolic letters, nor to the evangelical authorities, but to themselves; and therefore they become masters of error because they were not disciples of truth.

Likewise Augustine against the Manichaeans. Those who think something diseased and perverse in the church of Christ, if, when corrected so that they might think what is sound and right, they resist obstinately and are unwilling to amend their pestiferous and death-bearing dogmas but persist in defending them, are heretics.

Likewise Pope Urban. He who defends the error of others is much more condemnable than those who err, because not only does he err, but he also prepares stumbling blocks of error for others and confirms them. Hence, because he is a master of error, he is to be called not only a heretic but even a heresiarch.

Likewise Jerome, [Book II of the commentary on Hosea c. 5]. The princes of Judah move the boundaries that their fathers established when they change truth into a lie and preach something other than what they received from the Apostles. The same: § 1. Concerning heretics the meaning is manifest: that by their sophisms and dialectical art they often oppress ecclesiastical men. The same: § 2. In searching the ancient histories, I cannot find any who tore the church and seduced peoples from the house of the Lord except those who had been established by God as priests and prophets—that is, watchmen. Therefore, these are turned into a crooked snare, placing a stumbling block in every place.

Likewise Pope Leo, [epistle 74 to Anatolius]. I signify that this assuredly displeases me greatly: that among the clerics of your jurisdiction certain persons are said to exist who agree with the depravity of the adversaries, and vessels of mercy are mingled with vessels of madness. Your diligence ought vigilantly to persist in investigating them and restraining them with fitting severity, in such a way that excision does not spare those whom correction could not benefit. For it is fitting for us to remember the evangelical command which is prescribed by the Truth itself: that if our eye, foot, or right hand shall have scandalized us, it is to be removed from the joining of the body, because it is better to lack these members in this age than to go with them into eternal torments. For in vain do we resist those placed outside the church if we are wounded, in those whom they deceive, by those who are within. This pestiferous patience, which by sparing the sins of others does not spare itself, is wholly to be cast away from priestly vigor.

Likewise from the Fourth Council of Carthage, [cc. 70, 71, 72]. Let a cleric equally avoid both the banquets and associations of heretics or schismatics. Their assemblies are to be called not churches but conventicles. One is neither to pray nor to sing psalms with them.

Likewise Pope Gelasius, [in the epistle to the bishops of Dardania]. With whom was a synod to be entered into? Catholic pontiffs had already been driven away on every side; only the associates of the faithless remained, with whom it was no longer lawful even to have an assembly, as the Psalm says: “I have not sat with the council of vanity, and I will not enter with those acting iniquitously.” Nor is it the ecclesiastical custom to mingle a council with those who have a polluted communion mixed with the faithless. Rightly, therefore, according to the form of the Synod of Chalcedon, a prevarication of this kind was repelled rather than called to a council, which was neither necessary after the first synod nor lawful to have with such persons. The same, [in the instruction to Faustus]: § 1. For us, as teachers and guardians of the canons, it is not lawful to enter into any contest with men of an alien communion.

Likewise from an epistle of Pope Urban. It is to be noted that certain persons say that we act contrary to the evangelical parable where the Lord commanded that the tares not be uprooted, when we subject to excommunication persons worthy of excommunication; and they say that Saint Augustine also contradicts this in the place where he says: “Because unity is not to be cut apart, the evil are to be borne with, not cast out.” To these this must first be answered: if heretics and evil men are not to be excommunicated, why did that holy father Augustine himself, with the legates of the holy Roman church and with his holy fellow bishops, excommunicate Pelagius and Celestius, who were introducing a new heresy into the holy church of God, and separate them from the church of God? Why did both he and the entire church of God hold as excommunicated the Donatists themselves, against whom he speaks these and many things similar to them, and by no means communicate with them unless they had first performed penance and been reconciled through the imposition of hands? The same Lord himself, who expounds this here parabolically, elsewhere openly commands excommunication to be done, saying: “A brother who is rebuked by the church and does not obey, let him be to you as a gentile and a publican.” Hence it appears plainly that excommunication is one thing and uprooting another. For he who is excommunicated—as the Apostle says—is excommunicated for this purpose: that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord. For excommunication is discipline, not uprooting, [GRATIAN.] unless perhaps uprooting results from the contempt and pride of the excommunicated person. Hence Augustine in the book on Numbers, [homily 15, on c. 23]:

In those whom God curses, he designates the desert of the person who is cursed and pronounces sentence, seeing that neither the quality of the sin nor the disposition of the sinner deceives him. Because man cannot know this—for one person can neither see nor know the purpose and mind of another—therefore, even if he pronounces a curse from the perspective of one judging or pronouncing sentence, there can be no cause for cursing where the disposition of the sinner is unknown, especially since human vice then knows how to pronounce curses when perhaps it is provoked by insults or injuries. Wishing to cut away this vice, the Apostle establishes a necessary command that we bless, lest we provoke curses with curses and insults with insults, not so that the truth of judging—which lies hidden from men—and the authority of pronouncing sentence should be destroyed. GRATIAN. But how many sects of heretics there are and whence they received their names Isidore determines in Book VIII of the Etymologies, c. 5, saying:

Some heretics who have withdrawn from the church are named from the names of their founders, while others are named from the causes that they established by choosing them. § 1. The Simonians are so called from Simon, a man skilled in the magical discipline, whom Peter cursed in the Acts of the Apostles because he wished to buy the grace of the Holy Spirit from the Apostles with money. They say that creation is not from God, but was created by a certain supernal power. § 2. The Menandrians are named from Menander the magician, Simon’s disciple, who asserted that the world was made not by God but by angels. § 3. The Basilidians are named from Basilides, who, among his other blasphemies, denied that Jesus suffered. § 4. The Nicolaitans are so called from Nicolas, a deacon of the church of Jerusalem who was appointed by Peter with Stephen and the others. Because of her beauty, he abandoned his wife and said that whoever wished might use her; such a custom was turned into debauchery, so that marriages were exchanged among them. John reproves them in the Apocalypse, saying: “But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans.” § 5. The Gnostics wished to call themselves this because of the excellence of knowledge. They say that the soul is the nature of God; in their dogmas they fashion a good God and an evil God. § 6. The Carpocratians are named from a certain Carpocrates, who said that Christ was merely a man and was begotten of both sexes. § 7. The Cerinthians are named from a certain Cerinthus. Among other things, they observe circumcision and preach that after the resurrection there will be a thousand years in the pleasure of the flesh. Hence they are called Chiliasts in Greek and Millenarians in Latin. § 8. The Nazarenes are so called because, although they confess Christ—who was called a Nazarene from the village—to be the Son of God, they nevertheless observe everything in the old law. § 9. The Ophites are named from the serpent, for a serpent is called ophis in Greek. They worship the serpent, saying that in paradise it introduced the knowledge of virtue. § 10. The Valentinians are named from a certain Valentinus, a follower of Plato, who introduced aeons—that is, certain ages—into the origin of God the Creator; he also asserted that Christ assumed nothing bodily from the Virgin, but passed through her as though through a pipe. § 11. The Apellites, whose principal founder was Apelles, made the Creator some glorious angel—I know not whom—of the higher God and, affirming that the God of the law of Israel was that fiery one, said that Christ appeared not as God in truth but as a man in appearance. § 12. The Archontics are named from rulers, because they maintain that the universe which God founded is the work of archangels. § 13. The Adamites are so called because they imitate Adam’s nakedness. Hence they pray naked, and naked men and women assemble together. § 14. The Cainites are so called because they worship Cain. § 15. The Sethians received their name from Adam’s son, who was called Seth, saying that he is Christ. § 16. The Melchizedekians are so called because they think that Melchizedek, the priest of God, was not a man but a power of God. § 17. The Angelics are so called because they worship angels. § 18. The Apostolics assumed this name for themselves because, possessing nothing of their own, they do not receive those who use anything in this world. § 19. The Cerdonians are named from a certain Cerdo, who asserted two contrary principles. § 20. The Marcionites are named from Marcion, a Stoic philosopher, who, following Cerdo’s dogma, asserted that one God was good and another just, as though there were two principles of creation and goodness. § 21. The Artotyrites are named from their offering, for they offer bread and cheese, saying that the first human beings celebrated an offering from the fruits of the earth and the fruits of sheep. § 22. The Aquarians are so called because they offer only water in the sacramental chalice. § 23. The Severians, sprung from Severus, do not drink wine and do not receive the Old Testament or the resurrection. § 24. The Tatians are named from Tatian; they are also called Encratites because they abhor meats. § 25. The Alogians are called as though “without the Word,” for logos in Greek means “word.” They do not believe in God the Word, rejecting John’s Gospel and the Apocalypse. § 26. The province of Phrygia gave the Cataphrygians their name, because their founders Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla arose there. They assert that the coming of the Holy Spirit was handed down not in the Apostles but in themselves. § 27. The Cathari named themselves thus because of purity: glorying in their merits, they deny the pardon of sins to penitents; they condemn widows as adulteresses if they marry; and they proclaim themselves purer than others. If they wished to recognize their own name, they would call themselves worldly rather than pure. § 28. The Paulianists sprang from Paul of Samosata, who said that Christ did not always exist but took his beginning from Mary. § 29. The Hermogenians are named from a certain Hermogenes, who introduced unbegotten matter, compared it with the unbegotten God, and asserted that it was the mother of the elements and a goddess; the Apostle reproves those who serve the elements. § 30. The Manichaeans arose from a certain Persian called Manes. He introduced two natures and substances, namely, a good one and an evil one, and asserted that souls flow from God as though from a certain spring; they reject the Old Testament and receive the New in part. § 31. The Anthropomorphites are so called because in rustic simplicity they think that God has the human members that are written of in the divine books; for anthropos in Greek is translated “man” in Latin. They are ignorant of the Lord’s declaration, “God is spirit.” For he is incorporeal: he is neither distinguished by members nor measured by bodily bulk. § 32. The Hieracites sprang from Hieracas their founder; they receive only monks, reject marriages, and do not believe that little children possess the kingdom of heaven. § 33. The Novatians sprang from Novatus, a presbyter of the city of Rome, who, after attempting to seize the sacerdotal chair against Cornelius, established a heresy, refused to receive apostates, and rebaptized the baptized. § 34. The Montani are called heretics because during a persecution they hid in the mountains, on which occasion they separated themselves from the body of the Catholic Church. § 35. The Ebionites are named from Ebion, or from poverty, for they think that Christ was made a just man only through advancement. Hence they are fittingly called Ebionites because of their poverty of understanding. For they are Jews, and they hold the Gospel in such a way as to observe the law carnally; the Apostle inveighs against them when writing to the Galatians. § 36. The Photinians are named from Photinus, bishop of Sirmium in Gallograecia; reviving the heresy of the Ebionites, he asserted that Christ was conceived by Mary from Joseph through marital intercourse. § 37. The Haerians are named from a certain Haerius; they scorn to offer sacrifice for the dead. § 38. The Aetians are named from Aetius and are also called Eunomians from a certain dialectician Eunomius, a disciple of Aetius, by whose name they became better known; they assert that the Son is unlike the Father and the Holy Spirit unlike the Son. They also say that no sin is imputed to those remaining in the faith. § 39. The Origenists sprang from Origen their founder, saying that the Son cannot see the Father, nor the Holy Spirit the Son. They also say that souls sinned at the beginning of the world and, according to the diversity of their sins, merited diverse bodies as bonds from heaven down to earth, and that for this reason the world was made. § 40. The Noetians are named from a certain Noetus, who said that Christ is himself both the Father and the Holy Spirit, and they understand the Trinity itself in names of offices, not in persons. Hence they are also called Patripassians, because they say that the Father suffered. § 41. The Sabellians are said to have sprouted from the same Noetus, whose disciple Sabellius is reported to have been; they became especially known from his name and hence are called Sabellians. They assert one person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. § 42. The Arians sprang from Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria, who, not acknowledging the Son as coeternal with the Father, asserted diverse substances in the Trinity, contrary to what the Lord says: “I and the Father are one.” § 43. The Macedonians are named from Bishop Macedonius; they deny that the Holy Spirit is God. § 44. The Apollinarists are named from Apollinaris; they say that Christ assumed only a body without a soul. § 45. The Antidicomarianites are so called because they contradict Mary’s virginity, asserting that after Christ was born she had intercourse with her husband. § 46. The Metangismonites received such a name because angeion means “vessel” in Greek. They assert that the Son is in the Father as a smaller vessel within a larger vessel. § 47. The Patricians are named from a certain Patricius; they say that the substance of human flesh was founded by the devil. § 48. The Coluthians are named from a certain Coluthus; they say that God does not make evils, contrary to what is written: “I, the Lord, creating evils.” § 49. The Florinians are named from Florinus; on the contrary, they say that God created evils, contrary to what is written: “God made all things good.” § 50. The Donatists are named from a certain African Donatus who, coming from Numidia, deceived almost all Africa by his persuasion, asserting that the Son is less than the Father and the Holy Spirit less than the Son, and rebaptizing Catholics. § 51. The Bonosians are reported to have sprung from a certain bishop Bonosus; they assert that Christ is the adoptive, not the proper, Son of God. § 52. The Circumcellions are so called because they are rustics, whom they call Cotopitae, holding the teaching of the aforesaid heresy. Through love of martyrdom they kill themselves so that, departing violently from this life, they may be called martyrs. § 53. The Priscillianists are named from Priscillian, who in Spain composed a dogma mixed from the error of the Gnostics and Manichaeans. § 54. The Luciferians arose from Lucifer, bishop of Sirmium. The Catholic bishops who, under the pressure of persecution, had consented to the unbelief of the Arians and afterward, once corrected and condemning what they had believed or dissembled having believed, chose to return to their chairs, the Catholic Church received into her maternal bosom as Peter was received after he wept for his denial. But the Luciferians, receiving this motherly charity with disdain and refusing to receive them, withdrew from the church’s communion; and with Lucifer himself, their founder who arose in the morning, they merited to fall. § 55. The Jovinianists are named from a certain monk Jovinian; they assert that there is no difference between marriage and virginity, and no distinction between those who abstain and those who feast without restraint. § 56. The Helvidians are named from Helvidius; they say that after Christ was born Mary bore other sons by her husband Joseph. § 57. The Paternians sprang from a certain Paternus; they suppose that the lower parts of the body were made by the devil. § 58. The Arabians are so called because they arose in Arabia; they say that the soul dies with the body and that both rise again at the last day. § 59. The Tertullianists are named from Tertullian, a presbyter of Carthage, a city of the province of Africa; they proclaim that the soul is immortal but corporeal and think that the souls of sinful persons are turned into demons after death. § 60. The Quartodecimans are so called because they contend that Passover is to be observed with the Jews on the fourteenth moon. For tessera signifies four and deka ten. § 61. The Nyctages are named from sleep because they reject nocturnal vigils, saying that these are superstition and that the divine laws, which allotted the night for rest, are violated. § 62. The Pelagians sprang from the monk Pelagius. They place free choice before divine grace, saying that the will suffices to fulfill the divine commands. § 63. The Nestorians are named from Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who asserted that the Blessed Virgin Mary was not the mother of God but only of a man, so that he made one person of the flesh and another of the Godhead; he did not believe in one Christ in the Word of God and the flesh but separately and disjointedly proclaimed one to be the Son of God and the other the son of man. § 64. The Eutychians are named from Eutyches, abbot of Constantinople, who denied that after the assumption of humanity Christ existed from two natures, but asserted that in him there was only the divine nature. § 65. The Acephalites are so called—that is, “without a head”—for no founder from whom they arose is found. These opponents of the three Chapters of Chalcedon deny the proper character of two substances in Christ and proclaim one nature in his person. § 66. The Theodosians and Gaianites are named from Theodosius and Gaianus, who in the time of Emperor Justinian were ordained bishops in Alexandria on one day by the election of the perverse people. Following the errors of Eutyches and Dioscorus, they reject the Council of Chalcedon and assert one nature in Christ from two; the Theodosians contend that it is corruptible, the Gaianites that it is incorruptible. § 67. The Agnoetae and Tritheites sprang from the Theodosians. Of these the Agnoetae are named from ignorance, because they add to the perversity from which they arose that Christ’s divinity is ignorant of future things, which are written concerning the last day and hour, not remembering the person of Christ speaking in Isaiah: “The day of judgment is in my heart.” § 68. The Tritheites are so called because, just as they assert that there are three persons in the Trinity, so too they assert that there are three Gods, contrary to what is written: “Hear, Israel: the Lord your God is one God.” § 69. There are also other heresies without founders and without names. Some of these think that God is threefold; others say that Christ’s divinity is passible; others assign a beginning in time to Christ’s birth from the Father; others do not believe that the liberation of human beings in the lower regions was accomplished by Christ’s descent; others deny that the soul is the image of God; others think that souls are converted into demons and every kind of animal; others dissent concerning the state of the world; others suppose that there are innumerable worlds; others make water coeternal with God; others walk with bare feet; others do not eat with other human beings. These are the heresies that have arisen against the Catholic faith and were condemned beforehand by the Apostles and holy Fathers or councils. Although divided within themselves by many errors and dissenting from one another, they nevertheless conspire under a common name against the church of God. § 70. But whoever understands sacred Scripture otherwise than the meaning of the Holy Spirit, by whom it was written, demands, although he has not withdrawn from the church, can nevertheless be called a heretic.

Augustine, [On Genesis Against the Manichaeans, Book I, c. 1]. PART VI. Divine providence therefore permits there to be many heretics of diverse error, so that, when they question us about those things that we do not know, we may thus shake off sluggishness and desire the divine Scriptures. For this reason the Apostle says: “That those who are approved may be made manifest.” Those who are able to teach well are approved by God.