Quarto, utrum revertentes sint recipiendi. (4) Whether converts should be received? Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum haeresis sit infidelitatis species Whether heresy is a species of unbelief? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod haeresis non sit infidelitatis species. Infidelitas enim in intellectu est, ut supra dictum est. Sed haeresis non videtur ad intellectum pertinere, sed magis ad vim appetitivam. Dicit enim Hieronymus, et habetur in decretis, XXIV, qu. III, haeresis Graece ab electione dicitur, quod scilicet eam sibi unusquisque eligat disciplinam quam putat esse meliorem, electio autem est actus appetitivae virtutis, ut supra dictum est. Ergo haeresis non est infidelitatis species. Objection 1: It would seem that heresy is not a species of unbelief. For unbelief is in the understanding, as stated above (Q. 10, A. 2). Now heresy would seem not to pertain to the understanding, but rather to the appetitive power; for Jerome says on Gal. 5:19: The works of the flesh are manifest: Heresy is derived from a Greek word meaning choice, whereby a man makes choice of that school which he deems best. But choice is an act of the appetitive power, as stated above (I-II, Q. 13, A. 1). Therefore heresy is not a species of unbelief. Praeterea, vitium praecipue accipit speciem a fine, unde philosophus dicit, in V Ethic., quod ille qui moechatur ut furetur, magis est fur quam moechus. Sed finis haeresis est commodum temporale, et maxime principatus et gloria, quod pertinet ad vitium superbiae vel cupiditatis, dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de Util. Cred., quod haereticus est qui alicuius temporalis commodi, et maxime gloriae principatusque sui gratia, falsas ac novas opiniones vel gignit vel sequitur. Ergo haeresis non est species infidelitatis, sed magis superbiae. Obj. 2: Further, vice takes its species chiefly from its end; hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 2) that he who commits adultery that he may steal, is a thief rather than an adulterer. Now the end of heresy is temporal profit, especially lordship and glory, which belong to the vice of pride or covetousness: for Augustine says (De Util. Credendi i) that a heretic is one who either devises or follows false and new opinions, for the sake of some temporal profit, especially that he may lord and be honored above others. Therefore heresy is a species of pride rather than of unbelief. Praeterea, infidelitas, cum sit in intellectu, non videtur ad carnem pertinere. Sed haeresis pertinet ad opera carnis, dicit enim apostolus, ad Gal. V, manifesta sunt opera carnis, quae sunt fornicatio, immunditia; et inter cetera postmodum subdit, dissensiones, sectae, quae sunt idem quod haereses. Ergo haeresis non est infidelitatis species. Obj. 3: Further, since unbelief is in the understanding, it would seem not to pertain to the flesh. Now heresy belongs to the works of the flesh, for the Apostle says (Gal 5:19): The works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, and among the others, he adds, dissensions, sects, which are the same as heresies. Therefore heresy is not a species of unbelief. Sed contra est quod falsitas veritati opponitur. Sed haereticus est qui falsas vel novas opiniones vel gignit vel sequitur. Ergo opponitur veritati, cui fides innititur. Ergo sub infidelitate continetur. On the contrary, Falsehood is contrary to truth. Now a heretic is one who devises or follows false or new opinions. Therefore heresy is opposed to the truth, on which faith is founded; and consequently it is a species of unbelief. Respondeo dicendum quod nomen haeresis, sicut dictum est, electionem importat. Electio autem, ut supra dictum est, est eorum quae sunt ad finem, praesupposito fine. In credendis autem voluntas assentit alicui vero tanquam proprio bono, ut ex supradictis patet. Unde quod est principale verum habet rationem finis ultimi, quae autem secundaria sunt habent rationem eorum quae sunt ad finem. I answer that, The word heresy as stated in the first objection denotes a choosing. Now choice as stated above (I-II, Q. 13, A. 3) is about things directed to the end, the end being presupposed. Now, in matters of faith, the will assents to some truth, as to its proper good, as was shown above (Q. 4, A. 3): wherefore that which is the chief truth, has the character of last end, while those which are secondary truths, have the character of being directed to the end. Quia vero quicumque credit alicuius dicto assentit, principale videtur esse, et quasi finis, in unaquaque credulitate ille cuius dicto assentitur, quasi autem secundaria sunt ea quae quis tenendo vult alicui assentire. Sic igitur qui recte fidem Christianam habet sua voluntate assentit Christo in his quae vere ad eius doctrinam pertinent. Now, whoever believes, assents to someone’s words; so that, in every form of belief, the person to whose words assent is given seems to hold the chief place and to be the end as it were; while the things by holding which one assents to that person hold a secondary place. Consequently he that holds the Christian faith aright, assents, by his will, to Christ, in those things which truly belong to His doctrine. A rectitudine igitur fidei Christianae dupliciter aliquis potest deviare. Uno modo, quia ipsi Christo non vult assentire, et hic habet quasi malam voluntatem circa ipsum finem. Et hoc pertinet ad speciem infidelitatis Paganorum et Iudaeorum. Alio modo, per hoc quod intendit quidem Christo assentire, sed deficit in eligendo ea quibus Christo assentiat, quia non eligit ea quae sunt vere a Christo tradita, sed ea quae sibi propria mens suggerit. Accordingly there are two ways in which a man may deviate from the rectitude of the Christian faith. First, because he is unwilling to assent to Christ: and such a man has an evil will, so to speak, in respect of the very end. This belongs to the species of unbelief in pagans and Jews. Second, because, though he intends to assent to Christ, yet he fails in his choice of those things wherein he assents to Christ, because he chooses not what Christ really taught, but the suggestions of his own mind. Et ideo haeresis est infidelitatis species pertinens ad eos qui fidem Christi profitentur, sed eius dogmata corrumpunt. Therefore heresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod hoc modo electio pertinet ad infidelitatem sicut et voluntas ad fidem, ut supra dictum est. Reply Obj. 1: Choice regards unbelief in the same way as the will regards faith, as stated above. Ad secundum dicendum quod vitia habent speciem ex fine proximo, sed ex fine remoto habent genus et causam. Sicut cum aliquis moechatur ut furetur, est ibi quidem species moechiae ex proprio fine et obiecto, sed ex fine ultimo ostenditur quod moechia ex furto oritur, et sub eo continetur sicut effectus sub causa vel sicut species sub genere, ut patet ex his quae supra de actibus dicta sunt in communi. Unde et similiter in proposito finis proximus haeresis est adhaerere falsae sententiae propriae, et ex hoc speciem habet. Sed ex fine remoto ostenditur causa eius, scilicet quod oritur ex superbia vel cupiditate. Reply Obj. 2: Vices take their species from their proximate end, while, from their remote end, they take their genus and cause. Thus in the case of adultery committed for the sake of theft, there is the species of adultery taken from its proper end and object; but the ultimate end shows that the act of adultery is both the result of the theft, and is included under it, as an effect under its cause, or a species under its genus, as appears from what we have said about acts in general (I-II, Q. 18, A. 7). Wherefore, as to the case in point also, the proximate end of heresy is adherence to one’s own false opinion, and from this it derives its species, while its remote end reveals its cause, viz. that it arises from pride or covetousness. Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut haeresis dicitur ab eligendo, ita secta a sectando, sicut Isidorus dicit, in libro Etymol., et ideo haeresis et secta idem sunt. Et utrumque pertinet ad opera carnis, non quidem quantum ad ipsum actum infidelitatis respectu proximi obiecti, sed ratione causae, quae est vel appetitus finis indebiti, secundum quod oritur ex superbia vel cupiditate, ut dictum est; vel etiam aliqua phantastica illusio, quae est errandi principium, ut etiam philosophus dicit, in IV Metaphys. Phantasia autem quodammodo ad carnem pertinet, inquantum actus eius est cum organo corporali. Reply Obj. 3: Just as heresy is so called from its being a choosing, so does sect derive its name from its being a cutting off (secando), as Isidore states (Etym. viii, 3). Wherefore heresy and sect are the same thing, and each belongs to the works of the flesh, not indeed by reason of the act itself of unbelief in respect of its proximate object, but by reason of its cause, which is either the desire of an undue end in which way it arises from pride or covetousness, as stated in the second objection, or some illusion of the imagination (which gives rise to error, as the Philosopher states in Metaph. iv; Ed. Did. iii, 5), for this faculty has a certain connection with the flesh, inasmuch as its act is dependent on a bodily organ. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum haeresis sit proprie circa ea quae sunt fidei Whether heresy is properly about matters of faith? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod haeresis non sit proprie circa ea quae sunt fidei. Sicut enim sunt haereses et sectae in Christianis, ita etiam fuerunt in Iudaeis et Pharisaeis, sicut Isidorus dicit, in libro Etymol. Sed eorum dissensiones non erant circa ea quae sunt fidei. Ergo haeresis non est circa ea quae sunt fidei sicut circa propriam materiam. Objection 1: It would seem that heresy is not properly about matters of faith. For just as there are heresies and sects among Christians, so were there among the Jews, and Pharisees, as Isidore observes (Etym. viii, 3, 4, 5). Now their dissensions were not about matters of faith. Therefore heresy is not about matters of faith, as though they were its proper matter. Praeterea, materia fidei sunt res quae creduntur. Sed haeresis non solum est circa res, sed etiam circa verba, et circa expositiones sacrae Scripturae. Dicit enim Hieronymus quod quicumque aliter Scripturam intelligit quam sensus spiritus sancti efflagitat, a quo scripta est, licet ab Ecclesia non recesserit, tamen haereticus appellari potest, et alibi dicit quod ex verbis inordinate prolatis fit haeresis. Ergo haeresis non est proprie circa materiam fidei. Obj. 2: Further, the matter of faith is the thing believed. Now heresy is not only about things, but also about works, and about interpretations of Holy Writ. For Jerome says on Gal. 5:20 that whoever expounds the Scriptures in any sense but that of the Holy Spirit by Whom they were written, may be called a heretic, though he may not have left the Church: and elsewhere he says that heresies spring up from words spoken amiss. Therefore heresy is not properly about the matter of faith. Praeterea, etiam circa ea quae ad fidem pertinent inveniuntur quandoque sacri doctores dissentire, sicut Hieronymus et Augustinus circa cessationem legalium. Et tamen hoc est absque vitio haeresis. Ergo haeresis non est proprie circa materiam fidei. Obj. 3: Further, we find the holy doctors differing even about matters pertaining to the faith, for example Augustine and Jerome, on the question about the cessation of the legal observances: and yet this was without any heresy on their part. Therefore heresy is not properly about the matter of faith. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, contra Manichaeos, qui in Ecclesia Christi morbidum aliquid pravumque quid sapiunt, si correcti ut sanum rectumque sapiant, resistant contumaciter, suaque pestifera et mortifera dogmata emendare nolunt, sed defendere persistunt, haeretici sunt. Sed pestifera et mortifera dogmata non sunt nisi illa quae opponuntur dogmatibus fidei, per quam iustus vivit, ut dicitur Rom. I. Ergo haeresis est circa ea quae sunt fidei sicut circa propriam materiam. On the contrary, Augustine says against the Manichees: In Christ’s Church, those are heretics, who hold mischievous and erroneous opinions, and when rebuked that they may think soundly and rightly, offer a stubborn resistance, and, refusing to mend their pernicious and deadly doctrines, persist in defending them. Now pernicious and deadly doctrines are none but those which are contrary to the dogmas of faith, whereby the just man liveth (Rom 1:17). Therefore heresy is about matters of faith, as about its proper matter. Respondeo dicendum quod de haeresi nunc loquimur secundum quod importat corruptionem fidei Christianae. Non autem ad corruptionem fidei Christianae pertinet si aliquis habeat falsam opinionem in his quae non sunt fidei, puta in geometricalibus vel in aliis huiusmodi, quae omnino ad fidem pertinere non possunt, sed solum quando aliquis habet falsam opinionem circa ea quae ad fidem pertinent. I answer that, We are speaking of heresy now as denoting a corruption of the Christian faith. Now it does not imply a corruption of the Christian faith, if a man has a false opinion in matters that are not of faith, for instance, in questions of geometry and so forth, which cannot belong to the faith by any means; but only when a person has a false opinion about things belonging to the faith. Ad quam aliquid pertinet dupliciter, sicut supra dictum est, uno modo, directe et principaliter, sicut articuli fidei; alio modo, indirecte et secundario, sicut ea ex quibus sequitur corruptio alicuius articuli. Et circa utraque potest esse haeresis, eo modo quo et fides. Now a thing may be of the faith in two ways, as stated above (I, Q. 32, A. 4; I-II, Q. 1, A. 6, ad 1; I-II, Q. 2, A. 5), in one way, directly and principally, e.g., the articles of faith; in another way, indirectly and secondarily, e.g., those matters, the denial of which leads to the corruption of some article of faith; and there may be heresy in either way, even as there can be faith. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sicut haereses Iudaeorum et Pharisaeorum erant circa opiniones aliquas ad Iudaismum vel Pharisaeam pertinentes, ita etiam Christianorum haereses sunt circa ea quae pertinent ad fidem Christi. Reply Obj. 1: Just as the heresies of the Jews and Pharisees were about opinions relating to Judaism or Pharisaism, so also heresies among Christians are about matter touching the Christian faith. Ad secundum dicendum quod ille dicitur aliter exponere sacram Scripturam quam Spiritus Sanctus efflagitat qui ad hoc expositionem sacrae Scripturae intorquet quod contrariatur ei quod est per spiritum sanctum revelatum. Unde dicitur Ezech. XIII de falsis prophetis quod perseveraverunt confirmare sermonem, scilicet per falsas expositiones Scripturae. Similiter etiam per verba quae quis loquitur suam fidem profitetur, est enim confessio actus fidei, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo si sit inordinata locutio circa ea quae sunt fidei, sequi potest ex hoc corruptio fidei. Unde Leo Papa in quadam epistola ad Proterium episcopum Alexandrinum, dicit, quia inimici Christi crucis omnibus et verbis nostris insidiantur et syllabis, nullam illis vel tenuem occasionem demus qua nos Nestoriano sensui congruere mentiantur. Reply Obj. 2: A man is said to expound Holy Writ in another sense than that required by the Holy Spirit, when he so distorts the meaning of Holy Writ, that it is contrary to what the Holy Spirit has revealed. Hence it is written (Ezek 13:6) about the false prophets: They have persisted to confirm what they have said, viz. by false interpretations of Scripture. Moreover a man professes his faith by the words that he utters, since confession is an act of faith, as stated above (Q. 3, A. 1). Wherefore inordinate words about matters of faith may lead to corruption of the faith; and hence it is that Pope Leo says in a letter to Proterius, Bishop of Alexandria: The enemies of Christ’s cross lie in wait for our every deed and word, so that, if we but give them the slightest pretext, they may accuse us mendaciously of agreeing with Nestorius. Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, et habetur in decretis, XXIV, qu. III, si qui sententiam suam, quamvis falsam atque perversam, nulla pertinaci animositate defendunt, quaerunt autem cauta sollicitudine veritatem, corrigi parati cum invenerint, nequaquam sunt inter haereticos deputandi, quia scilicet non habent electionem contradicentem Ecclesiae doctrinae. Sic ergo aliqui doctores dissensisse videntur vel circa ea quorum nihil interest ad fidem utrum sic vel aliter teneatur; vel etiam in quibusdam ad fidem pertinentibus quae nondum erant per Ecclesiam determinata. Postquam autem essent auctoritate universalis Ecclesiae determinata, si quis tali ordinationi pertinaciter repugnaret, haereticus censeretur. Quae quidem auctoritas principaliter residet in summo pontifice. Dicitur enim XXIV, qu. I, quoties fidei ratio ventilatur, arbitror omnes fratres nostros et coepiscopos non nisi ad Petrum, idest sui nominis auctoritatem, referre debere. Contra cuius auctoritatem nec Hieronymus nec Augustinus nec aliquis sacrorum doctorum suam sententiam defendit. Unde dicit Hieronymus, haec est fides, Papa beatissime, quam in Catholica didicimus Ecclesia. In qua si minus perite aut parum caute forte aliquid positum est, emendari cupimus a te, qui Petri fidem et sedem tenes. Si autem haec nostra confessio apostolatus tui iudicio comprobatur, quicumque me culpare voluerit, se imperitum vel malevolum, vel etiam non Catholicum sed haereticum, comprobabit. Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (Ep. xliii) and we find it stated in the Decretals (xxiv, qu. 3, can. Dixit Apostolus): By no means should we accuse of heresy those who, however false and perverse their opinion may be, defend it without obstinate fervor, and seek the truth with careful anxiety, ready to mend their opinion, when they have found the truth, because, to wit, they do not make a choice in contradiction to the doctrine of the Church. Accordingly, certain doctors seem to have differed either in matters the holding of which in this or that way is of no consequence, so far as faith is concerned, or even in matters of faith, which were not as yet defined by the Church; although if anyone were obstinately to deny them after they had been defined by the authority of the universal Church, he would be deemed a heretic. This authority resides chiefly in the Sovereign Pontiff. For we read: Whenever a question of faith is in dispute, I think that all our brethren and fellow bishops ought to refer the matter to none other than Peter, as being the source of their name and honor, against whose authority neither Jerome nor Augustine nor any of the holy doctors defended their opinion. Hence Jerome says (Exposit. Symbol): This, most blessed Pope, is the faith that we have been taught in the Catholic Church. If anything therein has been incorrectly or carelessly expressed, we beg that it may be set aright by you who hold the faith and see of Peter. If, however, this, our profession, be approved by the judgment of your apostleship, whoever may blame me, will prove that he himself is ignorant, or malicious, or even not a catholic but a heretic. Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum haeretici sint tolerandi Whether heretics ought to be tolerated? Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod haeretici sint tolerandi. Dicit enim apostolus, II ad Tim. II, servum Dei oportet mansuetum esse, cum modestia corripientem eos qui resistunt veritati, ne quando det illis poenitentiam Deus ad cognoscendam veritatem, et resipiscant a laqueis Diaboli. Sed si haeretici non tolerantur, sed morti traduntur, aufertur eis facultas poenitendi. Ergo hoc videtur esse contra praeceptum apostoli. Objection 1: It seems that heretics ought to be tolerated. For the Apostle says (2 Tim 2:24, 25): The servant of the Lord must not wrangle . . . with modesty admonishing them that resist the truth, if peradventure God may give them repentance to know the truth, and they may recover themselves from the snares of the devil. Now if heretics are not tolerated but put to death, they lose the opportunity of repentance. Therefore it seems contrary to the Apostle’s command. Praeterea, illud quod est necessarium in Ecclesia est tolerandum. Sed haereses sunt necessariae in Ecclesia, dicit enim apostolus, I ad Cor. XI, oportet haereses esse, ut et qui probati sunt manifesti fiant in vobis. Ergo videtur quod haeretici sunt tolerandi. Obj. 2: Further, whatever is necessary in the Church should be tolerated. Now heresies are necessary in the Church, since the Apostle says (1 Cor 11:19): There must be . . . heresies, that they . . . who are reproved, may be manifest among you. Therefore it seems that heretics should be tolerated. Praeterea, dominus mandavit, Matth. XIII, servis suis ut zizania permitterent crescere usque ad messem, quae est finis saeculi, ut ibidem exponitur. Sed per zizania significantur haeretici, secundum expositionem sanctorum. Ergo haeretici sunt tolerandi. Obj. 3: Further, the Master commanded his servants (Matt 13:30) to suffer the cockle to grow until the harvest, i.e., the end of the world, as a gloss explains it. Now holy men explain that the cockle denotes heretics. Therefore heretics should be tolerated. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, ad Tit. III, haereticum hominem, post primam et secundam correptionem, devita, sciens quia subversus est qui eiusmodi est. On the contrary, The Apostle says (Titus 3:10, 11): A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted. Respondeo dicendum quod circa haereticos duo sunt consideranda, unum quidem ex parte ipsorum; aliud ex parte Ecclesiae. Ex parte quidem ipsorum est peccatum per quod meruerunt non solum ab Ecclesia per excommunicationem separari, sed etiam per mortem a mundo excludi. Multo enim gravius est corrumpere fidem, per quam est animae vita, quam falsare pecuniam, per quam temporali vitae subvenitur. Unde si falsarii pecuniae, vel alii malefactores, statim per saeculares principes iuste morti traduntur; multo magis haeretici, statim cum de haeresi convincuntur, possent non solum excommunicari, sed et iuste occidi. I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death. Ex parte autem Ecclesiae est misericordia, ad errantium conversionem. Et ideo non statim condemnat, sed post primam et secundam correctionem, ut apostolus docet. Postmodum vero, si adhuc pertinax inveniatur, Ecclesia, de eius conversione non sperans, aliorum saluti providet, eum ab Ecclesia separando per excommunicationis sententiam; et ulterius relinquit eum iudicio saeculari a mundo exterminandum per mortem. Dicit enim Hieronymus, et habetur XXIV, qu. III, resecandae sunt putridae carnes, et scabiosa ovis a caulis repellenda, ne tota domus, massa, corpus et pecora, ardeat, corrumpatur, putrescat, intereat. Arius in Alexandria una scintilla fuit, sed quoniam non statim oppressus est, totum orbem eius flamma populata est. On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but after the first and second admonition, as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, A little leaven, says: Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ad modestiam illam pertinet ut primo et secundo corripiatur. Quod si redire noluerit, iam pro subverso habetur, ut patet in auctoritate apostoli inducta. Reply Obj. 1: This very modesty demands that the heretic should be admonished a first and second time: and if he be unwilling to retract, he must be reckoned as already subverted, as we may gather from the words of the Apostle quoted above. Ad secundum dicendum quod utilitas quae ex haeresibus provenit est praeter haereticorum intentionem, dum scilicet constantia fidelium comprobatur, ut apostolus dicit; et ut excutiamus pigritiam, divinas Scripturas sollicitius intuentes, sicut Augustinus dicit. Sed ex intentione eorum est corrumpere fidem, quod est maximi nocumenti. Et ideo magis respiciendum est ad id quod est per se de eorum intentione, ut excludantur; quam ad hoc quod est praeter eorum intentionem, ut sustineantur. Reply Obj. 2: The profit that ensues from heresy is beside the intention of heretics, for it consists in the constancy of the faithful being put to the test, and makes us shake off our sluggishness, and search the Scriptures more carefully, as Augustine states (De Gen. cont. Manich. i, 1). What they really intend is the corruption of the faith, which is to inflict very great harm indeed. Consequently we should consider what they directly intend, and expel them, rather than what is beside their intention, and so, tolerate them. Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut habetur in decretis, XXIV, qu. III, aliud est excommunicatio, et aliud eradicatio. Excommunicatur enim ad hoc aliquis, ut ait apostolus, ut spiritus eius salvus fiat in die Domini. Si tamen totaliter eradicentur per mortem haeretici, non est etiam contra mandatum domini, quod est in eo casu intelligendum quando non possunt extirpari zizania sine extirpatione tritici, ut supra dictum est, cum de infidelibus in communi ageretur. Reply Obj. 3: According to Decret. (xxiv, qu. iii, can. Notandum), to be excommunicated is not to be uprooted. A man is excommunicated, as the Apostle says (1 Cor 5:5) that his spirit may be saved in the day of Our Lord. Yet if heretics be altogether uprooted by death, this is not contrary to Our Lord’s command, which is to be understood as referring to the case when the cockle cannot be plucked up without plucking up the wheat, as we explained above (Q. 10, A. 8, ad 1), when treating of unbelievers in general.