Question I

GRATIAN. PART I. That marriage does not exist between unbelievers is proved by many authorities. For Paul says: “Everything that is not from faith is sin.” But the union of unbelievers is not from faith and therefore is sin. It is not, therefore, marriage, because no marriage is sin. Likewise Augustine: “There is no true chastity of an unbelieving man with his spouse.” But where true chastity cannot exist, neither is there true marriage. Likewise Ambrose: “Ezra ordered foreign wives to be dismissed, through whom they went to foreign gods. For what was done outside God’s decree is not to be thought matrimony. But when it is recognized, it is to be corrected.” Likewise Augustine: “A marriage that is without God is not ratified.” By all these authorities it is proved that marriage does not exist between unbelievers. § 1. On the contrary, other authorities are found by which it is proved that marriage exists between unbelievers. The first of these is that statement of the Gospel in which Christ says: “There will be five in one house; two will be divided against three and three against two.” Then, when he enumerated those persons, he said that a wife would be divided against her husband and conversely. Likewise: “One who does not hate father, or mother, or sister, or wife, for my sake is not worthy of me”; he says that an unbelieving wife, not a believing one, is to be held in hatred. Likewise: “Everyone who leaves house, or father, or mother, or sister, or wife, will receive a hundredfold, etc.” In this place he signifies an unbelieving wife, who is dismissed for Christ when she, rather than faith in Christ, is abandoned. Likewise the Apostle: “If any brother has an unbelieving wife and she consents to dwell with him, let him not dismiss her; and if any woman has an unbelieving husband and he consents to dwell with her, let her not dismiss her husband. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through the believing woman, and the unbelieving woman has been sanctified through the believing husband.” Likewise to Titus: “Exhort the young women to love their husbands.” This is to be understood concerning believers as well as unbelievers. For believing women ought to obey unbelieving husbands more earnestly for God’s sake, so that they may thus be able to win their husbands for Christ, as is read to have occurred wondrously concerning Theodora and Sisinnius in the Passion of blessed Clement.

Likewise Pope Innocent to Rufus and Eusebius, bishops in Macedonia, [epistle 22, c. 2]. Are those who were begotten of the woman who was a wife before baptism not to be admitted to a share in the inheritance? And will they be called natural children because—as it seems to you—there is no lawful matrimony except that which is assumed after baptism? When the Lord himself was asked by the Jews whether it was lawful to dismiss a wife and explained that it ought not to be done, he added: “What God has joined, let man not separate.” And lest he be thought to have spoken concerning those who take wives after baptism, let them remember that this was both asked by Jews and answered to Jews. I ask, and anxiously ask: if the wife of one who was first a catechumen and afterward becomes faithful is one and the same, and he begot children from her when he was a catechumen and afterward other children when he was faithful, are they to be called brothers? Or, after the father has died, do they not possess with the others a share in dividing the inheritance because spiritual regeneration is said to have taken the name of children away from them? Since it is absurd to judge and think thus, what reason is there for this evil to be defended and vaunted more by empty opinion than strengthened by any authority, when that which the law commands and God has joined cannot be counted among sins?

Likewise from a decree of Pope Eutychian. PART II. If any gentile shall have dismissed a gentile wife before baptism, after baptism it will be in his power to have her or not to have her.

The same. In like manner, if one of the married persons is baptized and the other is a gentile and does not wish to follow, as the Apostle says, if the unbeliever departs, let that person depart.

Likewise Augustine, On Faith and Works, [c. 16]. A wife joined in a lawful partnership is left without any fault if she is unwilling to remain with a Christian husband. Nor is it considered that she is most rightly dismissed in the same way if she says to her husband: “I will not be your wife unless you amass riches for me by robbery, or unless, even as a Christian, you practice the customary acts of procuring by which you maintained our household,” or if she knew anything else criminal or disgraceful in the man, by which, delighted, she either fulfilled her lust, possessed an easy livelihood, or even went about more adorned. For then the man to whom his wife has said these things, if he truly performed penance from dead works when he approached baptism and possesses in the foundation faith that works through love, will without doubt be held more by love of divine grace than by the lust of the flesh and will resolutely cut off the member that scandalizes him.

The same in The Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, Book I, [cc. 27 and 28]. Idolatry, which unbelievers follow, and every harmful superstition are fornication. But the Lord permitted a wife to be dismissed for the cause of fornication. Yet because he permitted and did not command it, he gave the Apostle occasion to admonish that one who wishes should not dismiss an unbelieving wife, so that in this way perhaps she can become faithful. Likewise, [c. 28]. § 1. If unbelief is fornication, idolatry unbelief, and avarice idolatry, there is no doubt that avarice is also fornication. Who, then, can now rightly separate any unlawful concupiscence from the genus of fornication if avarice is fornication? From this it is understood that because of unlawful concupiscences—not only those committed in debaucheries with other men or women, but altogether any that cause the soul, using the body badly, to stray from the law of God and to be perniciously and shamefully corrupted—a husband can dismiss his wife and a wife her husband without crime. For the Lord makes the cause of fornication an exception, which fornication, as was considered above, we are compelled to understand generally and universally. But when he says, “Except for the cause of fornication,” he does not say whose, whether the man’s or the woman’s. For permission is granted not only to dismiss a wife who fornicates; rather, whoever also dismisses a wife by whom he himself is compelled to fornicate dismisses her for the cause of fornication—for example, if a wife compels someone to sacrifice to idols. One who dismisses such a woman dismisses her for the cause of fornication, not only hers but also his own: hers, because she fornicates; his own, lest he fornicate.

The same, On Adulterous Marriages, Book II. Adultery is committed not only by a woman who defiles her flesh, but a woman who makes an idol also commits adultery. But if she perseveres in these deeds and does not perform penance, withdraw from her and do not live with her. Otherwise you too will be a participant in her sin.

Likewise Ambrose to Hilary. “If the unbeliever,” says the Apostle, “departs, let that person depart; a brother or sister is not subject to servitude in such a case”—that is, if the unbeliever is unwilling to be with a believing spouse, let the believer recognize his or her freedom, lest that person suppose himself or herself subject to servitude in such a way as to dismiss the faith itself in order not to lose an unbelieving spouse. This is also understood concerning children and parents, and concerning brothers and sisters: they are to be dismissed for Christ when this condition is imposed, that one must dismiss Christ if one desires to have that person with oneself. This is therefore also to be understood concerning a house and fields and the other things possessed by proprietary right.

Likewise Augustine to Pollentius, [Book I, On Adulterous Marriages, cc. 13 and 14]. PART III. Let us now consider what the Apostle says:

“But to the rest I say, not the Lord”—namely, when he was about to speak of unequal marriages, in which both had not been Christians. It seemed to me that he said this by way of admonition. For because a believing spouse can lawfully leave an unbelieving spouse, the Lord does not prohibit this from being done, but the Apostle does. What the Lord prohibits absolutely may not be done. The Apostle therefore admonishes that which can be an occasion for winning many: that believing spouses should not use the permission granted them to leave unbelievers. But it seems to you that unbelievers also may not be put away by believers, because the Apostle forbids this, whereas I say that it is lawful, because the Lord does not forbid it; nevertheless, it is not expedient, because the Apostle admonishes that it not be done, and he also gives the reason why it is not expedient to do it, although it is lawful. “For how do you know, woman,” he says, “whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?” since he had also said above: “The unbelieving husband is sanctified in the believing woman, and the unbelieving woman is sanctified in the brother” (that is, in the Christian). “Otherwise your children would be unclean; but now they are holy.” Thus, even by examples that had already occurred, he seems to have exhorted them to win spouses and children for Christ. The reason why it is not expedient for unbelieving spouses to be put away by believers is therefore clearly expressed. For the Apostle forbids departure from unbelieving spouses, not because the marital bond with such persons must be preserved, but so that they may be sought in Christ. Many things, moreover, are to be done not because the law commands them, but from free charity; and those things among our duties are more pleasing which, although it would be lawful for us not to expend them, we nevertheless expend for the sake of love. Hence the Lord himself first, although he had shown that he did not owe the tribute, nevertheless paid it, lest he scandalize those whom he was accommodating while consulting their eternal salvation. Indeed, how the Apostle commends these things is attested by his words where he says: “Although I am free from all, I made myself the servant of all, that I might gain the more,” when a little above he had said: “Do we not have the right to eat and drink? Do we not have the right to take about a sister, a woman, as do the other Apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? Or do only I and Barnabas not have the power to do this work? Who ever serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Who tends a flock and does not eat of the milk of the flock?” And a little afterward he says: “If others share by right in this authority over you, do not we more so? But we have not used this authority; rather, we endure all things, lest we place any impediment in the way of the gospel of Christ.”

Likewise, [in the same work, c. 18 and the following chapters]. For in this way believing men or women are neither forbidden by the Lord to depart from unbelieving wives or husbands, nor are they commanded to do so. For if they were commanded to put away such spouses, there would be no place for the counsel of the Apostle admonishing that this not be done. For in no way does the servant of the Lord forbid what the Lord commands.

Likewise: Therefore, when the gospel began to be preached to the gentiles, it found gentiles joined to gentile spouses. If, of these, both did not believe, but one man or one woman did, and the unbeliever consented to dwell with the believer, the believer ought neither to have been forbidden by the Lord to put away the unbeliever nor commanded to do so. He ought not to have been forbidden, namely, because justice permits departure from a fornicator, and the fornication of an unbelieving person is greater in the heart; nor can his chastity with his spouse indeed be called true, because everything that is not of faith is sin, although the believer has true chastity even with an unbelieving spouse, who does not have true chastity. Yet believers ought not to have been commanded to separate from unbelievers, because the two gentiles had not been joined contrary to the Lord’s command.

§ 1. Since, therefore, the Lord neither forbids nor commands a believer to depart from an unbeliever, the Apostle—not the Lord—says that the believer should not depart, having, certainly, the Holy Spirit, in whom he could give useful and faithful counsel. Hence, after he had said concerning a woman whose husband had died, “But she will be happier if she remains thus, according to my counsel,” lest anyone think that this counsel, as human and not divine, was to be despised, he added: “But I think that I too have the Spirit of God.” Accordingly, it must be understood that even those things which are not commanded by the Lord but are usefully advised by his holy servant are advised by the inspiration of the same Lord. For far be it from any Catholic to say that what the Holy Spirit advises is not advised by the Lord, since the Holy Spirit himself is Lord and the works of the Trinity are inseparable. Yet the Apostle says: “Concerning virgins, however, I have no command of the Lord, but I give counsel,” not so that we might suppose this counsel to be foreign to the Lord, since he immediately continues and says, “as one who has obtained mercy from the Lord to be faithful.” Therefore he gives faithful counsel according to God, in the same Spirit concerning whom he says, “But I think that I too have the Spirit of God.”

§ 2. Nevertheless, the command of the Lord who orders is one thing; the faithful counsel of a servant, according to the mercy of charity inspired and given to him by the Lord, is another. For in the former it is not lawful to do otherwise; in the latter it is lawful, yet in such a way that what is lawful is in part expedient, but in part not expedient. It is expedient when it is not only permitted on account of the justice that exists before God, but also causes no impediment to the salvation of human beings. For example, when the Apostle gives virgins counsel not to marry—concerning which he testifies that he has no command of the Lord—it is lawful to do otherwise, that is, to marry and to maintain the lesser good of continence in marriage; and this lawful thing is also expedient, since the honorable state of marriage has thus received the weakness of the flesh, which would otherwise rush into forbidden and unlawful acts, so that it impedes no one from salvation, although it would be more expedient and more honorable if the virgin embraced the counsel to which no command compels her. But what is lawful is not expedient when it is indeed permitted, but the exercise of that power brings others an impediment to salvation. Such is the departure—which we have now long been discussing—of a believing spouse from an unbeliever. The Lord does not forbid it by a command of law, because it is not unjust before him; but the Apostle forbids it by the counsel of charity, because it brings unbelievers an impediment to salvation, not only because, being offended, they are most ruinously scandalized, but also because, when they have fallen into other marriages while those by whom they are put away are living, they are bound by adulterous bonds and are released with difficulty.

§ 3. Therefore here, where what is lawful is not expedient, it cannot be said: if one puts away an unbeliever, one does well; if one does not put the unbeliever away, one does better—as was said: “He who gives her in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage does better.” For there, not only one but both are equally lawful—whence no one is compelled to either by a command of the Lord—and both are expedient, the one less and the other more. Hence whoever is able to receive it is called by the Apostle’s counsel to that which is more expedient. But here, where the question concerns putting away or not putting away an unbeliever in marriage with a believer, both are indeed equally lawful by the justice that exists before the Lord, and therefore the Lord forbids neither; but both are not expedient because of human weakness, and therefore the Apostle forbids that which is not expedient, the Lord giving him a free place for forbidding it, because the Lord neither forbids what the Apostle admonishes nor commands what the Apostle forbids. Unless it were so, the Apostle would neither admonish anything contrary to the Lord’s prohibition nor forbid anything contrary to his command.

§ 4. Accordingly, in these two cases—the one concerning marrying or not marrying, the other concerning putting away or not putting away an unbelieving spouse—something in the Apostle’s words is similar and something dissimilar. This is similar: there he says, “I have no command of the Lord, but I give counsel,” and here he says, “I say, not the Lord.” For “I have no command of the Lord” is like “the Lord does not say,” and “I give counsel” is like “I say.” But this is dissimilar: concerning marrying or not marrying it can be said that this can be done well, but that better, since both are expedient, one less and the other more. But concerning putting away or not putting away an unbelieving spouse, since one of these is not expedient and the other is expedient, it ought not to be said, “He who puts the spouse away does well, and he who does not put the spouse away does better”; rather, it ought to be said, “Let him not put the spouse away,” because, namely, it is not expedient. Thus, therefore, we can say that it is better not to put away an unbelieving spouse, although it is also lawful to put the spouse away, just as we rightly say that what is lawful and expedient is better than what is lawful and not expedient.

§ 5. For these reasons it happened that, when expounding the Lord’s lengthy discourse on the mountain, once the question of putting away or not putting away spouses was reached, I employed from the Apostle—not a command of the Lord—the passage in which he says, “But to the rest I say, not the Lord,” admonishing those who have unbelieving spouses not to put them away if they consent to dwell with them. This certainly had to be admonished, not commanded, because human beings are not prohibited with so great a weight from doing lawful things, although they are not expedient, as unlawful things must be prohibited. But if the Apostle somewhere deigns to admonish even those things that must be commanded, he does this by sparing weakness, not by prejudicing the command. Hence he said thus: “I write these things not to confound you, but to admonish you as my dearest children.” What question is there where he says, “I say, not the Lord”? Likewise, where he says, “Behold, I Paul say to you that if you be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing”? Did he also say here, “Behold, I say, not the Lord”? These things, therefore, are not similar, because even as to those things that the Lord commands, it is neither unworthy nor contrary if the Apostle also admonishes them. For we admonish those whom we hold dear to perform the Lord’s precepts or commands. But when he says, “I say, not the Lord,” he sufficiently shows that the Lord does not forbid what he himself was forbidding. But the Lord would have forbidden it if it were unlawful. Therefore, according to the matters we discussed above and treated at length, it was lawful by justice; but even what was lawful was not to be done because of free benevolence.

§ 6. But you, to whom it seems that what the Lord does not forbid, but the Apostle does, is no more lawful than what the Lord forbids—when you wished to explain what he meant when he said, “I say, not the Lord,” as he addressed believers who had unbelieving spouses—you said that the Lord commanded that marriages of differing religion not be joined to one another. And you employed the very testimony of the Lord saying: “You shall not take a wife for your son from the daughters of foreigners, lest she draw him after her gods and his soul perish.” You also added the words of the Apostle where he says: “A woman is bound for as long as her husband lives; but if her husband has died, she is free; let her marry whom she wishes, only in the Lord.” You explained this by adding: that is, a Christian. Then you continued and added: This, therefore, is the Lord’s command both in the Old Testament and in the New; this the Lord commands, this the Apostle teaches: that only marriages of the same religion and faith should remain joined. Why, contrary to the Lord’s command, contrary to holy teaching, contrary to the precept of the Old and New Testament, does the Apostle command that marriages of differing faith remain joined?

Because Paul, he says, the preacher and apostle of the gentiles, not only admonishes but even commands those already placed in marriage that, if one of the spouses should believe, that person should not put away the other, who does not believe but nevertheless consents to dwell together. By these words of yours you show sufficiently clearly that this is one thing and that another. For there the matter concerns marriages that have not been joined in the first place: that a woman marry only a man of her religion, or that a man take such a woman as wife; for this, as you say, the Lord commands, the Apostle teaches, and both Testaments prescribe. But who would deny that this is different, since here the matter concerns not persons to be joined but persons already joined? For both were of one and the same unbelief when they were joined; but when the gospel came, either the one without the other, or the other without the one, believed. Therefore, if this is another matter—as appears without any scruple of doubt—why is it not lawful for a believer to remain with an unbelieving spouse? Does not the Lord also command it, just as the Apostle does? Unless perhaps in this place that which the Apostle so faithfully says is void: “Do you seek proof of the Christ who speaks in me?” And Christ is certainly the Lord.

§ 7. Do you understand what I am saying? Or shall I linger somewhat more carefully in explaining this? Pay attention, so that we may set forth the matter itself to be explained, as though it were to be made clear before our eyes, in plainer speech. Behold, when two spouses were joined, they were both of one unbelief. There is no question about them that pertains to that command of the Lord, the apostolic teaching, and the precept of the Old and New Testament by which a believer is forbidden to join in marriage with an unbeliever. They are already spouses, and both are still unbelievers; they are still such as they were before they were joined and such as they were when joined. Then the preacher of the gospel comes, and either the man or the woman believes, but in such a way that the unbeliever consents to dwell with the believer. Does the Lord command the believer to put away the unbeliever, or does he not command it? If you say, “He commands it,” the Apostle cries out against you: “I say, not the Lord.” If you say, “He does not command it,” I ask the reason. Nor will you answer me with the reason you inserted into your writings, namely that the Lord forbids believers to be joined to unbelievers. For that reason has no place here at all: we are speaking of those already joined, not of those to be joined. Therefore, if you have not found your reason why the Lord does not forbid what the Apostle forbids, you now perceive, I suppose, that it is not the reason you had thought it was.

PART IV. GRATIAN. To the contrary, it is found in the Fourth Council of Toledo, [c. 62]:

Jews who have Christian women in marriage are to be admonished by the bishop of that city that, if they desire to remain with them, they should become Christians. But if, after being admonished, they are unwilling, let them be separated, because an unbeliever cannot remain in union with one who has now been transferred to the Christian faith. Moreover, the children born from such persons are to follow the faith and condition of the mother. Likewise, those who have been begotten of unbelieving women and believing men are to follow the Christian religion, not Jewish superstition.

GRATIAN. But this was established for this reason: lest, while the believer seeks the salvation of the unbeliever, the believer rather find with the unbeliever the perdition of unbelief. Hence in the same Council, [c. 59], it was established both concerning the children of Jews and concerning others coming to the faith that they should avoid the company of unbelievers:

We decree that the sons or daughters of Jews, lest they be further entangled in the errors of their parents, be separated from their company and assigned either to monasteries or to God-fearing Christian women and men, so that under their manner of life they may learn the worship of the faith and, being better instructed, may advance both in morals and in faith.

Likewise, [in the same Council, c. 61]. The company of evil persons often corrupts even the good; how much more those who are prone to vices? Therefore, let Hebrews transferred to the Christian faith henceforth have no communion with those who still remain in the old rite, lest perhaps they be subverted by participation with them. Therefore, henceforth, whoever among those who have been baptized do not avoid the company of unbelievers, let the former be handed over to Christians and the latter assigned to public beatings.

Likewise from the Sixth Synod, [c. 11]. Let no one among those who are in sacred orders, nor any layperson, eat their unleavened bread, or dwell with them, or call any one of them in his illnesses, or receive medicine from them, or bathe with them in a bathhouse. But if anyone does this, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed; but if a layperson, let him be excommunicated.

Likewise from the Council of Agde, [c. 40]. Henceforth let all clerics and laypersons avoid the banquets of Jews, nor let anyone receive them at a banquet, because, since they do not use foods in common with Christians, it is unworthy and sacrilegious for their foods to be taken by Christians, since those things which, with the Apostle’s permission, we take are judged unclean by them. Thus Christians will begin to be inferior to Jews if we use the things set before us by them, while they despise those offered by us.

PART V. GRATIAN. From these things, therefore, it is clearly gathered that marriage exists between unbelievers. But that saying of the Apostle, “Whatever is not of faith is sin,” is not to be understood so that whatever is done by unbelievers is believed to be sin, but rather that everything done against conscience builds toward hell. Hence Ambrose: “It is sin when something is done otherwise than has been approved.”

§ 1. Likewise Augustine on the same passage: “Everything done otherwise than is approved is sin; nevertheless, not everything done with faith is good. For ignorance that proceeds from fault is harmful.” Hence the Apostle also says: “Blessed is he who does not judge himself in that which he approves,” that is, he who does not render himself condemnable by doing otherwise than he approves ought to be done. Or everything that is not of faith is said to be sin, because whatever is not done with that faith by which it may avail toward eternal salvation is reckoned useless before the Lord. Hence Augustine says: “The whole life of unbelievers is sin, nor can that which is done without God be good. For where there is no recognition of eternal and immutable truth, virtue is false even in the best morals.”

§ 2. Likewise, when it is said, “There is no true chastity of an unbelieving person with his spouse,” chastity is denied to be true with respect to its effect, namely the reward of eternal salvation. For just as sacraments among heretics are denied to be true, not with respect to form but with respect to power, so also virtues among unbelievers are denied to be true—not because they are not true in them, according to Jerome’s saying, “By virtues the Romans merited empire”—but because they lack the effect of eternal salvation.

§ 3. Likewise, that saying of Ambrose, “A marriage made outside God’s decree is not to be acknowledged; but when it is recognized, it is to be corrected,” does not show that marriage does not exist between unbelievers. For by no command of the Lord are gentiles forbidden to be joined to gentiles. Their marriage, therefore, is not made outside—that is, contrary to—God’s decree. Accordingly, by that authority those are commanded to be separated from one another who have been joined contrary to the decree of God or of the Church, such as unbelievers with believers, blood relatives with blood relatives, or relations by marriage with relations by marriage. All these, if they have been joined to one another, are to be separated. Hence also the same Ambrose in the book On the Patriarchs, [Book I, On Abraham, c. 9]:

Beware, Christian, of giving your daughter to a gentile or a Jew. Beware, he says, of seeking for yourself as a wife a gentile woman, a Jewish woman, or a foreign woman—that is, a heretic—and every woman foreign to your faith. The first fidelity of marriage is the grace of chastity.

§ 1. If she is Christian, that is not enough unless both of you have been initiated by the sacrament of baptism. Together you must rise at night for prayer and beseech God with joined prayers.

Likewise from the Council of Agde, [c. 67]. It is not fitting to mingle in marriages with all heretics and to give either sons or daughters to them; rather, they are to be received, provided that they profess that they will become Christians and Catholics.

Likewise from the Council of Clermont. If anyone is joined to Jewish depravity by marital association—whether a Christian woman is mingled in carnal company with a Jew, or a Jewish woman with a Christian—whichever of them is known to have committed so great a wickedness, let that person immediately be separated from the Christian assembly and banquet and from the communion of the Church.

GRATIAN. Likewise, that saying of Augustine, “A marriage that is without God is not ratified,” does not deny that marriage exists between unbelievers. For one marriage is legitimate and not ratified; another is ratified and not legitimate; another is legitimate and ratified. A legitimate marriage is one contracted by legal institution or by the customs of the province. Between unbelievers this is not ratified, because their marriage is not firm and inviolable. For once a bill of repudiation has been given, it is lawful for them to depart from one another and to be joined to others according to the law of the forum, not the law of heaven, which they do not follow. But between believers marriage is ratified, because marriages once entered between them cannot thereafter be dissolved. Some of these are legitimate, as when a wife is handed over by her parents, endowed by the bridegroom, and blessed by a priest. Such marriages are called legitimate and ratified. But the marriages of those who, with all those solemnities disregarded, join some woman to themselves as wife by affection alone are believed to be not legitimate but only ratified.