Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Matrimony
Chapter 23: On Difference of Worship
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramento Matrimonii, the fifth general controversy on the sacraments. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
The other impediment is difference of worship. For Catholics teach by common consent that the marriages of the faithful with unbaptized unbelievers are not only unlawful but also void; but with baptized heretics unlawful, yet not void.
Luther, in the book On the Babylonian Captivity, the chapter on Matrimony, does not admit this impediment; and yet he brings no other argument than that God is not read to have forbidden these marriages to Christians, and that blessed Monica, the mother of St. Augustine, had an unbelieving husband. He repeats the same both in the sermon on Matrimony and in the exposition of the seventh chapter of the first to the Corinthians. Philip Melanchthon too, in the Commonplaces, under the title on marriage, although he confesses that these marriages were forbidden by the Church with a good mind, yet would not have them observed so rigidly as the Catholics demand.
Let the first proposition, then, be: It is not lawful for the faithful to join marriages with unbelievers, or even with heretics. It is proved, first, from the word of God. In Deuteronomy 7 God forbade his people to join marriages with the gentiles. And although that precept is judicial and properly bound the Jews alone, yet it has something moral too, and belongs to all, if the cause is looked at; for he gives a plainly moral cause, which has place even now: “For she will turn away thy son from following me, that he may rather serve strange gods.” And in 3 Kings 11, where the same precept is repeated, God adds: “For they will most certainly turn away your hearts to follow strange gods”; and in the same place it is added that Solomon acted against this precept, and that there at once befell him what God had foretold: for, perverted by those heathen wives, he adored their idols. And truly, if a most wise man, who had many other wives, could be so perverted through those new marriages with the gentiles that he worshipped the gods of each, how great a danger threatens those who take one only, and she a heathen or a heretic, and who are in no way to be compared with Solomon in prudence and wisdom?
Then that word of blessed Paul, 1 Corinthians 7, “Let her marry to whom she will; only in the Lord,” is a precept not to be joined in Matrimony except with the faithful, as almost all the interpreters of this place teach, as Ambrose, Theodoret, Theophylact, Anselm, Sedulius, St. Thomas, Cajetan and others; and besides Tertullian in book 2 To His Wife, and Jerome, book 1 against Jovinian.
Lastly Augustine, book 1 On Adulterous Marriages, chapter 25, admits this exposition, although he says it can also be expounded otherwise; for he says thus: that “in the Lord” can be understood in two ways: either marrying a Christian, or remaining a Christian. But the latter exposition does not seem as probable as the former: for there could be no doubt that it was unlawful to apostatize from the faith by marrying; nay, this is so clear and known to all that it would seem plainly superfluous to admonish Christians about that matter.
There is also another place, 2 Corinthians 6: “Bear not the yoke with unbelievers”; which St. Jerome, both in book 1 against Jovinian and in the letter to Geruntia on monogamy, expounds of not joining marriage with unbelievers. Nor do Theophylact and others oppose this exposition, who expound it generally of avoiding dealings with unbelievers: for if dealings with unbelievers are forbidden, certainly marriage, which is the greatest and most dangerous of all dealings, is forbidden.
Second, it is proved from the councils. There is extant canon 13 of the general Council of Chalcedon, where marriages with heretics, Jews and pagans are forbidden. There is extant likewise canon 67 of the Council of Agde, where these words are had: “It is not fitting to mingle marriages with heretical men, and to give them either sons or daughters.” The Third Council of Toledo likewise, canon 14, forbids Jews to have a Christian wife; and the Fourth of Toledo, canon 63, commands Hebrews joined in Matrimony with Christians either to become Christians or to be separated from their wives. There is extant also in the civil law, in the Code on Jews, the law Ne quis Christianam, a law of Valentinian and Theodosius, which punishes as adulteries the marriages of Jews with Christians; and in the Theodosian Code, book 3, title 14, the marriages of Romans with gentiles are likewise punished.
Third, it is proved from the Fathers. Tertullian, in the second book To His Wife, argues this in a long disputation, that Christian men or women ought not to contract marriages with unbelievers. St. Cyprian, in the sermon On the Lapsed, numbers among the other crimes of the faithful the joining of marriages with unbelievers, and says that this is to prostitute the members of Christ to the gentiles. St. Ambrose, book 1 On Abraham, chapter 9: “Beware, Christian,” he says, “of handing over your daughter to a gentile or a Jew; beware of bringing to yourself as wife a gentile or a Jewess, or a foreigner, that is, a heretic, and any woman alien from your faith.” And in letter 70, which is the first of book 9, to Vigilius, he instructs the new bishop to teach his people to beware most of all of marriages with unbelievers. St. Jerome, in book 1 against Jovinian: “But now,” he says, “very many, despising the command of the Apostle, are joined to gentiles, and prostitute the temples of Christ to idols.”
St. Augustine seems to have hung in doubt in this matter. For in book 1 to Pollentius, chapter 21, he relates the opinion of Pollentius, that in both Testaments it is forbidden for the faithful to join Matrimony with unbelievers; which words the Master, in book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 39, relates as the opinion of Augustine, whereas in truth they are to be taken as the opinion of Pollentius, not of Augustine. Then in chapter 25, speaking in his own opinion, he says only that no testimony is found in the New Testament by which such marriages are forbidden without ambiguity, although he confesses that Cyprian had no doubt that those marriages were unlawful. And in the book On Faith and Works, chapter 19, he repeats again that he has not found in the Scriptures of the New Testament a certain testimony on this matter, although Cyprian placed the joining of marriages with unbelievers among the gravest crimes. But at last he concludes that such joinings are altogether to be avoided, because in a doubtful matter it is expedient to follow the safer part: “By every means,” he says, “one must try that such joinings be not made; for what need is there to put one's head into so great a danger of ambiguity?”
And so from Augustine we have that at the least these marriages are doubtful, and so not to be contracted. Nor yet, if it was lawful for Augustine to doubt, will it be lawful for us also, since we hold the sense of Paul explained by many interpreters, many testimonies too of councils and Fathers which he himself had not seen, and lastly the consent of all the theologians who have written after the Master, and so of the whole Church.
Fourth, it is proved by reason. Matrimony of the faithful with an unbeliever brings with it many troubles and harms; it ought not, therefore, to be judged lawful. The antecedent is proved. For, first, it brings to the believer danger, and that most grave, of apostatizing from the true faith; and “he that loveth danger shall perish in it,” Ecclesiasticus 3. Then, the offspring cannot conveniently be educated in the true religion. Besides, that peace and tranquillity which is required for marriage can hardly be found in the house, since disagreement about religion begets contentions and quarrels, hatred too and estrangement of minds. Lastly, as Tertullian shows at length, if the husband is an unbeliever, he will easily hinder all the exercises of piety which otherwise a Christian wife is bound to show.
Second proposition: Matrimony between a believer and an unbeliever is not void by divine law, natural or positive, or by some certain law of the Church. That it is not by divine law Dominic Soto thinks (as he himself speaks, on book 4, distinction 39, the only question, article 2) is proved evidently from this, that in 1 Corinthians 7 Paul permits the believer not to be separated from the unbelieving spouse. For if by divine law the Matrimony of a believer with an unbeliever were void, how would blessed Paul permit Christians to remain in such a joining, which would without doubt be fornication?
But this reason seems not only not evident, but not even solid. For the Apostle does not permit the believer to contract with an unbeliever, but permits a Matrimony contracted with an unbeliever not to be broken by the conversion of the other spouse. And it does not follow that, if difference of worship does not break a Matrimony contracted before, it does not break by divine law even after the contract. For all impediments have this proper, that they break if they themselves go before; they do not break if they follow. For impotence of coming together, and the solemn vow of continence, and others of that kind, if they go before Matrimony, so hinder it as to make it void if it is made; but if they come upon it after a Matrimony lawfully contracted, they can by no means break it. Just as at this time too difference of worship, at least by ecclesiastical law, breaks a Matrimony after it is contracted; and yet if it comes upon a Matrimony lawfully contracted, as if one of the faithful spouses becomes a pagan, or if one of the unbelievers is converted, the marriage is not broken, even by ecclesiastical law, at least by the fact itself.
That reason being passed over, then, that difference of worship is not a breaking impediment by natural law is proved, first, because it does not altogether take away the end of Matrimony, although it hinders it in some way. For from such a marriage offspring can be born, and be instructed even in religion, although with more difficulty, and so on; and it can sometimes happen that neither the education nor the peace is hindered in any way, as if the other spouse cares nothing for religion, or is well disposed toward the faith. In which case not only will there be no impediment or any danger to the believing spouse, but there will also be great hope of drawing the other to the faith; and then (if positive law does not stand in the way) reason dictates that such a marriage is not evil but good.
Second, it is proved by the examples of the saints, who without doubt would not have been joined to unbelievers if that Matrimony were void by the law of nature. And there are examples extant in the law of nature, in the written law and in the law of grace. In the law of nature, Jacob took as wives the daughters of Laban, an idolater; Joseph the daughter of Putiphar, an Egyptian; Moses the daughter of Jethro, an Ethiopian. In the written law Esther married Assuerus, king of the Persians, a heathen; and Solomon took as wife the daughter of Pharao; and David took the daughter of the king of Gessur, 2 Kings 3. In the law of grace Jerome testifies, book 1 against Jovinian, and Augustine, in the book On Faith and Works, chapter 19, that in their time such marriages were very frequent in the Church; and although they were blamed by the Fathers, yet they were not broken; nor is it probable that they would have been tolerated if they had not been true marriages.
Moreover, St. Monica had a pagan husband, by the testimony of Augustine, book 9 of the Confessions, chapter 9; and the Christian Clotilde married Clovis, king of the Franks, a heathen, by the testimony of Gregory of Tours, book 2 of the History, chapter 28. And each was pious, and converted her husband to the faith; but it cannot be that they were pious women and lived in perpetual fornication.
That it is not a breaking impediment by positive divine law either is proved: for in the New Testament there is no such precept. For the words of Paul, “only in the Lord,” and “Bear not the yoke with unbelievers,” prove only that one ought not to contract with unbelievers, but do not prove that the Matrimony is void.
And in the Old Testament there is not found a precept so forbidding marriages with unbelievers as to make them void, except in Esdras, book 1, chapters 9 and 10. For there we read that, Esdras interpreting the law of the Lord given by Moses in Deuteronomy, the sons of Israel were separated from the unbelieving wives whom they had taken. But that precept, inasmuch as it made marriages void, was judicial, not natural, and therefore ceased with the rest, and does not belong to Christians. And that it was judicial is gathered from this, that it forbade only the marriages of the Jews with the unbelievers dwelling in the land of Chanaan, whom God willed to be altogether slain and destroyed, but not with the other unbelievers.
Whence Esther lawfully married the gentile Assuerus, and Solomon took as wife the daughter of Pharao. Nor does it stand in the way that in book 1 of Esdras, chapter 9, the Egyptians are numbered among the nations whose marriages were forbidden to the Jews: for Esdras speaks of the Egyptians who dwelt in the land of Chanaan, not of others, as Cajetan noted.
Now that difference of worship is not a breaking impediment on account of some certain law of the Church is proved, because no such law is extant. For what we cited above from the councils does not prove that the Matrimony is void if it is made between a believer and an unbeliever, but only that it ought not to be made. For the councils of Chalcedon and Agde place by name among the unbelievers the heretics too, and yet by the common consent of Catholics a Matrimony with a heretic is not void. And the Fourth Council of Toledo does indeed command spouses to be separated, but speaks only of Jews, and in Spain; for that council was not universal but national, wherefore it could not give a law to the whole Church.
Third proposition: Matrimony between a believer and an unbaptized unbeliever is void by the custom of the Christian people, which has obtained the force of law. It is proved: for for at least four hundred years it has been believed in the Christian Church without any controversy that these marriages are null. For the Master of the Sentences, in book 4, distinction 39, and Gratian, cause 28, question 1, and thereafter all the theologians and canonists, have handed this down as a thing examined and received from their elders. Since, then, the whole Church for many ages has believed and kept this, and yet no certain law is found, it is necessary that it was introduced little by little, and that custom obtained the force of law.
And that this custom, or this law, cannot be disapproved can be shown by two arguments. First, by the example of the law. For if in the old law difference of worship was a breaking impediment, at least within certain nations, certainly with greater reason difference of worship could become a breaking impediment among Christians; for the Christian law is more perfect. And moreover the difference of worship between Christians and unbelievers is greater than between Jews and unbelievers. For the Christian law is necessary for salvation to all; and those who are not Christians are strangers to God, and to the Church and divine religion. But the law of the Hebrews was not necessary to all, and many among the gentiles could be saved while the law was in force; wherefore the gentiles were not outside the Church of God by this alone, that they did not belong to the people of Israel.
Second: Matrimony among Christians is a sacrament; therefore it ought not to be given by Christians to those persons who cannot receive the sacraments. There was therefore the greatest cause for making void the marriages of the faithful with unbelievers; for an unbaptized unbeliever is capable of no sacrament. And this is also the reason why marriages with heretics have not been made void: because, namely, they can be sacraments by reason of the preceding Baptism in each spouse.
Fourth proposition: The supreme pontiff can, if a cause requires it, dispense with a believer so that he may contract Matrimony with an unbeliever. This proposition follows from the foregoing. For if it is a question of the precept making such marriages void, there is no doubt that the supreme pontiff can dispense in it, since that precept is not natural, nor positive divine, but plainly ecclesiastical.
But if it is a question of the precept simply forbidding, of which we spoke in the first proposition, that precept is either positive or natural. If it is natural, it does not bind except in so far as right reason dictates that it is not to be done, either on account of the danger of being overthrown, or for other causes. Wherefore, those causes ceasing, such a marriage is not against the law of nature, especially when the declaration of the supreme pastor is added; whence also Esther (as we said above), and Joseph, Jacob, Moses and other holy men were joined in Matrimony with unbelievers, because the reason of danger ceased, and so on. But if it is a positive human precept, such as that of the apostle Paul and of the councils, the successor of the pontiffs can dispense in it, the danger ceasing and a just cause requiring it. And a positive divine precept there is none, as we showed above; for that of Deuteronomy 7, inasmuch as it was positive, has now been abrogated; and inasmuch as it was in some way natural, it does not bind, as we said, except when right reason judges that there is present that danger on account of which the precept was given.
And hence all the arguments are solved which are made by the heretics, or even can be made: for they can bring, and do bring, nothing but the examples of those faithful who, either in the old law or in the new, contracted marriages with unbelievers.
To which answer must be made in one of four ways. For either the examples belong to those to whom such marriages were forbidden by no particular law, but only by the law of nature according to right reason in certain cases; and such were Jacob, Joseph, Esther and so on. Or to those who took wives who were indeed gentiles but were being converted to the faith; for this was always lawful. And in this way Salmon took Rahab the harlot of Palestine, and Booz Ruth the Moabitess, and so on; for they came over to the faith and the Jewish religion, although otherwise they were of the nations with whom it was not lawful for the Jews to contract marriages. Or to those who are openly blamed for having celebrated marriages with gentiles against the law. And among these was Solomon, who in 3 Kings 11 is greatly reproved by divine Scripture for having taken Moabite, Ammonite and Chanaanite wives against the law; among these too are to be numbered the Christians who are gravely blamed for this by the holy Fathers, as we showed above from Cyprian, Ambrose and Jerome. Or lastly to those whom ignorance and an introduced custom perhaps excused. And in this number seems to be placed St. Monica, the mother of blessed Augustine; for in her time the custom had so prevailed that it was not thought a sin to join marriages with gentiles, as Augustine testifies in the book On Faith and Works, chapter 19.
And so St. Monica, whose example the heretics make so much of, was perhaps excused from sin by ignorance and the custom of her country; or certainly she cleansed it by penance and tears; nor ought she to have broken the Matrimony once contracted, because the custom of the faithful people had not yet placed difference of worship among the breaking impediments, as it did afterward.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXIII.
De cuUus disparilale.
Allerum impcdimcnlum esl cultus disparitas.
Calholici enim commuiii consensu docent, Matri-
monia lidelium cuin inlidelibus non baptizalis, non
solum esse illicila, sed etiam irrita: cum haereti-
cis autcm baplizatis illicita esse, non tamen ir-
rita.
Lutherus autem in lib. de capliv. babylon. cap.
de Matriraonio, lioc impedimentum non admittil,
ncctamen aliud argumentum adrert,nisi quiaDeus
haec Malrimonia Christianis prohibuisse non iegi-
lur.cl quia b. Monica s. Auguslini maler virum ha-
buit inndelem.Idcm eliam repelit,cum in serm.de
Matrimonio,tura iii cxposilione septimi capilis.prio-
ris ad Corinthios. Philippus eliam Molanchthon ia
locis, lil. de conjugio, licel falcatur bono animo
ab Ecclesia haec Matrimonia fuisse prohibita : vel-
let tamcn non adeo rigide haec observari, ut ca-
tholici poslulanl.
Sit igitur propositio Prima: Non licel fidelibus
cum infldelibus, aitl clia.m haereiicis illalrimonia
jungcrc. Probatur Piimo ex vcrbo Dei,Deutor. 7.
Deus prohibuit populo suo Malrimonia jnngere
cum gcnlilibus. Et quamvis praeceptum illud sit
judiciale, et solos Judaeos proprie obligaverit, ta-
men habet aliquid eliam moralis, ct ad oinncs per-
tinet, si caussa inspicialur: nam caussam-reddit
planc moralem.quac eliam nunc locum hnhel-.Quia
seducet, inquit, fUiiim luuni ne sequatur me,
et ut magis scrvial diis alienis, et 3. Beg. 11.
iibi idem praeceplum ropelilur , addit Deus :
Ccrtissime avcrtent corda vcslra , ut sequami-
ni deos alicnos , ct ibidem addilur , Salomo-
nem contra hoc praeceptum egisse, el illi con-
tinno accidisse; quod Dcus praedixerat: depra-
vatus enira per uxores illas ethnicas, adoravil ca-
rum idola. Et sane si vir sapicntissimus, et qui
multas alias uxores habebat,per nova illa conjugia
cum gentibus ita perverli potuil.ul singularum de-
os colerel: quanlum periculum iis imminet, qui
unara lantum, eamque ethnicam, vel haereticam
I
Liiii:i; PHiMus s&«
ducunl, cl qui nullo modo sunt cum Salomono iii liir GenliUbus , cl templa Chrisli idolis pro-
prudenlin, ct sapienlia comparandi? sliliml.
Deinde verbum illud h. Pauli l. Corinlli. 7. Cui S, Angslinus videlur in liac ro dubius haesisse.
vuU nubal,tanium iiiDomim: praeceplum cssede IVam in lib. I. ad PollenUum cap. 21. referlsenlen-
Malrimonio non jungondi). nisi cum fidelibus; do- liam Pollcnlii, quod in ulroque 'leslauicnlo prolii-
cenl inlcrprelcs. Iiujus loci lerc omnes, ul Ambro- biluni sil, Malrimonium fidclibus ciiiu inlidclibus
sius, Theodorelus, Thcophylaclus, Ansclmus, Sc- jungcre:quae verba magislcr in lib. 4. senlenliar.
dulius, s.Thomas, Cajclanus,et alii: cl praelerea dislincl. IM). lamquam hk Auguslini scnlcnlia rc-
TerluUianus in Iib. 2, ad uxorem, et Ilieronymus fcrt,cum rcvera cx Pulleulii.non ex Auguslini scn-
lib. 1. adversus Jovinianum. tenlia accipienda sinl. Deinde cap. 25. ex senlen-
Deniquc Auguslinus lib. 1. de adullcrinis conju- lia sua Ioquens,tautum dicit non inveniri lcslimo-
giis cap.25. hanc cxposilioncm admillit,Iicel eliam nium in Teslamenlo uovnjn quo sinc ainbiguilalc
alilcr,exponi possc dical.sio enim ail.illud: In Do- ojusmodi conjugia prohibcanlur, quamvis falcalur
m\no,duobusmodispolestinteUigi: aul Clirislia- Cypriarmm nihil dubitasse, quin illicila cssent ea
110 nubens, aul Christiana permanens. Sed po- coujugia.In lihro vero de fidc cl opcribus cap. 19.
sterior expositio non videlur ita probabilis, ui itcrum rcpclil,in Scripluris novi Testamenli sc non
prior: non enim dubium esse poteral, quin Uii- rcpcrisse dc hac ro certum tcslimoniuni, tamctsi
citum esset, nubendo apostalarc a fide: inimo id Cyprianus inter gravissima crimina pt)siierit, cuni
tam perspicuum,etnotinnestomnibus, ut ptanc infidelibus jungero 3Iatrimonia. Sed lanlcm con-
iyupervacaneum vidcatur de ea rc Clirisiianos. cIudil,omnino cavcndas cssc cjusmodi conjuuclio-
monere. ries, quia expedil iu rc dubia iuliorcm partcm so-
Est etiam alius locus,2. Corinth.6. A^oitVejuflfiim qui: Om?ii"modo, inquit. cona?idu7u est, nc fiant
duce?'e cjtm t7j/i(ie/(^i<s.qucm s. Ilicronymus, cum talcs conjunctiones: quid cnim opus est in tan-
in lib. 1. iu Joviuianum,lum in epist.ad Geronliam tum discrimen ambiyuilutis caput mUlerc.
de monogamia,exponit de conjugio cum inlidelibus Itaquc ex Auguslino habemus, ut minimum ista
nun jungendo. A'cque huic exposilioni rcpugiiat Matrimonla esse dubia. cl proinde non conlrahen-
Theophylaclus ct alii, qui generalim expouunt de da. Nec lamen si Auguslino dubilare licuil, nobis
commercio vilando cum infidelibus: si enim com- quoque licebit, cum nos Pauli senlenliam habea-
mercium cum iufidelibus inlerdicilur, certe con- mus a pluribus interprelibus explicalam.mulla el-
jiigiuin, quod esl commerciinii ouinium maximum iam lestimouia conciliorum et Palruui, quae ipso
et pcriculosissimum, inlcrdicitur. viderat:et dcnique omnium thcologorum. qui posl
Secundo probalur cx conciliis. Kxlat canon 13. magislrum scripserunt,atque adeo tolius Ecclcsiae
concilii gencralis chaIccdoiieusis,ubi pi'ohibenlur conscnsum loncamus.
coiijugia cum haorelicis, Judaois clPaganis. Exlat Quarto probalur ralionc. Malrimonium fidelibus
ilem concilii agalhcnsis can.07. ubi habcntur haec cum infidcli multa sccum adforl incommoda, alquo
verba:iVo?i oporlet eum liominibus haerelicis mi- damna; non igilur licilum censori debel. Anlcce-
f^cere connubia, ct vel [Uios, vcl (Uias iUis dare. dons probalur.iNam in primis periculum.cl (]uidem
Concilium ilem toletanum III. can. 11. pruhibet , gravissimum adfcrt fidoli, aposlatandi a vera fide:
ne Judaei uxorom christianam habeaut, et lolola- El qui amat periculum, peribilin illo, Ecclcsia-
num IV. canoii 01. jubel llohracos cum Christianis slici .l.Doinde^proIes non potcril commodo cducari
.■^lalrimonio conjuiiclos. aul Chrislianos lieri, aut in vcra religionc. Adhaec vix polcrit in donio pax
iib uxoribus snparari. Exlal ctiam in jure civili C. et Iranquillitas illa inveniri, quac ad conjugium
i\{i hi(]n('.\s. \. yc quis Christianam.L(i\ Valonli- requiritur, siquidom dissensio circa r(digionem,
niani (,'l Thoudosii,quae ut adulloria, punit conjii- conlcnlinuos el jurgia, odium cliam ol alionalio-
gia Judaoorum cum Chrislianis. et in C. TIkhxIo- nom animorum gignil. Dcnique. ul Tcilullianus
siano lib. 3. til. H. simililor puniuntur Malrimonia co[)ioso domonstrat, si marilus sit infidclis, faciic
liomaiiorum cum Conlilihus. impediol omiiia exorcilia piolalis, quae alioqui u-
Torlio probalur ox l'alribus. Tertullianns iii 2. xor chrisliaiia exliil)(M'o loiiolur.
lib. ad uxorem, loiiga (lispulalione hoc agil. non Secunda proposilio: Iflalrimonium inlcr fidc-
o|)()rlcro Chiislianos, vol Chrisliauas cum iufi(I(di- lem cl infidclemnon csl irrilum jiire dirino. na-
Lus conlrahero Malrimonia. S. Cyprianus in sorm. turali, vel positivo, vcl ccrla aliqua lcijc KccJc-
<le lapsis, inler alia crimina fidelium inimcral, siae.Qiiodnon jurodivino.probari exislimaiilDomi-
jungore ciim infidclibus Malrimonia: idquo esse nicus aSoto(ui ipsc loquilur in i.disl..'5().(|uaoslio-
dicit,proslituero Gonlilibus mcnibra Chiisli.S.Ain- no unica art. 2.) cvidoiilor ox eo,quO(l I. Corinlh.
brosius lib.1. do Abraham cap.D. Cavc Christianc. 7. Paiilus pormillil fi(l(dom non scparari a coiiiugc
inquil. Geniiti, aut Judaeo (iiiam tuam tradcrc; iulideli. Si cnim juro divino Malrimoiiiuiu lidclis
cave Gcnliiem, aut Judaeayn, alque alicni<jcnam, cuiu irifideli irrilum ossct.quomodo h Paulus por-
hoc est.iiacreticAim.ct omnem aiic.nam a fidc tua, millorel, in lali coiijuiiclioiio.ipiac foniicaiia sino
uxorem accersas tibi. Kt iii epi.^l. 70. (|uae est duhio essot, Chrislianos permanerc?
prima lib. 9. ad Vigilium, iusliluit novum episco- At ista ralio iioii solum non evi(lens,scd nec so-
imin, ut plobom siiam docoat summopcro cavere lida osse videliir.AposloIus cnim non p«^rmillil li-
Miilrimonia cum inrKlclihiis. S. Ilioronymus iu 1. d(dom ciim inlidcli conlrahor^;, sed Matiimoiiium
«idversus Jovinianum : At nunc pteraeque, in- cum inlidcdi conlrarlum permiltit non dirimi por
quil, contemncnlis A])Osloli jussioncm . .iunfiun' convcrsionom alloriiis conjugis. Non cst aiilem
8J0
l)K SACllAMKNK» .MA I IU.Mo.Ml
conscqiions, iit si oiillii.s (li.spiiril;is, luiii (liiimni
.M.ilrimoiiiuiu, jure (liviiio anloa (■uiilnicium: iioii
(lirimat eliam posl fonlradiim. Nam imix-dimcnta
(iiiiiiKMUia Ii0(- pro|)iiiim linhmil.iil iliriinaiit si ipsa
piacoedaiil; ikui ilirimaiit.si se(]iiaiilur. ImpoliMitia
eiiim coiHindi, ol Vdtum S(t|eiiino eontiiienliae, el
alia i(l irenus si praeceilaiit .Malrinionium, illinl ila
impodiuiil, iil irrilum reddaiil. si lial: al si super-
xenianl post Matrimoninni legitime eonlrartum,
illud dirimere nec|ua(piani possuiil. Sieiil eliain
lioc lenipore eulliis disparila^. sallem jure eecie-
siaslico, dirimit .Matrinuuiium posl eoiiiiacliim: et
tainen si snporvenial post Matrimoniuni lej^ilimc
eonlraclum.ut si altcr eoiijii^iiim rid(diiim (iat pa-
^Miius, vel si aller iiiGdelium converlalur.non di-
rimilur conjugiuin , eliain jurc ccclesiastico, sal-
lem ipso raclo.
Illa i^ilur ralione omissa, quod non sil cullus
(iisparilas impcdimcnlum diriiiiens jurc naUirali,
probatur Priino. qnia iion lollit omnino linem Ma-
Irimonii, licel aliquo niodo impedial. IVam cx lali
eoiijugio proles nasci polest. el inslilui cliain in
religionc.licel dillicilius ele. ct aliquando accidcrc
poiesl, ul non eliam impedialur ullo modo educa-
lio, ncquc pa.x. ut, si nltcr conjujium de rcligione
niliil eurel, aul bene sil aiTeelus ergii (idem. Quo
casu non modo non erit impcdimenlum aul pericu-
lum ullum conjugi fideli. sed eliam eril magna
spes Irahciidi aiicrum ad fidenKlunc autem (si non
obslet jus i)osilivum) ratio dictal conjugium ejus-
niodi non csse maluui, scd bonum.
Sticundo probatur e.xrmplis sanclorum.qui sine
dubio infidclibus conjuncli iion (uissenl.si idftlalri-
monium jure nalurac irrilum esset. E.xlant aulem
c.\empla in lege nalurac, in legc scripla el in lege
graliae. In loge nalurae, Jacob u.xorcs duxit lilias
I-aban idololalrae; loseph fili;im Pulipliaris aegy-
piiam: Moyses filiain Jelro acihiopissam. In lege
scripla Eslber nupsil Assuero regi Persarum elhni-
co; el Salomon uxorem duxil filiam Pharaonis; el
David accopil filiarn regis Gessur, 2. Regnm 3. In
lege graliac leslanlur llieronymus lib.l. in Jovinia-
num, ct Augusliuus lib. de fide el operibus cap.
10. suo lempore fuisse frcquenlissima in Ecclesia
ejusinodi conjugia; el qiiamvis a Palribus repre-
liondcbanlnr, lamcn non diriinebanlur, nec csl
IMobabilc fuisse lolerala, si vera Mulrimonia non
luissenl.
Praeterea: Sancla Monica virum liabuil paga-
num, lcsle Auguslino lib, 9. Coufession. cap. 9.et
Clolildis cbristiana nupsit Clodoveo regi Francorum
elhnico, lcste Gregerio Turonico lib. 2. hisl. cap.
2H. Ulraque aulem pia cral,cl virum ad fidem con-
verlil: non polesl autcm fieri ul piae focminae es-
scnt, Gl in pcrpelua fornicalione vivcrent.
Quod non sil etiam impcdimenlurn dirimens ju-
rc divino posilivo, probalur: nam in Testamento
novo, non exslat tale praeceptum. Verba enim
Pauli: TanLim in Domino. Et: Nolile jiigum du-
cere cum in(ldelibus. iion probanl, nisi non csse
eonlrahendum cum in(idelibus:non auleraprobanl,
Malrimonium essc irrilum.
In Toslamenlo nolem veleri non invenilur prae-
copium ila prohibcns conjugia cum inndolibus,ut
oa roddcrcnliir irrila, nisi apud Esdram. lib.l.cap.
9. et 10. Ibi cuim logimus , Ksdra iiiterprotanlc
legoin Doniini in Deulcronomio a Moysc lalam,se-
paralos fuisse lilios israi-l a conjugibiis iiilideliuus
(pias duxo.ranl. Sed illiid praeco|)luin (pialcnus ir-
rilans Malrimonia, judiciale fuil, iion naluralc, cl
idco cessavil ouin oaeteris, ikmiuc ad Chrislianos
perlinet. Kuisse aiilom iudiciale. ex co colligilur,
quod solum prohibiio.rii oonjiigia Judaeoruurcuni
iiilidclibus habitanlibus in lerra Clianaam, quos
Deus omnino iiilcrlici , el delcri volebal: non au-
leni ouin infidclilnis caoloris.
Unde Eslher legilimc nupsil Assucro gcnlili, et
Saloinon accepit in uxorcm iiliam Pharaonis. Ne-
(luc obslat, quod lib. 1. Esdrae cap. 9. inter Gcn-
tes, (luaruin connubia Judueis crant proliibila,nu-
meranlur Aegyplii: loquilurenim Ksdras de Acgy-
pliis. qui liabilabant in lcrra Chanaam, non dc u-
liis, ul Cajelunus annolavil.
Jam vero quod non sit ruUus disparitas impedi-
moiitum dirimens, ob ccrlain aliquam lcgem Ec-
clcsiae, probatur, quia nnlla exslut talis lcx. Quae
cniin nos supra ciluvimus ex conciliis, non pro-
bant Malrimonium esse irritum, si lial intcr fide-
lem el infidelcm, sedtanlum non esse fucicndum.
Naiii conciliuin cluilcedouciise el agulhense inler
infideles nominalim ponunl etiam haercticos, el
lamon communi consonsu calholicoruin, Jlalrimo-
niuiii cutn haeretico non est irrilum. Conciliuni
aulem lulclanum IV. jubet quidein scparuri con-
juges, sed non loquilur nisi de Judaeis, el in Ili-
spania ncquc cnim concilium illud universale,sed
nalionale fuil,quare legcm loli Ecclesiae darc nori
poluil.
Tertia propositio: Malrimonium inler (idelem,
el infidelem non bapiizatum,irriium est ex more
populi ChrislLani, vimlegis ohlinente. Probalur;
nam ab annis, ut minimum 400. sine ulla contro-
versia credilum est in Ecclesia chrisliana,isla Ma-
trimonia esse nulla. Nam et magisler senlenlia-
rum in lib. 4. dist. 39. etGralianus 28. quaest. 1.
el deinceps omnes Iheologi ct canonislae tamquam
rem exploratam ct a majoribus acceptam hoc Ira-
didcrunl. Cum igilur tota Ecclesia a mullisjam
saeculis id crcdi(Jeril et servaverit, et lamen certa
aliqua lex non inveniatur, necessc est, ul id pau-
lalim sit introduclum, ct consuetudo vim iegis ob-
tinueril.
Non possc aulein huncmorem, sive hanclegem
improbari, duobus argumenlis demonstrari potesl.
Primo, exemplo legis. Si enim in lege velcri cul-
tus dispurilas erat impcdimenlnm dirimcns saltem
inlra certas noliones, cerle majori ralione poluit
ficri cullus disparilas impedimenlum dirimens a-
pud Clirislianos:nam lex chrisliana perfectior est.
Et Praclerea major est cullus disparitas interChri-
slianos et infideles, quam inter Judaeos et infide-
les. Nam chrisliana lex omnibus est ad salulem
necessaria; et qui Clirisliani non sunt, alieni sunt
a Dco, et ab Ecclesia ac religione divina. At lex
Hcbraeorum non erat omnibus necessaria , multi-
que inler Genles salvari polerant. dum icx vigerel:
quare non erant Gcnlilcs extra Ecclesiam Dei per
hoc so!um,quod ad populum Israel non perlinebanl.
.iDEn pni.MLs
s:)7
Seciindo: Malrimoniiim apud Chrislianos sacra-
racnlum est, ergo non debel a Christianis, illis
personis Iribui. qui sacramenla susciperc nequc-
unt. Ergo maxima fuil caussa irrilandi Matrimonia
fidelium cum infulelibus: non enim infidelis non
baplizatus ullius sacramenti capax est. El haec el-
iam ralio est, cur Matrimonia cum haerelicis irri-
lala non sinl, quia vidclicel s;icramenla esse pos-
sunlralione praecedentis Baplismi in utroque con-
juge.
Quarta Proposilio. Poiesi siimmuspontifex, si
caiissa idposlulet. cum (ideli dispcnsare, iil cuni
infideliMatrimonium contrakatAhQC proposilio cx
superioribus sequilur. Si enim agalur de praeceplo
irrilunte ejusuiodi Matrimonia, dubium non est,
quin in eo summus pontifex dispensare possil.cum
id praeccptum non sil naturale, nec divinum posi-
livum, sed piane ecclesiaslicum.
Si vcro agatur de praecepto simpllciler prolii-
benle, de quo diximus in prima proposilione, id
praeceplum vel esl positivum, vel naturale: Si est
nalurale non obligat nisi quatenus rocla ralio dictat
id non esse faciendum,vel ob periculum subversio-
nis, vel ob alias caussas. Quare cessanlibus illis
caussis, non esl conlra jus nalurae ejusmodi con-
jugium, praesertim accedentc declaralione summi
pasloris:unde etiam Esther (ul supra diximus), et
Joseph, Jacob, Moyses,et alii viri sancli cun infide-
libus 3Iairimonio juncli sunl, quia ccssabat ralio
periculi etc. Si vero esl praeceplum posilivum liu-
manum, ul apostoli Pauli, el conciliorum ac ponti-
ficum aliorum successor in eo dispensare,ccssanle
periculo.el jusla caussa id poslulanle. Praeceptum
aulem positivum divinum, nullum est, ut supra os-
lendimus: illud enim Deuleron. 7. quatenus posi-
tivum, jara est abrogatum; qualenus autem aliciuo
modo naluralc eral, non obligal, ut diximus, nisi
quando ralio recla judical inessc periculum illud,
ob quod praeceptum dalum esl.
Alquehinc solvunlur omiiia argumenta. qune
fmnl ab haerelicis, vel etiam fieri possunl: iiihil
enim adferre possunt, nequc adferunl, nisi cxem-
pla eorum fidelium, qui vel in lege antiqua, vel
in lege nova, Matrimonia cum inndelibus coiilra-
xeruut.
Ad quae uno ex quatuor modis respondendum
csl. Vel enim exem[)Ia ad cos perlinent, qiiil)us
nulla lege parliculari, scd sohim lege naluiae se-
cundum reclara ralionem in ccrlis casibus lalia Ma-
trimonia prohibebanlur, ct talis fucrunt, Jiicdb,
Joseph,Eslher elc. Vel ad eos, (pii uxorcs gculiics
quideni, scd quae ad fidem converlcb;intur, duxe-
runl: id enim sempcr fuit licitum. El hoc uiodo
Salmon duxil R;i;ib merelricem cx INilacslina, vX
Booz lUiLh Moabitidem ctc.illae siquidem ad li-lein
et religionem judaicam accesscrunl, licet alioqui
csseiil ex Genlibus,cum quibus noii licebat Jiid;ie-
is coiitr;diere M;ilrimoiiia. Vcl ad eos, (|ui ;iperle
reprchendunlur,(piod contra legem cumGenlilihus
coiiju^^ia celcbr;ivcrinl. Et iii his fuil S;iIonioii, (pii
3. lleg. 11. valde argiiitur;i diviii;i Scriplur;i, ipiod
uxores Moabilid;is. Ammonilidas el (]h;iii;i;initid;is
contr;i legcm duxcrit: in his cliam numerandi siiiil
Chrisli;ini, qui proiilerca gr;ivil(U' a sanclis P.ilri-
l!i:i.r,AR.MiNi. Vol. ill.
bus reprelicndunlur, ul cx Cypriano. Amlirosio
elHieroiiymo .Mipra demonstravimus. Vel deniquc
ad eos, quos igiiorantia, et introducta consuetudo
forlasse excusnbat. Et in Iioc numero ponenda vi-
detur sancla !\loni ca mater b. Atiguslini:nam cjiis
tempore it;i iiiv;ilucrat consueludo, ut peccatum
non pularetur cum Gentilibus jungere Malrimo-
nia,ul Augustinus leslalur lib. de fide, el opcribus
cap. 19.
llaque s. Monica, cujus cxemplum haerclici tan-
li faciunt , ignoranlia el more patri;ie a peecalo
forlasse excusabatur; vel cerle pocnilenlia el I;i-
chrymis illud purgavil: ncque debuil M;ilrimo-
nium semel conlractum dirimere, quia nondiim
mos populi fidclis cultus dispiirilatcm inter impc-
dimcnla dirimenlia reposucrat, ul postca fecil.