The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide: the First Epistle to the Corinthians
It is worth our notice what Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople , writes, in his exposition of the Council of Florence (Sess. v.) of Theophilus, a heretic and not a heathen emperor, son of Michael the Stammerer, who was saved by the prayers of his wife Augusta. He had made an onslaught on images, and his mouth was in consequence so violently pulled open that men might see down his throat. This brought him to his senses, and he kissed the holy image. Shortly afterwards he was taken away to appear before the tribunal of God, and through the prayers offered for him by his wife he received pardon ; for the queen in her sleep saw a vision of Theophilus bound and being dragged by a vast multitude, going before and following. Before him were borne different instruments of torture, and she saw those following who were being led to punishment until they came into the presence of the terrible Judge, and before Him Theophilus was placed. Then Augusta threw herself at the feet of the Dread Judge, and with many tears besought Him earnestly for her husband. The terrible Judge said to her : “ O woman, great is thy faith ; for thy sake, and because of the prayers of thy priests, I pardon thy husband.” Then He said to His servants : “ Loose him, and deliver him to his wife.” It is also said that the Patriarch Methodius, having collected and written down the names of all kinds of heretics, including Theophilus, placed the roll under the holy table. Then in the same night on which the queen saw the vision, he too saw a holy angel entering the great temple, and saying, “ O Bishop, thy prayers are heard, and Theophilus has found pardon.” On awaking from sleep he went to the holy table, and, oh ! the unsearchable judgment of God, he found the name of Theophilus blotted out. Cf. also Baronius.
Else were your children unclean . If you were to put away a wife that believed not, your children would be looked upon as having been born in unlawful wedlock, and as therefore illegitimate. But, as it is, they are holy, i.e., clean — conceived and born in honourable and lawful wedlock. So Ambrose, Anselm, Augustine (de Peccat. Mentis, lib. ii. c. 26). In the second place they would be strictly unclean, because they would be enticed into infidelity, and educated in it by the unbelieving parent, who had sought for the divorce through hatred of his partner ; and especially if it is the father that is the unbeliever, for in such cases the children for the most part follow the father. But if the believer remain in wedlock with the unbeliever, the children are holy , because, with the tacit permission of the unbeliever, they can easily be sanctified, baptized, and Christianly educated through the faith, the diligence, and care of the believer. So S. Augustine (de Peccat. Mentis . lib. iii. c. 12), and after Tertullian, S. Jerome (ad Paulin. Ep. 153). It is from this passage that Calvin and Beza have gathered their doctrine of imputed righteousness, teaching that the children of believers are strictly holy, and can be saved without baptism. They say that by the very fact that they are children of believers they are regarded as being born in the Church, according to the Divine covenant in Gen. xvii. 7 : 41 I will be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee.” Similarly, in the Civil Law, when one parent is free the children are born free.
But these teachers err. For (1.) the Apostle says equally that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife. But it is not precisely correct to say that such a man is sanctified through his wife; neither, therefore, is it strictly true of the child. (2.) The Church is not a civil but a supernatural republic, and in it no one is born a Christian ; but by baptism, which has taken the place of circumcision , every one is spiritually born again and is made holy, not civilly but really, by faith, hope, and charity infused into his soul. This is the mind of the Fathers and the whole Church. (3.) It is said absolutely in S. John iii. 5, that “except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” It is therefore untrue that any one not born of water, but merely of believing parents, can enter into the kingdom of God.
Ver. 15. — But if the unbelieving depart , let him depart. If the unbeliever seek for a dissolution of the marriage, or will not live with his partner without doing injury to God, by endeavouring to draw her away to unbelief or to some wickedness, or by uttering blasphemy against God, or Christ, or the faith, then, as Sanchez lays down from the common consent of the Doctors of the Church (vol. ii. disp. 74), he by so acting is rightly regarded to wish for a separation ; then let the believer depart from the unbelieving, because it is better, says S. Chrysostom, to be divorced from one's husband than from God.
Observe that the Apostle in this case allows a separation, not only a toro but also a vinculo ; and therefore the believer may contract another marriage, this being a concession made by Christ in favour of the faith ; otherwise a Christian man or woman would be subject to slavery. For it is a grievous slavery to be bound in matrimony to an unbeliever, so as not to be able to marry another, and to be bound to live a life of celibacy, even if the unbeliever depart. So S. Augustine (de Adulter. Conjug. lib. i. c. 13), S. Thomas, and S. Ambrose, who says : “The marriage obedience is not owing to him who scoffs at the Author of marriage, but in such case remarriage is lawful.”
Further, many doctors, cited by Henriquez (de Matrim. lib. xi. c. 8), amongst whom is S. Augustine (de Adulter. Conjug. lib. i. c. xix.), gather from this verse and from verse 12 that the believer whose unbelieving partner is not willing to be converted, even though he may be willing to live with her without injury to God, has by this very fact a right to enter upon a new marriage. But S. Paul and the Canonical decrees (cap. Quanto , cap. Gaudemus , tit. de Divort., and cap. Si Infidelis 28, qu. 2) only deal with the case where the unbeliever wishes to depart, or where he is a blasphemer against the faith. And, therefore, other doctors, cited by Henriquez, think that in this case it is lawful for the believer to marry again. And this opinion is the more sound not only for the reason given above, but also because the Fathers who support the first opinion rely on glosses on the various capitula, which are merely glosses of Orleans, and if anything darken the text.
Moreover, no gloss by itself can be the foundation of a right,
or of a new law. Since, therefore, it is agreed that the marriage of unbelievers is true marriage, and that it is not dissolved by the conversion of either party, because there is no law of God or of the Church to dissolve it, it follows that they must hold to their contract , which by its very nature is indissoluble. This is strengthened by the consideration that each party possesses good faith ; therefore it cannot be set aside, unless it is agreed that either or both have no right to this marriage, or that one loses his right through the conversion of the other. This, however, is not agreed on, but is highly doubtful. In matters of doubt the position of the possessor is the stronger, and he ought not to be ousted from it because of any doubt that may arise.
Nevertheless, Sanchez adds (disp. 74, num. 9) that it is lawful for the believer to marry again, because it is now forbidden by the Church to live with an unbeliever who will not be converted, because of the danger of perversion which exists nearly always. The unbeliever is then looked upon as having departed, because he refuses to live with the believer in a lawful and proper manner. But Sanchez means that the Church now forbids in general a believer to continue to live with an unbeliever. But this is denied by others ; for though the Fourth Council of Toledo forbids a believer to live with an unbeliever if he is a Jew, this was done merely because of the obstinate tenacity of the Jews to their creed. Neither here nor elsewhere is marriage with a heathen forbidden.
Moreover, the Council of Toledo was merely local, and this same canon has been differently interpreted by different authors, as Sanchez says (disp. 73, num . 6). And in truth it would be hard and a just cause of offence if, in India, China, and Japan, when the faith is first preached, Christians should be compelled to put away the wives that they had married when unbelievers, or if wives should be compelled to leave their husbands who were unwilling to be converted to Christianity, especially when they were in high position ; for occasion would be taken from thence to exterminate Christians and their faith. The case is different in Spain and amongst Christians, where the Church might, without causing scandal, enact this, either by a general law (which as a matter of fact does not exist, as I have said), or by use and custom, by forbidding individuals in particular to remain in marriage with one that was not a believer, because of the danger of perversion. Such a precept it would be the duty of the believer to obey, and therefore it would not be he that was in fault, but the unbeliever, who, by refusing to live in marriage, according to the law binding on the believing partner and the precept of the Church, becomes the cause of the separation. By so acting, the unbeliever will be reckoned to wish for separation, and consequently it would be lawful for the believer to contract another marriage, as Sanchez learnedly argues. For example, Queen Caesara, wife of the King of the Persians in the time of the Emperor Mauritius, fled secretly to Constantinople, and was there converted and baptized. When her husband requested her to return, she refused to do so unless he became a Christian. He then went to Constantinople and was there baptized, and assisted out of the font by Augustus, and having received his wife again, he returned joyfully to his home. This happened about the year 593, as Baronius relates on the authority of Paul the Deacon and Gregory of Tours. All that has been said must be clearly understood to refer to matrimony contracted when both parties were unbelievers, followed by the conversion of one and the refusal of the other to be converted ; for matrimony contracted by an unbeliever with a believer has been declared null and void by the Church since the time of S. Paul; and thence it is that difference of faith is a barrier to matrimony. This was the reason why Theresa, sister of Adelphonsus, King of Liège, refused to marry Abdallah, King of the Arabs, unless he adopted the Christian faith. This he promised, but falsely. Therefore on the arrival of Theresa he forced her, in spite of her struggles ; but being smitten by God with a sore disease, he was unable to be cured without sending back Theresa to her brother. This is told by Roderic, Vasaeus, and Baronius.