1. The Opinion of Some and Rejection of It

14. About the first it is argued [Richard of Middleton, ad loc.] that an unbeliever cannot, because there cannot be the good of faith there on the unbeliever’s part, because he is not faithful to God; therefore not to his neighbor either.

15. Second because on his part there is not the good of offspring because, as far as is in him, he would educate his offspring in his own rite, and so irreligiously.

16. Third because there is not the good of the sacrament there [cf. d.31 nn.17-18], because an unbeliever, from the fact he does not have the first sacrament, is not capable of the others, as is proved in Gregory IX, Decretals III tit.43 ch.1 [with glosses].

17. These arguments do not move [me].

The first one does not because faith, that is, faithfulness, can be preserved without the faith by which there is belief in God, and this can unbelievers keep with unbelievers and conversely, as is obtained from Augustine, Epistle 47 to Publicola n.2. For this does not follow: he does not want to keep the faith with God by which the Christians are called believers, therefore he does not want to keep faith, that is, faithfulness, with his neighbor. First because this does not follow: he does not want to keep what is more perfect, therefore he does not want to keep what is less perfect; second too, because he cannot attain by natural reason to observance of this faith as he can of that.

18. The second reason does not move, because an unbeliever wants to educate offspring, insofar as he can know by natural reason that offspring are to be educated; therefore you cannot get more [from this reason] save that there is not the perfect good of offspring there, namely, that offspring be educated in the cult of God; and no wonder, because the educator does not know that offspring are to be thus educated.

19. The third reason too does not move, because to no matrimonial contracts preceding the Gospel Law was annexed a sacrament properly speaking; nor would it have been annexed to the contract in the state of innocence, if man had always remained in it, as was said above d.26 nn.51-58; nor yet would anything then have been lacking of the perfection that belongs to the contract of matrimony.

20. A contract, then, of matrimony could exist between unbelievers, though not the sacrament of matrimony, because this sacrament belongs only to the New Law and has its efficacy from the passion of Christ, as do also the other sacraments of the New Law. Hence if Christ had not suffered this sacrament would not have existed, even in the state of innocence if Adam had not fallen; because although God could have conferred grace on the matrimony and the contract in the state of innocence, and have made a sacrament of such contract, yet it would not have been a sacrament as it now is, because now it has efficacy from the passion of Christ, which then it would not have had.

21. Also, these reasons [nn.14-16], if they were valid, would prove that there could not be a contract with heretics, and yet it is not denied that a Catholic can contract with a heretic.