# The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce/Bk1 Chapter 8

CHAP. VIII.
ANd here by the way to illustrate the whole question of divorce, ere this treatise end, I shall not be loath to spend a few lines in hope to give a full resolve of that which is yet so much controverted, whether an idolatrous heretick ought be divorc't. To the ​resolving wherof we must first know that the Iews were commanded to divorce an unbeleeving Gentile for two causes: first, because all other Nations especially the Canaanites, were to them unclean. Secondly, to avoid seducement. That other Nations were to the Jews impure, even to the separating of mariage, will appear out of Exod. 34.16. Deut. 7. 3, 6. compar'd with Ezra 9. 2. also chap. 10. 10, 11. Nehem. 13. 30. This was the ground of that doubt rais'd among the Corinthians by some of the Circumcision, Whether an unbeleever were not still to be counted an unclean thing, so as that they ought to divorce from such a person. This doubt of theirs S. Paul removes by an Evangelicall reason, having respect to that vision of S. Peter, wherein the distinction of clean and unclean being abolisht, all living creatures were sanctified to a pure and Christian use, and mankind especially, now invited by a general call to the cov'nant of grace. Therefore saith S. Paul, The unbeleeving wife is sanctify'd by the husband; that is, made pure and lawfull to his use; so that he need not put her away for fear lest her unbelief should defile him; but that if he found her love stil towards him, he might rather hope to win her. The second reason of that divorce was to avoid seducement, as is prov'd by comparing those places of the Law, to that which Ezra and Nehemiah did by divine warrant in compelling the Iews to forgoe their wives. And this reason is morall and perpetuall in the rule of Christian faith without evasion. Therefore saith the Apostle 2 Cor. 6. Mis-yoke not together with infidels, which is interpreted of mariage in the first place. And although the former legall pollution be now don off, yet there is a spirituall contagion in Idolatry as much to be shun'd; and though seducement were not to be fear'd, yet where there is no hope of converting, there alwayes ought to be a certain religious aversation and abhorring, which can no way sort with mariage: Therefore saith S. Paul, What fellowship hath righteousnesse with unrighteousnesse? what communion hath light with darknes? what concord hath Christ with Belial? what part hath he that beleeveth with an infidel? And in the next verse but one he moralizes and makes us liable to that command of Isaiah; Wherfore come out from among them, and be ye separate saith the Lord; touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive ye. And this command thus Gospelliz'd to us, hath the same force with that wheron Ezra grounded the pious necessity of divorcing. Neither had he other commission for what he did, then such a generall command in Deut. as this, nay not so direct as this; for he is bid there not to marry, but not bid to ​divorce, and yet we see with what a zeal and confidence he was the author of a generall divorce between the faithfull and unfaithfull seed. The Gospell is more plainly on his side according to three of the Evangelists, then the words of the Law; for where the case of divorce is handled with such a severity as was fittest to aggravate the fault of unbounded licence; yet still in the same chapter when it comes into question afterwards whether any civill respect, or natural relation which is dearest, may be our plea to divide, or hinder, or but delay our duty to religion, we heare it determin'd that father and mother, and wife also is not only to be hated, but forsak'n, if we mean to inherit the great reward there promis'd. Nor will it suffice to be put off by saying we must forsake them onely by not consenting or not complying with them, for that were to be don, and roundly too, though being of the same faith they should but seek, out of a fleshly tendernes to weak'n our Christian fortitude with worldly perswasions, or but to unsettle our constancie with timorous and softning suggestions: as we may read with what a vehemence Iob the patientest of men, rejected the desperat counsels of his wife; and Moses, the meekest being throughly offended with the prophane speeches of Zippora, sent her back to her father. But if they shall perpetually at our elbow seduce us from the true worship of God, or defile and daily scandalize our conscience by their hopeles continuance in misbelief, then ev'n in the due progresse of reason, and that ever-equall proportion which justice proceeds by, it cannot be imagin'd that this cited place, commands lesse then a totall and finall separation from such an adherent; at least that no force should be us'd to keep them together: while we remember that God commanded Abraham to send away his irreligious wife and her son for the offences which they gave in a pious family. And it may be guest that David for the like cause dispos'd of Michal in such a sort, as little differ'd from a dismission. Therefore against reiterated scandals and seducements which never cease, much more can no other remedy or retirement be found but absolute departure. For what kind of matrimony can that remain to be, what one dutie between such can be perform'd as it should be from the heart, when their thoughts and spirits flie asunder as farre as heaven from hell; especially if the time that hope should send forth her expected blossoms be past in vain. It will easily be true that a father or a brother may be hated zealously, and lov'd civilly or naturally; for those duties may be perform'd at distance, and doe admit of any long absence, but how the peace and ​perpetuall cohabitation of marriage can be kept, how that benevolent and intimate communion of body can be held with one that must be hated with a most operative hatred, must be forsak'n and yet continually dwelt with and accompanied, he who can distinguish, hath the gift of an affection very odly divided and contriv'd: while others both just and wise, and Salomon among the rest, if they may not hate and forsake as Moses enjoyns, and the Gospell imports, will find it impossible not to love otherwise then will sort with the love of God, whose jealousie brooks no corrivall. And whether is more likely, that Christ bidding to forsake wife for religion, meant it by divorce as Moses meant it, whose Law grounded on morall reason, was both his office and his essence to maintain, or that he should bring a new morality into religion, not only new, but contrary to an unchangeable command, and dangerously derogating from our love & worship of God. As if when Moses had bid divorce absolutely, and Christ had said, hate & forsake, and his Apostle had said, no communion with Christ & Belial, yet that Christ after all this could be understood to say, divorce not, no not for religion, seduce, or seduce not. What mighty and invisible Remora is this in matrimony able to demurre, and to contemne all the divorsive engines in heaven or earth. Both which may now passe away if this be true, for more then many jots or tittles, a whole morall Law is abolisht. But if we dare beleeve it is not, then in the method of religion, and to save the honour and dignity of our faith, we are to retreat, and gather up our selves from the observance of an inferior and civill ordinance, to the strict maintaining of a generall and religious command, which is written, Thou shalt make no cov'nant with them, Deut. 7. 2, 3. and that cov'nant which cannot be lawfully made, we have directions and examples lawfully to dissolve. Also Chron. 2. 19. Shouldst thou love them that hate the Lord? No doubtlesse: for there is a certain scale of duties, there is a certain Hierarchy of upper and lower commands, which for want of studying in right order, all the world is in confusion.
Upon these principles I answer, that a right beleever ought to divorce an idolatrous heretick unlesse upon better hopes: however, that it is in the beleevers choice to divorce or not.
The former part will be manifest thus; first, an apostate idolater whether husband or wife seducing was to die by the decree of God, Deut. 13. 6, 9. that mariage therfore God himself dis-joyns: for others born idolaters the morall reason of their dangerous keeping, ​and the incommunicable antagony that is between Christ and Belial, will be sufficient to enforce the commandment of those two inspir'd reformers, Ezra and Nehemiah, to put an Idolater away as well under the Gospel.
The latter part, that although there be no seducement fear'd, yet if there be no hope giv'n, the divorce is lawfull, will appeare by this, that idolatrous marriage is still hatefull to God, therfore still it may be divorc't by the patern of that warrant that Ezra had; and by the same everlasting reason: Neither can any man give an account wherefore, if those whom God joyns, no man may separate, it should not follow, that, whom he joyns not, but hates to joyn, those man ought to separate: but saith the Lawyer, that which ought not have been don, once don, avails. I answer, this is but a crotchet of the law, but that brought against it, is plain Scripture. As for what Christ spake concerning divorce, tis confest by all knowing men, he meant onely between them of the same faith. But what shall we say then to S. Paul, who seemes to bid us not divorce an Infidell willing to stay? We may safely say thus; that wrong collections have been hitherto made out of those words by modern Divines. His drift, as was heard before, is plain: not to command our stay in mariage with an Infidel, that had been a flat renouncing of the religious and morall Law; but to inform the Corinthians that the body of an unbeleever was not defiling, if his desire to live in Christian wedlock shewd any likelihood that his heart was opening to the faith: and therfore advises to forbear departure so long, till nothing have been neglected to set forward a conversion: this I say he advises, and that with certain cautions; not commands: If we can take up so much credit for him, as to get him beleev'd upon his own word; for what is this els but his counsell in a thing indifferent, to the rest speak I, not the Lord; for though it be true that the Lord never spake it, yet from S. Pauls mouth we should have took it as a command, had not himself forewarn'd us, and disclaim'd; which, notwithstanding if we shall still avouch to be a command, he palpably denying it, this is not to expound S. Paul, but to out-face him. Neither doth it follow, but that the Apostle may interpose his judgement in a case of Christian liberty without the guilt of adding to Gods word. How doe we know mariage or single life to be of choice, but by such like words as these, I speak this by permission, not of commandment, I have no command of the Lord, yet I give my judgement. Why shall not the like words have leave to signifie a freedom in this our present question, ​though Beza deny. Neither is the Scripture hereby lesse inspir'd because S. Paul confesses to have writt'n therein what he had not of command; for we grant that the Spirit of God led him thus to expresse himself to Christian prudence in a matter which God thought best to leave uncommanded. Beza therefore must be warily read when he taxes S. Austine of Blasphemy for holding that S. Paul spake heer as of a thing indifferent: but if it must be a command, I shall yet the more evince it to be a command that we should herein be left free: and that out of the Greek word us'd in the 12.V. which instructs us plainly there must be a joynt assent and good liking on both sides; he that will not deprave the Text, must thus render it; If a brother have an unbeleeving wife, and she joyne in consent to dwell with him (which cannot utter lesse to us then a mutuall agreement) let him not put her away for the meer surmise of Judaicall uncleannes: and the reason follows, for the body of an infidell is not polluted, neither to benevolence, nor to procreation. Moreover, this note of mutuall complacencie forbids all offer of seducement; which to a person of zeal cannot be attempted without great offence, if therfore seducement be fear'd, this place hinders not divorce. Another caution was put in this supposed command, of not bringing the beleever into bondage heerby, which doubtles might prove extreme, if Christian liberty and conscience were left to the humor of a pagan staying at pleasure to play with, or to vex and wound with a thousand scandals and burdens, above strength to bear: If therefore the conceived hope of gaining a soul, come to nothing, then charity commands that the beleever be not wearied out with endlesse waiting under many grievances sore to his spirit; but that respect be had rather to the present suffering of a true Christian, then the uncertain winning of an obdur'd heretick. The counsell we have from S. Paul to hope, cannot countermand the moral and Evangelick charge we have from God to feare seducement, to separate from the misbeleever, the unclean, the obdurat. The Apostle wisheth us to hope, but does not send us a wooll-gathering after vain hope: he saith, How knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife, that is, till he try all due means, and set some reasonable time to himselfe after which he may give over washing an Ethiope, if he will heare the advice of the Gospell. Cast not pearls before swine, saith Christ himself. Let him be to thee as a heathen. Shake the dust off thy feet. If this be not anough, hate and forsake, what relation soever. And this also that follows, must appertain to the precept, Let every man wherin he is call'd therin abide with God ​, v. 24. that is, so walking in his inferior calling of mariage, as not by dangerous subjection to that ordinance, to hinder and disturb the higher calling of his Christianity. Last, and never too oft remembred, whether this be a command or an advice, we must looke that it be so understood as not to contradict the least point of morall religion that God hath formerly commanded, otherwise what doe we but set the morall Law and the Gospell at civill war together: and who then shall be able to serve these two masters?