not defcribe their fituation, but of words that did. It is very plain that-He that putteth away his wife, by giving her a bill of divorcement--could have nothing to do with the man who took two wives together, or one to another, and cohabited alike with both. But we are apt, like the man and his bottles, to conftrue fcripture, by fuppofing perfons to whom particular things are faid, were in the circumftances then, in which we are now; but it was far otherwise: they had no municipal laws against polygamy, as we have. So far from it, their whole law (as has been abundantly proved) allowed it. Which said law, and every part thereof, was, at the time CHRIST fpake what is recorded in Matt. xix. 9, in as full force and efficacy, as at the moment after Mofes had delivered it to the people. He therefore could no more state polygamy as adultery by the law of Ifrael, than I can state it as high treafon by the laws of England.

It is to be observed, that the subject-matter in debate was the bufinefs of divorce, which the Jews had carried to a fhameful height, and this is what CHRIST is oppofing. The occafion of the difcourfe feems to be thiswhat He had faid in His fermon on the mount, in Galilee, about divorce, Matt. v. 31, 32, had, doubtless, been carried to the Pharifees in Judea, by fome of their emiffaries, who were among the multitudes that followed Him from thence, Matt. iv. 25. moft probably by fome of thofe fpies, which were set upon all

VOL. I.

A a

his

his words and actions. See Luke xx. 20. The Pharisees were provoked, as what CHRIST had faid militated against thofe notions which they had received, and ftrenuously maintained among their difciples. On His return into the coafts of Judea beyond Jordan, He was alfo attended by great multitudes, ver. 2. The Pharifees thought this a fair opportunity to entangle Him in His talk (as Matt. xxii. 15.) and lay Him under difficulties, either that of difavowing what He had faid, or, if He perfifted in it, to reprefent Him before the multitude as an enemy to the law of Mofes. Therefore we read, ver. 3. the Pharifees alfo came unto Him, tempting Him-by propofing an enfnaring queftion, which they fuppofed would lay Him under one or other of the difficulties above-mentioned, either of denying what He had faid, or of appearing an adverfary to Moses. They therefore ask Him -Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every caufe? His answer to this is not founded on any new law of His own, but on the original command of GOD, delivered by Adam, Gen. ii. 24. The Pharisees then bring their defign into full view, by quoting Mofes's authority against the answer which CHRIST had given, and in defence of their own opinion. The paffage which they referred to, was Deut. xxiv. I, which they called a command; but our LORD corrects them, and calls it only a permiffion, and this-for the hardnefs of their hearts; not that it affected the matter in the fight of God, by vacating the marriage,

2

marriage, for that a man who married a divorced woman, was as guilty of adultery in the fight of GOD, as if she had not been divorced, and fo was the divorced woman, who married again, living her husband. That this was the fcope of CHRIST's reafoning upon the matter, appears from the anfwer which He gave to His difciples, Mark x. 10, 11, 12. when in the house, they afked Him again of the fame matter-Tepi T8 duT8-about the felf-fame identical thing. He cannot be fuppofed to vary His opinion upon the fame point; therefore, in words which had the fame meaning, He repeats the fubftance of what He had before faid to the Pharifees.-He faith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her; to which He adds And if a woman fhall put away her husband, and be married to another; fhe committeth adultery.

As the Pharifees had referred CHRIST to the authority of Mofes, by way of answer to what He had faid, to prove the unlawfulness of divorces; He takes an opportunity to detect their abuse of that fcripture, Deut. xxiv. 1. &c. (for this is the paffage evidently referred to) and proves, on the ground of ver. 4. of that chapter, the truth of all he faid upon the fubject; namely, that these permiffive divorces, which MoSES fuffered (ETÉTρELEV) for the hardness of their hearts, wrought no diffolution of the marriage-bond, but that the man who thus injuriously divorced his wife, caufed her to be defiled; and he whe

A a 2

who married her, defiled her ; but yet, having married her, he could not * return to her first hufband, on a divorce from the fecond, without a fresh act of adultery. Defiling a man's wife, and committing adultery upon her, are fynonymous terms, as may appear by comparing Prov. vi. 29. with Ezek. xviii. 11, 15. Therefore OUR SAVIOUR fays no more in effect, than is faid Deut. xxiv. 4; He only enlarges upon, explains, and appplies the doctrine there delivered, concerning the defilement and adultery which was the confequence of marrying a divorced woman, and has a view to the licentious practices of the Jews, under the fanction of these wanton and causeless divorces. The antient Jews had learned from the Egyptians, amongst whom they dwelt fo long, a practice of changing their wives, and afterwards taking them again; which the law, Deut. xxiv. 1-4, was exprefsly made to prevent, as one of the greatest abominations in the fight of GOD. Still this practice prevailed in later times, as may be gathered from Jer. v. 8. They were as fed borfes in the morning, every one neighed after his neighbour's wife. Their in

* The inftance of David's taking again Michal, Saul's daughter, after fhe had been the wife of Phaltiel, the fon of Laish, had nothing to do with this; for she had not been put away from David by bill of divorcement, or any other act of his, but violently taken away by her father Saul, and given to Phaltiel. Nor was it, probably, in her power to have gainfayed the imperious commands of her tyrannical father. See I Sam. xxv. 44. 2 Sam. Hi. 13, &c.

5

tercourfe

tercourfe with the Greeks † and Romans, in later times ftill, was another means of promoting this unnatural and horrid traffic. This could not be carried on among the Jews without the expedient of the no-bill of divorcement; without this the adultery had been too barefaced, but with it, they had been taught by their rabbies, fuch as Hillell (who held that a man's feeing a woman he liked better than his own wife, was a juft caufe of divorce) to do as they pleased. They might put away their wives for every caufe, therefore for this, among the reft, because they faw another's (for that may be fignified by the word day, as I fhall obferve presently) whom they liked better than their own. Thus under thefe divorces they could exchange their wives. For inftance-A. liked the wife of B.-B. liked the wife of A. -each hating his own-they agree to change -How fhall this be done? If the wives are

See before p. 210-13;

+ How fond and eager the Jews were to imitate the heathen fashions and manners, especially those of the Greeks, fee 2 Macc. iv. 15, 16.

This was fo abhorred of GOD, that he made the pofitive law, Deut. xxiv. 1-4. in fuch terms, as to prevent the man who had divorced his wife, from ever taking her again after her marriage with another man, not only on a divorce from that man, but even after his death. It is a grievous thing that our tranflation has obfcured the whole drift and meaning of the paffage, (fee before p. 85, &c.) for by this it is, that the reader is led into the notion of CHRIST's making a new law against polygamy, while he is enforcing the old law against unjust divorce.