a command, that it was merely an exemption from the punishment which the magistrate might otherwise have inflicted on such breaches of contract, and contempt of sacred rites. The creation of but one man and one woman,

66

-one

(He that made them at the beginning made them male and female,") admitted neither Divorce nor Polygamy. This is beautifully stated by the Prophet Malachi: * "Did he not make one?" (one woman, wife ;) yet had he the residue of the Spirit." He could, with the same facility, have created many, if he had pleased.† "And wherefore one?" The benefit of the offspring is the assigned cause : That he might seek a holy seed. The union and bond of marriage was thus evidently of so sacred a kind as to be incapable of being dissolved by any thing which does not make them cease to be

* Mal. ii. 15. In this passage it is observable, that the Prophet, although speaking of all the wives of the nation of Israel, yet mentions the word in the singular number only.

+ Tertullian has the same idea; Adam et manus infatigabiles in Deo."

"Plures costæ in

Exhort. ad Castitatem.

G

one flesh, by making that of the one common to some third person.*

ex

On these three several grounds did Christ rest his argument against the Pharisees; the divine origin and institution itself; the example of the first pair, and the evils of separations; and, by a reference to these, plained away all the objections of his opposers. The conversation had been commenced by them with their usual subtlety and malice; they were tempting Christ, and watching for an occasion to commit him, by some inadvertent expression, to the fury of the prejudiced multitude. They knew well enough what his sentiments were on the subject of Divorce, (we have before mentioned them as delivered on the Mount,) and how opposed they were to the generally received interpretation of the word "uncleanness," as given by the School of Hillel, on which we have before remarked, (Divorce for trivial causes,) and they hoped to expose him to popular resentment for retrenching a liberty which the law, as interpreted by custom, appeared to sanction. They knew that which way soever he decided the matter, it would ex

Whitby in loco.

pose him to censure. But our Divine Lord was ever superior to that fear of man, which would prompt a concealment of important truth. He resolutely explains the permission of Moses, and refers it to a cause that reflected no credit on his hearers. It was "for the hardness of your hearts:" lest you should use them in so cruel a manner, as to render their continuance with you a more deplorable condition even than that of widowhood and separation; but henceforth, under the dispensation which is now to be introduced, characterized, as it is to be, by the most entire purity, as it will be by motives and means adequate to the attainment of that purity; henceforth, even this liberty is to be restricted; and I repeat to you the doctrine delivered on the Mount in Galilee; for, from my disciples, I expect dispositions of a more

Doddridge considers that both the interpretations of Hillel and Sammai were incorrect; that of Hillel, because clearly opposed to the whole spirit of the Bible, and that of Sammai also, because the law provided that Adultery should be punished with death; and that a medium between the two opinions would be the most just. We have, however, shown the punishment and the remedy not to be incompatible with each other.

+ Who, that knows any thing of the Jewish history, is at a loss for passages to justify the expression of the Saviour, and to acquit him of any harshness in the imputation?

merciful and gentle kind; what was permitted to an uncircumcised heart among the Jews cannot be allowed among you.' It appears that the disciples themselves did not so clearly apprehend their Master's meaning, and were at that time not fully able to reconcile it to the precepts of Moses; when they were alone therefore with Christ, they asked him more particularly of this important subject; and he then gave them an ampler delineation of his intention. It is as follows: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery against her; and whoso marrieth her which is put away, doth commit adultery. And if a woman shall put away her husband,* and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

We now see that the Saviour makes the nearest approach to the indissolubility of the nuptial bond, which, circumstanced as human nature is, can be done. He declares the necessity for some permission, but the restriction of it to one cause, which is thenceforth to prevail. It would be impossible but that

Instances of the use of this liberty, by the Jewish women, have already been given. The precedent of Salome followed by Herodias and others.

offences should come, and some avenue is left open to escape the inconveniences which the absolute indissolubility of this bond would occasion.

The clause of exception which has just been noticed as mentioned twice by Saint Matthew, has indeed been omitted in the Gospels of both Mark and Luke: but this must be considered as understood in the two latter cases, or the harmony of Scripture will be violated: it is impossible to rest the supposition the other way, since the terms are explicit, and repeated a second time, and therefore cannot be supposed to be mis-stated; whereas no injury is done to the text by the other hypothesis, which holds the excepted case to be clearly and avowedly understood. This is the only method of reconciling the statements of the respective Evangelists.

66

It must be now considered what this one cause really is; and the question resolves itself into the literal meaning of the terms employed. The word, in the original, is Пopvela: a term, on the interpretation of which, Selden remarks; Difficultas, maximè quâ cruciari solent scriptores;" but which, when carefully investigated, does not appear so difficult to define. Os αν απόλυση την γυναικα αυτού, EL μη επιπορνεία, και γαμησιν άλλην, μοιχαται,