will light with greater energy on your consciences than it has ever done upon ours, that we should haste and make no delay to keep the commandments."

With a similar spirit the Christian Missionaries should go to the Heathen. In deal ing with them, as well as with the Papists, "that offensive tone of arrogance”—“that repulsive superiority" which has too often been assumed,

tends directly to irritate, and. to defeat the object of a mission. These remarks may justly be extended to preaching the gospel in a christian country, and to all attempts to instruct the ignorant, or to convince the erroneous, or to reclaim the vicious. And "happy is he who condemneth not himself in that thing whickhe alloweth."

LIV.

Ir is not an express law of christianity, that a man should be the husband only of one wife; but it is so plainly implied, as to possess all the spirit of a command. How much vice and wretchedness the gospel has prevented by this restraint of the passions of men, wherever it has been received, can be conceived only by a consideration of the " contests, jealousies, and distracted affections; the voluptuousness; the indolence, and imbecility both of body and mind, and the neglect of children," which have uniformly resulted from a contrary practice.

And scarcely less important and beneficial have been the effects of the christian law of divorce. God had indeed given a law on this subject to the

Jews; Deut. xxiv. 1. and greatly did they boast of the privilege of this law, though our Lord told them, that it was because of the hardness of their hearts that they were suffered to put away their wives. "Said Rabbi Chananiah in the name of Rabbi Phineas, the Lord of Israel saith, (Mat. ii. 16.) that He ha teth putting away?' And through the whole chapter, He is called the Lord of hosts." But here He is called the Lord, the God of Israel;' that it might be apparent that He sanctioned divorces only a mong the Israelites. It is as if He had said, 'I have permitted the Israelites to put away their wives, but I have not so indulged the Gentiles." Admirable reasoning!

Conformed to their estima tion of the privilege, were the sentiments at least of many of the Jews, on the liberty of divorce. A Jew, at least in the opinion of some, might divorce his wife, if she had not the

a

modesty which become daughter of Israel; or if he did not love her; or if he saw a woman whom he loved better; or if his wife did not please him in her manner of dressing his food; or if, by any divine infliction, she became dumb, or foolish. But an exception was made in favour of the first married wife. It was thought to be lawful by the Jews to have as many wives as they chose; but their wise men had decreed, that no man should have more than four wives. But they imposed this restraint, only lest men should have more wives than they could feed and clothe, and treat with kindness. For the divorce of the first married wife however, said Rabbi Eliezer, even the very altar weeps.

The Pharisees, we are told, (Matthew 19th) came to our Lord," tempting him, and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause ?" To perceive the objects of this inquiry, it must be considered that, at that time, there were two celebrated schools in Jerusalem, distinguished as the school of Shammah, and the school of Hillel. On several subjects they were in direct opposition; but on none more than concerning divorce. In the school of Shammah it was taught, that a separation of husband and wife could be justified, only by conduct which was absolutely vicious and infamous. Hillel, once a pupil of Shammah, taught that any, and every cause, would justify divorce. Among a people be

come licentious, and debased in moral sentiment and feel ing, we may easily conceive that such a master would obtain many disciples. I find no evidence however that the Pharisees adopted, or directly favoured, the opinions of the school of Hillel on this subject. But as they had before united with the Sadducees, whom they abhorred, for the purpose of injuring the reputation of our Lord, and of destroying his influence over the people, (Matth. xvi. 1 and seq.) so I believe that, in proposing this inquiry, they were entirely indifferent what would be his answer; as it appeared certain, that, whatever decis. ion he gave, he must of course directly contradict one of these great schools; and of consequence, incur the displeasure, and probably the resentment of many. Whatever were their own sentiments on the subject, this was, I think, their design in proposing the question. Had he therefore directly said, "it is not lawful for a man, for every cause, to put away his wife," they would immediately have called upon the disciples of Hillel, to join them in their efforts against him. Or had he said “it is lawful;" every pupil of Shammah would instantly have become his inveterate opposers. These circumstances, it will be acknowledged, are apparently embarrassing. Observe then the conduct of our Lord. He first referred them to the original design of marriage. "Have ye not read, that He who made them, in the begin.

ning, made them male and female, and said, for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one Яesh?" The ground of the controversy, or the subject in debate, becomes changed by this inquiry. The institution of marriage is ascribed to God; and the original purpose of God in its appointment becomes the object of attention. To avoid the difficultles which they immediately anticipated, they in turn inquire, "why then did Moses command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?" Our Lord admits the appeal to Moses; but he inquires, "what did Moses command you?" (see Mark x. 3.) By making them the interpreters of Moses, they are thrown into the very embarrassment in which they wished to involve him; and they are obliged to answer, "Moses suffered to write a bill of divorce, and to put her away." Here remark that, although a Jew was permitted, under certain circumstances, to put away his wife, and was then required "to write a bill of divorcement, and to put it into her hand," it is evident that the law supposed the cause to be great and important, (Deut xxiv. 1, and seq.) Jesus then answered them, "for the hardness of your heart, Moses wrote you this precept;" and then referring them again to the original design of God, "but from the be-ginning it was not so," he at once illustrated his own reVol. VI. No. 7.

27

mark, that the permission of divorce grew out of human wickedness; and most powerfully enforced the sentiment, "what therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." Having thus reasoned with them on their own principles, they are brought to the alternative, either of denying Moses, or of acceding to the correctness of his own sentiments on the subject. When our Lord therefore pronounced his decision of the case, we do not find that they discovered any disposition to prolong the conversation. (Matth. xix. 9.)

The decision of our Lord, in this case, was pronounced almost precisely in the same words in which he gave the precept in the text; and this great principle of christianity, adopted as it has been, as a civil law, has stood as a barrier against an inundation of licentiousness, and of domestic misery. Were men left to caprice and passion on a subject of such importance,or should the laws of civil society make divorce easy of attainment upon slight, or even great occasions of disgust or disagreement, evils would ensue, of which it is difficult to form even a just conception. The experience of ages, where this principle has been in force, has proved its wisdom. It has restrained many bad passions, and has saved very many families from ruin.

The peculiarity of this precept of our Saviour is, that it permits divorce only in a single case. The Jewish canons

allowed it for almost any cause; and Maimonides says, that Israelites were sometimes compelled, even by whipping, to put away their wives.

5th,

It was appointed that a bill of divorce should contain, 1st, the names of the husband and wife; and of the father, grandfather, and great grandfather of each of them. 2d, It was to be written in large letters, and so that one letter should not touch another. 4th, If a drop of ink should fall on the paper, the bill would not be valid. In this case therefore, it must be written again. There should be no erasure. 6th, The substance on which it was written was to be longer than it was broad. 7th, The whole bill should contain neither more nor less than twelve lines. 8th, It should be subscribed by at least two witnesses. 9th, The witnesses should affix their seals. 10th, The husband himself, or some one deputed by him, was to give the bill to his wife; or the wife might depute some one to receive it for her. A wife so divorced might, if she pleased, present this bill to the Sanhedrim, for enrolment among the records; and unless forbidden by some clause in the bill, she might marry again.

.

As we are willing in this

number to dismiss this subject, we will give our readers a copy of a bill of divorce.

"I A, the son of B, who was the son of C, who was the son of D, on the day of the month-, in the year of the world, do willingly, and

without compulsion, dismiss and divorce thee, E, the daughter of F, who was the daughter of G, who was the daughter of H, and hitherto my wife. I now dismiss, and leave, and divorce you; so that you are now at your own disposal, and may marry whom you will. Nor let any one at any time prevent this. Thus I dismiss you, according to the precept of Moses,and of the Israelites."

A wife might not be put away, unless a bill of divorce were given to her; but in a question of divorce, a wife was not asked whether she was willing that such a bill should be sought. A bill of divorce contained, we have said, neither more nor less than twelve lines. This was a decision of the wise men; but there is some uncertainty why the precise number of twelve lines was prescribed. One Rabbi thought, that it was because the value of the letters in the word was twelve; but a nother said that, it was because the books of the law were separated by twelve lines; four being placed between Genesis and Exodus, four be tween Exodus and Leviticus; and four between Leviticus and Numbers; the four lines between Numbers and Deuteronomy not being counted, because Deuteronomy is considered only to be a repetition of the law. We would not repeat, we would not transcribe this pitiful trifling, this solemn nonsense, but to shew our readers how the Jewish people were taught by their Rabbies. Truly we are not surprised