serve to fhew how far men will go to support a popular notion, or pre-conceived opinion, even to the corrupting of the Bible. There are no fuch words as "two only" in the law of marriage referred to. It ftands, Gen. ii. 24. they fhall be one flesh; and, as mentioned by CHRIST, Matt. xix. 5. it Suo-they twain fhall be one flesh. So Mark x. 8. Had the words "two_only" been there, we should not have red fo frequently afterwards of God's countenancing, or His faints practising polygamy, any more than of His countenancing, and their practising adultery. I muft here take notice of our LORD's introduction of the words & Suo they twain, or the twain-which certainly was not done as an addition to the original words, or as an interpolation, in order to introduce fome new doctrine, but merely as a fort of paraphrafe to explain their import, fenfe, and meaning—that a man and his wife, though before marriage they were two-that is feparate, unconnected, independent of each other, so that they might or might not come together, yet afterwards they are no more two, separate, unconnected, independent perfons, but as one fel, εις σάρκα μίαν. The words δι Suo-the twain-are not to be taken in 1 their numerical * fenfe, for if they be, what follows ver. 6.-fo that they are no more twain-would not be true; for certainly a man and woman are as much numerically Two after marriage, as they are before it, and therefore cannot be numerically one; but in the same sense in which they were spoken of as two before, they now become one, that is to fay, in confideration of law. The marriage destroys their unconnectednefs, diftinctnefs, and independency on each other, so that in all legal confideration they are no more twain, but one flefb. Therefore the confequence is proved which our bleffed LORD meant to prove→→ it could not be lawful for a man to put away his wife for every caufe, or for any caufe except one, which, of itself, divided their perfons again, and amounted to a total diffolution of the marriage-bond: for to make a man live with an adultrefs, would be to make him father other people's children, defeat his own rightful heirs, and introduce that confufion into his family, which it was one grand object of * Non unitas effentialis, fed unio feu conjunctio myftica vel conjugalis defcribitur.-Nold. Part. Edit. Tymp, 750. Not an effential unity, but an union or conjunction mystical or conjugal is defcribed." Matt. xix. 5, 6. Mark x. 8. the feventh commandment to prevent. For want of confidering the words or duothey twain, or the twain-in the legal fenfe -above-mentioned, our commentators have jingled them in their fancies, till they have blundered into their two only two and no more: thus interpolating and corrupting the words of the marriage-inftitution, as it ftands recorded Gen. ii. 24. and what is worse ftill, making our bleffed Saviour do the fame, by reprefenting Him as ufing the words in their numerical fenfe. This ftamps untruth, nay, downright nonsense on what He fays, ver. 6; for it is not true that a man and his wife are no more (numerically) two; and to say that perfons, who are numerically two, are yet numerically one, is downright nonsense. As the word twain is to be understood in a legal fenfe, fo they shall be one flesh, cannot be understood in a literal fenfe, as if by a kind of matrimonial tranfubftantiation they became literally one body (fee 1 Cor. vi. 16); but that they are fo in a ·legal fenfe is very certain; and therefore, as a man cannot separate his bones from his flesh, nor his flesh from his bones, without deftroying himself, fo neither can a man put away his wife unjustly (who, in estimation of GOD's law, is bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh) without offending against against the holinefs, and deftroying the pofitive obligation of the marriage-inftitution. -- Thofe, who by the legerdemain of this fame numerical interpretation of the word twain, added to the found of the former clause of ver. 9. make CHRIST condemn polygamy as adultery, reprefent Him as ufing the word adultery—in an unauthorized unconformity to the Hebrew fcripture (as our LORD doubtlefs fpake in Hebrew); for no where is that word used, to denote a man who had one wife, taking another to her, and cohabiting with both (which I take to be the true and genuine notion of polygamy); nor is it used in any other fenfe, but to denote the defilement of a married woman. OUR SAVIOUR, who conftantly appealed to the Hebrew fcriptures for what he delivered to the people, can hardly be supposed to have advanced a doctrine fo unfupported by them; and that before an audience of those very Pharifees, who we are told, Luke xi. 54. were laying wait for him, feeking to catch fomething out of His mouth, that they might accufe Him. Again-by making CHRIST declare polygamy to be adultery, they charge Him with afferting a falfhood, both in point of law and fact, by declaring all fuch after-taken women L 4 not not to be the real wives of the men who took them; for if they were, adultery must be out of the queftion. Let us examine this on the footing of fcripture. It is faid, 1 Sam. xxv. 42, 43, ABIGAIL became DAVID's wife, and DAVID also took AHINOAM of JEZREEL, and they were alfo both of them his wives. So witnesseth the Holy Ghoft, and this, tho' ver. 44. tells us, he had at that very time another wife living. By faying they were also both of them his wives (for that must be the meaning of Dw in this context) it is making each one flesh with Him, so that he could not divorce either; and if either had gone to another man, fhe would have been an adultres, and the man who took her would have been an adulterer. I fay this, taking it for granted that the Holy Ghoft would not have called them his wives, wh-fibi in uxores. Mont. unless they really were fo. Thus, on the authority of the Hebrew fcripture, an after-taken woman is as much a man's wife who takes her, as the first is therefore it is neither true in point of law or fact, that a man having one wife, and taking another, committeth adultery; for which reafon it is impoffible CHRIST fhould ever fay fo, and those who make Him fay fo, wreft His words from their true meaning. -But as this portion of scrip ture |