thren; that is to say, with the parents and relations of their unjustly divorced wives, who gave them their daughters or fifters in marriage, to abide with them, not to be put away. They dealt treacherously alfo with their wives, in putting them away-Therefore the prophet reproves them, and calls them to repentance by the following confiderations, ver. 14, 15; which I will endeavour to lay before the reader in a pa raphrase suitable to the literal and true meaning of the original Hebrew, and conformable to the analogy of divine revelation, as delivered to us by MOSES and the prophets. Then it will appear, that thefe diftinguished fervants of GOD were not guilty of concealing, difguifing, or diffembling the truth; nor God Himself capable of suffering His feventḥ commandment, as well as the original inftitution of marriage, to be tranfgreffed, not only with impunity, but allowance, uniformly through fo many ages, or of leaving His church and people utterly ignorant of His mind and will, touching fo important a matter, for all that time.

.Et ne unus fecit ? Mont ולא אחד עשה

And did not one make? Here our commentators, mifled by our tranflators, and these by the vulgar error of the finfulness of lygamy, tell us, that "these words fignify

po

"GOD'S

GoD's making but one woman at the "beginning; He had the refidue of the Spirit, and therefore could have made "more women for ADAM if He had

σε

pleased." One misfortune attending fo ignorant a comment, is, that the word 7 cannot fignify one woman, unless, amongst other changes, women were of the mafculine gender under the Old Teftament, though of the feminine under the New Teftament; for 8 is certainly of the mafculine gender-nns is the feminine-See Judges ix. 53. nne aux mulier una. Mont. & al. freq. This, befides an undue tranfpofition of the words, is, I take it, a conclufive reason for saying they mistake the paffage. It is notDid not he make One?-but-Did not One *make? like ver. 10. Have we not all ONE Father? Did not ONE GOD create us?" Did not One, or THE ONE, make “both you and your Jewish wives? Did "He not form both of you-(fee Deut. "xxxii. 6.) naturally of the fame feed " of Abraham-Spiritually by the fame. holy difpenfation and ordinances?—

*If the attentive reader will compare the one, in this place with one GOD, ver. 10. furely he must fee, that the fame Almighty Perfon is meant. There he is faid to create here to make. Comp. Gen. ii. 3. latter part.

And He bath (or hath He ושאר רוח לו **

"not?) the remainder of the Spirit-Hath "He not the fame power He ever had?"Is His hand fhortened at all, fo that He "cannot complete your restoration if He

pleases, or punish you ftill more fe" verely, if you continue difobedient to "His commandments? Spirit is here "ufed for power, mighty, but efpecially irrefiftible power; as Pf.cxxxix. "If. lix. 19. If. Îxiii. 14. If. xxxiv. 16.

ટ

*

7.

And what did THE ומה האחד מבקש- **

"ONE feek? be

a feed of GOD an + boly feed (fee Ezra ix. 2.) "therefore take heed to your spirit—that

*So the power of the Spirit is often used for the Spirit itself. Comp. If. xxxii. 15. Luke xxiv. 49. Acts i. 8. See also Judges xiii. 25; xiv. 19; xvi. 17, 20. Rom. i. 4. with 1 Cor. vi. 14. & al. freq. In an old edition of the Bible, printed in the year 1615, there are fhort notes added in the margin; and in the note on the word Spirit, in this text, it is explained to mean power and virtue.

This can have nothing to do with polygamy, because, if it had, we fhould have hardly found it allowed of GOD, and practised by his faints; or, in fact, have found fome of the moft diftinguished and bleffed men that ever lived, the offspring of polygamous marriages; witnefs holy Jofeph, and the prophet Samuel. Befides all this, we may obferve, that the Jews, who are in this place of Ezra emphatically ftyled the holy feed, were defcended from the twelve fons of Jacob, half of which were born under polygamy.

is, your temper-affections"-as n is very often applied, (fee Numb. xiv. 24. 1 Sam. i. 15.) "and none of you deal treacherously against the wife of thy youth, by putting her away, and taking these idolatreffes; for I the LORD hate putting 66 away. The confideration of the relation they stood in tó JEHOVAH-He their common Father-they His profeffing children, was one argument against their separating another was, that, as the LORD fought a godly feed in their offfpring, by their being devoted to Him in their earliest infancy, then brought up in the nurture and admonition of the LORD, this defign would be defeated by their taking idolatrous women, who, instead of devoting the children to JEHOVAH, would be for bringing them up to the worship of their idols, and an ungodly feed be the confequence. See Deut. vii. 3, 4. Lastly, God had forbidden divorce from the beginning, (fee Gen. ii. 24.) for He hateth putting away at any rate; but how much more to fee His own profeffing daughters put away, that His own pro

*

*We find that these idolatrous women laid a fure foundation for this, by bringing up their children in the knowledge of the heathen tongues of their feveral countries, fo that they could not understand the language of God's law. See Neh. xiii. 23, 24,

feffing

feffing fons might marry the daughters of a ftrange God? This was indeed doing an abominable thing which GOD bated. Jer. iv. 44.

This I take to be a clear confiftent view of this famous paffage, and agrees exactly with what EZRA fays, chap. ix. 9. &c. and chap. x. 2. &c. who did not rend his mantle and garment, and pluck the hair off his head and beard, and fit down aftonished, because the people did what their fathers ABRAM, JACOB, DAVID, &c. had done without the leaft reproof, and had been conftantly, openly, avowedly practifed by the holieft of their forefathers, without the leaft* fcruple on their part, or condemnation on GOD'S part-but because they had married heathen women, and, as appears by Mal. ii. 14. had dealt treacherously against the Jewish lawful wives, by putting them

in order to do it.

away

*When Jofeph was folicited by Potiphar's wife, he answered with aborrence-How can I do this great wickedness, and fin against GOD? Gen. xxxix. 9. latter part. But when Abraham's wife Sarah propofed her husband's taking Hagar to wife, Gen. xvi. 2, 3. he does it without the leaft objection. So Jacob took Rachel after Leah, there being their no law against marrying a wife's fifter. This, and the many other inftances, clearly prove, that the wifeft and beft of God's faints never dreamt of polygamy's having any relation to the fin of adultery.

3

As