apos. the Gentiles*, perhaps without the stone wall, called by the tle the middle wall of partition, which Gentiles and unclean Israelites were not permitted to pass. See § 122. Here, with eyes fixed on the ground, smiting upon his breast, he by that action made a public acknowledgment of his great transgressions before all who were in sight of him, and in the bitterness of his soul earnestly cried for mercy. Luke xviii. 13. And the publican standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, the habitation of the great Being whom he had offended, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. He too, as well as the Pharisee, pronounced his devotions aloud. But in regard his prayer was a confession of his sin, his speaking it aloud proceeded not from vanity, but from the anguish of his soul. For instead of doing him honour, this prayer tended to abase him greatly; as he alleged no mixture of good to palliate the many evils of his past life, but openly acknowledged that he was a sinner, and sought refuge in the mercy of God, the alone foundation of his hope. And that he did not act the hypocrite in this, was evident from the place which he chose for his devotions, where there were few to behold him, from the melancholy of his countenance, and from his whole deportment. But humility and contrition being the dispositions of mind with which guilty creatures should come into the Divine presence, the publi can was a more acceptable worshipper than the Pharisee. 14. I tell you this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: that is, obtained the pardon of his sin, the blessing he had asked in his prayer, while the proud Pharisee, who justified himself, came away without being accepted; as is intimated in the comparison, which, according to the Hebrew idiom, often includes a negation. See Gen. xxxviii. 26. 1 Sam. xxiv. 17. When Jesus had finished the parable, he made an application of it to the persons for whose sake it was delivered, in his favourite and well known maxim, for every one that exalteth himself, shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself, shall be exalted. This parable teaches us several important lessons: as, that the generality of men are great strangers to themselves, and ignorant of their own characters; that they oftentimes thank God in words * Salmasius indeed imagines that he was in the same court of the tem ple with the Pharisee, because the latter mentioned him in his prayer. If 30, his standing afar off implies, that he came no farther than the gate or the extremity of the court, being so humble that he would not go near the Pharisee, whom he esteemed much more holy than himself. It is true Grotius and Cocceius affirm, that persons of his character, by the customs of the times, were obliged to keep at a distance, and that he did so, not out of humility, hut necessity. Nevertheless, the text seems to contra dict their notion, by mentioning the publican's standing afar off, along with the other undoubted instances of his humility, namely, that he would not even look up to heaven, but smote upon his breast, &c. words for his benefits, while their hearts are by no means pene erated with any just sense of them; that it is difficult to think of the sins we ourselves are free from, without censuring the persons who, in our opinion, are guilty of them; that a man may, be very ready to censure others, without ever forming a thought of reforming himself; and that in a certain sense we may be clear of open and scandalous sins, while we are full of inward spiritual wickedness, pride, envy, malice, hypocrisy, and voluptu Qusness. To conclude, by propounding this parable of the Pharisee and the publican, immediately after that of the importunate widow, our Lord has taught us, that although our prayers must be very earnest and frequent, they should always be accompanied with the deepest humility; because no disposition of mind is more proper for such weak and frail beings as men to appear with before the great God, than an absolute self-abasement. CIII. The Pharisees ask Christ's opinion concerning divorces. Mark xix. 3,-12. Mark x. 2,-12. JESUS was still in the town of Ephraim, when the Pharisees came and asked him whether he thought it lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause whatever? Matt. xix. 3. The Pharisees also came unto kim, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? kata katai airiai, for any couse; so the word as signifies, Rom. iii. 20. Gal. ii. 16. He had delivered his sentiments on this subject twice; once in Galilee, Matt. v. 31. § 26. and again iu Perea, Luke xvi. 18. § 96. It is probable therefore, that they knew his opinion, and solicited him to declare it, hoping it would incense, the people, who reckoned the liberty which the law gave them of divorcing their wives, one of their chief privileges. Or, if standing in awe of the people, he should deliver a doctrine different from what he had taught on former occasions, they thought it would be a fit ground for accusing him of dissimulation. But they missed their aim entirely; for Jesus, always consistent with himself, boldly declared the third time against arbitrary divorces, not fearing the popular resentment in the least. The accounts which Matthew and Mark have given of this matter, when compared, seem to clash, though in reality they are perfectly consistent. The two historians indeed take notice of different particulars; but these, when jained together, mutually throw light on each other, and give the reader a full view of the subject. According to both evangelists, the Pharisees came with an insiduous intention, and asked our Lord's opinion concerning divorce. Mark x. 2. And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. But the inswer returned to this question is differently represented by the historians. Matthew says our Lord desired desired the Pharisees to consider the original institution of mar riage in paradise, where God created the human kind of different sexes, and implanted in their breasts such a mutual inclination towards each other, as in warmth and strength surpasses all the other affections wherewith he has endued them. And because they have such a strong love to each other, he declared that in all ages they should neglect every other tie, and among the rest that which binds them to their parents, and go together by marriage; and that male and female thus joined together in marriage, are by the strength of their mutual affection, no more twain, but one flesh; that is, constitute only one person in respect of the unity of their inclinations and interests, and of the mutual power which they have over each others bodies, (1 Cor. vi. 16. vii. 4) and that as long as they continue faithful to this law, they must remain undivided till death separates them. Matth. xix. 4. And he ansevered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them (the Creator) at the beginning, made them male and female ? 5. And † said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they train shall be one flesh. From the original institution of marriage in paradise, and from the great law thereof declared by God himself on that occasion, it evidently appears that it is the strongest and tenderest of all friendships, a friendship supported by the aut' ority of the Divine sanction and approbation, a friendship therefore which ought to be indissoluble till death. 6. Wherefore they are no more train, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder, by unreasonable divorces. Thus, according to Matthew, our Lord answered the Pharisees question concerning divorce, by referring them to the original institution of marriage in paradise. But Mark says, he answered it by referring them to the Mosaical precept. Mark x. 3. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? The evangelists however may be easily freed from the in putation of inconsistency, by supposing that the answer in Mark was given after the Pharisees had, as Matthew informs us (ver. 7.) objected the precept in the law to the argument of divorce drawn from the original institution. Matt. xix. 7. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? If divorce be contrary to the original institution of marriage, as you affirm, how came it that Moses has commanded us to give a bill of divorce, and to put • Ver. 4. He which made them.] O moi, the Creator, as o zuęuwv, Matt. iv. 3. signifies the tempter. t Ver. s. And said, For this cause, &c.] The words here ascribed to the Creator, are in the Mosaic history ascribed to Adam. But as the father of mankind spake on that occasion by inspiration, our Lord justly affirm ed, that what he said was spoken by God. " put her away? The Pharisees, by calling the law concerning divorce a command, insinuated that Moses had been so tender of their happiness, that he would not suffer them to live with bad wives, though they themselves had been willing, but peremptorily enjoined that such should be put away. Mark x. 3. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you ? 4. And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. Our Lord's question, mentioned by Mark, being placed in this order, implies that he wondered how they came to consider Moses' permission in the light of an absolute command, since it was granted merely on account of the hardness of their hearts. Matt. xix. 8. He saith unto them, Moses, * bem cause of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so. And as unlimited divorces were not permitted in the state of innocence, so neither shall they be under the gospel-dispensation. 9. ↑ And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her which is put away, doth commit adultery. From our Lord's answer therefore it appears, that the school of Sammai taught the best morality on the subject of divorce, but that the opinion of the school of Hillel was more agreeable to the law of Moses on that point. See on Matth. v, 31. § 26. This 9th verse of Matthew seems to be parallel to the 11th verse of Ver. 8. Because of the hardness of your hearts.] He meant their pas sionate stubborn temper, which was such, that had they not been permitted to divorce their wives, some would not have scrupled to murder them outright; others would have got rid of them by suborning witnesses të prove the crime of adultery against them; others would have reckoned it great mildness, if they had contented themselves with separating from their wives, and living unmarried. And thus God's design of multiplying his people exceedingly must have been frustrated, as the hated wives would either have been murdered, or denied the liberty of propagating by other husbands, a privilege that was secured to them by divorce. Mo ses therefore acted as a prudent lawgiver, in allowing other causes of divorce besides whoredom, because by admitting the less, he avoided the greater evil. At the same time, the Jews whose hardness of heart rendered this expedient necessary, were chargeable with all the evils that followed it; for which reason, as often as they divorced their wives, unless in the case of adultery, they sinned against the original law of marriage, and were criminal in the sight of God, notwithstanding their law allowed such divorces. +Ver. 9. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away kis wife, &c.] The practice of unlimited divorces which prevailed among the Jews, gave great encouragement to family quarrels, was very destructive of charity, and hindered the good education of their common offspring. Resides, it tended not a little to make their children lose that reverence for them, which is due to parents; as it was scarce possible for the children to avoid engaging in the quarrel. Our Lord's prohibition therefore of these divorces is founded on the strongest reason, and tends highly to the peace and welfare of society. [Sect. 103. of Mark, having been spoken to the disciples in the house, as is probable from the unusual change of persons observable in this part of the discourse. Nevertheless, for the sake of representing the whole of our Lord's doctrine on this subject together, I have here brought in the ninth verse of Matthew immediately after the eighth. But what appears to be the true order, is preserved in the Harmony. There is this farther difference observable in the account which the evangelists give of our Lord's conversation with the Pharisees, that toward the conclusion thereof, Mark brings in the citation from Gen. ii. 24. concerning the original institution of marriage, wherewith Matthew says it was begun. Mark x. 5. For the hardness of your heart, he wrote you this precept. 6. But, as I told you before, from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. 7. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, 8. And they twain shall be one flesh; so then they are no more truain, but one flesh. 9. What therefore God hath joined toge ther, thus intimately by marriage, let no man put asunder by causeless divorce. See on Matt. ver. 4. It seems this citation was twice produced. Nor is there any thing improper in such a repetition. For the Pharisees having objected Moses' precept, as inconsistent with the sense which Jesus put upon the passage in Genesis, it was very fit to repeat that passage, after he had confuted them, because by so doing he signified that its genuine. and natural meaning could not possibly be affected by their fri volous objections. See an example of a like repetition, Matt. xv. 7. § 64. The disciples, it seems, were greatly surprised at Christ's decision concerning divorce; for though they said nothing to him while the Pharisees were present, they did not neglect to ask him about it when they came to their lodging. 10. And in the house, his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shail put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. From this general expression, the Papists infer that it is unlawful for a man to marry after having divorced his wife, even on account of adultery. But the parallel passage in Matthew shews plainly, that the clause except it be for fornication, is omitted here. Or though that clause had not been there mentioned, the precedent context, and the subject spoken of, would necessarily have led the reader to supply this limitation. 12. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. It was the custom of those times, for the women also to divorce their husbands. Matt. xix. 10. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry: Since the law of marriage is so rigid, that unless the woman breaks the bond by going astray, her husband cannot dismiss her, but must |