e

Adam was.

66

the LAW OF MARRIAGE for future generations, and they are therefore here said to have been spoken by God, whose voice "For this cause," because she was 'taken out of the man, shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave unto, рoσkоλnonσetai, shall be firmly cemented to, his wife;" marriage creating a closer and more indissoluble relation than even blood; "and they twain shall be one flesh," or body, as the oldest versions properly render it, and not to be dissolved by your divorces. What therefore God hath joined together, by this primitive example and law, let not man put asunder. This law of marriage no man is at liberty to break, and no legislature or state has the power to modify or alter. The bond is absolutely indissoluble in every case, but that by which the Great Lawgiver himself has dissolved it, the single case of adultery; so that marriage is a sacred, and not a mere civil institution; and whatever laws are made respecting it, must, to acquire any validity, be based upon the supreme law itself, and fully recognise it, in all its extent. The words, "what God hath joined," or yoked "together," contain a metaphor taken from the yoking of oxen, frequently found also in Greek and Latin writers, of which Wetstein adduces several examples. It was adopted probably from the important moral which it suggests: first, that in forming marriages, there should be mutual fitness between the parties; "be not unequally yoked :" second, as to their future conduct, that they should both pull one way, and take their common share in the cares of life, as "helps meet for each other." In illustration of this, it was a part of the

marriage ceremony in some ancient nations, to put a yoke upon the necks of the newly-married couple.

Verse 8. Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement? &c.—The law of Moses did not command or encourage divorces; but it did not prohibit them strictly within the rule of the original law, because of the hardness of the hearts of the Jews, meaning probably, in compassion to the oppressed condition of the women themselves, put under the tyranny of a rigid race of men. What Moses commanded was, that in all such cases a bill of divorce should be given, (see note on Matt. i. 19,) in order that there might be time for reflection, and that the separation should not be made on the momentary impulse of passion; which bill of divorcement required witnesses, so that no man or woman could pretend to be at liberty to marry again when they were not; but must produce the writing in evidence. Moses did this not of his own authority, but under divine direction, as in all the other laws he delivered; so that here is no plea for any private person or government to infringe upon the original law of the marriage relation. He only who gave the law has the right to relax it. That relaxation was however but temporary; and our Lord here again takes the character of Lawgiver, as well as teacher, by re-enacting the original law, and abrogating the relaxation, though that rested upon the same author as the other Mosaic institutions. "From the beginning it was not so," nor shall it be henceforward; for I say unto you, whoever shall put away his wife, &c." This then is the formally

g

emasculated for that purpose; but as they often rose to posts of eminence in such courts, the word is sometimes used for a minister of state or officer of rank, without including the idea of such degradation. Eunuchs from their mother's womb, are those who are either continent from natural infirmity or constitution; eunuchs of men, are the persons above referred to; and eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake, are not those who practise celibacy under the idea of attaining higher purity and merit, but those who, for the advancement of the gospel, voluntarily live single in order to give up themselves uninterruptedly to establish and extend it; and may also comprehend those who, in times of great persecution and danger, choose rather to remain unmarried than expose families to the sufferings which they expected to be called to endure, or to leave them friendless by their own martyrdom. Our Lord, however, adds, He that is able to receive it, let him receive it, that is, let no one receive it except he who is able or qualified to live in this state without sin. So far therefore was our Lord, as the papists pretend, from discouraging marriage, or representing celibacy as a state of greater honour than marriage, that he commands it only in such a case of necessity as should arise out of the promotion of " the kingdom of heaven" in the world. In only a few persons, and at particular times, could such a case arise, in which public usefulness would be more promoted by celibacy. Ordinarily, men are more useful, both as ministers and other officers in the church, when married; but when the gospel was to be preached by itinerating apostles and their coadjutors, when they

had "no certain dwelling place," and when they were persecuted from one city to another, as to some public characters in the church, family duties and those they owed to their office might be incompatible; and it was then their praise voluntarily to give up the honourable relations of husband and parent, in the way of sacrifice, for the glory of Christ and the interests of religion. Yet even these are admonished that they are not to receive the saying unless they are able to receive it, not without a sufficient call of duty, confirmed to them by the communication of special and sufficient grace.

Verse 13. Then were there brought unto him little children, &c.-That these children were very young, appears from the word ẞpepos used by St. Luke, which signifies a child from his birth to the age of four years; and also from the action of our Saviour who "took them up in his arms." That they were the children of believers, that is, of those who received our Lord as the Messiah, is not so clear; they, however, at least believed him to be, a person of great sanctity and a prophet, for from such persons the Jews were accustomed to seek a benediction upon their children; that is, prayer to God for his blessing, accompanied by the imposition of hands, which was used by the Jews in invoking God in behalf of another. Hence it is said, they brought them that he should put his hands on them, and pray.

And the disciples rebuked them.—They did this either because of the number who crowded around their master, and so they thought it might be too troublesome for him to go through this ceremony with them all, or because they thought it below his dignity to be thus employed,

as though he were an ordinary prophet. Whatever might be the motive, their rebuking of the parents only gave occasion for a more illustrious display of his condescension and humility, and for teaching them and his ministers, throughout all ages, to encourage and not forbid children to be brought to him in acts of piety.

Verse 14. Of such are the kingdom of heaven.-The reason which our Lord here gives for bringing children to him could by no means apply to the case, if they were brought to be healed of diseases, as some have asserted, grounding their notion upon St. Mark's words, 'that he would touch them." There is an obvious connexion betwixt their being solemnly blessed by Christ, which was a spiritual act, and being members of his kingdom, which is a spiritual relation; but between such membership, and the healing of their bodily diseases, there is none; since "multitudes " were healed by Christ in different places, who were not at the time, and probably never became, the subjects of his spiritual and heavenly kingdom. Nor can the words in St. Matthew, that he should "put his hands upon them and pray," be interpreted by those of St. Mark, if the latter are to be understood of touching in the sense of healing; whilst St. Mark's expression is easily interpreted by that of St. Matthew. Neither are we to understand with some, that the word Toslav, rendered by us, of such, means merely of such like, of such as resemble little children in disposition. There is, we allow, an ambiguity in the word, and in all others of the same class; but the sense must be determined by an honest construction of the connexion and scope of the passage in which they are used. This is plainly against the interpretation; for what kind of reason was it for our Lord to give to the disciples in order to prevent them from interfering to prevent little children from being brought to him, that other

persons, not children, but of a disposition in some respects resembling them, were the subjects of the kingdom of God? The absurdity refutes itself, and the reason for suffering the children to be brought to Christ must necessarily be found in themselves, and not in others; so that we are bound to conclude, that, in some sense, “the kingdom of heaven" is composed of them, they are its subjects, and partakers of its blessings. That this kingdom signifies the spiritual kingdom of Christ upon earth, and also that glorious reign of God over redeemed and glorified men in a future world, are points not to be disputed; and the words of our Lord, if they relate to one, must relate to both. If little children are the subjects of his spiritual kingdom on earth, then, until the moment that by actual sin they bring personal condemnation upon themselves, they remain heirs of the kingdom of eternal glory; and if they become the subjects of the latter by dying, then a previous vital relation must have existed on earth between them and Christ as their Redeemer and Sanctifier; or else we must assign the sanctification of the nature of man, which even in infants is fallen and corrupt, to a future state, which is contrary to the scriptures. Our Lord's words, therefore, respect that mediatorial kingdom which he was then employed in establishing; and they have a further prospective reference to a future state of felicity.

As to both, however, it is to be observed, that children under the years of accountability are the subjects spoken of, and these alone. That all such stand in a spiritual relation to him, as the sovereign of the kingdom of heaven," the head of this church, is proved from his own words, and that this relation is not a merely nominal but a vital and beneficial one, appears as clearly from his praying for them, putting his hands upon them and blessing them; all which, being acts of favour and acceptance, indicated their

h

most certain heirship, through his merits and intercession, should they die before forfeiture of this grace by personal actual offence, to the felicities of immortal life in his perfected kingdom above. Thus this important passage satisfactorily proves the share which infants have in the mercies of the Redeemer, both in this and in a future life: how far it establishes a right to administer to them the ordinance of Christian baptism, is a distinct question. Taken alone, it can only be made use of for that purpose as supporting a general presumption; but in connexion with the more direct arguments usually employed on this subject, it presents a very favourable aspect towards this practice, and was so regarded in the primitive church. That these children were not baptized by Christ, is allowed; and for this it is a sufficient reason to give, that proper Christian baptism was not then instituted; but as the words plainly indicate that infants are the subjects of the mediatorial kingdom of Christ in the way of grace and acceptance, it appears fitting that they should receive some sign of that relation, and that there should be some visible declaration of their being comprehended in the new covenant, as there was of the comprehension of the children of the descendants of Abraham, in the ancient edition of the same covenant of grace, of which the rite of circumcision was the sign and seal. Previous to the children, here brought to Christ, receiving the blessing of Christ, they stood in a relation of grace to him, of which his manner of receiving them was both a visible sign and seal; and the value of that consisted in its being both. It was thus a public declaration of the love of Christ to infants, of the certainty of their salvation, and of these being the objects of his prayers which could not be offered without beneficial effect; whilst it encouraged a pious act upon the part

T

of the parents, and placed them under responsibility to train them up in religion and piety. To this, although the weight of the argument rests upon other grounds, it must be acknowledged that infant baptism bears an interesting correspondence. It recognises the previous grace and goodwill of Christ to children; it is an act of piety in which they are brought to Christ for his blessing; it is a standing public declaration of the interest which the infant part of the human race have in the atonement; it places parents under proper vows and responsibilities as to the religious education of their children; and if by other arguments from holy writ it is satisfactorily proved to have taken the place of circumcision, and to be properly a sacrament, it is not only a sign, but a seal, of the covenant of grace granted for the comfort and encouragement of parents, and by which the full grace of that covenant is confirmed to their children as they are fitted to receive it; beside the advantage of a visible connexion with the Christian church, answering to that invisible connexion which, independent of any outward rite, they, in fact, enjoy by virtue of their federal union with its head.

Verse 16. One came.-He was a young man, as appears from a subsequent verse; and rich; and, as stated by St. Luke, a ruler, a civil magistrate, or, it may be, one of the Sanhedrim. His inquiry was most important; but youth, riches, and rank were to put his compliance with the counsel he sought to a severe test, and at length they carried it against his convictions.

Good Master.-That this young man had great veneration for Christ, appears from his manner of approaching him, "kneeling," as stated by St. Mark; but that he only regarded him as a prophet, not as the divine Messiah, is as manifest. It is on this ground, therefore, that our Lord