This interpretation seemed most conducive to the power of the husband, and, therefore, probably had the most advocates; and it is said that the Jewish rulers so suffered it to be understood, and that even Moses, as a man, suffered it; noticing that where the wife became greatly _hated_ by the husband, she was extremely liable to abuse, unless this law was so explained as to permit a divorce. The Jews kept up the dispute about this matter down to the days of our Saviour; when the Pharisees, with the view to place before him a difficult question, and one that might entangle him, if answered adverse to the popular idea, presented it to him, as related in _Matt._ xix. He promptly decides the question, whereupon they say— “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoever marrieth her that is put away, doth commit adultery.” _Matt._ xix. 7, 8, 9. Mark describes this interview thus: “And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife, tempting him? And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept: but from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.” _Mark_ x. 2–6. But do these answers, either way, favour polygamy? Is it not clear that the law was in opposition to it? It is true, the Jews, corrupted by the neighbouring nations who fell into it, practised the habit to a great extent; and so they did idolatry and many other sins. But was _idolatry allowed to the Israelites_? What truth can there be in the assertion that they were _allowed_ a thing, in the practice of which they had to trample their laws under foot? And, under the statement of the facts, what truth is there in the assertion that “polygamy was licensed in the age of the apostles?” If such was “the practice of the holiest men,” it proves nothing except that the holiest men were in the practice of breaking the law. It is true that a looseness of adjudication on the subject of divorce grew up, perhaps even from the time of Moses, among the Jews, on account of the dispute about the interpretation of the law. But upon the supposition that the law was correctly interpreted by those who advocated the greatest laxity, which Jesus Christ sufficiently condemned, yet there is found nothing favouring polygamy in it; for even the loosest interpretation supposed a divorce necessary. The dispute was not about polygamy; but about what predicates rendered a divorce legal.