Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

1

[ocr errors]

Such a day, fuch a month, and year, "I fuch a one, of fuch a place, do, "of my own free consent and choice, "repudiate thee A. B. my late wife,

banifh thee from me, and restore "thee to thy own liberty, and thou "mayeft henceforth go whither, and ઠંડ marry whom, thou wilt. And this "is thy bill of divorcement and writing of expulsion, according to the law of Mofes and Ifrael. Sign"ed by two witneffes. See Univ. Hift. vol. iii. p. 149.

"

The people having been taught that such a bill of divorcement was a valid diffolution of the marriage, the woman of course believed, that he, having received it, was free to marry any other man, as much as if her husband had been dead; and thus was fhe caufed, by this deceit, to marry another, by which, in truth, and in the fight of GOD, fhe committed adultery.

The latter claufe of ver. 32. Whosoever fhall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery, is wanting in the Cambridge manufcript. St. Auguftine fays, that fome Greek and Latin copies had it not, and feems to treat it as a needlefs tautology; his words are thefe 66 Explica"tus hic fenfus putari potuit in eo quod fuperius dictum eft"-" facit eam ma"quomodo enim dimiffa fit

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

chari"

[ocr errors]

"macha,

"macha, nifi fiat qui eam duxerit ma"chus ?"-that is-"The fenfe of this "claufe may be fuppofed to be explained "in what goes before-caufeth her to com"mit adultery-for how could she become

66

an adulterefs, unless the man who mar"ried her became an adulterer?" But when it is confidered that our SAVIOUR was fpeaking to a people whofe ears were dull of bearing, Matt. xiii. 15-who were taught by their Doctors to ftand upon the mere letter of fcripture, without entering into the Spirit of it-it was necessary that line fhould be upon line-line upon line-precept upon precept, precept upon precept-as the Prophet* fpeaks, If. xxviii. 10-therefore, that our LORD fhould not leave them to draw conclufions from words of implication only, and thus to throw the fin upon the woman alone, because the man was not mentioned, but fo exprefs Himself as to bring the whole law on the fubject into full view; as Lev. xx. 10. where both the woman and the man are explicitly mentioned, the one as an adulterefs, the other as an adulterer. Surely then, on the authority of the fcripture itself, the reading of this laft claufe ought to be retained, as it stands in the best copies.

*So the Apostle, Phil. iii. 1.-To write the fame things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is fafe.

Vou. I.

B b

The

The next fcripture to be farther confidered, is Matt. xix. 9. I fay unto you, Whofoever fhall put away his wife (except it be for fornication) and fhall marry another, committeth adultery, and whofo marrieth her ohich is put away, committeth adultery. This is highly neceffary, in order to bring into view the whole of OUR LORD'S defign, which was to reprobate the various abufes of divorce, at that time practifed by the Jews, and among the rest, the horrid traffic, which the very law of Mofes, to which they referred for their juftification, condemned-that of divorcing their wives for every caufe, and, of course, that they might exchange them for a time, and then take them back again;-this was exprefsly forbidden by Deut. xxiv. 2, 3, 4. therefore certainly included in OUR LORD'S difcourfe on the fubject of unlawful and unjuft divorce. And indeed I much doubt, whether, in this place, the applying and inforcing of Deut. xxiv. 2, 3, 4. was not the chief object which OUR SAVIOUR had in view-(fee before p. 85, 86, 87.) For where a man divorced his wife for fuch a purpose (which, according to the Hillelians was held lawful-fee before p. 82, 83.) he became an adulterer in a double fenfe, as not only caufing his own unjuftly-divorced wife to commit adultery, by proftituting her to another man, ac

cording

cording to Matt. v. 32.-but also by taking the other man's unjustly-divorced wife to himfelf; which feems the true import

of

yaunon daan in this place. We must remember, that CHRIST is arguing with the Jews on the footing of the law of Mofes, as it ftood in the Hebrew fcripture, not as the Scribes and Pharifees interpreted it, or as we have tranflated it. See the learned AINSWORTH On Deut. xxiv. 1, &c. and GELL's Effay towards a New Tranflation, p. 723.

A perfon of infidel-principles was once making himself merry in a large company, at the expence of the fcriptures, and told his companions, that he could prove the prophet of the Chriftians (as he called CHRIST) mistaken, even upon the most common fubjects. After awakening the curiofity of the company, he thus gratified it" CHRIST fays, that old bottles are "not fo ftrong as new" (alluding to Matt. ix. 17.) " and therefore, if new wine is

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

put into old bottles, it will break them "-now don't every body know that old glafs is just as ftrong as new, for who ever heard that glass was the weaker for being old?" A clergyman in company, who had been made the butt of his wit, gently reproved the ignorance and folly of this witling, by afking him if he underflood Greek? -"Greek, Sir? No, Sir Bb 2 "-but

66

66

66

"but what has Greek to do with it?--a bottle's a bottle, whether in Greek or English, every body knows that, and "that an old bottle is just as good and as ftrong as a new one."" Not quite, Sir," (replied the other) "if they are made of "leather or fkins, which was the fact as to "the bottles CHRIST fpeaks of, as their "Greek name imports;-and indeed it is

*

'Aoxos fignifies a leathern bottle, or veffel, ufed to hold wine. See Jofh. ix. 4, 13, where the Hebrew word N is rendered by the LXX. donos. They are faid to be old and rent, and bound up. See HARM. Obf. on Scripture, vol. i. p. 131, 132.

The celebrated M. de Voltaire, whofe malice against the fcriptures could only be equalled by his ignorance of their contents, endeavours to prove, from Prov. xxiii. 31. that the whole book is a forgery, and not written by Solomon; this because is rendered, in the tranflations before him, by the word glafs-vitrum-verre-" whereas," fays that wife critic, "drinking-glaffes were not invented till after So"lomon's time," taking it for granted that D' must fignify a drinking-glass; whereas it denotes any drinking-cup which covers or inclofes the liquor, of whatever materials the faid cup may confift.

He is alike happy in his proof of 1 Sam. xxviii. (which gives an account of Saul's confulting the witch of Endor) being a forgery, "because the word "Python" (ufed in the Vulgate tranflation) "was "not known 'till the Jews had fome acquaintance "with the Greeks, after the time of Alexander?" -The Hebrew is 1 which the LXX render by iggaspiμvlov-ventriloquam-a kind of wizard, fo called from their inward way of speaking or muttering. But not a glimpfe of Python is there to be found. See Letters of Jews to Voltaire, vol. 2. p. 275, 373. Tranf. by Lefanu.

« AnteriorContinuar »