xxiv when a man hath taken a wife and married her and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes then let him write her a bill of and give it in her hand and send her out of his house now i would respectfully ask of mr r d how is it that in these words out of the bible he has left out and altogether omitted the words because he hath found some in her which form an part of the first verse in the twenty fourth chapter of after the sentence find no favor in his eyes and before the sentence then let him write c these words omitted by mr r d form the of the whole law on divorce for the hebrew word which the english version here renders is throughout sacred scripture invariably used to express intercourse xviii where the word occurs several times and is rendered into the argument on divorce it ia not my intention to enter and as it is not to motives i must not say that mr r the text he leaving out words which fully prove that this word of god through moses his servant so not to say treated by mr r d is identical with the law of our state which he praises as derived from the new testament but i should like to know and i ask you mr editor what degree of confidence and consideration can be due to the and opinions of a who to quote from a book so well known as the bible somehow to omit the and of a law against which he his assault a semi barbarous reply by mr to a � sir i omitted the words in the text from to which in to day s you refer if they were at all essential to the true understanding of the text you are right in taking me severely to task for their a man who would a quotation from any book to suit his purpose ought to all claim to confidence i omitted them from what you may term a weakness or may pronounce to be mere my studies never having gone beyond greek the old testament in its original tongue is a sealed book to me the expression because he hath found some in her conveyed to my mind no idea except as a phrase in terms less veiled than modem usage is wont to employ to mean disgust produced by some personal habit or k in thia i was not mistaken the words are clearly non essential and i might innocently consult my feelings by them in the columns of a daily paper but if as you assert the hebrew word rendered means the was a grave one even if not committed does it mean if without presumption one who has never cultivated those roots of which that impudent who declared that they flourish most on barren ground may venture to ai ue the point with a i ask leave to take issue as to this interpretation the subject indeed is a disagreeable one but in self defence i cannot now choose but follow whither you lead namely to the chapter by you xviii where as you inform us the same word rendered in occurs several times and is translated the first verse in which this happens reads thus the � from the of march and divorce of thy father and the of thy mother shalt not if as you the word here translated is throughout sacred scripture invariably used to express intercourse or as in a wife s case it would be and if in the above text we substitute the one word for the other as if you are right we may properly do we shall have a text which you may comprehend but which to my becomes wholly unintelligible i in what r learning may set down as my simplicity have always interpreted the text in question as referring to that offence which and avoided and for which ix was cursed the word does indeed in another text numbers v but to give it that meaning other words are expressly added the priest in that text thus addresses the woman suspected of if no man have lain with thee and if thou hast not gone aside to with of thy be thou ee c even in this text however if we were to attempt to substitute for we should not only have but a phrase that would seem to favor the idea that a wife might commit with her husband as well as with other men a thing i must confess i never before heard of but of au this the veiy words of the text seem to your reading those words are if it come to pass that she the wife find no favor in his eyes because of some e now a wife may be said to find no favor in a husband s eyes if her person or her character become disagreeable to him but who would ever select such a phrase for a graver occasion what would you think of saying mrs smith found no favor in mr smith s eyes because of some acts of finally a difficulty remains which in my eyes as in the of au christians it must be is though a semi perhaps may get over it did not interpret the text as you do your assertion is that moses law is identical with the law of your state new york that is to say that it allowed divorce for no other cause except if that was so why i pray you did say moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives and why did he add but in the beginning it was not so and i say unto you shall put away his wife except it be for and shall many 