Page:Unlawfulmarriage00jane.djvu/118

114 the Puritan has omitted at the beginning what was necessary to a correct understanding of his quotation, as well as a parenthesis that throws light upon it.

We shall quote the whole from Selden, and leave it with the reader to compare our quotation with that of our brother. "Unde Salomon Jarchius ad illud Deut. xxiii. 2. Non ingrediatur Mamzer in cœtum Domini (quod de matrimonio cum Israelitide contrahendo, ac si dictum fuisset,, Non ducat in uxorem Israelitidem, exponunt.) The Hebrew terms we omit. "Mamzer, inquit, ''is duntaxat est, qui ex coitu excisione plectendo nascitur, aut (quod magis dicendum) ex eo qui ex sententia forensi ultimo plectendus supplicio. Nam inter coitus, qui nomine (ασχημοσυνης sue turpiduninis) signantius denotantur, (Levitico xviii. and xxi.) nullus est ex sententia forensi ultimo supplicio plectendus, ad quem simul excisionis pæna non attinet." If the reader will compare this quotation with that of the Puritan'', he will see that there is a material difference; an important omission at the beginning, and the omission of a material parenthesis in the middle of his quotation.