Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-12-21

elch os these positions IN IT'S order. IL is evil
dent however, that before either Of them can be
sustained, 1t rs necessary to put aside the 18th
verse altogether, rs authority upon this point:
and tins cannot be done, except by giving it a
construction different from that which IL, Ian.
gennports. Accordingly they teilus that the
words ga wife to her sister," is Hebraic form
"texpression, meaning zone wife to anotiier;n
and of course, that tins verse is simply pre-
cept against pOlygamy, and nothing more. II
'h's construction fail them, all the consequent
ces which they dcducc from it, must be aban-
doned, and of course the marriage i'm question
Is not prohibited, either by the analogy of the
18th verse, nor by force Of the words smear CT
kim
Without pretending, sir, 10 more than super
neral learning in matters of Divinity, cannut
| ont be surprised that any man should be willing
10 risk the credit Of his understanding, upon
tins view of the subject None can doubt
tliat the case of the wifc's sister was in the mind
OF tie jewish legislator when he wrote the 18Th
verse. The very divine authority which is
charmed for his preccpts, goes upon the idea that
tie announced them as the immediate inspira
ions Of the Deity; and yet we are told, that
! Tins messenger from heaven, commissioned tsi
proclaim to man the eternal and nnutable I,,vs
| OF his faith, has mpcrfcctiy performed his
trust, that those laws cannot be discovered ex
cept by deduction and analogy. This is mere
dible. and II throws such a degree OF doubt and
| uncertainty around the whole subject as takes
away from it all professions TO the dignity of a
divine Precept. When God, cendescen,is To
'peals 10 man, he does not veil his will in mysti.
cis'n; IT IS part OF his eternal plan, to render
IT pia'', alike 10 the simple and the wise.
But, sir, have still further objection 10 this
construction of the 18th verse. Thesc is no
sufficient warrant fol- il in the structure and
i!Ion ut the Hebrew language. 1 do not rest
tiIis opinion upon my own imperfect knowlc;lg
ut that language, but am supported by the au-
thority OF living scholar, as deeply versed in
oriental literature as any other in our country
And even if such construction were allowable
IN any case, 1T cannot he received i'm this, be-
cause poiygamy ,oas nal prohibited among the
'Je'os For this, sir, have not only the antl,o-
rity oil Josephus, before cited, but of the Pen
tateuch itself Without troubling the House
with reading any other passages from that book,
will simply refer to Deut. xvii. II: xxi. Is, and
Chfon xi. These passages contain direct re-
terence TO the subject, and establish Inv position
beyond all re asonable doubt.
II this reasoning be correct, there is no neces-
sity for pursuing the subject any farther; for, it
Is only by destroying the literal construction of
the 18th verse, that the prohibition can be cor
rectlv placed on any other passage OF scripture
Let me admit, however, that this verse does not
embrace the subject, and think I shall show.
conclusively, that neither of tlie passages con-
~
| The prohibition is no where 10 be found in holy
writ.
|. The first ground assumed by my opponents is
| dis: that, as widow, according to the precep
of the 10Th verse, may not marry the brother OF
| her deceased husband, it follows, by direct ana
| logy, that widoweI may not marry the sister of
| bis deceased wife. Ii is not for us to saw. by
| what motive the Jewish law giver was actuated
III making difference between two cases, APP
pareatly the same IN their leading circumstances
put that such difference does exist, is obvious.
III Is remarkable, that although there is :cc..esu
! Anr--douht!css founded in mere reasons of poll
! cy-prohib;tine man from marrying ihe widow
I ut ms brother, yet, under particular circu,n-
| stances such marriage is not only Ieymiiied
but enjJ;,iGa. In case the deceased brother left
! no offspring, ii was the duty OF the SURVIVING.
brother to marry bis w;.iow and if Ie refused TO
| do sO nc subjected himself TO a degrading and
| contuineous ceremony, III the presence of the
| assembled congregation. II this be So sir, how
Is it possible TO consider the precept upon this
subject. as a fundamental law of religion, l. an
| we, without irrcvcrcncc towards the Deity, al.
tribute To him system of laws, thus muiahIc
| and imperfect Did lac want wisdom 10 discern
What was proper for his creatures, or power tn
| provide for them, scheme OF faith in winch
| there should be no varying nor shadow OF
Change The laws of religion founded in
| original nature; they co-ct,r RIA, with the
Deity, because they are cnanatIuns from him;
| they apply alike to all NATIONS, to all ages and
under all circumstances; and IL Is inconsistent
with i."ir very nature that they should bend to
human convenience, or follow the Changes of
human policy. Ii such marriage be wrong in
Itself, II IS impossible that the Deity could a,i-
! thorise 1t, under any circumstances; and we
cannot, therefore, adopt the precept of ibis verse
as a rule OF faith, without attributing to the
counscls OF i'eavcnadegree Of imperfcctness and
rnutabiliiy, not often found even i'm human inst-
Unions may rest the correctness of this con-
cnsion, sir, upon the authority Of Hume; who.
however hostile TO the whole syste,n of christi
aniiv, may at least claim our respect as a iopi-
cal reasoneT, and a learned man We arc not
at liberty, therefore, TO rest tic prohibition con
| tended for, on the analogics of the 1911, verse
Indeed, if we pursue those analogies through
out, they will anthorise the marriage in uucs
ton, 'cheneccr the deceased Eife shall hare left
no Ctspring-a concession which gentlemen on
the other side will eCarceIy be disposed 10 make
But, sir, another class of my opponents,-pot
upon this floor, sir,-rest the prohibition on the
force Of the words s'near of KIM occurring in
the 9th verse of the same chapter. will here
remark, en- passaut, that the words smear of kin,
are rather free translation of the original He
brew, which means, literally, s.reinuam of his
!lcsii" and cannot, therefore, he made To OK tend
: to any other degrees of relationship than those
Of consequently. But profess not to treat this
suhJect upon the authority of the original text
| will take the bible the mere English reader
fi:ils II, and " my positions cannot be thus sus-
tanned, I am content that they should fall.
| and first, sir, what IS .'near of kin9n When
shall we give to those wortis so fixed and definite
n meaning as TO build upon them law of our
t-..t, f.,ft