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

How absurd IS 1t la u.s. tLcn 10 rec TX Q them as
a rule of faAh. prescribed BY the Immediate will
of God, to man. y.
But sir, suppose that We apply to them, our
own rules OF construction: This will destroy at
oncethe whole force OF the precept. lI>man is
To determine what is smear of kim he in effect
makes the entire law upon the subject; for lie
may declare that none are near of KIN, or thai
all arc near OF kin, according to the hur,sour
winch may predominant at the moment The
tstoiy OF the Rotnsh church affords AN annie H.
iusira,ion upon this point. Atone time the third
degree IN blood was prohibited, aud 1T anotlier
tune the fourth, and both these degrees were cs-
tabiised al different periods in the single eccle-
sias'lcal reign of one OF of the Clemens. But,
SIR, how are these degrees to be ascertained,
shall we count according to the rule vi the civil
or OF The common law Shall we adopt the IDEAS
oi H'ndOstan, Or those of Greenland, Gentle
men assume that this is preccpt of religion
and of course it extends To all the corners Of the
earth. And are all the corners Of the earth
agreed IN any rule b, which the precept shall he
interpreted: 1. not, sir, to whose jut;g,nen.
siaii the preference be given, or how are we to
determine whether we violate the precept or not,
These absurd:ties cannot fail 10 strike every re-
iiecuns mud, aud we Inty we'll hope that the
warinest supporters of bible authority will
scarcely place tieiE opposition 10 the present
bill on the words near oil kim
trust, sir, that have succeeded i'm demon
strating that the prohibition contended for. j.,
mol 10 De found an the auaIOeies of the 1911,
verse, l8 CHI. of Lev nor in the yyorIs ..pe,r ,f
KIM" itriecd, the very difference of opinion as
10 the precise passage IN which the prohibition is
10 be found, IS the strongest presumptiye proof,
that IL ., not to be found any where. The Gre
ator does not give forth his laws SO dirnly. thai
man shall NOT know them when he sees il,em.
iheologians may indeed well differ as TO the
meaning of any given passage, bmt this is be-
lleved Ia he solitary instance, irr which they
have undertaken 10 originate new rule of
faith, uniting in the belief of its existence. and
yet splitting INTO parties to the authority which,
supports ii; resting their faith upon distinct and
independent texts, and yet each party, DENYING
The reasoning and theology of the other They
nave arr;iyed themselves i'll hostile ranks and /
am content To leave the combat between them.
The result OF all this reasoning, sill, is thai,
the case before Us is not provided for in an,
other passage of the Mosaic law than the 1lti.
verse oi the 18th chapter OF Leviticus and that
the proper coBst. uction of that verse, restricts
the prohibition to the life time of The first wife.
II IS commended, however, by the gentleman from
HUochliid, That the prohibition NAV also t,
found II! that warning which john tie BAPTIST
gave TO Hciod, ~vho desired to marry Heroj,as
his brother Philips wife. For john SAID, il is
not lawful for thee To have hcI.n This sir. is
hot the case oeiore u.s. The present bill does
not seek to repeal the law which prohibits smell
marriage as this: and even if il did, the case
cited would not he authority. 1t is known To
every one that Philip ,oas al that time attve: and
II the gentleman from Goochland had taken The
trouble To consult any Dictionary oi the Bible
eNtant, he would have been saved the tr,,uIe oC
advancing a position, in Which not one ,I,eoh,
gian In the world wall be found lie agree Will,
him.
a
subject? Surely they are the best INTERPRETERS,
of their own I;rw. we should sca,ccl, hois IL.
French civilian To interpret the canon law OF:
England: and for the same reason, we should
4, with I'M iici; faith on the constructions which,
learned Jews have given of the laws of Moses
| l have purposcIy a, oidod a recurrence 10 any
other authority, fer shall look in vain for any
| sound theology inth' gloomy aus!erities of the
monks, or in the open corruptio,is Of the higher
oriers OF the catholic church
TIE Jewish code, properly so called, is an
abstract OF all their OTTER codes. IL has been il,
force Tor centuries and its autioTit, is not dis
iutc.t by any of that nation, Ii consists of 1--WE,
parts; firsi at the law, properly calied; ant,
secondly oil Tie commentaries or deductions Of
learned rab6s. Some marriages ara prohibited
BY the law; in which case, the parties being CON
sidere'i incapable Ut contracting, their marriage
Is void nb i.ito. and their offspring are bastarJs
Other marriages are prohibited by the rabbIs.
IN which case a divorce is required, and the
children are not necessarily iIiegitmaie The
code aforementioned informs 'us that the wife,,
sister Is prohibited by the law, su long as the
wife Is alive; and II makes no lille, cncc whether
she be sister hy the fathers or the mother.
side and SO even if he has divorced his wife: Iuf
ierherd eoM, he is permitted to haze her sister.
1t is the manner of that code To give cases in
illustration. This Is one of them. ssA man
| married woman and she went TO another coun-
try: witness came and testified she was dead:
lie married her sister; and afterwards il was
kncwn she was not dead. He is prohibited
both, and both must be divorced. Bit one ot
hhcm dies, he is permitted IN ,,ef0in ne othcr.n
have other extracts in my hand, sir, TO the same
purPort, but it is not necessary TO read them iu,
the illustration of this point. j will add, how
| ever, the opinion of rabbi Solomon Jarcli. az
p! near our time as the 18th century, in confirrna
lion of tins point. Speaking of the 18th verse
Of 18th Lev. lie says, t'To her sister, signifies
both at once: ITO yeS her." that one should moi
distress her." that one should cot distress ano-
Their in her life timer These references show
a consistent construction Of this passage, from
the earliest period of the Jewish history. down
TO time comparatively modcrn; and they leave
us no reason TO doubt thai according to a correct
understanding of the Mosaic law the prohibition
commended for is not TO be found in IL.
| But sir, il is sufficient to remark upon ti,is
branch Of the subject, that a relationship by
mere affinity, is no relationship al all, according
| to any u prtOit ideas which we can entertain
upon that subject. Tie only notion of relation
! slip which the mind can embrace, within the
reason of the present case, is relationship
which springs from community of blood. Ii
sccms 10 be in nature. that there Should exist