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


ieg'siaton upon this subject, is not entitled 10
the respect OF adeliberatc precedent. 1t will
serve also To justify the reference which shall
make to the levitical law, because it was in that
law only that the prohibition in question was
originally founded. In taking this course, I trust
That shall not he considered trespasscr upon
the proper province of the thcoiugian. have
not learning enough to fit for sucl, an Office,
nor does the occasion require any farther research
INTO the doctrines Of the christian church., than
asy man can make, who is capable of applying
sound rules of construction TO the language vi
holy writ.
The gentleman from Goochand rests the the
illogical part of his argument, upon the analo,
gies furnished by the 10th verse of the 18th oh.
OF Leviticus. This verse prohibits the inter,nar-
rage Of man with the widow of his brother,
and hence 1t is contended that a marriage be-
tween woman and the husband of her sister,
is also prohibited. 1t is true that to us. there
appears the same degree Of relation, slip in these
two cases, but ii the gentleman lad extended
ms researches only two verses farther, he would
have perceived that the Jewish lawgiver enter
tanned very different IDEAS upon the SUBJECT
In the 18th verse of the same chapter, the case
is expressly provided for, and as the gentleman
has not explained the process by which he gets
rid of this verse in order to let in the analogies
for which he contends, shall postpone all en-
curry into the correctness OF those analugics,
until shall have examined the passage which,
relates directly to the subject.
The verse TO which allude is in these words:
'Ncither shalt thou take wife to her sister 10
vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the
other, in her life timen
Even lift were possible TO give 10 these words.
construction unfavousable to the present bill
should not be disposed to aclenow ledge their
authority. l am yet to learn why il is, that the
political and municipal regulations of the Jews,
are obligatory upon us as rules of faith, under
the christian dspensation. ltwas early incul-
Gated upon my mind, that the religion of Moses
vanished when the veil of the temple was rent.
What is there To- render this part of the Mosaic
laws more binding upon us than any other! We
read in this same Levitical law, that man shall
not too closely CLEAN his ficlds-a benevolent,
PROVISION Tor the poor. Particular and minue
directions are given for the preparation and ar
ransement of the sacrifice; and il is written i'm
very PLAIN terms, that eye shall not round the
corners ot your heads, nor wear the corners of
your boards" apprehend that this latter law
would be submitted TO with an i'll grace, by the
fashion tble beaux- of the present Iay, and vel
the gentleman from Goochand has not informed
us why II IS less obligatory upon us, than the
particular passage of the same general system
OF laws to which he refers. BY what principlc
shall we be governed in selecting from this mul.
hilarious code, those particular parts which ex
tend 10 US as rules of faith? Shall we say that
lose laws only are binding upon us which arc
'inded on the eternal principles of right, This
ansverhds been given-and it is strange. indeed
that any rejecting mind should rest its religious
'ailh upon such reasoning. Who does not,Rcr-
ceiVe, that by this course of reasoning we afan-
don altogether the authority of tie Mosaic D,e-
! cePt considered such, aud respect il ONLY so
lar as IT accords with our own notions of moral
right Moses is no longer regarded as AN in
spiTea prophet and messenger, cnpow red TO an
nounce tire councils of heaven to man, but lac
SINKS AT once ntU a mere human ir,rislator
! whose laws must he brought down To the stand.
ard of human Judgment. This authority is O
course loet-and every question arising unde,
ms laws. must, by thisrnie Of reasoning be de
cIded at last, BY an appeal to the judgment ana
iceiing OF the present time. The truth is there
| Is no room To contend, that any part of the An
sale institutions ard laws, is binding upon us
with the force of authority. True il is, we must
obey them so far as they accord with Tie: mora
law; but our obedience is claimed, not because
the pfecept is Of Moses. bnt because il spripr.
from the eternal principles of right, which appl,
with equal force to all nations and TO all times,
but, sir, am willing, for the sake Of argyll
'ncnt, 10 surrender this point. Let us admit, il
gentlemen viii have ii SO, that SO much of the.
Mosaic law as relates 10 the subject of marriage
is binding upon Us, with ALI the authority of reli.
gIon. Still, sir, that law does not contain the
prohibition which our forefathers supposed, and
winch they endeavored to enforce By the Statute
OF 1880.
may challenge the most tiligeni searclcr 81
the scriptures, to adducc single passage which,
relates directly to this subject, except the lG.l
verse or 18th Lev. which have inst cited And
live give a literal construction to the language
OF tins verse, ii is impossible to mistake its mean
ing; and this JDeauinn W i'll ke ,.<
| PLAIN, when we advert to fact, established no,
only by the law in questions but by The .Jewisl
historian Josephus, that it was "a custom among
| the Jews to have many wivcs.n Hence il is ap
parent that the meauing of the precept M ques.
ton is simply tllis s'AlthougII it is permitted
you to have many wives, yet YOU shall not MARI,
two sisters at Tie same time You shall moi
take wife 10 her sister Sin the life time of tho
other" And plain motive for this regulation
III the jewish commonwealth, is found in those
dissentioDs which distracted tlie family of tlt
patrlirch Jacob. a part of Bible history, which
Is so familiar TO every reader of that book, tina
II Is unnecessary TO dwell upon il. will sinv,,
aid, therefore, that in referring the precept II
question to the case of Jacob and his two wives
| '-ebi and Rachel, am b0rne out by the al,
| ihorIty OF The abiest commentator upon th
| biblc, thai ever gracet this or any other age %
inatIoii; mean the celebrated Doctor CIIrI,e
Dut u ti'is be not the true meaning, how shall ~
dispose of tie words ''to vey icr,n which occu
III the SAME verse. To vcx whom, The asI,o
of the deceased wife, slurnberinr in her grave
what meaning shall we give to these words. up
less we apply them TO some one in being, r,
REJECT them altogether, would biolate one of {,
iirst rules Of construction; and If VIC allow then
| Any influence ~ the DtcDce, they must resfric
the PTecept to the single case Of marriage will
| two sisters at fbe mo fie,o Til, s;r a. a.,