Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1826-06-02

|
Which deGiades thcm below c general standard OF their
country
We n6v 20 the laboted Argument of the gentle
man from Goochland. lie has, certain, managed his
subject with considerable ingenuity, and would have
stood fair this discussion, had he been
fortunate TO excite the mock worship ofthc gentleman
from oath. The language of praise unusual with
that gentlenau that whenever bear it from lis lips
we authorised TO suspect that thetuc motive
avowed ldare say the gentleman from Gopchland
astonisbed 10 hear that he bad made SUCH
able argument, aud the gentleman from Bath would
scarcely have discovered H. had he not been
that his own argument could not serve the purpose
1t Is an old man,ruvrc well understood 10y all dchators
that when you find yourself borne down by the weight
OF your adversary, and utterly Unable reply hun,
you may excuse Yourself under the preteX that has
already been done by other person. TheGCe the
cxtrafagant praises wIfch have been bestowed tue
gentleman from G0ochiaud, praises at which doubt
not, BIS motesty has secretly bushed. lie has been
called Little Davido aud IA order that Inc might des-
roll me oil my armour without violating the consser
cy OF the aliusion 10 scripture history, humble
rits have been swCiled TO the saBtasd of C;oliai.
claim no such prise for myself but if the gentleman
Ill thrust il upon me, must be allowed To ASSURE hin,
that have not yet fcit the stone OF "Llc David" 10
my forehead. The respcCahiIiy OF tue gent eTan from
Gooclland ought to have secured him against uppiauscs
which must appear 10 be little better than irony 1t
known TO us all that he says and does great MANY things
which cne him 10 praise and his failure in this debate
can be attributed only To the fact dat he has attempted
10 argue IN favour OF cause which does not admit Of
any argument at all. bold TO say that the positions
which were taken by myself in opening this Discussion,
haze not been met by any OF my Oppunents-l do
not say this boasuy, for am superior all self raisc.
My strength Is in my cause and not i'll my powers u
reasoning. There is no skill III logic 10 oppose to
cvade the oInnpo!enue OF truth. Like SHOT
irom cTossbow, il fines with equal force, whether 81
ant or dwarf discharges il.
The gentleman from GuuChlanl is the only ono tho
has GENE bodily mp 10 denial ofmy c0nclusiois drawn
from the cvit:cal law. lie has not indeed emptcd
to sheW, by reference 10 tlat INV itself that my
sTuction Of it is false He lncy7 that he would DC moe
81 NIL that M subt
could throw doubt upon its meaning Re has pre-
ierrcd to attack the Jewish interpretation. Gud 10
deny that they arc such have represented thear
be- hnow, sir that the gentleman Is well informed,
but hc must excuse INC Tor suspecug that his furna-
ton upon this subject has been got for the occosion nnd
therefore Is wanting iii that disnctness and precision
which iE3rk ms attachments open Othcc suhcCts.-
When he says that have cited on!y The Nishira andoue
itabb am not justified in supPosIsg ttIat he does not
fully understand what the Mshna Is? take leave TO
tell Inn that consists c Tie Evolutionary laws Of tic
jews, with the cXpCsons commentaries, not of
Rabbi only, but OF many Rabbis. He tells you also at
many jews deny The authority OF ihc Alisbna altogether
There is small sect dwelling chiefly obscure cor
ncr Of Russia, who do his but they bear greater
proportion to the great body otbe Jews than tic Shni.
'n9 Qu3kcrs do to tbc Christians They called Ga
rates karas, and they deny tic authority OF every
part OF the Jewish el3on except the 7cgjHen I0 tts
These liberal cXPosi;cis reject the Bisna but net
informed that they claim paramount authority in
tis question, account either ofheIr numbers tLcIr
learn g tank that the gCntlcman's mittahc results
from his having Couioundcd the Nishpa with another!
part OF the Jewish traditioDary law. Trey recognize
two systems Of The Ashnp, which supposed 10 lave
been niSl cd III tie second century &c the Christian era
and Tie 9 emarra, which il the work OF later years
This last was composed amid tic prosecutions Of U.c
Christian Church when ii dangerous for jew To
w:e any thing. For this reason, cye-y thing which
touched their To!gon, ii was ssary 10 wrap up IN
species OF MYSTICISM which hut themselves can
understand. Hence il IS that te GenaIra appears 90
the ordinary reader, only piece of solemn trling
hIicd with wild and extravaganza connects, Many of
inc Jews themselves reject it, Tor reason, perhaps
but bccarse lis covert illusions cannot be understood ut
THIS distant day. AIN willing however TO surrender the
GemaIra and Che CaTaitcs along with it, tue gentle
from GoocIand, to be disposed Of be may think
proper. cited neither o! them authority relied
only on the Misina and the researches Of the gentleman
have enabled him prove HAT any considerable por,
ton of lcaDcd Jews, have denied tie autiori, OF
that work
We farther informed tat the question OF icnar-
rage OF Henry VII with Catherine OF ArIaGon, was
submitted 10 tie doctors Of the Lobopne &o liz leaned
Jews of France, and that both these high authorities
decided against IFS Legitimacy. do deem il ncccs-
sary to deny the historical fact because utterly reject
tho conclusion which is dcd1iccd from il. Why will
gentlemen persist in assmilang The before u.s. 10
the marriage OF Henry and Catherine The hill under
consideration proposes authorize the marriage OF a
man with The sister of his wife; and Catherine OF Ar.
ragou the widow of IIcDrys brother. Tie cases
arc widely different. have already sdmil,e that l
could discern for the difference but /; must
he obvious TO every who reads the i8l cbaper of
Lcvtucus That the two marriages were uUt placed
the footing rs Moses. Perhaps he feared that the
marriage of Il man with his brothers. widow provided
she had children, might introduce confusion geneao-
GIGS tbad been oTetod that the Messiah should spring
from tte root of Jesse aud who could hot trece
ms descent from that stock, would have been recognized
as "hn tlIal Gomez This reason adpit, not
satisfactory to Inv mind am bound TO account
for every distinction in the Jewish law, which APP
pe2r arbitrary to II enough iat the distinction
is plainly taken in tie sacred writings themselves But
lie gentleman from Goocland is aware tiiat il ie
from the GnaOgies Of de marriage OF with
bis brothers. widow, lie viii be compelled u edrn dat
the marriage Of with his Uie's sister is lawful ia
all where there offspring by the FIRST
rage for in this event, according 10 the Jewish law
not oniv authorised but required 10 marry his
brothers. widow. II may be rcnai aed puss04i that
ibis is q sufficient answer TO the Doctors e tic Lar
bonne for Catherine bad no child by Henry bro.
her, and il is doubted wheiLcT they held the
intercourse Of man and wife This decision therefore,
displays stronger desire TO please powerful monarch
49,, a., Sc;