| Show t i A 1 ln LA LAW W I 1 everybody stir that hab been bern ade ado in E england aap ut a cifes sister there the tha jaw forbid forbids iland 3 0 po o do theca tho canons non uon of the english Ct but in the united states n no 0 law forbids it and aud the episcopal epim Epin eopal copal pa I 1 church has refueled refused to adopt the hu calion badoi of the church ote ol 01 england odthe on the sub I 1 eject jector je ets eds the thu roman catholic church pe per r mits mils such marriages marri ages agea by dispensation we did not know that edy any religious i body absolutely prohibited them but it a csc eo lu new york seems to have vc oc camo namo ned a good deal leal of comment jo in that city in the newspapers news newa papers papera mud aud among a apo too mern mein members bm of the jewish church I 1 it appears that a in arriage marriage was by the bev rev dr wise of cincinnati between a man mau and aud the widow of h his Ibro iuro 1 V T ol 01 lher ihen rii e i ot 01 this the sun says bays the bridegroom was waa therefore the brides br brother othier inlaw and under jew ieh leh law their marriage was waa for forbidden biddens jn Im Leviticus euch such marriage la a prohibited i ag a an abomination and althou although g t elsewhere in the pentateuch a mail 1 ii ac actually Lually required to 10 marry his hla decease deceased d rys widow provided she is child leak less aud nud to t raibe rafai cull children dren by her to pret serve the brothers rame from extine tion modern jewish theologians have concurred I 1 in eunda nunda uhe ube second cu custom storn and fil m vigorously defending defendis defendi defend ip og the first tho the emish jewish times has severely caiti cased the conduct of dr wise wile in hol hoi this thia union it my cons console aole bole him to banow know that the age and many learned doctors think be lie was wah right marriage with a brother brothe ryd widow is is espres expressly ay iy and e en n joined in in Gene genesis sis sij chapter ah verse aud nud d also in deuteronomy Duter luter onomy Y I 1 anth ft tild chapter where a ceremonial ts la described pres in case cage of af the refusal of a brot brother bei hei to contract a marriage with hib his childless sister in law this ris als it is said in tho tbt above extract from the sun is condemned by modern jewish theo glaug lo glans glana but this is an error we very well remember a case tried in the common pleas in this city in which it was waa ne necessary cestary to toi take testimony on this point the most eminent rabbis and members of the jewish church in ehl phi ludelphia were examined as witnesses and they all stated that the cohe cehe ceremonial was wag in use to this day and no jewish widow could creditably mal mai marry under the circumstance mentioned in the chapter of deuteronomy without the of the ceremony in the care caie in question the brother though a married man had formally gone through the ceremony of refusal to marry his brothers widow and se important was this deemed baher by hen her that she had it was alleged in consideration of it ceded certain pecuniary rights which brou brod brought glit the matter into court there it wan ti certainly established that by the ex cating customs of the jewish church a childless widow cannot reputably mai mal marry a stranger till her husbands hua ands bands brother brather hns hag formally dp elined declined to marry her Phit dail philadelphia adelphia age |
