Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

that the dissenter's marriage would be a squabble between the minister and the bridegroom, we copy from our church book the following attested reports of two recent marriages of members of our body.

"The Elder and other Members present at the Marriage of our Brother Robert Tiffin with our Sister Sarah Turner, have to report to the Church as follows :

[ocr errors]

"On the morning of Sunday, April 27, 1823, we proceeded to the parish church of St. Luke's, and found assembled before" the Communion Table," various other parties, met for a similar purpose. We being informed that there were to be celebrated at the same time several other marriages.

"On the arrival of Mr. Rice, the officiating minister, and just previous to the commencement of the ceremony, our Brother Tiffin presented a written protest signed by his intended Wife and himself, and drawn up in the form approved by the church. He accompanied the delivery with these words:- "I deliver this as our protest against the religious part of the ceremmy." The Minister then exclaimed, "What is this?" On the reply being given, “ It is my protest," he dashed the paper violently, though perhaps undesignedly, into the face of one of our friends, exclaiming, "I can receive no protest." The Minister then proceeded to declare that by the presenting this paper he had been insulted; when the Elder, who was standing by, having to perform part of the ceremony, called "the giving away" the bride, endeavoured respectfully to explain that no insult was or could be intended, as the presenting the protest was only the expression of conscientious scruples on the part of our friends as being dissenters. All endeavours, however, at such explanation, though frequently made, were interrupted and prevented by a vehement and constant demand that the party who presented the protest should withdraw it, and an avowal that he could not listen to our religious scruples. After this had been more than once repeated, our friends adverted to the licence which had been obtained, and called upon Mr. Rice, as the officer appointed by law to fulfil his duty by completing the marriage-instead of which he left the communion table, declaring "that he would not marry the individuals, and appealing to those present (the parties connected with the cele bration of the other marriages) that he had been interrupted in the discharge of his sacred office," and he threatened us more than once with proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court, the consequence of which he described as of the most dreadful nature, and the extent of which he said we were probably but little aware of—and wound up the whole by directing the sexton TO GO FOR A CONSTABLE-a command which was immediately obeyed, and the constable arrived accordingly.

"The whole of the party now proceeded to the vestry, where occurred a repetition of the same threats and violence on the part of the Minister, and the same vain endeavour at explanation on our part; at one time he insisted that one of the parties present (the Elder) should leave the church with the protest, asserting that it was he who had insulted him by presenting it. From the influence of irritation he would appear to have been really mistaken on this point, but the clerk interfered to assure him that the protest was presented by the individual to be married. Still insisting that he would not perform the marriage unless reparation were made him, he left us in company with the constable and the sexton, and proceeded into the church, the doors of which were closed against us, to perform the

other marriages, the individuals attending which had all the time been spectators of the scene which we have been describing.

"On the return of the Minister to the vestry, he addressed our Brother Tiffin at considerable length, expressing his own reverence for the sacred place in which he stood, and the sacred office he had to perform, and avowing his readiness "to make every proper allowance for the errors and mistaken views on religious matters into which our brother had fallen!" but declaring once more that he would not allow him to express his religious scruples by any protest. He then shifted his ground and asserted that he would not marry the parties unless an apology were publicly made in the church for the insult which had been offered him by presenting the protest. To this language on his part we replied by stating, that apology we could not make as we were aware of having done nothing but what was conscientiously right: our Brother Tiffin stating, however, that whilst he could not apologise for, he was quite ready to explain the reasons of, his conduct, which he proceeded to do, by again stating that no intention personally to insult him did exist. or could have existed— that the parties to be married came there to go through a certain ceremony which by the law of the land they were compelled to go through in order to make the marriage binding, and that the protest was only intended to express their conscientious objections to the ceremony.

"Some further remarks had passed on both sides, when Mr. Rice remarked, that if he married the parties after what had passed, it would be to avoid the dreadful consequences which would ensue to them! On hearing this implied intention to go on with the ceremony, without his demand for an apology being complied with, we again motioned to proceed into the church-but he, contrary, as we believe, both to the letter and spirit of the law, particularly of the Marriage Act, insisted that only the couple to be married, and the party who was to act as father to the bride, should enter there: it was only in consequenc of a special request that he allowed two female friends, who were present, also to accompany our sister; the other friends of the bride and bridegroom who were severally called upon personally to apologize, though some had scarcely taken any part in what had passed, were restrained from entering the church on their refusing to submit, and were at first shut up in the vestry; the doors, however, were afterwards opened by some of the attendants, and they were thus allowed to remain distant spectators of the ceremony. "Of the performance of the ceremony itself, we have little to inform the church: our brother Tiffin bore the usual testimony against what to us is perhaps the most objectionable part of the ceremony, by at first declining to repeat the form relative to the Trinity; and when compelled to do so, the words he used were nearly as follows: "In the name of the Father, and (but protesting against it as a disbeliever in the Trinity) of the Son, and (but protesting against it) of the Holy Ghost." The minister, however, insisted upon his again repeating this form, without the words he had introduced. The minister then appeared to hasten through the ceremony, pronouncing the parties to be man and wife; and as he omitted all the prayers and the latter part of the ceremony, our friends were not called upon to kneel before what we esteem an idolatrous altar.

"On our return to the vestry, the minister stated that he felt quite dissatisfied with himself for what he had done in marrying the parties, after the protest they had delivered, putting his having done so wholly upon the ground of consideration for the consequences to them; but he took occasion at the end in a very pointed manner to declare, that he did not in any way wish to interfere with our religious scruples, though he must

object to our expressing them in that place, and concluded with this declaration: "I should be glad to see Dissenters relieved with respect to the mode of marrying; and if you would bring me a petition to the legisla ture, praying for that relief, I, as a clergyman of the Church of England. would be the first to put my hand to it."

"The elder and other friends, in reporting to the church this further instance in which they have been placed under the painful necessity of acting a part, which, although compelled by principle, is equally repugnant to their feelings as it can be to those of the ministers and parties, called upon to officiate-which equally violates their consciences and the alleged sanctity of the place and office in and against which they offer their protest, are induced to express a hope that the time may speedily arrive when the legislature shall relieve at once the establishment and the dissenters from a repetition of scenes painful and humiliating as that which it has now fallen to our lot to communicate to our brethren in the church.” Signed by the Elder and eight friends present.

Our

The personal rudeness and violence of the reverend gentleman, as exhibited on the above occasion, will perhaps surprise our readers more than it has done ourselves. sentiments of the clergy are sufficiently known; and whether the individual in question may be taken as an unfavourable or a fair average specimen of that body, it is of little consequence to inquire. The report, however, above given, fails to convey any adequate idea of the violence and gesticulation exhibited by Mr. Rice, on the occasion referred to, as our friends, in drawing up an official document, confined themselves to a mere statement of facts; rather avoiding in such a paper any attempt to convey an impression of manner which could not fail in the present instance, if it reached the truth, to have the appearance of going beyond it. The reader, however, will derive no incorrect impression of the reverend gentleman, if we may be permitted to express ourselves in the nomenclature of the phrenologist, and to say that he appeared to us to possess the organ of combativeness very powerfully developed! whilst the hyperbole of the poet would scarcely be found to exaggerate his oratorical powers:

"Language which Boreas might to Auster hold,

More rough than forty Germans when they scold." We readily confess, indeed, that Mr. Rice had, on the above occasion, a painful task to perform, being called upon to administer an established ceremony under circumstances of embarrassment and difficulty. Our friends, however, on their part, had done every thing which a polite consideration for the difficult duty cast upon the minister could suggest. They had twice called at his house to apprise him of their intention to protest against the ceremony, and the reverend gentleman had twice been denied to them as

66

"Not at home." Mr. Rice, however, did our brother Tiffin the favour of calling at his house; but, as some difficulty was apprehended with regard to the licence, it became necessary for our friend to wait again upon Mr. Rice the day before the marriage; when, on seeing the reverend gentleman's son, they were a third time told that Mr. Rice was not at home;" but upon the nature and importance of their business being explained, the young gentleman very candidly admitted that his father was at home, but that he was-at dinner, and did not like to be disturbed! The son, however, after conveying certain telegraphic communications between our friends at the door and the priest at the dinner table, succeeded in obtaining an interview for the former. After, therefore, the attentive, respectful, and courteous conduct of our brethren, they but little expected to be beset in so terrific a manner by this clerical spirit, which they had taken so much pains to propitiate. Did the interruption of the marriage ceremony, by our friends, excite in the mind of the reverend gentleman a recollection of their having interrupted the dinner ceremony, and thus draw down upon their heads a double portion of his ire? Be that as it may, certain it is that good Mr. Rice was as pugnacious at being disturbed at marrying as at eating; and in the exercise of his holy boldness, he appears to have acted with a vigour beyond the law; for whereas he undertook to keep our friends in the vestry-room in a state of blockade, and to order that none other but the parties to be married and the individual who was to act as father to the bride should enter the church; he ought to have known that the law requires that "all marriages shall be solemnized in the presence of two credible witnesses at least, besides the minister, who shall sign their attestation thereof;" and that the rubric expressly directs, that "at the day and time appointed for solemnization of matrimony, the persons to be married shall come into the body of the church, WITH THEIR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBOURS; and there standing together, the man on the right hand, and the woman on the left," the marriage is to proceed. We pass on to another report:—

"Report presented to the Church of the particulars of the Marriage between our Brother, John Dobell, Member of the Church meeting in Cranbrook, Kent, and our Sister. Julietta Thompson, daughter of our Brother, Samuel Thompson, of Plaistow. Essex, Member of the London branch of the Church-By the Elder and other Friends present.

"On Friday, the 23d of May, the parties in this case assembled at the parish church of West-Ham, Essex, with numerous friends and relations,

X

all being members of the church; anticipating from a statement they had received from our brothers, Samuel Thompson and W. Coates, of a previous interview which they had had with Mr. Jones, the parish minister, that the presenting the usual Protest would have passed off without altercation or offence. The written statement of this previous interview, drawn up by our brothers, S. Thompson and W. Coates, is as follows:

"On Tuesday, the 20th of May, we waited on Mr. Jones, the vicar of West-Ham parish, to apprize him of the approaching marriage, and to announce to him the intention of the parties to offer a Protest against the Marriage Ceremony. Our proposed proceedings required the less explanation, as Mr. Jones had celebrated two former marriages between members of our church. We stated to him on the present occasion that we had hoped before this time to have been relieved by the legislature from the necessity of coming to him on such occasions; but that in protesting, as it was the intention of the party to do in this case, Mr. Jones must be convinced of the conscientiousness of their motives, as the marriage itself was sufficiently trying to female delicacy, without the distressing circumstances of aggravation which too frequently accompanied the presenting such Protests. That it was our brother Thompson's wish that his daughter should be married in the parish where he lived, if such an understanding could be had as should prevent any thing unpleasant to Mr. Jones, and preserve our own consciences; otherwise we had, in this case, another parish in which, on similar occasions, we had received the most liberal treatment. We then pointed out that the party would feel an objection to kneeling before the altar," and to some parts of the service which we referred to, and which we expressed a hope that Mr. Jones would not insist on as necessary; seeing that the practice was to omit a great part of the ceremony as prescribed in the book of Common Prayer, and that the making such omissions rested wholly in the breast of the Minister. We further explained, that we stated thus much to him from a wish to avoid all opposition during the ceremony, and, expecting as we did a speedy relief from the legislature, we had consented to ask his forbearance, which otherwise perhaps we should not have done, as his opposition might rather forward than retard our endeavour at obtaining relief. That, in protesting against the doctrine of the Trinity and other parts of the marriage ceremony, we hoped, even though Mr. Jones might think our opinions mistaken, rather to have his approbation of our motives, approving, as he must, as a minister of a reformed and a protestant church, the conduct of Luther in offering opposition to the sacraments and ceremonies of the Church of Rome, even though these were then established by law— and that had he, at that time, himself, as a protestant, been called upon to subscribe to the doctrine of Transubstantiation, he would have approved the conduct of that priest who should have given every relief to his conscience within his power..

"Mr. Jones replied by expressing, that he felt himself placed in a difficult and painful situation. That he did not bring the parties to the church to be married, but that the law brought them there-that his duty was ministerial; that he felt for our situation, and believed we were actuated by conscientious motives. But, he added, that in the instance of the last marriage he had performed between members of our body, he considered that faith had been broken with him, as at a previous interview with the party, he understood they would have been content, after presenting the protest, to have gone quietly through the ceremony-but, that interruption was offered during the ceremony, and that the whole business had subsequently become public, and had given rise to much unpleasant observation. That ever since that marriage he had uniformly,

« AnteriorContinuar »