The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-12-08
HENRY WARD BEECHER AND THE
RICHARDSON AFFAIR.


which was published in the Tribune of the
4th instant, and republished in The TELE-
GRAPH Of the same day, was revised and cor
rected by himself. Its sentiments and state
ments are, therefore, deliberate utterances,
for which he is fully responsible, as they
are presented in the shape in which
he desired them to appear before the public
The most singular characteristic of these re-
marks is, that while they purport to be part
of the funeral service of a dead man, they
are essentially defense of the living preacher
who uttered them. They clearly indicate
that the Brooklyn divine felt that he had
taken doubtful if not false step when
he performed the so-called marriage service
at the death-bed of MIR. Richardson, and that
he was determined to improve the first occa-
sion to justify his own proceedings. What
ever we nay think of the excessively egotist-
cal, ungenerous and irreverent spirit which
prompted him to seize such an oppor-
tunity for becoming his own champion
we cannot deny that a prompt and
vigorous defense was necessary to shield
his reputation from the injury it had received
among all whose notions of marriage are not
polluted by the modern free-love philosophy
We have no desire to discuss the tragedy
itself, except so far rs its attendant circum-
stances affect the doctrines and conduct of
! MIR. Beecher, and this is i'm
portant only on account of the demoralzing
influence of the approval of his proceedings
which he is now Sedulously seeking.
Treating the subject from this standpoint, we
invite attention to the following facts:-The
so-called marriage was preceded or COM
menced by prayer by Mr. rockingham,
which contained, among other sentences, the
following: Father, we thank Thee for what
these two have been to each other, for what
they may be yet" Few who consider the rela-
tions between Richardson and Mrs Mcfarland
will fail to deem the introduction of this SEN
timent into a religious ceremony as suffi-
GENTLY revolving, but Beecher, not to be
outdone by his reverend associate was guilty
of still greater outrage. His proceedings,
as reported, were as follows
''Mr Beecher TO Mr.. Rchardson,--Do you take
this woman whom you have by your side now, in
this hour, standing near the heavenly land, and
renew TO her the pledges Of your lore! DO you give
your heart to her, and your name? Is she, before
God and before these tn,tnesse8, yOur belored your
| h0nOred ana yoUr lGtcfttt I0ife'
"Mr Richardson lin an audible yOice)-Yes.
] CuB63-huu
accept him as your head in the Lord? And ore you
to him wife sacred and honored, bearing his
name? And will you love him TO the end OF your lfeT
''Mrs. Sage-I do, and will
''Mr. Beecher-Then by the authority given me by
the Church OF Christ, DO pronounce you husband
the Father the Son, and the Holy Spirit rest upon
you and abide with you. Amen"
This ceremony is peculiar in its verbiage,
and making every allowance for the wide
diversity of forms among the different sects
of the United States, it is doubtful whether
it constitutes in itself legal marriage. He
does not exact from either party the emphatic
promise which constitutes the essential fea-
ture of the contract, but intermingles with
the whole ceremony sentimentalism which
may mean something more than real mar
riage, or something less. The form of his
questions implies that the connection exist
ing between Richardson and Mrs. Mcfarland
was in itself a marriage which was only for
mally recognized by what Beecher calls in his
late card "a mortuary service for Mr..
Richardson" If this Interpretation be cor
rect, the disciples of free-love could not OBJ
tain more complaisant prophet. But if it is
not, and if he intended the dying-be service
as neither more nor less than bona fde legal
censure for marrying woman who, while she
had notoriously been the wife of Mcfarland
up to recent period, had at best obtained a
divorce of doubtful validity or, as Mr.
Beecher virtually confesses in his late card,
it is by no means certain that she was legally
and morally free" from her first husband.
The defense of his participation in this
ceremony, which Beecher made at the fune-
raj service, was in itself scarcely less revolt
ing than the original offense. We have never
seen more bad logic, false sentiment, false
religion, and bad temper crowded into the
same space. His very first sentence sounds
more like the utterance of follower of
Mahomet than the declaration of believer in
Christianity. Mr. Beecher said:--
'If believed that this man by whose corpse l
stand had broken down the wall and plucked the
fairest noWer in neighbors garden, and that he was
struck dead for such crime, surely would say no
word here to-day"
Turks may deem wives fair 'fowers in a
neighbor's garden, but this is surely not an
appropriate idea for a Christian funeral SER
mon. The declaration that if he had believed
Richardson guilty of the imputed sin he
would not have spoken at all, Is scarcely less
Objectionable A Christian minister may not
inappropriately speak at the funeral service
of the worst of criminals. Proceeding in
the defense of the dead man, chiefly in the
direction in which it involved a
defense of himself, Beecher announced
that he had not consciously violated
-. .f afxT