Untitled

Auckland Chronicle and New Zealand Colonist, Volume 2, Issue 30, 29 February 1844, Page 4

Expulsion op a Baptist from Copenhagen. -The intolerance with whiclr»the Lutheran and Protestant Government of Denmark pursues the Baptists . is most disgraceful. After a long series of persecution, there was indeed an amelioration by the ordinance of the 27th of September, 3842, which allowed the Baptists of Copenhagen to have domestic worship, and to administer*the Lord’s supper at these meetings according to their own rites. But a case has now oc curred, in which a Baptist minister from England, Dr. Hoby, of Birmingham, and a Baptist minister from Hamburgh, Mr. Oncken, have been expelled from Copenhagen for no other cause than because of their religion. Those gentlemen arrived in Copenhagen on the 31st of August, on a fraternal visit to their brethren in that city, the former having a passport trom the. British Charge d’ Affaires at Hamburgh. On their arrival they went to call upon a Baptist minister; and whilst at his house, two of the police came to convey them to the police office. There Mr. Oncken was told that he must leave the city by the same packet which had brought him, and he was kept in confinement till the sailing of the packet. Dr. Hoby was told that he too must depart, unless he would engage “ not to preach or baptise, nor in any way, directly or indirectly, to proselyte or spread his religious opinions.’’ The doctor replied that “ it was not his object or intention cither to preach or administer the holy rite of Christian baptism; but it was his conscientious belief that no- Christian cold consistently with his duty to God and Christ our Redeemer, give the required pledge. He was accordingly obliged to leave the city. The particulars of this discreditable affair have been laid by Dr. Hoby befcre the British envoy at Copenhagen, Sir H. W. W. VVynnbart.; and the Baptist Union of this country will immediately bring them under the consideration of the I'oreign Secretary, to ascertain whether British subjects may enjoy the same liberty in Denmark as Danes enjoy in England.— Liverpool Mercury . Connubial Hooks & Etki—Amelia Simcox, in a letter to Punch , unbosoms her wrongs as follows;—” I married Simcox eight years ago, at which time my gown was fastened with eight hooks and eyes Now, sir, you will readily conceive that no woman can completely hook and eye herself. Whilst a spinster, she obtains the aid of her sister, cousin, mother, or Betty the maid. When she becomes a married woman, the hook-and-eye duty devolves upon the husband. For the first year of my marriage, Simcox, like an affectionate husband hooked-and-*eyed the whole eight; the second year he ißomewh&t peevishly restracted his attention to seven, the third to six, the fourth to ‘five, the fifth to four and so on decreasing until this morning—the anniveisary of our eighth wedding-day—when you would •have supposed him possessed by the dearest and fondest reccolections, he dropped another hook and-eye, intimating to me that, for the term of his natural life, he should restrict himself to one —the hook-‘and-eye at the topi As I know Mr. Punch has a crowd of female readers, 1 thought it a duty I owed to my sex, to warn them * through the medium of your columns, of jthe craltiness, and—l must say—the selfishness of man. They will, 1 hope, take warning by my condition, ere they enter matrimony, stipulate for a due performance of toilette attention on the part of their husband. Whilst in our pride we as women remember that marriage has its bouds, let not the men forget, that it also has its ‘ Hooks-and-eyes.”