s
mm I
• as
!fe
i
ECCLESIASTICAL ANNALS.
REPORT
OF THE
TRANSACTIONS
OF TIIE
Safe EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN TENNESSEE SYNOD, RE-ORGANIZED,
-9
)N
'
is
9<tSl9
}E DURING ITS FOURTH SESSION HELD UN ST. JAMES' CHURCH, GREENE
COUNTY, EAST TENNESSEE, FROM MONDAY THE 27TII, TO
THURSDAY THE 30TII DAY OF OCTOBER 18-51,
AND
iQ
0/®.' '
A DEFENCE
OF THE
Jll
.9
I9 EVViVGELICAL LUTHERAN TENNESSEE SYNOD, RE-0RUAN1ZED,
™L9
Xti
m
vM
CvSTfi
■T>
§1
pi
OR A REPLY TO A VINDICATION,
VS APPENDED TO THE MINUT ES OF THE
EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN TENTSSSEE SYNOD,
(SO CALLED,)
AS PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF HAT BODY IN 1850,
BY
REV. ADAM MILLER,
MINISTER OF THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH-
GREENEVILLE TENN.:
PRINTED \T THE "SPY" OFFICE.
ASV; 1852"
ECCLESIASTICAL ANNALS.
REPORT
OF THE
TRANSACTIONS
OF THE
EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN TENNESSEE SYNOD, RE-ORGANIZED,
DURING ITS FOURTH SESSION HELD IN ST. JAMES' CHURCH, GREENE
• COUNTY, EAST TENNESSEE, FROM MONDAY THE 27TH, TO
THURSDAY THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1851,
AND
A DEFENCE
OF THE
EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN TENNESSEE SYNOD, RE-ORGANIZED,
OR A REPLY TO A VINDICATION,
AS APPENDED TO THE MINUTES OF THE
EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN TENNESSEE SYNOD,
(SO CALLED,)
AS PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THAT BODY IN 1850,
BY
REV. ADAM MILLER,
MINISTER OF THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH.
GREENEVILLE TENN.j
PRINTED AT THE "SPY" OFFICE.
1852.
MINUTES.
Pursuant to a resolution passed at the last session, the mem*
bers convened on Saturday the 25th. The Rev. D. Forester
delivered a discourse from the 2d ch. of Titus and first part of
the 15th v.; after which he confirmed one member and bap¬
tized two children.
On Sunday the 26th, the ' congregation re-assembled, and
divine service was performed bv the Rev. Adam Miller, who
preached from the 23d Psalm, 5th and 6th verses; after which
the Lord's Supper was administered to 156 communicants,
and two children baptized.
Monday, 9 O'clock, A. M.
Synod was opened in the usual order,
upon examination had by the Secretary, Wm. S. Deal, it
was ascertained that the following members were present,
PASTORS.
Rev. D. Forester, Rev. D. S. Schoolfield, and Rev. A. Miller,
APPLICANTS.
Mr. Andrew Rader, and Wm. S. Deal.
THE DELEGATION FROM TENNESSEE.
Mr. Joseph Nease, from St. James.
" Joseph Freshour from Freshour's Stand.
" John Keicher, " Loves Memorial.
" John Olinger, " OlingePs Seminary.
" Martin Eisenhour, from Pleasant Valley, Cocke County.
" Wm. Hawley, from New Hope. ) Sullivan
u Jacob Crumley, " Crumley's. J County.
" Wm. Greer, " Pilgrim's, Carter County.
FROM NORTH CAROLINA.
Mr. Absolem Hoover, from Warlick's School-house.
a John Sipe, " St. John's.
u Andrew Bolich, " St. Paul's.
" Wm. Turner, " Miller's.
" Robert M. Hass, " Hass'.
Greene
County.
Catawba
County.
4
Mr; Joseph Lail, from Luther's Church, Burk County»
" Abraham Bolich, from Pisga, Alexander County.
The above members being seated, the Synod proceeded to
appoint a President and D. Forester, Secretary.
The letters and petitions directed to this body, were then
called for and handed in.
The letters and petitions were then read.
Synod adjourned for recess. During the recess the Rev. D.
S. Schoolfield preached from Isa. 53: 6.
Monday, 2 O'clock, P. M.
Synod came to order, and upon motion, and seconding, it
was;—■
1st. Resolved, That a Committee be appointed to class and
number the letters and petitions, directed to this body.
2d. Resolved, That Messrs. John dinger, George L.
Hunt and Wm. S. Deal, constitute that committee.
3d. Resolved, That the minutes of the last session be read.
Upon which the Secretary proceeded to read them. They
were read and received, together with the notes affixed.
Synod adjourned until to-morrow 9 o'clock.
Tuesday 9 O'clock, A. M.
Synod was opened in the usual order.
The committee to whom were referred letters and petitions,
addressed to this body, presented them classed and numbered.
4th. Resolved, That the petitions be read in order as they
were classed and numbered, and extracts taken from them for
record.
Synod proceeded accordingly to No. 4 of Class 1st; and
upon the consideration that it was too concise to admit of
an abridgment.. Therefore;—
5th. Resolved, That it be printed verbatum and in order.
Synod proceeded to read and make extracts in order to No.
3, of Class 2d.
Synod adjourned until to-morrow, 9 o'clock.
Wednesday, 9 O'clock, A. Af.
Synod was opened in the usual order.
5
The"minutes of yesterday were read and received.
The Synod proceeded to read and make extracts from the
third class of petitions.
This done; on motion and seconding, it was;—
6th. Resolved, That the vindication appended to the min¬
utes of the Evangelical Lutheran Tennessee Synod, (so call¬
ed,) be read in open synod.
It was then audibly and forcibly read accordingly.
Synod adjourned for recess. During the recess, the Rev.
A. Miller preached a funeral sermon from John 5: 28, 29.
Wednesday, 2 O'clock, P. M.
Synod came to order, and;—
7th. Resolved, That a committee be appointed to consider
the most advisable mode of replying to the vindication of the
E. L. T. S., (so called,) and report to-morrow morning. For
that purpose, Messrs. Wm. Greer, Jacob Crumley, George L.
Hunt, Wm. Hawley, Andrew Rader and Rev. D. Forester
were nominated and appointed.
Synod adjourned until to-morrow 9 o'clock.
Thursday, 9 O'clock, A. M.
Synod was opened in the usual order.
The minutes of yesterday were read and received. The
committee appointed on yesterday then handed in their report
as follows, viz:
We your committee appointed to consider and report the
most proper mode of replying to the vindication of the E. L.
T. S., (so called,) can but give the following advice, viz: That
inasmuch as this is a subject of serious importance, and one
into which the Synod is hurried in consequence of the disap¬
pointed expectation of an honorable peace; therefore, your
committee (in humility) advise that a select committee be ap¬
pointed, whose duty it shall be to prepare the most christian re¬
ply for publication.
'Respectfully submitted by
WILLIAM GREER, JACOB CRUMLY,
GEORGE L. HUNT, WM. HAWLEY,
ANDREW RADER, D. "FORESTER.
6
8thi Resolved, That this report be received.
The body then proceeded to select that committee, and it
was;—
9th. Resolved, That William Greer, Jacob Crumley, Peter
Hunt, William Hawley, John Eisenhour, George L. Hunt,
Ambrose Esterly, A. Miller and D. Forester,^ constitute that
committee; And that said committee convene at the house of
Jacob Crumley's, in Sullivan county, Tennessee, on the 28th
day of November 1851.
With due respect to many petitioners respecting a Hymn
Book and Catechism. We request the congregations to con¬
sider the propriety of publishing a cheap Hymn Book and
Lutheran Catechism, and instruct the synod on that subject at
the next session. So that (provided they believe it to be ex¬
pedient) arrangements may be made to publish them.
Whereas, there are petitions from Zion and New Hope
churches, in Sullivan county, Tennessee, in which the petition¬
ers express their desire to be received into connection with
this body. Be it therefore;—
10th. Resolved, That those brethren be received with grati¬
tude, in as much as there are petitions requesting the ordina¬
tion of Messrs. William S. Deal and Andrew Rader, to the
office of Deacon. The subject was submitted to them for
their consent to the same. They declined the idea of being
ordained at this time; therefore, further action was suspended.
Whereas, there is a request by petition that a full catalogue
of violations be embraced in these minutes. Be it therefore;—
11th. Resolved, That this be embraced in the reply to the
vindication-!
"See Note marked A.
t(A.) N. B. There are a number of alledged violations of scripture'and~con-
stitution, said to have been committed by the E. L. T. S., (so called,) and the
E. L. T. S. Re-organized, in its fourth session, Resolved that a catalogue of said
violations be embraced in a reply to the vindication published by the aforesaid
Synod. And Whereas, the Rev. D. Forester protested and still protests against
said resolution; also, to the embracing said catalogue in the reply. Therefore,
Be it known that by mutual consent, the said David Forester is (at his request)
hereby released from the committee, and by whose order, his non-accounta¬
bility for its transactions is hereby published.
7
PETITIONS.
CLASS I.
No. 1, Is a Petition from Crumley's, in which they ack¬
nowledge that the Rev. A. Miller and D. Forester visited them
and preached for them, and that they believed that the said
Miller and Forester preached the Lutheran doctrine in its pu¬
rity. They desire the united efforts of the Synod to obtain as-
many such visits as possible. Further; that we reply to the
appendix to the minutes of the (so called) Tennessee Synod.
Signed by 11 persons.
No. 2, Is a Petition from dinger's Seminary, in which they
acknowledge that the Rev. A. Miller had visited them twice
during the past year, and express gratitude for the benefit
they received, and request the Rev. A. Miller to visit them
again this fall—catechise, preach and administer the Lord's
Supper at that place.
Signed by 7 persons.
No. 3, Is a Petition from Pleasant Valley, Cocke county*
Tennessee, wherein is acknowledged the favor of two visits
by the Rev. A, Miller, and request him to continue to visit
them. They also acknowledge the regular services of the
Rev. D. Forester, and pray that his labors may be continued
and blessed. They admonish the Synod to be patient, and
add their prayers for a blessing on its labors.
Signed by 18 persons.
As No. 4, of Class 1st was (by the body) considered to be
too concise to admit of any abridgment. It was therefore;—*
Resolved, That it be transcribed and herein published ver¬
batim; of which the following is a true copy:—
New Hope Sullivan county, Tennessee, the 3d Sept. 1851.
To the Evangelical Lutheran Tennessee Synod, Re-organ¬
ized, to convene (God willing) on the Saturday before the.
fourth Snnday in October next, at St. James' church, Greene
county, Tennessee.
Dear Brethren in Christ Jesus:—
We take the liberty to address you in your present session.
We would inform your venerable body, that we have for years
past been viewing the movements of the Tennessee Synod,
to which we assayed to belong, and time and experience, as
8
well as observation teach that they are no more in principle
what they once were. We believe that body once held the
true principles of the Lutheran Church, as well as the true
.principles of church government. But we are satisfied that
there is too much yielding to the doctrine of the world, as
well as almost unlimited powers claimed by that body.—
These facts are plain from examples as well as their last min¬
utes. We are determined to remain by our old well regula¬
ted principles of the Lutheran Church—and we will have no
proud tyrants to ride over us—we will be free. We are ac¬
quainted with a church united in Christ; but we are strangers
to a church united in the Tennessee, Synod. This must be
nearly related to the Roman Catholic authority, and may well
fall heir to their motto, "a visible head to the visible church."
We have been well acquainted with the Rev. A. Miller, for
many years. He was the instrument in the hand of the Al¬
mighty, to organize us as a church originally. We have oc¬
casionally been visited by him. We view him as a man
sound in the faith—and that your body in its Re-organized
state, is making a faithful effort to save the principles of the
Lutheran Church from ruin. This being the honest convic¬
tion of our hearts, and believing it to be the indispensable du¬
ty of every friend of truth to use their endeavors to support
the true doctrine of the Lutheran Church, to which we belong,
or wish to unite ourselves. We unitedly ask the privilege of
being Re-organized as a church with your venerable body,
and desire as many visits as possible from the ministers of t hat
body. We also desire the next session of the Synod to be
held in our church.
We hope that the blessing of God may rest upon your mu¬
tual deliberations.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with wour spirits,
as we your humble petitioners will pray. Amen.
Signed by 29 persons.
No. 5, Is a Petition from Zion's church, Sullivan county,
Tennessee. The petitioners state that they have for sometime
been observing the order of the day, and have come to the
settled conclusion, that the truth of the gospel is too much
neglected. But having heard the Rev. A. Miller preach, and
being highly pleased with reading our minutes, they desire
9
an.attachment to this body, and solicit A: Miller, with other
ministers of this body to supply them with."'gospel preaching.
They conclude by asking the Lord to bless us..
Signed by 79 persons.
CLASS II.
No. 1, Is a Petition from Miller's Church, Catawba bounty,
N. C. They state that they have reviewed our last minutes,
and apprpve them. They express a desire that we pursue a
similar .course At this session. They give it as their advice,
that the vindication appended to the E. L. T. S., (so called,)
shojuld be answered, lest it should be considered unanswer¬
able. They give it as their opinion, that it would be proper
for the Synod to enter into some' arrangement to furnish the
church with a cheap Hymnbook and Catechism. They also,
request that the next session of our Synod be held at. their
church.
Signed by 15 persons.
No. 2, Is a Petition from Ebenezer Church, Lincoln county,
N. C; The petitioners admonish the Synod to divest herself
of all prejudice, and with the utmost caution do justice to all,
by conforming to all ancient ground"' work, of Luthetanism,
and thereby guard and preserve the truth. The Synod is
therein exhorted to pursue a scriptural course, and reply to
the vindication as appended to the minutes of the Tennessee
Synod, and, a congregational mode of church government,^
taught by the Apostles and Luther, fairly maintained.'
They hope that due- attention will be paid to this subject, as
on their minds, it is of the greatest weight.
They inform the Synod that the Rev. A. Miller, continues
to preach for them, with whose Services,they are well pleased,
and request a visit by the Rev. D.,Forester.
They request the next session of our Synod to be held in
their church, and conclude by imploring a blessing' on' the*
Synod.
, Signed by 15 persons.
N®. 3, Is a Petition from St. Pauls Church, Catawba coun¬
ty, N. C. The petitioners inform us that the sight of the altar,
renewed the'recollection of past events, (in 1828) and upon a
review, find a division in the ranks, which then contended for
liberty, which moves their hearts to sympathy as ftfr a broth-
10
er, yet In deep solemnity they are bound to contend for liber¬
ty, g.nd advise the Synod to reply to the vindication as, appen¬
ded to the minutes of the Tennessee Synod, upon the princi¬
ples of the constitution and Lutheranism.
They advise the Synod to request the congregations to con¬
sider the, propriety of publishing a Hymn-book, containing
about three hundred hymns, for the use of the church, and
give instructions at the next session.
'With an'expression of confidence in the piety and pru¬
dence of the. Synod, they conclude.
' Signed by 15 persons.
CLASS HI.
No. 1, Is k Petition from Luther's Church, Burke county*
N. C. The petitioners say that they are well pleased with the
transactions of last session, as recorded in the minutes of the
game, and in a friendly manner, adviseth the Synod to be
Careful to transact business according to the Holy Bible, and
the Symbols of the Lutheran Church. They speak in con-
jdemnatory language respecting the Tennessee Synod in all
itS/proceedings in reference to the case of Rev. A. Miller, and
desire to receive Luthe'rs views on that subject.
They desire that the congregations in our connection be
"prepared to instruct the Synod at the next session, with respect
to the propriety of publishing an Plymn book, containing
about three hundred or three hundred and fifty hymns; .also,
a Catechisrn for the benefit of the congregations. They add
their prayers for the Synod and the church at large.
Signed by 13 persons.
No. 2, |Is k Petition from Warlick's Sehool-house, Cataw¬
ba county N. C. In the spirit of lovp and affection, the peti¬
tioners admonish the Synod to be aware (not of the leven of
• the pharasees, but) of the perversions of the Tennessee Synod.
Their opinion is that it is.vain for the Tennessee Synod to ex¬
claim agaifist the Roman Catholics and generalisis, so long as
they themselves practice aristocracy, we as a church, claim
the right as God left,it, to judge of the qualification of our min¬
isters,, and shall not yield that right to any Synod. ' Further;
they think, that the honest part of the Lutheran comifiunity
•would be benefited; provided that assumption of powers, con-
21
tradictory lerrns and appearance of falsehood which they have
discovered by reading the pretended vindication of the Ten¬
nessee Synod, were fairly answered. They profess an ac¬
quaintance with a church united in Christ, vested with power
to judge men, and even angels; But of none in the Tennes¬
see Synod.
They consider it church robbery, inasmuch as'the good in¬
tentions of the framers of the Constitution (to ^ecure'to the.
church her liberty) should so soon be converted into an aris¬
tocracy, and declare that they cannot, nay, will not ■ aid in
such wickedness.
They commend the Synod to ,God and the word. of' his
grace, in earnest hope of his presence and aid to the winning
many souls-to the truth.
Signed by 18 persons.
No. 3, Is a petition from Hass' Church, Catawba county,
N, C., The petitioners express it as their conviction, that much
depends upon the wisdom and caution exercised at the pres¬
ent session. They desire the setting forth the true Lutheran-
mode of church government at this session.
They are willing to vest the supreme authority in a Synod
of. men as claimed by the Tennessee Synod.
They add their prayer for the Synod'.
Signed by 10 persons. -
No. 4, Is a Petition from St. James' Church, Greene coun¬
ty Tehnessee. The petitioners state that they are bearing
with patience the burden of scorn heaped upon them: But
bear with a consideralbe degree ol hope for success.'
^They state that they have been regularly served with minis¬
terial labors by the Rev.D. Forester^ and twice visited by the
Bev. A. Miller, and desire a continuation of such visits.
' They desire accessions to the ministry, and recommend Mr.
Ahdrew Rader as a pious, moral and intelligent young man,
and desire that he be ordained a Deacon. And that other
young men, who may be qualified to bear the office, be encour¬
aged to embark in the ministry. * They further state, that of
necessity, something should (or ought to) be done respecting
the sayings and doings of the Tennessee Synod: But entreat
the Synpd to deal with them in thfe spirit of fraternal lovd.
Considering them as being overcome of the spirit of Malice,
12
pride, envy and hatred, and thus tempted to speak and act so-,
as to gender and' keep up strife.
They solemnly pray to the Almighty that he may pity, con- *
vince and pardon them. They conclude by saying:
Fear not little flock, it is your father's good will to give you
the Kingdom.
Signed by 36 persons.
No..5, Is a petition from St. John's Church, Catawba
^ounty, N. C. The petitioners anticipate much good to be
done at this session. They are pleased to know that our las?
minutes are read with much pleasure. They exhort the Syn-
qd to use every reasonable means to. make an honorable peape
with the (so called) Tennessee Synod. But if this cannot be
done,'that we pry into the merits (if any) of their vindication
and reply to it in full. That in our next minutes, they expect
to see a full catalogue of the violations of principle as com¬
mitted by that body, as they deem it imprudent to withhold it
any longer from the public mind. They say that they are
pleased with their pastor, the Bev. A. Miller, and request a
visit by the Bev. D. Forester, so soon as it may be convenient
They also hope to see accessions to the ministry, and rec¬
ommend Mr. Wm. S. Deal, as a man of suitable qualifica¬
tions to bear the office of Deacon, and request that he be or¬
dained to that office.
Thejr- desire the next session of the Synod to be held in
Miller's church, or some other in that section. In conclusion^
they add their prayer for the success 01 the gospel.
Signed by 18 persons.
Whereas, there are verbal petitions from Love's Memorial,
Ffeshour's. Stand and Pilgrim's Church,-for a ministerial vis¬
it by Bev. A. Miller, and also ministerial services by the min¬
isters of this body. It was therefore;—
12th. Re'solved, That these petitioners be attended to as of¬
ten, as possible. ftecess.
Thursday, 2 O'clock, P.t M.
Synod came to order, and;—
13th. Resolved, That a copy of the minutes of our present
proceedings be sent to each Lutheran Synod in the United!
States,
13,
.An invitation was then; given to young men, to appear as
applicants for the ministry. Whereupon Mr. George L. Hunt
appeared before the'body and evinced his willingness to serve
in that order and to suffer for Christ.
The time and place of holding the next session of the Sy-.
nod, were then considered: Whereupon it was:—r
14th. Resolved, That the next session of the Synod, be held
at New Hope Church, Sullivan county, Tennessee, a few miles
North West of JUbuntville. To convene, (God willing,) on
the Saturday before the fourth Sunday in September 1852.
15th. Resolved, That a vote of thanks be given to the citi¬
zens ol v this Vicinity, for* the kind christian hospitality mani¬
fested by them on the present occasion.
Synod adjourned in the usual order.
That these feeble efforts,, and mutual transactions may re-
'dojfnd to the honor of the great God, and our Savior Jesus
Christ, (who gave himself for us, that he might redefem us
from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people,
zealous of good works,) in the advancement of his kingdom,
by awakening many to a sense of their dependence on him,
to the succoring the tempted, to the strength and comfort of
wpak and, troubled souls in Zion, yet in this as in all things
, the will of the Lord be done is the humble prayer of
DAVID FORESTER,
Secretary.
We, the Committee, appointed by the Synod to examine
the manuscript, written as a reply to the "vindication," appen-.
ded to the minutes of the Tennessee Synod, have done' so to.
the best of our judgment,, so tar as the manuscript has been
completed, by the Rev. A. Miller, and would state that we ap¬
prove the same in substance, and recommend the same to the
candid perusal of the Lutheran. Church. And cheerfully sub-,
14
mit the completion of the work to the judgment of Mr. Miller*
to prepare the same lor the press.#
JACOB CRUMLEY, AMBROSE G. EASTERLY,
PETER HUNT, JOHN EISENHOUR,
WM. HAWLEY, WM. GREER,
GEO. L. HUNT.
Dec. 1st. 1851.-
*This work would have been prepared for the press ere this time; hut owing
to the most painful dispensations of Divine Providence, not only sickness ih,
my family Taut the heart-rending circumstance of the death of hay eldest daugh¬
ter, Mrs. Setyer, yyho departed this mortal life on the 31st OctMast, leaving an.
infant child of about 14 months old.. ' A. M,
PREFACE.
. ' It becomes our indispensable duty, to present to the public,'
this defence, both'of myself and the sacred cause we have es¬
poused. We become an author by necessity, not of choice.
We have used every precaution to prevent, if possible, such a
sfate of things, but all, in vain. We should, if we had been
'left to Our own choice, prefered to have remained in the more
. retired and peaceful shades of private life, than to be engaged
in such' scenes of controversy, did not a sense of duty con¬
strain us to do so.
We are aware of the facf, $at the writer of the pretended
"vindication," which we design to answer has a decided ad¬
vantage over us, as it respects his abilities, as a writer. But
"vye may congratulate ourselves with this divine promise that
• no weapon that is formed against the truth, shall prosper. Isa.
54:-17.
As it respects personal injuries and injustice which have been
done to me, as an i'ndiyidual, I forgive them from my heart, as
I also hope to be forgiven. Although, I confess, that confi-
derice 'is gone as it respects their moral honesty in this matter.
By these remarks we do not wish to be understood as cen¬
suring the private members of the Church. We do believe
that there are many of them who would do right if they knew
what1,was right. It is for their sakes, that we undertake^ the
arduous task of defending the truth. We feel confident that
if the Lutheran community can be convinced of the imposi¬
tion which is designed to be fastened upon them, they will not
suffer it to be clinched. Should our remarks seem somewhat
severe'occasionally, we hope that it will be imputed to'zeal for
the truth, and not that of personal revenge. For it is written:
"vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." Rom. 12: 19.
This pretended "vindication," as annexed to the minutes of
the Tennessee-'Synod,-in their session' of .1850, we are told is
intended "to define clearly the positions of the LuUieran Church,
16
'vn certain subjects of eclesiastical polity. - Whereas, the real
intention is, to change the government of the Church and con¬
vert it (the Synod) into an aristocracy, with respect to the min¬
istry &c.
We shall take the liberty of using Rev. A.J. Brown's, name,
in our remarks, as we are satisfied that he is the author of the
"vindication," Were we not convinced of this fact, we should
have charged it to the Devil. We intend to pay him in Ms
oibnxoin. We have borne the abfise long enough. We be¬
lieve that it would be criminal to bear it any* Ionger> particu¬
larly, as they are rising this occasion to prejudice the Lutheran
community so thatthey may the more easily fasten the yoke
on the necks, of the people. Therefore betar with us. in our
defence. "Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ fiasmade
us free." Gal. '5: 1.
The readers
humbfe servant,
ADAM MILLER.
The defence,
SECTION L1
. kt is admitted by my opposition, that I had ifor niahy yea'M
been a minister of regular arid good standing, in the Tennes^
see Synod; experience had confirmed'my usefulness,, It &
alledged that I well fcriew the strong hold which I had on the
affections and sympathies of tfiy Elders, as well as «the meijn-
bers of my charge generally. (See page 20, of their vindication.)
Again, on page 23, they say: "Moreover, Mh M. stood high
in his churches., Many of his people. were strongly attached
ahd endeared to him. lie had been instrumental in bringing
many,of them into the communion of the Church; by the irm
position of his hands and prayer, and had often brdken to
them the bread ol eternal lifei" ' * * ' , ■
»We would ask; with fill seriousness, who, \vas iiiore entitled
to the confidence, affection, artd christian forbearance, of those
persons than myself; as well as their charity find mercy; They
were taught by me, and many of them fell as children, to U,
father.'' I cOuld say with Paul: ."For though ye haVe ten thou^
sand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many father's': for
iii Christ Jesus, I have begotten you; through the gospel."—i
Again; they were enlightened through my instrumentality
Therefore, I was jdstly entitled^ to their christian sympathies
and forbearartce; as the reward of my labor. "Ye are out
epistle written in our hearts, known and .read of all men" &c.
2 Con 3,: 2. See also 4: 6. It may be' proper to add, thai
several of those very young men, who persecute me With so
much sfeverity and bitterness, once boasted .of the honor of hav¬
ing. been instructed and coiifirmed to the Church by file; as
well as my fatherly guidance in their first lessons of divinity:,
by-which they were introduced'into the sacred 'pttlpit. Hut
pride, that demon of unrighteousness^ not willing io let jhern
submit to the crbss df» Christ, and; that of their brother, has in-
18
duc'ed them to take up the weapons of persecution against me.
Doubtless the loaves afid fishes had their due weight in this
matter. , #
In 1845, charges of an immoral nature were brought against
me, partly by those vet-y men, and industriously circulated by*
them, who bn former occasions said, that they "owed more to'
me than any other, man 011 earth." Instead of hiding these
faultsj- if true, and coming to me to* tell me of my faults, as
th§ word of God directs. "Rebuke a wise manj and he will
loveffhee." Prov.' 9: 8. Again; "love covereth atl sins."-^-
Prpv. 10: 12. , l XjIor, 13: 4. 1 Pet. 4: 8, and Mat. 18: 15.
But irtsjead Of this, "some of them did not only publish those .
reports themselves,-but authorized others to do so on their au-^
thority., Of course, they used every means- to destroy that-
christian confidence, sympathy and love, which had so strong¬
ly, united us together as believers in Christ. And we hear it
npvv said "Ac is a crafty, designing man? Not formerly so 7
as it. used tb be said; "Miller is a1 plain man, and if you want
a 'plain truth loldc go to Miller and he can tell il."
1.threw all my dependence' upon him who cannot err, and
peaceably Submitted to all, until I had done all in rrty power
to satisfy them of my real innocence. I submitted to the de-i
cision of- every tribunal which had jurisdiction over the case,
I spared' neither money nor pains to give satisfaction. But ail-
to nO avail. , .My confidence in them was such, that I cbpld
bhlieVe nothing else but that they intended to do right, "and I
even, viewed th'ejr faults as being the product of a zeal for
God, but not according to knowledge. But alas! I was com¬
pelled to believe that there was but one object in their view^
ahd that was, my official destruction. This became so appar¬
ent, that impartial individuals in the session of 1846, Remarked,
that they firmly believed, that had an angel come down frbm
heaven and testified my innocence, thdy would not have be¬
lieved him. They'acled according to a predetermination to
detach me from the Synod,.and they cared liot whether it was
just or unjust.' By file exercise of- such Arbitrary proceedings,
they Succeeded in getting me to 'Withdraw frbrti their 'lawless
connection., d&ut did they then ceaSe to iiiflict their vengeance?.
No!' for they next "raised the hub and "cry that 'I' had left, the-
Lutheran Church! And the Sjmod, of courses now expected
as
to succeed in getting all to forsake ^ne and leave me without a
friend. B,ut, was they ignorant in this measure? they, were
.not! It^vas- wilful. For when I withdrew from their lawless
connection, 1 publicly told them, that my principles were es^
tablished, and that..! would never change them;J'l believed
"ttye scriptures and the symbols of-the- Church, as I had ever
"done. But from their'illegal proceedings, I should withdraw
.my h'umble name.'-' But we shall again notice this subject. '
Butj say they: "here gladly would we, so far as we werd
, concerned, ha.ve had the matter forever rest: . We were spared
'the painful duty of formally investigating, in Synod; the charge
•against Mi*. Miller, we were'relieved, as we-conceived, from
.all accountability for his, preaching and moral co'nduet; and
herwas fully at liberty, either upon his own authority, or bpon
the authority-of a by-ecclesiastical body, whatever from which
he might be able" to obtain it, to peach, if he Fefoit his duty
to do, and accomplish all the good in his power." f
Reader, reflect; in this conditiont they would gladly have-had
the matter for eve/ to 'rest!. Great God! what is the condition
ot the Church, and'what had they done with their brother? they
had banished him, and driyen him away in-the deepest dis¬
tress t.o wander alone, with the whole weight of such a bbdy
as the Tennessee Synod upon him, theje as an'.individual to
ifaccomplish all the good in his power? Great God!! is this
tne exercise of the mind:(?f Christ? * Is this a Christ-like spir¬
it:? See P.hil 2: 5,-8. They were released from the painful
duty of formally trying the ease in Synod;—this urns painful,
as .they well knew,, that they had no aut'horily to do so; they
had driven their brother, away:' And, when* Godf may demand
"where is thy brother ?" They, can Cain-like answer; '"J know
not: Am I my brother's keeper ?■' Gen. 4: 9,10. Yeajthey
were released from .the task of- being their brother's keepetl—
They had endorsed the sentiment, and "gave*him up, tathe
devil." What'liberal hearted Clergymen! Some of them*ap¬
plied the case, to Joseph's being sold into Egypt, and I'was
"out of .thefr reach. The*Condition Was; we-carmot forgive'an
innocent man, and therefore I must confess to the.m my guilt,
when there' was no decision of'the'Church against me, but en¬
tirely in Any favor; .and members of th.e Church.by scores call¬
ing on me to continue preaching. truth is,, they, .intern
m
ded, guilty or innocent, to destroy my usefulness. The4 cosh.
Wsion which .they intended to distort from me, would have
been.used by them to my destruction, in every relation in whichi
I stood, iti human society.. Now men may speak against the*
cruelties of purgatory^ or the Inquisition; but what areeith-,
of,these when compared with such indiscribable miseries*
a,s they were inflicting on myself and family..
But what benevolence, brotherly kindness, or .charity do theyf
,fxtehd to, a brother in distress? Why it is this; he (Miller^
Wfully at liberty' to, upite himself to any oth.er ecclesiastical
body, ,&c. * If f could haye. been favored with sucb a gume-,
lastip conscience as this, waiter, it is very probable I could
have bettered my condition in tfiis way*, . But alas!. I am con-,
scienti'ous. in, my belief. Jean do, nothing against the truth;,
and nb lie is of tfcp truths I.profess to be a christian for Christ's
Sake; and from a child I have known the ffoly scriptures,, and
my principles have been framed by them.. Therefore, to unite*
.myself with doctrines which ,1 conscientiously believe to be
'false, would be virtually denying Christ and his WQrd, which;
would, in my humble view,, consign me to'eternal deaths See
, Mat. 10;. 39; also, 1625, 26. Mark 8: 34, to. 38., * Luke 9;
2(3,26. John 12 : 25, 26, A man who could sell his Lord for*
thirty pieces of silver could concede to such terms.
They proceed, "Mr.,M. andthose who'sympathise with him*
^c."' Rage 16. Of course they do not sympathise with .me
What heavenly mmdedness!, They would impress, upon their
' readers the idea, that I led to the nieasure of re-organising the
Synod. It is. a matter Jmo\Vn to; themselves, that the-late Rev.,
Q. Easterly and brethren^ called, a cQijvehtion in Greene,!
Tepn.j On the 26tT August/lSlS., When and where tbe con¬
clusion was entered into, to fe-orgahise on. the same.Constitu¬
tion as was-adopted by the. Tennessee Synod/In 1828..- The
time' and' place for holding this 'Syndd was OetN21st 1848,. in
,(ireene, Tenn. The- Synod, was reorganised by Rev. G;
Easterly and 46 lay-delegates.; In 1849 they reversed tbe ti¬
tle (thus;- "The Evangelical Lutheran Tennessee1 Synod,
Reorganized," It is to, be observed, that I did not become a
member of this body .until 1849; when by the request of my
fiends,-I uriited with ,them, on no other principles, than, that of'
.21
genuine :L^theranisra, See Minutes^. of Re-or/Svnbcfv '&$■
i1849; .page 5. ,
We cannot consistently, wijft, a: sense of duty, dismiss this
subject;- .without noticing, the. heartfelt: consolation of Mr. JB.
and the Synod.- They seem, tp<congratulate themselves with
the idea, that they have "nothing more tp do with me' my
conduct, Although* they admit that it is possible' that I, may
be fyniow&L That "the absolute certainty of my guilt, or in¬
nocence is known only to myself to my accuser, and thai God
- who kdows' all things" ' On page 23,, are introduced examples
in criminal' cases, or productipns, and, they ,say;' that it would
be better to let .ninety-nine guilty men go unpunished, than to:
punish.one. innocent man.. * This writer would certainly, wish
to leave the impression on thp mihd of his readers that.him-»
se]if „and the . Synod were acting upon, thig principle;, .Now my
accuser' has certified to my innocence* which, is at any time
equiyolent to her- oath.., I have solemnly averted, my inno-:
cence"; they can go no further than this,, unjesS they were om-.
. ni^cient. Now,can they impress upon, the minds of their read-.
ersvthatihey. would not,willingly injure ope hair of my head;,
and. that they, acted upoaifh® principle of letting ninety-n,ine
guilty men go clear,' rather than punish one innocent one. 01,
what hypocrisy I' When, they themselves say, 'hve*, however,,
diave our opinions, founded, upon the evidence in. the case, and,;
with this opinion, under the peculiarities of the case,, we can-,
"not,consistently, with'a sense-of'duty, fellowship Mr, M. and,
fiis party "1 They admit'the possibility of my innocence, and,
yet., their opinions .founded upon,,the evidence in the case are.
sp strong that they would rather banish' from-their fellowship,
ofle thousand, .souls, than to fellowship me or own. my inno¬
cence, or spread the mantle o'f christian, charity ovpr my sup-,
ppsed wrongs. ' Such positions does not-only contradict them-,
selves,-but clearly prove that they are destitute of every chris¬
ten'characteristic. , That, they were destitute of charity, mer-
.cy, brotherly^kindness, or forgivpess, and are "become'as sounds-
ding brdss'yOX a '^inkling cymbal? 1-Cor. 13: -1. '
•As to -Brown's prayer,'j&c., which he offers up in my befialf*
I .would not have 'him spend,his breath, they do not reach to
the'top, of hAs. head* 'And the' prayer, of the wicked avails;
nothing,
,$2 .
But they seem to-, complain- lhat'we have waged, war upon
them. This is truly strange! .Their cry uscd.to.be "letthem
Write,-they will be answered."* And: now when our positions
fire stated in as plainlerms as possible, they complain, that we
are disturbing the peace lof the church. Where is consistency?
The truth is, that they believed that-we were in this respect
helpless-in their hancls, and could not defend our rights—and
they wopld tjp gs they pleased; without being detected- in their,
^vicliedness.
SECTION II.
'We.shal'1 now proceed to- follow 'Mr. B.'s history of my case,
He deriies that I had been, twice-honorably ' acquitted by the
phprches;- and in testimony of this-,fact," he pidceeds 1o give
hi? reader's a "history"'of the case as evidence. -It did not
suit hisjnali'gqant purpose, td give a simple statement of the
decisions had in the pase; but he mqlst devplope-fd the world,
'the histo'ry. in detaiK ft is true he, has not said'all that was
said by ap abuspd 'public '"mind,- but -he has given what he
calls a history, of the case. It will be fpr the intelligent read¬
er to determine what hono^ dignity, or christian love'is mani¬
fested by him in his pains.- ' 1 ,
But as an historian he has,certainly distinguished himself.
Being blessed with a superior "elastic conscience^ and as good
magnifying find diminishing glasses,- as ever were invented in
the kingdom of Belzebuh, he is well prepared to, prosecute the
work. '
• 1st; He gives us a statement of the.-meeting in Lincolnton,
In.this he is very defective; the meeting was got tip for the
purpose of trying the case. , They failed to dp so—first,' for
want df the proper evidence; hhd second., it was said to be a
Church matter, #nd the woHd had'-nothing 'to' do with it.—
Therefore, it was deemed adyisable to temove from the* Hotel
to"som'e place more retired; and'tbey agreed to meet at "Dan¬
iel's church on the 29th' June. • The witr.esses were notified
to attend.-' '.Titey^did'sd.
"Accordingly, they met at the time ahd place above nanied.
And as Mr. -B/says.: "Hundreds of persons, attended to hear
"the trial. Their motives may easily be conjectured:. The ob¬
ject in moving the trial for privacy," was defeated. .The pro-
23
^riety of .such a course is obvious , to every thinking, prudent
person.' The object .of moving the trial being to prevent un¬
necessary publicity of the matter, it was a Church concern, and
the world had nothinfg to do with it.
Consultation was hadjconcerning the expediency of enter¬
ing into trial, at that time. Some of my friends (who fpr
special reasons 1 refuse to name) urged ppon 'me,.as they
thought, the indispensable necessity of a court decision^ in the
case: To which, I reluctantly agreecb If his adyiee whs dOiibt-
lpss well, meant, jhough impruderit aha- unsafe, owing Jto the
severity of the lavvs of North Carolina* One-witness} with¬
out regard to general character, will conclfenin any. man.—'
Whereas a Church decision isi.quite different "Against an'
Elder, receive.not an accusation, but before two or three wit¬
nesses." 1 Tim.' 5: 19. INow the matter in consideration!
was this, did my office belong to God ox the world I If it be¬
longed to. God, then has he' the right to dispose of it, as he in
his infinite wisdorfi should see fit. The world or the worldly
government had nothing to do with it. There was a-higher
atilhority to be obeyed} and under a sense-Of duty, and ac¬
countability fo God; the Chilrch is the> highest tribunal pn
earth} I submitted, the office to,God,'to whom it belonged,;'re-
. signed that his wilL should be done, with it. There is no pre¬
cedent. in holy writ, which gives the worldly government the
pre-emihencef, JBut in this case, the worldly government was
to.dispose Of fhe matter—and ah' office,) which hel°nged' tcf.
Gqd? was submitted to the jv°rld; of course it would f have
been destroyed, tlndyr the deepest conviction- of this truth,
I rose to-make proclamation. of'thiS agreement, to be silent in'
rfiy office: And kijticl heaven ! what eloquence could.describe
my feelings on such an occasion. J wag conscious of doing
wrong, .although to' please jmy friends who advised me to do ,so,
I made the arrangement. On returning towards' home, this
agreement .vvas Reiterated in qiy m.ind, 1 was conscious of hav¬
ing sinned agaipst,if not denied Christ. These avoids occur-i
, red to my .mirtd; with the strongest emphasis: *'fBut hie'that de-
' nielh me before men, shall be deniedbefore tfie angels of God."
Luke 12: $, 9, IVIy soul trembled at the dreadful thought.'
I remained in this terrible condition .for several days, feeling
nothing but a continual butchery of my' conscience "before
134
Clod., Sat Mr. B. scorns to 'b6 perfectly reconclt&d to Sttch &
.state of things; his pride was gratified; he says: To'these
.proceedings we have ho objections. W e cannot biit commend
"the prudencq of the elders, and the spirit of submission ex¬
hibited fey Mr. M. on this occasion," &c.- Such arrangements
will do such men as ffiake the office pf a minister suit the
taste of the world, Or make it a worldly thing. But aC minis¬
ter of Christ must shrink from suchi wickedness.' "Whether,
it be right in the sight of God," to hearken unto men, more
'than unto God, judge ye," Acts 4i 19. \
Mr. B. for, the purpose of attaching guilt to" me, id having
been dissatisfied with the disposition made of the case at
DanieVs Church. - He says-. "Nowlet this agrCetnertt be dis-*
tinctly understood, and borne in mind. Had Mn M;'abided
by it, as he ought to have done,' we hesitate hot to say,, that,
many of the difficulties and much'of the .trouble that have
grown out of the Case, might have been avdided." How does •
Mr. B. prove that .I ought'to have .abided by such an agree¬
ment ? Has he proven that it was according to the word of
God ? No, we have his bare assertion fdr evidenced He knew*
.that no man-could vindicate himself -lit such a case, in court;
he was therefore well satisfied to see his brother sacrificed upon
the altar of his cruel pride. The coUtrC decision* wduld have,
its influence in a Church trial, and he, no -doubt,'comforted
himself hvith,the idea, that I should be condemned, What
feVotheflyjaffection!'; What ,heavenly. tnindedness!! Would
he have been willing to be treated in such a manner, had his
earthly happiness'been, at stake. ' No, verily not. "Therefore,
all things whatsoever ye' would that rriCn should do to you, do
ye even 'so to them: for this is the law. and the .prophets." Mat/
'7: 12, - ;v *
Ma JB, on page 18," says: "Frorri some motive, however, we
are left to conjecture, Mr» M. become dissatisfied with the dis¬
position-made of his case by the Elders, at Daniels Church.
By His untiring efforts, he succeeded'in getting-up another,
meeting ;of his Elders, at" Trinity Church, On the 25tti dayof
July, 1845, obtained, vvhat. hd claims as an acquital, and in di¬
rect violation of his own agreement^ began again to pleach,,
before his case was decided in court."
,We answer; I did just vvhat any other God-fcaHng man'
25
\Vould have done. I have .often heard the adage; that a bad
promise was fetter broken than kept. What Mr. B. calls a
"direct violation of my own agreement" is bat the result of think¬
ing after the deed. • I had done wrong and was sorry for it,
and intended, by the blessing of God, to.amend, if it was in
ijiy power to do so. But this, in his sight,us very'criminal.,
» ' It is worthy of notice what Mr. B. says about my untiring
efforts; to get up another meeting. He would havh had me
submit to the devil; an office which belongs to God. •> A_nd, to
• gratify hiapVide, he would have me'surrender this office and.
lie down and die in despair, vyithout. an effort on my part to
Sustain it. by. the decision of the Church. No, Brown! If I
die and am damned, I shall die in. the act of hailing on God
lor Mercy. tIf I did wrong, in consenting lo the above inad¬
vertent agreement, this is no reason that I shoiild cbntihue to"
do so. d.resolved to amend the matter. With this deterpiina-
tiori; I went to Mr. B. S, Johnston, Esq., of Lincolhtdn, who
was one of the Elders, I informed him of my. determina¬
tion to submit to h. decision of the Church, eitHer to,be bleared
br cdndemhed, he informed Gen." D.' Seagle of my intentions,
'they forthwith went into the arrangement, and spent one or
two days in notifying and .collecting • all the evidence in the
base, both-for and against me. On the 25th. of July 1845;
they met, and examined the evidence, and acquitted nie with¬
out a dissenting voice. We need no further evidence of the
fact,"that the trial was fairly'and honorably got Up, and con-
ducted than the simple truth, that Messrs. Johnston and'Seagle,
gild spcli like.men, had the management of the case. They
haye ever .bqeq hqnorable, highminded gentlemen', and . vte
trust christians, who'would scorn to get up and conduct a."ope
sided trialMr. B. says, on page .20, "we give it, as our
opinion, that Mr. Miller had strong reasons for urging on that
trial, unfair as it might be." Can any mari believe who is a<?:.
quainted with such men as composed that meeting, in part,
that they could be influenced by me or any other man to do so.
low and corrupt'an-act/as Brown says to conduct a one sided
trial! ! No, it certainly-is a libel on their character. But, as,
we shall have occasion to police' this -subject again, we shall
jiass.it over for the present.
26
SECTION III.
From the above, the reader will discover the"manner ill
which,this case has.been treated by the Church. Some 18 dr
20 .Elders, having united- their official authority, tried and
acquitted me. Their act was the act of the Church united.
And according io Mat.'18, and the government of the Luther¬
an Church, the matter was "at an end. And with this decis¬
ion, I appeared at the Synod of 1845. Mr. B. says: - "There
was considerable dissatisfaction existing in the churches in N.
C:" ' Can it be supposed, .under such excitements, there would"
be a universal concurrence ? I think not. But the reader
will perceive how w;ell Mr. B., understands his magnifying
glass. • The resolution of the Synod says: ."As there still ap->
pears to be -a'dissatisfaction existing in the matter." I shall,
ever believe that the dissatisfaction alluded to by the Synod, •
in 1845, (see their minutes page 8,) was that of individuals.
•They, deny having received an appeal from the" decisions' of
congregations. The' congregations had tried and acquitted
me, by their united authorityand if there had been no ap¬
peal received, then has the Church united, claimed the right
tp try me twice for the same offence first in her united author¬
ity,.and secondly united in the Synod.
'But how, craftily does this designing man slipover such
glaring violations of the constitution. He says: page* 30, "Mr*
M's. case did not come 'befpre the Synod of 1845, in the form
of ^ari appeal.. If it did, who' was the appellee?- It was cer¬
tainly not his accuser. It was not the, Elders, who sat on that
trial. It was not his congregations,- nor any other congrega¬
tions. Who then made the appeal? We think it will be'dif¬
ficult lor our opponent^ to tell."
The redder yvill observe, that heretofore they strenuously de^
nied that the.Synod Had acted upon the case. Bqt now, they
admit that the 'case came before the body, and that they acted
upon.it, but not, in the form of an appeal! .
We shall now proceed, to examine these'inquiries, .and the
nature of appeals as prohibited by the constitution. 1
"Appea-l Is a legal terrp, denoting a request-for tthe transfer
of a cause from one judge to another, or from one tribunat Jo
another, or ftom an inferior to a superior tribunal." The Ten-
27
nessee Synod denies having received appeals, in Jhis cas.e,
from the decisions of congregations. It is presumed, that they'
assume this position, from the fact, that in all orderly cases,
where appeals are authorized, that order is'observed, inreifer-
ing a case from one authority to another. It is true that Or¬
der belongs to orderly "beings, but what signifies order« among
lawless beings, they are determined to accomplish their pur¬
poses regardless of order or consequences.
"The constitution of the Tennessee Synod denies the power
of receiving appeals from the decisions of- congregationp. And
the Synod ih 1345, disclaimed the idea of being a judiciary
body, of course prescribes no rule by which such process (pro?
vided such should be attempted) should be cpnducted. The
act'therefore of receiving appeals could*only be the result'of
disorder or an arbitrary action. As for instance,, had the ffa-
mers of the'constitution considered appeals in the affirma¬
tive, they would doubtless have given the rule by which such
process should be carried out. But on the contrary, having
considered appeals in the negative, they were silent, as to rule,
and pre-suppose that such attempts would be ithe result of ar¬
bitrary action, an'd the individual or individuals presuming
thus to act, would' invent their own rule according tq circum¬
stances, such, as they might, deem best calculated to Obscure
and carry out their wicked designs. . -•
The constitution"is very clear-upon this subject* "This Syn¬
od shall have na power to receive appeals from the decisions
of congregations.'7 It does not say; with respect to private
members only, butps absolute; by yvhich all judiciary powjers^
are laid out of the reach of the Synod, and reserves such fo
the congregations, where the Savior,, by sovereign rights placed
thetn. The constitution pre-supposes that the congregations
send no disorderly members to the Synod, and of course, the
'.Synqd has nothing to do with judicial authority'.- Jfo.vyany
one could'be mistaken in this matter we ar,e'truly at a'loss.to
•discover. • '
' Persons presuming to violate this clause of the cqnstitution,
could only resort'to an assumption ai-poivex, and envelope
their conduct in such a manner as to defeat"the publi'p mind.
"For every one that doeth evil, hateth the light,, neither, cometh
to the light lest his deeds should Be reproved," John 3: 20,2i.
m
When any one appeals a ease according to rale, to the judg*
pent of another, and the judge receives and act'upon such
case, 'such action admits of pO caviling, and of course, would
n,ot be suited to the works of darkness.
The simple question before us is,'did the Tennessee Synod'
in this case, receive appeals from the decisions of congrega¬
tions, as prohibited and pre-supposed by the constitution, or did
they not? It is most confidently bejieved, that no intelligent
and unprejudiced person, who will fairly and candidfy peruse
their transactions,' will for a moment deny that they have re¬
ceived appeals contrary to the simple intention of the constitu¬
tion. We shall proceed to advance the proof. See their min¬
uses of 1845, page 7. They say, "On document No. 4, con¬
sisting of letters and petitions the following brethren were ap¬
pointed a comriiittee to report to Synod," &c.. Here the case
is transfered by the request of letter writers and petitioners to
.thq, action of Synod.t The Synod received the case under her
jurisdiction, acts upon the same, and submits it to a commit-'
■tee; ' -
.'FjText, we'are i'nformed on page 8, that the corpmittee re¬
ported and, says, on document No. 4, "we beg leave to submit
|he.,fqllowing: Whereas, a charge of a serious nature is al-
' ledged against the Rev. A. Miller,'' &c. The' Synod receives
this report and acts upon it. A case known to'them as having
been previously decided, by the immediate authorities, of ,the
Church of Christ. If this is pot receiving an appeal from the
decision* of congregations, \ve are utterly at a Iqss to under¬
stand the meaning of language.
\ Pride and ambition had introduced the matter info the Syn¬
od But ala§! how are they to dispose of'it now?
They had 'a case before them to decide, and. no rule to decide
by! Confusion .pervaded their,course. It was complained of
afe'being a very difficult matter, to know how to proceed!- In.
the situation they were placed, this was strictly true. A case
to try and n'o law. to be governed by! The difficulty was"
sipnpfy this, the case did not comq under the jurisdiction of
the Synod, and there was no law to execute. An.d wqrse than
ail, they had no .power to make ope. The Synod was neither
^ legislative npr 'jiidiciqry body. In this helpless condition,.
What is to be done? Their pride had received it for actipn
29
They could not 'like Go.d-fearing . men, humble themselves to
the decision of the Church, as Christ gave command. Mat.
IS. _ . ; * '
To carry out their measure, tbey enter their bill of attain¬
der, And -reaph the (case by an ecclesiastical export facto lqwi
A measure repudiated by all political, as well as religious as¬
sociations, as« being inconsistent with the laws of humanity,
civilization and the most sacred rights, of man, under any
government, either human or divine.
The'reader will bear in mind that this their expost facto law,
was a positive nullity. But doubtless had they succeeded in
.convicting me by, it, they would (and do) claim it as divine^
Authority. But God's purposes are not to be thwarted1 by the,
malice, and canning craftiness of designing men. He over¬
rules events, brings good out of evil, and makes the wrath of
man, praise .him. Bs. 76: 10. I am again acquitted by their
'self-invented authority. •'
Reader, do you not think that it was time, for them to cease,
"for1 shame's sake I , Yea, When the hand of divine providence
♦was so clearly seen in behalf of my qffipe a's.a minister of-
Christ* Lest they should be found fighting against Go,d.—
Acts 5: 39. The ease being left to the • vol'ce of the Church,
to. decide the matter by vote, larrl acquitted hy a majority of-
103. And had every voting, member in my charge yoted
. against me, the authority itself being k .ilullhy,-there would not
Jba've been any thing binding but my own,consent to abide "by
the debision. , But with the absolute promise of the Synod
that they would concur, provided 1 was honorably acquitted,
aqd the positive statement of.the executive committee that
Church and state" matters were not to be blended together, and
'therefore what they then did was to be final, on the part of the
•Synod. The executive committee was not required to report
the result of their labors, to the Synod, Thus the ca!se was
again decided - by their self-invented authority, without any
fear of a successful refutation on principles of truth. - __ .
It will ,dvoubtless be .asked, and how. does this case get back
into the Synod again ? We shall, forthwith proceed to give
the facts; notwithstanding all that caviliifg has said upon the
subject. Why, they appoint, in 1816, a committee "to report'
on unfihished business, (that the case remained on the minute^
30
of 1,845 as unfinished business we have already shown to be
a positive falsehood.) But the committee assumes the case
again, brings it before the Synod for action,' the Synod re¬
ceives the committee's report, and goes to business again."See
their minutes for.,1846. "We the committee appointed to re¬
port-on the unfinished business of the last session of Synod
refer, 1st. to page,8, report on document No. 4, and recommend'
"that Synod inquire whether the requisitions of the- resolution
of that report have been complied with." On page 6, we
read "the > report of committee, No. 2. Sec. 1, relative to fhe
charge against the Rev. A.Miller was then taken wp," (of
course' for action again) a case twice decided, first by the au¬
thority of God's word, and secondly by their expost facto law,
and now is in order the third time for trial before an unauth¬
orized tribunal. Nearly two days were spent in evasion•;
(Mr. B.' Says; "discussion;") finally they decided by a ma¬
jority of votes) that"127 was not ah honorable majority over
f24! (The Synod unquestionably intended forthwith to en¬
ter into another trial! Such a course of conduct is suf*
ficient to convince any honest man that there was not one
spark of moral honesty intended by them. Upon which 1
withdrew my connection from their illegal proceedings. Being
determined not to.be tried by q body of men not authorized
to try,-and one which had disqualified itself for this dutj, by
a determination never to cease,trying until I was condemned.'
A'man migh't as wjell submit to be tried by the devil as he nev¬
er ceases trying, until he has. condemned the subject,
Upon ,my withdrawal, 'they say, page 7, "Mr. Miller with¬
drew from this body and consequently placed himself beyond its
reach; therefore the necessity of further action is superceded.4'
" Now reader, here'is again, according to their own Words)
the case assumed by the instrumentality of a committee, their
report is made a transfer of the case, this transfer is received
by'the Synod for actim. If this is not in the absolute sense
of the term, the very thing forbidden by the constitution, I am
utterly at a, loss to know the" meaning of language! The con¬
stitution pre-supposes such appeals and no others. Again,
when rule arid brder say that no appeal shall be received on
fhe'part of <the Synod, they at the same time deny the right'of
£gch request ori'the part of. the Church.
31
We shall briefly recapitulate the transfers of this case. 1st.
•The c£tse is1 transxered, from the decision of the Elders to the'
session of '1845. 2nd. They enter their- expost facto, I am
tried by it, and acquitted. 3rd. They assume the case in
184.6. • 4th. From the' session of" 1846', I am given• uy to the
devil, sentence is pronounced by his holiness Rev. P. C. Hen-
kel,^ as follows: "J will give him up to the devil." .This sen¬
tence was tacitly confirmed by the Synod in 1847. Dear read¬
er,- do you not think that there was a" tremendous roar of
lajngjhter and mirth in the infernal regions, when this liberal
'ihearted young clergyman gave up so fat a prize to his old
friend, his Satanic majesty; and when the Synod of 1847,
•confirmed this sentehce ? This is just whathis Satanic < maj¬
esty delights to see.
BuJ thanks 'be to God, there is a better owrier for me,—
Jesus Christ claims me as the purchase of his own .precious
blood, 1 humbly hope through the merits of the Savior, to be
received into his heavenly kiqgdom; and if the members of
, the Tenne,gseC Synod, will refuse to fellowship, me there, they
must seek some place that suits them better, I cdnnot help it.
Let us sing through fierce temptations,
Which threaten hard to bear- us down;
For the Lord, our strong salvation,'
Holds in view the conqueror's crown, '
He that washed us in his blood,, ,
Soon will bring us home to God, 1 Cor. 15: 57..
. If will be necessary to lay before our readers the expost
fapto law, by which Messrs. Goodman and Killian were to be
governed In taking the vote of my Churches. * It is as fol-
lpws:. • , .
""Whereas, a charge of a serious nature is alledged against
'the Rev. Adam Miller, and as this Syiiod is 'not a judiciary,
*T 1 May 26 th, 1850.
We the undersigned having attended the session of the Tennessee Synod at
Daniel's Church, 1846. Do certify that during the debate on Mr. Miller's case
—the Rev. P. C. Henkel quoted the case of incest as recorded ICor. 5 chapt.
.1. 5, verses, and having commented upon the same, made the application to
Mr. Miller, in the following words, "I will give him up to the Devil," Given
under our hands the day and date above written.
JOHN SHDFORD, JOHN EI&ENHOUR,
WM. GREER, JONATHAN CARPENTER.
JONAS CARPENTER. ' '
'but \an advisory body, a/nd simply claims the power'of impart*
itig her usefid advice and employing the proper means for pfo-
, mulgating the gospel of Jesus Christ, and inasmuch as a ma¬
jority of his Elders have held a,meeting and have investiga¬
ted the charge alledged against him, and said meeting of El¬
ders, after an investigation of the charge unanimously declare
thim innocent, and they see no cause why he should not re¬
sume his official labors, and as a respectable number of' the
members of Jus congregations concur with the decision of the
Elders; however, as there still seems to be a dissatisfaction ex¬
isting in the matter, it is
Resolved, "That the Rev. H. Goodman and J. Killian be ap-'
pointed to, take th^voice of his congregations in a clear and
^distinct manner, as soon as possible, and if the vbice of his
'congregations wish him to Continue his official duties, that we?J
in that case, concur with them, provided they honorably ac¬
quit him." See their minutes of 1845. Page' 8. '
We humbly request the reader to, bear in mind this resolu¬
tion of the Synod, while he peruses the following pages. Here
Were men who acted in , the above named session,, who -were
'Well acquainted with all the circumstances of a previous strug¬
gle. They know how, and why the Tennessee. Synod was*
formed, the intention, end, nature and design of the constitu¬
tion. But could not, for shame's Sake at that time, in their
••own persons, braye such unhallowed positions as have since
unblushingly been assumed. ' The reader will therefore bear
in mind the positions occupied by the Tennessee-Synod in
this resolve •' 1
1st. That the Synod is not a judiciary body, and claims no
power to try its members for immoral Conduct; riot even a
preacher,, as such, was the subject before them.
-2nd. They claim simply advisory powers, this was and is
kpown to be the original design of the Synod.
3rd. The design of the Synod was to spread the gospel of
Jesus Christ, and to employ* the proper means of doing this. -
4th. As they had no power to try judicially such cases, they
taodestly transfered it back to the voice of the Church, and
promised a concurrence.
The reader will 'observe, that the design in the above reso¬
lution was this; to have me convicted by the Churches, and
u
^et The dut'of tlieir way; • /Ihfly anticipated;' th'at 'the .congre¬
gations would*not confirrii, the .decision pf -the.,Elders, and by
.this means; they would suqcepd jri condemning me,. ,
,», The clause, in the resolution ^provided thai/ hono/ahly acquit
him," was not-the original prpddctiorl of the^committee, but
■ivas' added by the Rev, P, C. Henkel arid J.' R- Peterson,' >yho
wqre to reap .the benefits of my,', condonation. ■ They, wpre
doubtless aiming atr the loaves and fishes, together with the de¬
termination aiever to submit to the drdss of their brother*'' Arid
•the dissatisfaction which existed, Was,'in my humble opinio^
, the "result of clerical-influence; i,ri a great degree. , , ,
, • ■ Mr. B. says, fjage 22: 5'It is true the vote was not" takpri ill
a\[ these. Chiirdhes, though it should have been," that is', 'o'f
those Qhu,rches of "vyhich I originally .had charge. We, shall,
now .proceed .to show the reasons why this was not done. Afi-i
. ter the session of'1845, at Mr. Philip Coiner's, in* Augusta
county, Va., as we were abofl't to'take our leave of each other.,
•Rev., Goodman arid Killiarl furnished me vjvith their' appoint--
riients, to take the vote of .my Church'ps. ■ They said to jm?1 ^
where shall we- take the vote? Shall, we go in all the cpngrPr,
gations of which you originally hrid charge before the com-,
rrience'merit of your dif&culfies or shall we ,.take, the vote of
,'those only of which you- now have; charge ? (seveii' in' irnra-
bier.)' ' I re plied ;'doas you please,-carry out* the' resolution of
jhe-^ynod. If you take the vote of all, I shall be satisfied',
, and if you: take the vote of those'i only of my present* charge;,
* I shalLbe satisfied. They then remarked that* they did not be-,
lieve that it Wdiild be' , fair to take the vdte of any save those,
of wWich I theri'h^d charge; L replied, that, as an individu¬
al, I thought so too, Bi}t that .they .should1 do as they pleased:
Notv reader, if wro'fig was cbmmitted,i I- was.not to be blamed,4
tbey'didthey fhoughf'b'eSt.. ~ • 4
t I arrived fri Ni C.^a'rid'aqcdrdirig t.o promise, P announced
thefr appointments:' '' \Vheri doing .so, I earnestly entredted the
, brethren to turn out Once more and do their duty. . That I had
.the assurance'that the arrangement thqn made by the Synod
was to f>e- an end of ■strife. I stated to tfiem as it*was a mat¬
ter of conscience, and that fpr Christ's- sake, that they .should
turn, out and pote,' regardless of my feelings: Tfiat I should
respect the mari' wha voted against me the same as the' one
34
who voted for. ine. That I should yiew .their decision as from
< (God. Reader, could, I have acted'fairer?
Mr. Goodman and Killian attended to take the vote, and
was resisted by some of the. Elders, who maintained that they
had no constitutional# "right to do so. They alledged that 'the
case had been tried according to the principles of the Luther¬
an Church. This was admitted ty Messrs. Goodman and
Killian,f but, they insisted upon taking the vote inasmuch us
* - N. C., Catawba 00.,' Sept. 20th, 1847.
I'do certify, that I was present at Hases Church at the time_ the Rev. Good¬
man arid Killian -were to take the vote of Mr. Miller's congregations accord¬
ing to the' Resolution-of the Tennessee Synod in 1845. Mr. Goodman attend¬
ed and delivered ■a discourse. „ After sermon, he laid before the 'congregation
the-case pf the Rev. A. Miller, .stating that Mr. Miller had been tried accord-
- jng to the Constitution and acquitted; and there the matter should have ended.
But that the report had been brought them in "Synod that the congregations
Were dissatisfied,, arid that their business was to take the vote of the different
congregations on the .case. I certify the above to be a true statement to the
best of my recollection. Given under myhand. JOHN H. ROBINSON*
Oct. 10th,'l$50t
This is to certify that I was present at St. John's Church, when the Eev.
" Goodman and Killian were to take the vote-of the congregations in accordance
with the Kesolution of Synod in 1845—in .the first place the Eev. Goodman
read the Resolution and explained the object of -their visit. He pressingly so-
• licited all to come forward and do their duty—^as the decision then to be made
was to be a final one. If you now raise Mr. Miller he is raised; and if you
"put him down he is down. Then Mr. M. Kudisill rose and asked the question
whether vthis was to be depended upon as a final end of the matter? Mr.
•Goodman replied; yes it as. Given under my hand, the day and date above
written. , ' •' AN DEE W HOKE.
The above is substantially Confirmed, (with this addition, "They Were in¬
structed to vote with a written ticket preach or no preach) bythe following
brethren. ^ .
, MILES M.C'NUP, LAWSON HUNSECKEIL
HENRY HUNSE'CKER, \VMf FULBRIGHt;
GEO. P. SlGMAN, FEED. A. HOKE,
• JOHN A. HOKE.' * '
N. B. , The same statements Were at St. Paul's.
. . ' Catawba, C3o. N. bf Nov; 23rd, i85l.
This is "to certify that the Rev: Goodman and Killian, jvhen taking the vote
at St. Paul's Church accprding to the resolution of the Synod,* in 1845, said that
'their Synod had passed a resolution for them to take the vote of the Churches
in Rev. A. Miller's charge, relative to his (Miller's) case. The vote was taken
preach or not preach, and that their decision should be final concerning the
'matter, ' ' GEO. SETZER/'
. Catawba County, N. C. Nov. 23rd, 1851.
This is to'certify that in 1845, When the Rev. Goodman and Killiari were to
take the vote of the Churches in Rev, A. Miller's case, that they told me that
they were to take the vote of the congregations, and as the vote, decided the
33
the Synod had agreed, that -th£ decision 'then, to be/ made,, was
to end' the' whole 'matter on the part'of'the, Synpd arfd Church.
o . ? Awr o oaau tucjf iuigui piu*
ceed to take the vote /according to! the* resolution Jof Synod!
The result was, ,of'15rWe5 cast, I had'103 majority. * '
The committee having jcofnplled with their duty I received
the following communication from Rev." Jacob Killiah. ' '
" Nov. 261845.
Mr. Miller :
Rev. and, Dear sir: In obedience to [your request, I now
seat myself to giVe you the statement of'the. vote , in 'your
Churches... The vote stands as follows: a,t ^t.^John's ,28 for
you ap^l'agajnst you, St., Paul's ,26 for and. 1 against "you.
At Hases 9 tor and 1 against you. Trinity 28 for and 7 against
yqu. "Daniel's 15"for i, against you,' Beaverda'm 9 for and 9
against you. Christ's Church i2 for and 1 against you. The
above4is a correct statement of the vot^ .and 1 hope you. vrill
find it satisfactory, &c.' , ' JACOB KILLIAN.'
The %readert will observe that .Rev.i Goodman and Killian
were not, requested' to' report the result of their labors to Synod,
neither nvere .they required to furnish, me with.a.certi/icate to
thtt'Effect, as Mr. B. in' a sneaking .crafty, mariner would infer.
Hp says,, page/ 21, "If will,' however, be observed by the read¬
er, that hp* had no certificate ',from the Re'v. Messrs. -Goodman
ajid Killian to this effect."- • Suph conduct plainly ^shows. that'
« ■ i i ' * t
pase/waS*to be final. ' Given under'hand the day and date above written.
. > PHILIP RUDlSlLLl
State of N. C. OatawbaCounty..
* We the undersigned "do certify that, we .were present at St. Paul'SjC hurch iri
1845; when the Rev. Killian and Qoodman. weiie to take the vpte of Mr. Mil¬
ler's congregations according to the resolution of 'the Tenn. Synod in 1845,, .
Rfev. K. preached and after divine' service he laid-before ,the congregation the'.
6ase"of Rev- A. Miller, they stated thathi's case had been constitutionally-act¬
ed upon by the committee." But that fhe matter had been broiighi before „
them in Synod, that the congregations were dissatisfied with the matter. We ,
(say they) could hot tell how ipatters were, w.e were setting three hundred
miles from you, and were appointed by. Synod to' take the vote.of the congre¬
gations on the subject, add as they, decide shall be final iq the, case. Given,
under our bands this 21st Sept. 1847.
• ELIJAH M. SIG1VJAN, JACOB JV1EGEE;
MICHAEL RUDISILL, DANIEL RADER,
36
he is willing ,;to stoop to any low mean -advantage in his pb\y
erHo ac:complisli his ends. "We lesLve, the reader to judge: ^ •• st
Mr. B. asserts on 'page 22,'thg.t'^e voice of my congre'gaf
Mods w&s not in favor* of my preaching—\he vote was taken
preach or not preach. The'Voice to preach gained by ^103,
majority. But' to, evade this truth, he .estimates the voting;
•members at '3 or 400, 'and then extends the number.to'4'24.
Behold 'the gobd qualities'"oi"..his 'elastic conscience! - He'de-i
ducts l'^l from 424 'and claims 273 absent voters against me.'
"VVhy does'he not furnish us with a "precedent" to confirm this
mbdePf' reasoning or procedure ?,< If there is-existing author¬
ity for' such conclusions,• to add the absent voters to the minor¬
ity, why does hb not produce it? The! truth' is that he did
not, because hefcotild not, as no. such; examples exist. Uni¬
versal custom confirms the fact that absent voters are number¬
ed With 'the "majority; therefore,' th'e propriety (pf deciding- 400
for and 24 against nip. . This is confirmed by thd number of
petitioners in 1847. /This is according to his own calculation
of the whple. number of votes: Tarn far from Relieving that
all the vqtps in those congregatipns wherd I had quit pteacj}?'
ing were'against'mfi. <( <
. f shall now.proceed tpproye from his own statements, that
tj?e absent ypiers are,, to be nufnhpred with the' majority. \ "
J^rom pages 23' and 24 we doliept the folio wing r' >
i.st. 'J?hose who >vere. con'viricefl ""of niy . guilt according tp
flip evidence hap on the subject, vp'ted against me:
2nd, Those wfip wpre convinced of my innocence, from,the
same source, voted for' tpe.
3rc3,'Those who 3pppld not fpf conscience sake vote either.,
for or-against/me,, were silent, I ask, with ill due respect,Ais
this npf consenting<to* the'will of the majority,; which decides
all such cases, But lie seems to infer that this was a.special-
Cape,; why-not plead-as the generalist did, that "it is sometimes
necessary and profitably ip deviate from ride or cbnstitutipfif
See Herald of Liberty, p.age 37. That the membpis 'of'.thp
Tennessee Synod^ should now begin to ,plead thus, is passing
strange. ' ' '
But B. says in the positive, "the people did" not vote, because
they wished to pee the result of the legal investigation of the
lease jn court." » This is a cprrupt falsehood, and he knew Tet-
3 T
ter whet) he made thfo 'nss^tiqu; He well knew Mliat, the
.Churches had decided cfgafasl (t,'law suit'. Great(^odi where
is nqqjftlhoiiesty^. 'See the following:' " ' v f jj)\* ;'<
g - State of N..'C. bjttpqln CouVrv, Sept, '2nd, 1$45.
..» 'Iqi pursuance to previous nqtice given by a meeting of the
Elders' from t'he seVeral congregations under the .care 'of'the
iRey* A".''Miller,i which Convened.'af 'Mr.' Daniel' Luiz'3—if
» iyas ordered td call «a meetirlg "of. delegates from'the several
.'congrega'tions to,convene atTk.-S,'Jqlinspn's Esq.,.in Lincoln*'
' ton, Vvhichi. meeting, met according * to appdintment—arid
•■"was organized by calling' Mr.» John, Propst tq the. Chair an4
a^pqiqtjng Mr/G." W'.f>fo;rtett Esq.,'Sectary."
,-ThP bhject of the meeting being e^plaine'dj after which, it
.yyas resqlye'd1 t'q take the vote upon the'now pending suit by*
«the Re*y.'4- Miller, against''a^charge, by Catharine AnthoriyJ1
^"Whether toMra\vq]r continue said suit. The following t^bfe'
n.yill show the congregations represented in said meeting, and*
their delegate^, together wi th" their voles upon 'said question!1
pelfroates naaffasj '' congregations.
Mr. Frederick-Smitif, ' St. .John's,
" joliii Propst, v St. 'Paul's,
" John Hass,. • Hasse's,
" • Jonas Rhvne, trinity,
Jonathan^Carpenter, Daniel's
Jona§ Rudisill, l Beverdam,
u Sam'l 'Jarrett, , • Christ's Church.
The'folio wing vote4 shows the sentiment ol the several con¬
gregations under the'Pastoral supervision'of the Rev. A. Mil-
Jer* ori the ab'oy.e questiqfi, '
••'Suit, , , . ,No suit.,
Mr. Jonas Rhype, Mr. Fred. Smith,
Jonathan Carpenter, li, John Props't,
" John i Hass,'
" Jonas Rudisill,
"' Sam'l., Jarrett.
The seyejral votes being given the result is as follows: 2-votes 1
for suit: ar?d 5 for pp suit, Respectfully submitted. ' *
• Cf. W. JarSett, See'!/. ' . JOHN PROPST. tiKnS
The reader wjll ji'otice that at the Ohprch : trial at Mr.
Daniel Lutze's,' Esq., I was cleared by a .unanimous voice:
aa-
Tbe^question 'vvas then proposed, how shall the law-suit r
posed, of? I informed', the --Elders that if thd.«matter was left tOi
rne, .1 shQuld,discontinue the,suit. * Finally it was agreed to
fakethe, voice-o'k the.' congregations,' and:as. they depidedi' so
•the matter should rest.,; ;An'dthe,abo'vaistheir,decision.' ffhe
voice-of, the Church'was the "voice f of God to me,'which I
ought to have obeyed,'i am heartily sorry, that4rdid not,1 and
Tor Which I ask;forgiveness of'Godjandahe congregations;,-In
every instance- where' I fdljpw7bd..her fthb, phurches) .advice, R
was'safe. But. seeing the*apparant dissatisfaction; of''some of
my clerical brethren, f, took, the .decision pf the. Elders to the
session "of 1845. fThat might receive their \vetl. considered
adyi.ce. . .Rev; A. Henkei,'Rev. .T. Killian and the llev/J. Stire-'
iwalt,^ together withD?/G._S. Henikel advised, me, by . all
means tp.cohtinuc.the suit. / That the.slander was not against
me/as an individual,;bupagainsfr the body,' (the.Terin. Synod:)'
they also promised jo. assist jne in..defraying the 'eost of sai,d
suit, and that it should be betlerJpr meif I.lost the suit; that
]t would show that I contended .for my'.right to the utmost. 'v'
The 'Rev. C. G. Reightsel afterwards came to my. house (as
he said by the request ofv the'friends in New-Market) to say to/
jne 'that the friends in< New-Market were very fearful that I
would draw the suit. He said to me, go on witlrthe law-suit,
as it would shovy to the world that 1 was walling to contend
for my rights,, ajid repeating.the promise of the above', named
gentlemen,;?^ it should be better, for me if I lost the; suit. . / >
' Thus enepuraged/I prosecuted, the law-suit Vith no- great
hppC of success.' Believing that 1'twas doing the will of my
clerical'brethren. I truly dreaded their"influence .should they
turn against me—'and therefore, did all in my power to satisfy
Jhern of my'real innocence. < .
But alas ! I,prosecuted the suit at their request, and failed
to^manifest my innoc'erice, as I had previously' intimated to
sqme'of theni. 'Did they assist me as they promised,'to pay
tjie cost?: N,o. • Did they comply with their promise that it
should be better with me. if J lost tJie suit. No!" But on the
contrary, they- plead.that the suit had now-gone .kgainst me «
and 1, was .done. Thus indirectly incorporating Church and
fK'ev. ptirewalt has Since said that he <Jid not advise pie.-
3,9
State in open violation,pf. the Constitution .and Aligsbtfrg Con-
jession.4^See2, Art. Con., 28 Art. Aug.'Con; Now. gentle
reader* what greater deception or moral dishonesty could any
set of men be guilty of?' '
SECTION IV.
We shall now proceed to speak-more particularly of the
session of 1846., JWe are pained to'say'that notwithstanding
all .tha,tf has beeh said'and done with a view of reconciling
this'matter, by-the vote of the Churches, the/arrangemehf was
only a scheme of'evading, the- case until (as they thought) a
more .convenient season to carry out their .deeds of cruelty.—*-
•When'we returnedJrprU the/session.of 1845, it was rumored
through the country thai; I wa.s to be tried again at the next.
(session in/1846. /1 met with the Revi P. C. Henkel'and laid the
consequences, of .Such a course'of-conduct before him. I said
to .him,* that if" they could not conscientiously believe any
>,thing ,else, but'that 1. was guilty, for Christ's sake to forgivp
and have mercy upon m'e, and let the matter end, 'and be at
jbeace.- He replied in the most ambitions mannef. "We can¬
not forgive an -inpoccptj man.";,'He paused' .a moment arid
.said "Air. Miller,.we^cari have' no mercy upon you, it (the re*
quest) reminds me of a 'raap under1 the gallotqs with the rope
around his neck' crying' to the by-stancfers for mercy." This
is . the merciless manner ill which I, was treated by a preten¬
ded minister of Christ.I, of course) must expect' his, influ¬
ence fo'correspond with this a^ertipri. -
/The Synod met at Daniel's Church in 1846. The case
- was assumed, as we have already.stated, as unfinished busi¬
ness. , Two day's, were spent in evasion, in seeking some
plausible plafl to get over the plain statements of the constitu-
«tiori, and at the same tirae<to defeat,, {he public mind from .de¬
tecting their cruel conduct. Having worn, but the -patience
of., the'. congregalion, Mr. Rpdisiil as-a-kind of last resort," pro¬
posed- inadvertently, that; Mr. AfcGinnis should make a state-
. ment of the case before the Sypod•; this was right, in their
hands; they seized' upon it as a- kind of order for* trial. And
what made it the morp forcible was, thatvit :was the proposal
of my devoted personal friepd, &c.- Does this make wrong
right; because my friend propose'd the .measure ? .And" Had they
40
been governed by?the statement of Mr: MfiGfripi# they coii'ld
•not have avoided .deciding in inj? favor.
But where.was the authority for ■'this act of ■ calling-jupdii
Mr: McGinn,is to make'this statement? Where the: authority
df toaking father Rudi'siil's inadvertent proposal the.rule-'for
theifr decision'? *4 The reader will discover that their object was
to1 plead that the resolution of 184-5, was not honorably, c'orfl-
Iplfed \Viih. i The vote „was. taken according - to the resolution,
;and I had a majority, of ,103- votes.. Did Mr. R's proposal,- of
Mr. .McGinnis' .statement change this vote ? Nb, - they ' were
' honorably bound to-show reasons why 103 out of 151; votes
»cast was not ail 'honorable majority; ■ or to prove' that absent
voters were to be, added, to the minority. Did .they do this'?
No, but heard Mr. McGlpnis^and-then decided the case by .'a
majority of votes, that I had 'nqt been hofforably a'cquitted.
Has there ever been a more arbitrary'act pn earth?. Ill
. what shape or form equld Mr. R.brM's proposal or statement;-.
Change the^'dCcisioU made by'the\yote of the congregations ?
'We shall here insert the'following, to show; the light'in which
(intelligentindivlduals then viewed t,heir .proceedings:
August, 22 nd, TS47:
We. the undersigned haying attended,the session of the
Tennessee Synod at'Daniel's Church in 1846; and^having
. carefully observed, their .proceedings in the case of Rev. ,A.
Miller, we ate convinced, that they have, no scriptural, nor con¬
stitutional 'authority for their proceedings. Their conduct
was arbitrary, self-willed and according to their prepossessions'
against Miller; .Gearlymanffesffng .a, predetermination to.ef-.
fecl ^is' (Miller's) downfall, and, utter disgrace, rpgardlesp .of
propriety oryonsequences'; in open violation of the resolution
•of the Synod'in 1845. Their open hostility an,d determina¬
tion to effect his. rqitt, have only an effual, in the proceedings
-of the. Generalists against the Rev. D. Henkef and the/cause
he labored in: We arC members of the Lutheran Church,
a,nd can bplieve no other doptrine, arid* expect to die Luther¬
ans : Notwithstanding we have withdrawn, bnr , names front
.the illegal and'arbitrary pixrcpedings/of that body, and we in¬
tend to remain as Ave now-are, unless the'Synod return Jo .the
Constitution- and the principles '. of the Lutheran Church.—^
a
Which we Hope they may do.'
Jonathan Carpenter;
Joseph heistler,
ephra1im shell, •
'MICHAEL RUDISILL;
'john hass,
daniel lutz,
henry earney,
jonas, carpenter.
It'must be truly out of the question,'for a set of men, who
pretend to have rule and order for their proceedings, to act in
fetich" a mariner. They Were repeatedly requested to decide by"
ri vote of the Syriod; whether the result of the Vole in'the con¬
gregations was a compliance With tpe resolution of, 1845.^
Which was answered by their venerable President, the Rev.
JJ. S tire wait," "I do not understand -the matter." I have nb
doubt'that he had serise enough td Understand that I had 103
majority;' arid that 127,was an honorable majority over24;
and that the absent voters were to' be added to the majority,
which, 'according to Mr. Brown, Would give' me a majority of
400. But the great object for him to understand was how he'
could. ,l$eef) their "unreasonable conduct from bejng detected,
•by the public mind, in its true light, and yet, secure to them-
'selves-the necessary nlimber of votes to accomplish their pur¬
pose.' For scripture and constitution were out of jth'e ques¬
tion, save as they intended to evade both- This must be one
<bf those extraordinary cases, in itihich deviationsj'rom ride and
• 'constitution are necessary and profitable: 'I have no doubt that
it was intended to be'm'ade so in one'sense of the word. "
.In the-language of the Rev, B. Henkel, iti what way is it
possible to excuse them! They were conscious of their im¬
proper course of conduct, the ReW P. Cl Henkel confessed to
.Mr. John Shuford, that I had them completely toiind. What-
could he have meant but that the bible' ana symbols of, the
•Church Were orr" my Side. It is true they did hot deny that
they had a constitution! but rather than submit to lavv rind
justice, like humble and God-fearing meri, the)r graspsthe lafet
desperate means/to accomplish their erids by a majority, with¬
out law or a lawless majority. .See a similar case, Herald of
Liberty, page 30. Before „this £tep was taken I had notice
- michael neas,
john eisenhourj
john shuford,
daniel rai)er,•
Jacob howser/
:wm; greer;
wm. green,
4 2
given. me of their intentions as follows:S
[ . ; Oct. lQth, 1847..
I do certify, that I was at the session of the Tennessee' Syn¬
od iiii 1846, held in Daniel's Church, Lincoln County, N/C.
And When the case of Rev. A. Miller was 'on hand,. Rev.
James K. HanCher, and' myself went to Mr. Miller and ad¬
vised him to withdraw his connexion from the'Synod. Handl¬
er said to Miller :. Cousin Adam, for the Lord Jesus Christ's
sake, withdraw your connexion from the Synod and preach to
your friends in, peace, for they (the Synod) are determined (by
a, vote of the. Synod) to efase your name from the clerical cat-
alpgue. ' Givdn under my hand.
WM. GREER.
The above is,literally true, as certified by Mr: Greer. ,
I,shafi'. proceed to show that, these Rev. and God-fearing
. men intended corruptly to falsify their promise of 1845, when
' they made-it.
, , , Sept. 28,1847.
1 dp certify that on the 6th, day of 'Jan. 1847,1 was in con-
Vversatiqn.with the Rev. James K. Hancher, in reference to the
case of Mr. A. Miller. ' He (Hancher) said that Miller dope
wrong in withdrawing from the Synod ; that he (Miller) ought
to bhve continued ill Synod and stood his trial. Given'under
my hand. , . AMBROSE EASTERLY.
^ It does not peed a Sploinon to shpw that this Reverend geii-
tlemen has contradicted himself.
Rev. J. Stirewalt confessed publicly in 1846, that a compli-
'ahce with the resolution of 1845, as. decided by the vote of
the Churches w,as to have been an eild to the matter; iri proof
of this we sfibmit the following:
... . . bci. 10th 1850:
.This is .to certify that We were present at Daniel's Church,
at fhe session of the Tennessee Synod, in 1846; and during
the discussion on M r. Miller's case, Mr. Miller asked the Rev.
Jf,Stirewait, what was the intention of the resolution of 1845;
was it not to be a final end to this matter in dispute? Rev.
Stirewalt replied, yes, it was to be a clinch to the whole matte?.
(Jiveii uiider our hands.- ETHRA1M SHELL.'
. ; . y yV^M. GREER.
Tp sjiQ,W tha^ this Reverend gentleman, intended to violate
4$
the resolution at; the time it ivris' made', read the following:
Sept. 24th 1847,
j ,1 hereby certify that when, a delegate in Synod, in the ses-!
sion'pf 1845,'when the subject was taken into Hand where
arid when the next session of Synod. Should be held, I, pro¬
posed that the next session should be held, in one of the
Churches in Tennessee, near my aged Father, in consequence,
of his inability to attend, should h be a great distance from
him,. Whereupon the Rev. J. Stirewalt asked me whether I
wpuld have Miller tried in Tennessee. And. immediately af¬
ter this, Rev. T. Moser, J. R. Peterson and P. C. Henkel, came
to me and said; say no more about the next session being in,
Tennessee; that it would be improper for Miller to stand his
trial in Tennessee. Given under my hand.
JONATHAN EASTERLY,
I dp certify that the above conversation took place in my
bearing, and is substatially true. Given under my hand. 1
9 RUFUS EASTERLY.
Mr. B. asserts that they have not violated their promise, as
we have stated. How the man can have the ,ifnpudence,ta
deny this fact w6 leave the reader to1 judge.
Can I be blamed for withdrawing from such a connexion
pf mOn?
. It was said, from the fact tha^I detached mySelf from this
frody, or rather from their arbitrary and* illegal proceedings;
that therefore I waS no longer, a' member of the'Lutheran.
Church! since when Ijas the ,rperinesSee Synod become the
Church 1 It the Synod is" the Church,'where was the Church
before the Synod was organized?' or had Christ no Church
before that time? I have never detached myself .from the Syn¬
od or Church but adhere as trply to their .principles no w I
ever did. Butmore of this in the sequel.
SECTION V.
We shall now proceed to'give a statement of some of the
facts in relation to this-case, in the session -of 1847. When I
left them in 18,46, I infbrihed them, that I should see them
hgain at their ensuing session. • Not, however, for the purpose
of ventilating strife, but that justice might be done to all, a
• v
1 4* I ,
schism prevented, pbd, peace restored to the Churcb. I have
ever contended for the principles -of'the. Lutheran -Church,
from a conscientious conviction of their truth. Therefore, as I
think- and believe these principles are striptly tpue, I could, not
bear'the,idea of seeing the best cause on earth go to "ruin,
without another effort on my part to save.it: I was of opinion
that if matters were permitted to pass off as they then stood,,
it, would be made a precedent • of, to enslave the Ch,urches,
Contrary.to all christian authority. Twenty-seven years had
noVv'passed on in the history of the Synod,' and /jio such
grasps had'been made a\ power.' I also entertained the fond
hope, thai as the session'of 1847, • would be composed of sqme-
fvhaf different materials, and that calm reflection would pre¬
pare those who 'attended the previous session, to act, so as to,
preserve the peace and unanimity of the Church. Past eyents,
in the arena of the, Synod, would be well calculated to pro¬
duce a reaction in their qonduct. Such attempts at power, in
the infancy of the Synod, had been so freely spoken of and-
well understood," that ft would seem impossible that the mem-
'iBers should haye forgotten them, particularly those who wit¬
nessed the Scenes of the former arena. The Synod was. not
ponstjiuted a btjdy by divine command; and as a .human or¬
ganisation, they "come together, to serve and honor the Church:
The congregations had the undoubted right to"- petition the •
Synod for redress of grievances, and had the Synod but Sub-_
mitted to.,their so'yereigh authority, all would have been right.
The petitions.addressed, to the . Synod' in 1847, were nothing'
' more than their- just qljaim by divine right,; hence humble and
Cf6d-fearin'g christians. should have received this act of. the
Churches aS no othpr than- marks-of love and fidelity to '.their
fjiyine master.' , . , * . ; '
Upon, these grounds rqany petitions werp/prought into ex¬
istence, for the consideration, of thp Synod. And- had. they
pecn attended to in a christian spirit, the principles of the con¬
stitution would have been preserved from ruin.
Bu,t cduld it,-have- been .prpved that the Churches had made
pnscriptural requests of Ihe, Synod, she; would not Jiave been-
pound to comply with, fh'e same;* inasmuch as they are mu¬
tually,bound to adhere, to, the. holy scriptures a,s their supremo
rfilee °
45
$ With at leqst 400^ petitioners in my favor, and about 25 or
80# aga,in,st me, I arrived at the session of 1847, but they, be-.'
ing conscious of thpir own intentions to do wrong, and, wish¬
ing to relieve themselyes of "the painful task of complying,
with the. request of the petitioners, they commenced sending
me word,'not to lay those petitions before the Synod. Doubt-:.,
less they intended to slip thp.burtheq off, of their shoulders on
pine. .For had I withheld the petitions from the Synod they
could have said, "Why, Miller did it himself," and I might
have returned to my fripqds with the responsibility on my
pwn shoulders, And doubtless'it would haye been said, "he.
was glad to keep the .matter out of the Synod as he dreaded
{he consequencesBut in this, they were disappointed; the.
petitions were the prodqctions of free men and christians; I
c?ould not think of laying my hands upon them for any other,
pqrpqse, than that which they were intended for; therefore,
tfyey were laid before the Synod, and she was bound to dis¬
pose of them in some way,
C)n Tuesday the subject was taken up, and with great re¬
luctance, they agreed that the petitions rpight be publicly read.
The reading was performed with such weak lungs, as scarce¬
ly to be heard by many of the assembly. But particularly
the |tev. G. Eastferlys letter," in which it is confidently believed^
tqqt he clearly proved the unconstitutionality of-the Synod's
cqqrse of conduct,' in my case. He also, clearly proved that
the Synod had violated the holy scriptures. The texts were,
referred to, but not transcribed. It was at length agreed that
those texts might.be referred to and read "but without note or.
comment" If they really believed that thbse texts did not
proypthe facts'for which the "Rev. G'. Easterly quoted them,
why not exhibit the* proof? Why this reluctance ? or were
they ashamed -of God's holy word in their Synod ? Or were
they determined not to be governed by the scriptures and thus
defeat the public mind,
XjIbUrty, is the emanation of deity, the inalienable birth;
right of'man. Hqw'cruel must that creature be who could;
in defiance of such right, bind down the free-born mind of
*If incorrect in this arp willing to be corrected by the petitions-themselyes,
and othep.
4G
man ,in the iron chains oh cruel despotism, to 'enslave the crea¬
ture whom the God of liberty has destined to be free—should"
not a rational creature shudder at the idea of treating ..with'
indifference that which has been so dearly bought ? When
this inestimable right of man, had been invaded by the powers
of England, how did the free born sons of American liberty
•act? Why, they submitted to each other, in a mutual com¬
pact, their persons, properties and sacred honors, to be free at
the expense of their all, even their ^heart's blood. Rather than
•have' their'liberties taken from them or the gag-law put in
their mouths* Ought not the heart's blood of a son of Amer¬
ican liberty, chill at the slightest attempt to suppress the liber¬
ty of speech, &c: At the. time of the infancy of the Tennes¬
see Synod, such an attempt would have met with the greatest <
indignity, and for this purpose the 4th regulation and remarks ,
of the constitution were carefully written.
Need we remind the reader that the Savior shed his blood
to purchase liberty for the enslaved sons of 'Adam. "And he
that the Son shall, make free is .free indeed:"
. :When this case was taken .up in Synod,.in 1S47, notice was,
'publicly given that the subject would not be discussed. The-
.Rev. Jacob Killian, their President, said; "That the subject
would not' be discussed—that it would take three days to dis-,'
cuss it-r-and that he would see, as the President appointed to
preside over the transactions of .that session, that the subject *
should not be discussed?71 And repeatedly, when attempts
were made to speak, he carried out this, his determination, as.
above expressed. The Rev. A: J,. Brown repeatedly said, "that
discussion would' not be admitted, that it would'take three
-days to discuss the subject fully. Again, that discussion was
unnecessary, as the mind of that fey nod was already ma"de up."-
When he apprehended that a certain certificate would.be o'fo
fe'red to be read in Synod, he said, "that, certificate cannot be,
admitted in this body. If he (alluding to myself^ wishes to*
write, let him do so, he will be answered."' By this measure,
he did not only intend'to suppress discussion, ;but takes the
most,"unfair advantage of my inability to- write; whiph( nonei
but- a coward could be guilty of. It is a matter conceded that
eyeyy man has his propet gifts. Mr.- JBrown is a man natu¬
rally gifted in penmanship,' and has a'- decided .advantage over-
.47
me in this respect. And had he been a gentleman as X once
considered him and much more a true christian, he would
have disdained the idea of such meanness as to deprive one
of his fellow creatures of his just rights. A gentleman never'
takes the advantage of a fellow creature's misfortunes, as-a
'means to elevate himself. It betrays- a meanness of soul which
my peri cannot stoop to portray. For by this means he in¬
tended forever to deprive me of the power of self defence! '
Having thus Used the gag-law, refusing pll discussion, and
reluctantly admitted that the Rev. G. Easterly's text, might be
read, "but without note or cwlment? Without 'quoting one
clailse of the constitution or any symbol of the Church, in sup¬
port of their proceedings. They again, by an arbitrary vote
of the Sypod dismiss, or evade the righteous claims of the
petitioners, who asked at their hand, nothing but justice and
truth. They were requested to decide the case by God's holy
word', and the principles of the Lutheran Church. They tell
tis'in. their resolve, that they had not violated the holy scrip¬
tures, &c. If this was truth, why did they not, as honest men,
and christians, produce the evidence, the petitioners promis¬
ing them to yield to truth, and be at peace? Could they not
see that conscientious christians could not he satisfied with
such contemptible evasions ? and that the result must necess¬
arily be scenes of division and strife in the Church? I was
them ready to comply with rule and order, according to the re¬
quest of the petitioners; and peace could have been effected.
But to cap the climak. As above stated, they refused all
discussion upon.the subject, and yet Oh! Shame where is thy
blush, Mr. B. as the secretary could have the heaven-daring
impudence to write do\Vn, and-by order of the Synod publish
to the world, in their minutes, the nefarious and corrupt fal'se-
' hqod that the subject had been freely discussed, which I can
prove by any number of respectable witnesses necessary' to
establish, the-fact. Such are the men who wish to be called
the followers of the meek and lowly 'Savior; to have the hon¬
or arid respectability. of the church- at heart, to suppress and
discountenance vice and immorality. In my humble "opinibn
such conduct will compare right well witfi the low, the vul¬
gar, and the profane.* I have .previously said that the Rev. P.
C. Hpnkel gave me up to the Hevil^ in j 1846, and here thd
48
Synod has tacitly confirmed his presumption; , Reader,. (3d
you not think that old Nick complimented, them.very highly
for such a fat prize! If this is not assuming the livery ,-of
heaven to serve the devil in,-1 am mistaken.
Se'eing-that nothing could be done to effect; peace with.them
'on christian ierms; myself and friends did our whole duty to
present a schism in the body froria which we were compelled
to take our leave. For who can make peace, with those who
are determined to.have no peace, except such as,would .be
'equal to death itself, morally speaking. For had I been - an,
arigei from heaven, much more a sinful mortal, as I am, by
fetich a course of conduct, they cotild effect my. condemnation*
are helpless, andean do.no itiore,'and if we complafn
bf their conduct, and attempt to point out theii"-errors] we heat'
it exclaimed that Miller and his friends 'are trying, to sow the*
seeds bf discord and strife in the Church. Brethren] for God's
sake, do not-condemn us for not doing all the good Vre would
wish to do-, you are determined that peace shall not be effect¬
ed. 'You have hurled the fire-brands and declare that peace
shall not be made] you have said that if-Millet was received '
i/ito the Synod that others would forsake it; and yet], We hear
the voice of complaint,—rkind heaven! where is consistency!'!
• Is not this the people discribed by the prophet Isaiah 1 - A peo-*
pie that provokes God to anger .continually,' who eat-swine's
flesh, and. broth of abominable things, is, in their Vessels; which'
say, stand to thyself, come not neat 1p me.; for I am holier,
than thou; such men are a smoke .in God's nose, and a fire
that burneth all the day. Isa. 65: 3, 5:
«. I was now compelled to take my final leave of thern under
thp absolute conviction that the-principles'of the Synod had
been' violated in the most shameful and sinful ni'annerf
and they were determined to persist in their :coirrse bf con¬
duct. I informed them that ■ I was there,'prepared to prove
that .they'had shamefully violated their principles. They
gave me permission to'speak, provided I did not speak against'
the proceedings of the Synod. This was benbath contempt*'
I bade them adieu, and departed.
Hard lot of mifae! My days are cast
Among the ,sonsvof strife, '
Whqse never-ceasing quatrelf waste
My goldeii hours of life.
1 '' Peace is the blessing Chat I seek;'
How lovely are its charms!
,1 am for peace; but when I speak,
They all declare for arms.
Should burning arrows smite thejn through,
Strict justice would approve;
But I would rather spare my foe,
"And melt his heart with love.,
i But, behold! as I left the house, the very beings who.had
lised their whole influence and pride to inflict moral murder
upon myself and family, ■ and to destroy my usefulness as a
minister of Christ—^though they would confess that they oWed
more to me' than' any* other man on earth : They have ac¬
knowledged that I had been the- instrument to conduct thenl
to the Savior, and -tot he Pulpit, &c. Whpn I Was about to de¬
part they expressed a desire' to speak to me-, before I left. One
of them (the, Rev. J., Hi) came to ,me and requested that his
lOve should be remembered to my family! -What! morally
speaking,' his hands'had just' been fresh stained with the blood
of myself aftd family. Had his conduct been an indication
bf love to myself or family: No, buti verily the very* reverse
of love. I*could not forbear saying" to him that my family
did not desirefto hear from him. The Rev. A". J: B. came and
pretended to'console me! If such''conduct Kad proceeded
from savages some allowance could be made; but as it is the
dondqct of men who did not only proless to be christians, and
ministers of the meek and lowly Jesus, I eould make no ex¬
cuse for them. But fo God they hre accountable for ,wlmt
they have dope. But to/aomplete ihese scenes of wickedness,
•the long'posed creature' A. J. B. (I do hot mean the nose on
his face but his hypocritical rlose) requested of me not to for¬
sake my principles! rWhat?" Was my principles so pure as
to'be' desirable! Yea, that which .ought,not to be dispensed'
with!!» ,And yet he 6ould writedown and publish to the
world,jTthat if I remained in the.Synod it would be ruinous!
What? a man of sound principles ruin- their Synod! Rut,
behold !- this same' individual had just before unhesitatingly
said that he had long since made up his mind respecting der
nominationhl differences. That , he was willing to give and
take and be friendly-with all. Will he please teypoint out .the
articles of the- Lutheran confession which he h willing to Bay-
so
•ter? ' Ifthis'liberal hearted creature could give and take and
• unite with all, why should he desire to limit my conscience
with his hypocritical advice ? When he could stretch his
gumelastic conscience over all those denominational differ¬
ences and consider himself safe. He neied not fear my safety;
provided ! should do the same. If I could dihve used hypoc¬
risy enough to have embraced his libereal views, I could long
since have extricated myself from the situation in which their
self-righteousness 'and want of moral honesty had placed me.
But the truth is, that two sides tof a palpable contradiction
cannot be proven*from a bible of truth": Neither two different
faiths., A 'sense of 'this divine truth will forever deter me from
using his liberal views. But how was such views received
,by the Synod in its "infancy.* See Hera,ldof Liberty, page 17.
Now reader, Mr; Be was not even reproved for such expres'-
* sions by-the Synod/and," at the same, time", the constitution
makes a deviation from' Lutheranism, an excommunicable .
offence: s Where is that zeal .for truth which once character¬
ized the Synod 1 . • : • ' \ „ l . i »
'j It might.be beneficial for the clerical members 6f the. Ten¬
nessee Synod to fead the following verses.
1. What evil can such teachers do,
Who only heast to make a show !
They aim at nothing that is good,
As Paul to the.Galations show'd.
2. They lay a burden on,th|b flbck,
But wilfnot join to bear the yoke;
They seek-their gain in other's loss;
To screen thqm from the SaViqr's'cross.
3. • Their aim is not the S&vior's cause,
ThCy glory in their own applause—1
They seekjthe world with, its esteem;
The cross is foolishness with them.' r , ,
' 'PAfrh HENKEL:
SECTION VJ.
We shall' now proceed to examine MivB's statements .relaU
five to the ^constitutionality of their poceedings. And here, it
is worthy of notice; that, with all his natu'ral'good sense, and
•advantages as Ja. real-scholar^ to eonstruct^anguage'so as to
define,his'own positions in the'clearest jtnanner ta. his, readers.
51
Yet Has He defined nothing, ' But being conscious of the fact,
that there wfere.no grbundS or real materials for Him to operate
upon', to bring out His .pretended ilvindication" 'of their prp-
ceedings; he has partaken himself to what we term Brown's'
perversion; doubtless, hoping to sueceed'in his trick, by shroud¬
ing the subject in the ulmost confusion, that he might blind
fiis 'readers. He says; page 24: ,"we now enter upon an ex¬
amination of'the particulars in which'we are. charged-with
a violation of "our , constitution. Under; this head our . oppo¬
nents have made seven distinct specifications ; and although in'
some ^instances they have made, specifications in which we
can perceive too point, and, in others repeated the same charge
an different forms, or in forms involving the same points, we
will ,quote all the specifications and'give them 'such attention!
as, in our judgement,.may be necessary."
(In the first place, conceding to'Mr* B. a decided advantage
Over us in composition, and imperfect as oiir statements may
be in point of form or construction pf sentences, yet; we, con¬
fidently believe .that,'they are sufficiently plain and- pointed,,
for a man of his information, to perceive our trap meaning,
as allfided tp in'the, specifications. And'therefore, the* prpten-#
ded' want of, sufficicenf plainness in our Specifications to en¬
able him to perceive bur meaning,' vis evidently intended to
evade the subject and confuse the reader. Again, that thte
specifications were* made, without adducing all the proofs
'which existfed in favor of their support, was simply owing to
the fact!. The Tennessee Synod welf knew the circumstances,
times and places, where these alledged Violations of principle,
wereJcommitted, we could not believe that they were ignorant
of the facts., We, "therefore conchided, that a simple -appeal;
addressed to, the Understanding of men,* might be sufficient,
in vieW of pur previous go6d undemanding .with each other.
Hoping that if they did possess that moral honesty which so
eminently, characterises the child of £rod, or if if were possible
that we: should' be >nistaken as t0 their'certain knowledge of
the facts., "Tpey might be able on a simple review of those
specifications to drover their errors. and amfend them'with a
Considerable degree pf honor to themselves. But • alas! .they
have persisted in their errors, and quote pur first specification
as follows: -
$2
.v "1st; The constitution of, the Tennessee Synod contains six;
Unalterable' Articles:1 ■ They/Wefe termed •unalterable (becausO
'they 'were considered fully; scriptural.;: upon these they" were
constituted a body,,and, pledged themselves accordingly to act
dh good faith towards teach'other. In the faithful compliance
with those principles, their union and existence as a body was
sustained.' They have violated these" principles, and their, exj
istenceas a body become "disorganized, and ate no longer the
■Tennessee Synod." Qn this.,,Mr.' Brown observes ! "In this
no particular , point is made. It-simply contains 'a general
charge, '■unaccompanied ,by hny proof in support of it. { It
however' contains a biista^ement of facts and' an illogical det
duction of' a conclusion, which it may be proper to notice. \ It
is true these articles were considered scriptural, otherwise they
'never would have been adopted. • . • ' *. *
'But-it is. not £ruet1hat they.were termed unalterable'. iThe
framers of ^©constitution1 did not claim infallibility, but ad*
'■mitted that,they'might have been mistaken.1 • Henfce," -they, did
mbt atterii'pf nor de'sire, to rivet upoii themselves and their suc¬
cessors an unalterable constitution. On" the 'contrary; they
. Wisely rtlade' provisions for the Correction of error in the con¬
stitution, if any might' be discovered."1 .They expressly say,"
'But if any thing' contained in" these articles, hhould hereafter
be discovered asunscripiural;it shall be rectified ; or if it could
bCmade appear that any thing contained in these local and
^temporary regulations is inexpedient or oppressive/ it shall be
altered'oramentded.'" /• , ' ' ' _
We reply, that'if there was a'gener al charge "made," it does by
he? means prove' .tha't' there was a want of! meaning in the
specification, as Mr! B. seems .to infer.; But we' "conveyed
.our own meaning;, lie.had sense enough to perceive it, and of.
course, betrays himself in his pernicious design" to blind his
"readers." But in as much .as he asserts that this specification,
was.made unaccompanied by any proof in support of it; is "by ■
no means True; unless it has come to this,'.that' the ReY., David
Henkel, the compiler of the*constitution,' (whose evidence used-"
'to stand unimpeached in, the Tennessee Synod, 'as' a, man
Vho wrote and defended the truth. His writings at one time
Were considered by' that bpdy as being second only to the word
ol God;) is no longer 'considered as a man of truth, and his -
£3/
writings can W longer 'be taken-an^corifirraatloji of a, fact,.
Hvhich latter conclusion would 'seem to,he',the"legitimate hne,"'
•Recording, to- the proceedings of that fyody. if For-'even his owiy
son, being a' member of the committee, as, well as a rnember-
.of the Synod, hag by his actipnSjVgBee'd to;set aside his oWn
ifatlicPs^ jtatqments,' and has substituted Brown's—which'pal-,
pably contradict each other,' -.I haver h-equently thought,'.Jhat*
jif'B. Henkel could' at this time know what was carrying on
•in that Synod,'that his bones iyouM shake in his grdve. ' - \
i * We-shall prPdeed ,to notice .what is said to. he' a *"mistate-
'mentbf facts'^and an illogical dedudion-of u conclusion,'which,"
;,it- is alledged, we. have beeri guilty of. Mr, Brown say's: 'that
'pi is not true that the six atti'cl&s, which' he admits" were con-
•gidpred scriptural, were' termed unalterable. Ah! I haye no"
-doubt4 tKigrwas to him q.1 damper,-as foe is fond-of ^novation.
-The'objeet of the, Tennessee Synodjbi"framing the constitution
^was to have it fully scriptural: y It mg.y he asked,, is that which,
• is fully, scriptural, unalterable, or, wpuid.it be contended that
the scriptures,'or .that which is scriptural, alterable ? if so we.
Would have' a -fallible' scripturd.1 Prov. 30 \ 6.- . Matt. 15: 3,
6., JNlark^r ^ a" Cph% 8, and~2.Pet; 3: 15>
These six, articles have now ^topd in their present form, 22
. 'year's, ,with'>Athe,freC privilege to arrlehd.them^ provided "scripts'
. ural errors should -jCe- discQverpd; no such discoveries have*
,been made, of' pourse the'Tennessee'^ynod in'the same sense*
'which we have terrAed these'"si^ aVticles unalterable;'if not,
.why do' they hot' produce the eVidepce, qrid make ,them scrip-,
~.tural, or (do they not'desire, a scriptural, constitution to be gov¬
erned by ? But Mr. B.'says, that; it is, not, true that these were*
tprmed unalterable, and assigns this^s a-reason,4 that the'lraT
niers of the constitution did not clai,m infallibility,• ^What hag
the fallibility of men,- to do'with the infallibility of God4 or
his word ? Does it argue that because the'frambrs of,, the con¬
stitution were fallible, and" owned1 that they might; have been;
mistaken, that therefore .these articles were unscripturab and
- necessarily be alterable? If such reasoning be true, it would!
prove that, no fallible man could preach the true word of God;
,because man is a fallible' creature.- The members of the Ten¬
nessee Synod spokb Of these Articles iri this way. The'Rev:
D. Henkel, in the copy of the constitution, proposed for "amende
£4
'ment^say.sr^^od a$ tho^e Aat,are^ ^ri4amental .are, njo|snft
'ficjently^ distinguished fromsuch as We,'alterable Se$ Min,
''of 1827|>age 20».Wgaip* ?!£hiS rules' anc^ principles of fcburch'
•government^ iare Contained an .-'the holy scriptures'. Thterefor.e,
.riO' body pf christr^bs nas^uthority to dispense1 with^ or filter,
'pr tpf transact anything cpntrary,to thpm." ' See,Min. of 1828,"
page ll.« "Wh^n Mr^Henkel here-speaks of qlterable-articles
h'e surely wishes to be .understood that there are' others, which,
'were designed: to be :MnaUerable, \vlaick he does',by using-the
te$n, fundamental. This is all.we;wish ktp,be^understood byi
fhe expression germed 'unalterable? Brit says, Mr. B.: "The
frarhers pf our constitution did not claim infallibility," but ad¬
mitted that they.might.have been-mistaken.; Henice they did*
riot attempt nor desire-to riyet upon .themselves,,and theii; suc-
cqssors an, unalterable Constitution.",, .'.band heaven! -does this
prove .that the framers ^ the constitution'^ djid- not- dfkre .to-
"Jransmit to their successors an (unalterable (sp^psturai][, Coristi-.
tution, beCause5they were fcdliblfy and. made.pyol'isions. for the))
Correction pf*errors?, No, yerily; but this proves the very re- ,
verse j it- proves that they, really did desire that the iast remains'
of'error should be .corrected,j and, that they did attempt and
.desire to, cohvey<to their successors, a truly scriptural, and in)
'this sense, an constitution. .• „• ? A ^v, '
* But toaffjrm that they'did, not wish or Jlesire to transmit, to
'theiroflsprings such a constitution, isin, effect to say that 'they)
did not. desire to convey .to their children unchangeable truth;-
whiplvis a'base libel npon, thegood intentions' of the1 framers'
, of that, instrument.. ;
' •'! Here, .he behpld b xiovy completely tnis designing, yea, in¬
novating creature hhs(prepared. his way to introduce any new
pleasure,-t which hisjpnde and love of^gain together with.
Worldly./<mev can- invent; How. artfully,.has he introduced
the term-"nW;'y this, is designed to strike the ^reader- \yith' ter¬
ror ;„"a§: if such an .attempt would be .an act of the' greatest*
cruelty. Does,,the wprd of God, in the sense we hpeak* vivit#
or does it breathe th,e very spirit ot liberty and life? ',He, that;,
the-son shall make freej is free indeed. ' Again, where the spir-„
*It is true the last decisive sentence will be'made by it, as well as, the regUr.
lating our lives in this world. It is a perfect rule of mans moral, government.
In this sense it may be said rivit. :
55
il 'of the Lord is,'There is'libefty, and the spirit cannot be
bound. • I am truly of opinion, that if the Lutheran commu¬
nity "can once get to see what is w'ant to be rivifed upon them
and" their successors, that they'will not hold to have'it •clinched
♦There is a Theological seminary to be established'at the ex¬
pense of 20 or 30 thousand dollars, to be fastened j upon the
Churches—and in all probability, a proud tyrant at the head of
it. See'5th Article'of the constitution. ' .
We shall how proceeds to'notice what Mr. B. calls an "il¬
logical deduction of a, ctrnclusionf which we have been guilty
of. He says, "that ,if the Tennessee Synod had even misstated
ifs constitution," that it did not thereby "become disorganized
It would'really seem as if Mrt 'B.'did not consider a violation
of principle, criminal—thatf the Tennessee ."Synod might vio- •
.late jits constitution with' impunity, without destroying organ¬
ic; structure; of course an innodent crime! This wo'uld seem
to-bo his inference—he" has seemingly attached but little im¬
portance to the consequences, if even they had violated the con¬
stitution!' 'Yet, Was tfieir "organic structure Safe—theyjyet*
continued to be the true original- Tennessee Synod.1" "Webster'
'defines this term thus;1' Organize: 1st To form'with suitable or-,
^ans: to construct, so" that one part may co-operate'with .an¬
other. '■ 3d. to distribute into" suitable parts, and' appoint'prop-
.er officers; that the whole may'act as one body. Disorganize;
1st. ■ To break or destroy organlestructure, or Connected system;
to dissolve regular.'system; or union of parts; ^ Disorganized:
•^-Reduced to disorder '; being, in a confused state.. > '1
• Then for the purpose of forcing; organic structure,- it is iri-
dispensibly necessary "that some point or centre be formed,' as
'„the point of union. In file absence of .these, there cduld be*
Ho organic structure/ That point which' unites them, must be
essentiabto their existence as a united structure. No>w, if the
point in which the* whole* or all .'the parts are concentred; and
that, without which", they could not exist as a body," be- takent
away, or violated then surely does organic structure cease to
exist.. Arid as the Rev. 33. H. says, "If a majority act contra^
■ry to the constitution,-it becomes the duty of the •minority to
[coerce them to obedience, and if they refuse, they cease to be
of that Body, and $e fpjriQrity'only then composes, ,the bqdy,
because 'they had not departed from, the constitution, their su.-
66
* ' J. * ' * , ' ' • *" * . ' - ^ ] t i • ' , ' * ' ' "* - T *
pre'me law/aud.the truce to which they all,agteed" ' Then the
constitution is that, point which unites them together as a 'Syn^
od, if "this, is violated, connected, .system is destroyed,'and-the
%inorityfalls heir.to.the principle and name by which,,they,
.were ,designated, Hence'the propriety of "the pompous and'
Significant 'native of ' Tfye'eparigelical Lutheran Tennessee \Syn-
bd Re-organised;'" j., ^ J- . ~ '
' It, ;must,-be admitted that'there is a considerable degree 6f
Witticismin jyii. B's mode oh illustrating this subject, and his
attempt to-throw a gloss over his#mode of illustration, so as, to
„ prevent if .possible, a direct, contradiction with Mr.( Henhel.
-No -doubt he dreaded consequences—but being aided by the
prejudices of many of his -readers, he' has succeeded tg im¬
pose, his perversions upon mdny. He says, "oqr general govr-
. ernment has'ta,constitution by which to be'governed. .Differ-,
ent expositions are given of this instrument by our taost dis¬
tinguished, statesmen apd jurist. ,It is .'manuest that this in¬
strument .has, -in some instances, been, violated by Congress/
But Who js so silly as hence to assert, that the general- govern¬
ment,('has .been disorganize' Now reader, who is eo silly as
pot to, see thajt .the very thing which"the'Rev.J). H. lias affirm-:
ed to be tvwtjiy Mr. B. lias affirmed to be an . untruth.. It
• amounts to a most glaring contradiction, which' are we to,be-,
lieve, £Hepkel br Brown ? ,As. fbr my own jpart X hesitate not.
to, say Ilenkel has told the ' truffi-. - But we shall peruse B, a
little' further,, to' bring oiit 'the whole strength of his argument.'
We shall cheerfully' .concede the pQiht that men arefallible and
tnay, and do err ^and.that the General (Xoyernmerit does' in
some, instances violate its "Constitution, and at the same time
'ffiay claim the' sanction of. the constitution for tile same,, ana
hot become disorganized.' The members of Congress act um
.der the solemnity of" an path, and are thereby bound to, sup¬
port the constitution: Should they err,'Xhejr errors have wise¬
ly been submitted to the will'Cf the sovereign people, those iB
legal acts, have, irt somfe instances, been repealed, and the con--
jsiitution saved. ' But we will suppose that. a majority of the,
members of Congress when acting under the solemnity of an
bath, are acting in open defiance of the constitution' and are
*Sfee. their, rnipiutes'pf 1850; page 16.
67
persisting in their arbitrary course, refusing to be corrected fiy
the Constitution.; Could it be said in thruth, that such an ar¬
bitrary body was the Oongress'of the.'United States? 'No!, but
it could be said, with propriety,'that they were a perjured set'
of men—guilty of .treason. •> I lCave,Mr.fB. to make the appli-'
cation, and shall pass on to the'seqpnd specification.
1 2.d. The Church decisions were considered final. Matt. 18: <
"What they bind on earth, shall be- bound in heaven." The.
Church receives her authority directly from Qhrisf, to act in a
congregational capacity*,- The- Synod ' is the creature of the
Church, (not by chyme command,)/ intended as, an expedient
to, accomplish such purposes, as are specified in the constitute
tion. The Synod ;solemnly pledged herself not t6 interfere'
with,'but-to protect the Church'in ,the enjoyment of the exclu-,
sive rights and .liberties' granted her by Christ in a congrega¬
tional capacity. Therefore,: the act of receiving such cases
into the Synod is Uncoristjtutiori&l. "This Synod, shall have
no power to recteive appeals front the decisions pf cOngrega-
tiops." Art. 4.
3dr,The,resolve of the Synod, in a Case,, over which, "she,
had' no, jurisdiction, making, void or nullifying the. decisions,
of the Church," is .uncdnstitutional and unscriptural. Upon,
Matth. ,18th, the, fourth Article was founded.,* ."This Synod
shall*have no power,'to receive appeals from the decisions of*
congregations/' ....
. On the above, Mr. B> remarks: "Thesfe . two specifications
conjain the substance of, the main points at issue, betWedn our.
opponents and uS^' We differ,, in opr. exposition ,of the con¬
stitution ih two impprtant respect which" it,is necessary sbquld
be clearly .understood* and upon, which,' the, position, of our
Church fehopuld be clearly defined., .. . J * .
■ 1. Our opponents maintain fhat a minister is accountable
to, the congregation's of ivhich he has- charge, and to them only'
fpr his moral conduct, and of course the synod has no power*
tp try him for immorality. * *
( The Bev. J. Easterly, fer his |etter appended to the minutes,
of out opponent's synod, by their authority, says: T believe
that a 'minister is the' servant of the people,'(his congregations,)
hence he is responsible to them for bis private conducti If he
58
is amenable to them and them alone, wherein is the constitu¬
tionality of the proceedings of the synod.? • , *.
On the contrary, we maintain,that a minister is accountable?
to, the si/nod, as well as to! the Church,-or Churches,' oi which
he has Charge, foi his private conduct. •' * ,
2. The clause in the 4th Article, of the^ donstitution ('but
this synod shall have "no power to receive appeals from the de¬
cisions of, congregations,') our opponents maintain, applies to
the trial of a minister by his congregations, as well as of a
private member in the church, *yve maintain that it applies ex¬
clusively fo the trial of a private member;
. Upon- these twP points we clearly differ in our exposition of
the constitution, and in our view of the power of the synod,,
and of^ the relation which a minister sustains to the' synod.—
We beg the reader not to lose sight of them " See their min¬
utes', page 26. ' ' ^ /
On page 30, Mr. B. observes; "4. If the constitution nei¬
ther expressly, nor by implication, gives the synod power to try
a minister for his private conduct, it does not necessarily fol¬
low, that in receiving Mr. M's case 'into the synod, we viola¬
ted the constitution. Here; the onus probendi, the burden of
proof, falls upon pur opponents. It is for them to, proye • that
i,t is either expressly or by implication forbidden in the con¬
stitution, that the-synod Shall try a itiinister for his private con¬
duct,'or that the synod is clearly limited in its powers; If the
constitution is silent upon the subject* that is, neither gives or
withholds the power, it only follows, that the synod did a thing
fdr -.which there is no express provision in, the cdnsti-<
tution.f This we would term an* extra-judicial proceeding.—,
This is all that can possibly be made out of the matter, viewed
in its worst light. • There is a "wide difference between viola¬
ting a positive precept and doing sdmething neither command
ded nor prohibited." " ' '
We answer, the synod* has been very clear of proving their
proceedings from the constitution, or any other authentic source;
And when we prqve, all they have to do is to deny or lie well;
—-:and if possible to confuse the people so that they may not
discover their tricks. The synod actpd upon this case. They
knew that it was disputed that they had either scriptural of,
constitutional authority to take up or try the case, were, they
59
not honorably bound to exhibit their authority for the course
whiqh they were pursuing? They had years for reflection,
and surely if such proof existed, they could have advanced it,
without being guilty of their extra-judicial proceedings, upon
which Mr.,JB. so Modestly comforts himself- But would it be
correct when an association of men bind, themselves to act ac^
cording to a certain rule, that .they should be permitted to act
■ out of the regular course, of legal proceedure ? which would
be the.same as-to act without a law-r-leaving the majority to
rule with unlimited power! This is jdst what such an artful,
.arbitrary set of men want!, that is, to rule without control.
No honest set of men would accept of such authority,. It is
not loving their neighbor as themselves.
On the above two, specifications we draw these two points j
that is:. • ,
, 1 1. Whether, according to the"government of the Lutheran,
• Church, the people,', in a congregational capacity, have the in¬
disputable right to. decide with respect to their ministers prk
vate conduct-ror does this right belong to the Synod, in ,a Synr
odical capacity,, as Mrs B. asserts ?
2. If this right is 'granted into the Church by divine author¬
ity* are not, her decisionsas well in the case of a minister
as that1 of a private member of the Church? And the Synod
could possess-no other „p9wer. by viriue of the .constitution',
than that pf imparting, her useful advice.
Mr. B., page '18,*says: "We are congregational in our
. Church government." If so, th6n, every congregation is orig¬
inally recognized as an independent body, possessing within
itself all necessary, legislative, judicial, and executive power*
They1 have the right to make their own rules and regulations
and to execute them—^to try and e^xpel .unworthy members
from their communion, in whatever relation they may stand,
related to the body; without th,e power,of appeal-to any high¬
er tribunal; for this good reason, that Christ did hot establish
& higher one on earth. A congregation then, is" an associa-.
tidn of believers in. Christ'united by mutual consent, jp obe¬
dience to the order and will of the Savior,-lor the due.obser¬
vance of his ordinances, as means of grace. Each and evejy
society,,thus formed,"including their own proper Officers, is to
qU intents and purposes a Chprch, (or congregation.) Mat, 16;.
00,
16." Chapt, -21:. 42. 1 ,Cor. 3: 9. Eph. 2; 20,22. , 1 Pet.
2": 7. ' Christ the head of the Church, Eph. 1:22, 23. Elders,
Tit. 1: 5.\ •
-It will,-be necessary to inquire:
1. |n what relation does a minister stand to the Churchy
that is, the people of God ?
- 2. Has the Church authority to try him lor immoral con¬
duct
-• 3. Has-the Church the right to convey to her Elders, by
virtue of their office, the power, of trying her minister ; and if
so, is. their (the Elders) act, the act of the Church I
■. 1st. Mr. B. says, that "a minister is not a member of any
particular congregation or congregations, even of those of
which he has charge." Is there one word, of truth in such
positions?- Ministers have been baptised; And the Apostle
says; - "For as 'the body is one,'and hath many members, and
all the members of that -one body, being many, are, ope body;.
so also is Christ. For by one spirit are we all baptisedpnta
one body, whether we be Jews" or Geptiles," <Sic. - 1 Cor., 12.:
12, f3, and again verses 28, 2%. "And God hath set sdme iu •
the Church; first, apostle's; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teach¬
ers;"^ &c> God has set -all the members in the Church as it
hath pleaded * him.' ■ Ministers are also confirmed by the lay->
ing on of "hands and prayer. Wherein -they solemnly obli¬
gate themselves to adhere 'to the true doctrine of the. christian
Church, renewing" their baptismal covenant, wad to prove faith¬
ful therein until 'death. And in thfs relation, the-ministers,
membership with the Church,-remains unchanged. Then in
the covenant of baptism he is a member, not only of the
•Church in its universal capacity, hut .also in an individual ca¬
pacity, as it may suit' his convenience. True believers ,ffie
united in Christ, whb is the head of the Church: (But Christ
'has no phurch united in a Synod of men.) Therefore, the
ministerial office does not interfere with the right of jnember-
ship in thfi Church, For if it did,.he, by becoming a minister,
would violate his vow made in 'cqnfirmation, as well as in
bhptism. Therefore, his ministerial office does not interfere
\yith his membership in thek Church.
> 2d. The Church, united in Christ) has the right from Christ,
call one of the brotherhood fq minister unto them in holy-
61
things, Christ says "whatsoever, two qv three-of yon shall agree
together as touching one thing.* It shall be rione fqr you of
my Father which is in heaven." It is admitted that the Church
has the right to chqose their own ministers, and ,if .necpssqry,
to ordain them. If, then, the Church has the right from Christ
to call and ordain hex own ministers, surely she possesses, by
divine -right, the power to silence or remove them from office.
'Luther says: 'JEach and every Church has the right and legaf"
authority, to ordain their servants' themselves, for -where the
Church is, there is also the command to preach, the-- gospel.
Therefore, the Church must keep this power to select, call, and
prdafn their servants, for this power is a gift, which God par- •
ticularly gave to the Church, neither can any human power
'take it from the same. Mat. 18: 20. 1 Pet. 2: 9. Out of
this We see, that the Churches have, a right.to, select agd ordain
their servants," or officers,'.
• Mr. B. to evade the force of this divine truth, says: "That a
minister, by his ordination, becomes a member of the Synod!"'
•This is.utterly false. >Ministers were ordained before the Tent
nessee Synod was organised; vrere they made members of"
f.he Synod .then, by their ordination, before it existed 1' Surely
not. But, ministers stood in the same relation to the Church,
' by tlieir ordination, before the Synod existed, as since. No
^ynod has a right to change that relation. The ordjlnation of
,a minister I}as':ever been .the same, answering the same end.
.The minister', by his call and ordination, becomes the servant
of "the Church. Paul saith, "We preach hot ourselves, buf
. Christ Jesus," the Lord, and ourselves, your, servants for Jesus
sake. 2 Qor. 4: 5. Again let no man glory in men,* for all
things are yours, whether Paul, or. Apollos, or Cephas, or the
,■world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all
are yours, and Ve are Christ's, and Christ is God's." 1 Cor. 3:
21, 23, Luke 22 : 24,27. Mat. 20: 25, 28. John 13: 13,
16. " Now Mr. B., if the Synod does not belong to the. Church,
and as such) - of ,God, it must be of the devil. The above
texts abundantly piove that a minister is the servant of the.
Church. If s°5 who has the right to try, or silence him, should
such become! painfully necessary ? Paul saith: Who art thou
that judgest, another man's servant 1 to his own master he
standeth or falleth; Rorii. 14: 4. If a minister is the servant
m
'iof the, Church, it must foe- in, a congregational' capapity as- no,
Teniiesseee. Synod existed.- By what authority does the Syn¬
od claim this exclusive right in a Synodical capacity?1 If this,
does not amount to treason against Christ, we are utterly in-,,
capable of understanding the meaning,of. language.
3d. We. shall, now proceed to, examine the power vested in
'Elders. That such authority exists, will be seen from-the fol->
lowing texts. Acts 14:, 23, plso 20: 17. Tit.l: 5. James
<5.: .14. 1 Cor. 14:, 40., Their authority is dependent upon
the'Church, she has thapriginal right to call and ordain them.
By this act she trailers to them,, the.right to superintend the
business of the Church,, of which- they are chosen. These,
transactions are hpw^yer subject tathe control of the Church,
by virtue, of the word of God, which is given to the Church,
by original right,, and transjfered to her servants by virtue of
their office, as Christ says: ]\fat. l6.: 10., T will give unto,
thee the keys of 'the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou,
.shalt bind on.earth shall be bound in, heaven, and whatsoever-
thou , shalt loose on earth, shall he loosed in.heaven^" Thus,
the Church, of Christ transfers her power to her Elders, and,
that. by virtue'of their office, to superintend the concerns oh
the Church,; whose acts are the acts of the Church, subject her,
control by virtue of the word, of, God. ]?or up: act of the
Church would bp final, unless it be in accordance with the.
word by which all her decisions- afe to be made[ ft is readily,
conceded, that private members are amenable to, the Church
to which they belong for thpir moral conduct., And the, Church
(including her own regular officers,) has the right to try and'
acquit, or conyict)hpm> and their decisions are final. Mat. 18,,
But Mr. B. unhesitatingly denies -that Elders haye the power,
by virtue of their office,, to. try any member of the Churchy
much more a minister of* thp,Gospel, for immoral conduct.—>
And, that if -they should dp sov it would be upon their .own in-^
dividual, authority. See their minutes, page 18i By what
does B. prove that private-members may be tried by the.
Chprch, in a congregational capacity, and their decisions in
fhis ea^e, be final, and that the same is not applicable, to. a
minister. And that if, circumstances require it,, that the same-
he. performed by the Elders of several Churches, mutually. , -
vWe have his -mere assertion, ^hat is B's \yord mpre fhaia,
d3;
lhat of another lAOr&l ? L'utW affirms that Mat. 18 refers to
a" minister aswell as atiy other member of the-Church, which
are we to believe hutUer'or Browri? But Mr. B. says; "It«is
true that congregations may transfer their power to their El¬
ders, but it is cleOriy understood" that unless this-is expressly*
done, Elders have ho sUch power as that under (consideration."'
We cheerfully agree that .the Elders ha/e no power but such
as they have received from the congregations. But how does
Mr. B. prove that Oh, 'every, individual occurence there must
be a fresh power1 granted to Elders or private members,' to act,
-.and if this is hot 'exptibssly done their hot would be upon their
own individual authority ? He has advanced no proof, what-'
ever. Neither does such exist. God is a God of order, and
deals with his creatures in ah orderly manner. Paul says i
'Let all things be doriO decently and in order. Elders,'as well,
as'ministers, are t'O receive an orderly calf, to be installed in'
office, by .which a regular transfer of power is granted, them^
-the public servants of the Church, of course their aets are;
the .acts, of tlie Ch,iiteh. '
No\y the question in dispute is—have Elders, by virtue of
"their office, the pOwer to try a-minister for immoral conduct?
And, if so, are their decisions final in his, case, as well as in1
/that of a private member? Mr. B. affirms that Elders have"
bo such power. Aiid, in proof of his'position, refers, us to the
Liturgy, Of our Church! His refererice is so absurd that it
Vould rbally seem as if a man of B's sense would never haye
hazarded his reputation, either as k professed christian, gentle-1
man, or a scholar, in adducing it'.' Does^Mr. B. really arro¬
gate to"himself the assurance, that if sjbe simply refered to the
Liturgy, and declare that ft contained such proof, that all
would concede the matter, without further investigation. We
shall here qubte the Liturgy, as refered to by Mr. B. page 115/
116L Beloved • Brethren, in'Christ? Because all things
in the congregation of Jesus, are to be done 'defcently and in
order: 1- Cor. 14 > 40, you have therelore been called by yoUr
brethren to the office of Wardens (of Elders.) . This is an ev¬
idence, that they deem yoq worthy to bear this office, we hav.e.
therefore/ reasoU to believe, that you will officiate-with much
success. .This office is necessarily connected with the pros-'
perity of. the C.hurch of Christ/ We are taught by thd Apos->
04
ties, that God iri his Church has set helpers and' governors/
ds w'ell'as.Apostles and,teachers. *1 Cor. 12: 28.
'.OBeing'thus chosen officers ior rulers, you will-please heat*
Mat the most important duties of your office are.
• 1st: You are to1 endeavor 'to" be'cbme examples of the con¬
gregation ; by,a virtuous and'ehristiati deportment,of life, so
that the congregation may always cohfide ill you, whereunto
you should daily'implore God for his aid:
2d: It is your duty to see: that this Congregation is provided
with an ofderly evangelical teacher of our Church, who teach¬
es the word' of God purely and correctly; administering- the
sacraments according to,the institution of Christ:
On the contrary, it is also your duty, that you1 endeavor to
prevent any false teacher from intruding into the congrega¬
tion;/ for Our Savior saith, 'Beware, of false prophets, which
come to you in sheep's clothing, but iawardly they, are raven¬
ing1 Wolves: Mat; 7: 15: And St. John" saith whosoever
ti;ansgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of- Christ hath
not God: he that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hat-h
both ffie-'Father and the Son.. If there' come any unt'9 you,
ffiid bring not this doctrine, receive him not in your house,-
neither bid him God speed:: For he that ,'biddeth him God
speed, is 'partaker of his evil deeds.'
, '$d;. It is. your duty as much as possible to' see, that the teach¬
er of your congregation is provided with a necessary support,
so .that he shall not be under the necessit}" of contending wkh
the cares of .this.life,/an'd thereby neglect the duties -of his off.
lice. 1 For. 'even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which
preach the gOspel should/ive of the gospel.! 1 Cor. 9: 14;
'4th. It -is, your duty t.o^see, that good order and 'decorumare
observed' in, the congregation, and to reprpve and admonish
open offenders: .
'5th. -You are to cbnduct every thing in your office accord¬
ing to the doctrine and rules ot the AugSbtirg Confession of
Faith, and the Holy scripture-.'-'
According to the above, 'the Elders are chosen by ine 'co%
gregatipn, and their ordinatiprf is submitted to the presiding
minister, Who lays before them the most important duties of
their Qffice, and says: You will set that this congregation is
fu/rnished' with orderly 'minister of our Church. What is
.65
,to be Understood by an orderly minister ? Surely not a'drank*
en, licentious, profane character! Hut, on the.contrary,4 a.so¬
ber, well-disposed, prudent man. One who attends to the
duties of his office in an orderly, christiari-like manner. Con-)
sequently,' it is made the duty of Elders, and that by virtue of
their qffice, to see to the-moral conduct of their minister, and
-if charges are prefered against' him,' they' are bopnd officially
to see* to the g>a,me, and should a trial.be indispensable, they
are required to see that justice be.done.
. Then' the Church of. Christ, in her 'sovereign authority, has
the power to, call and' ordain her own proper officers, and, by
their call arid 'ordination, they .become the servants' ,of, the
• Church'(n,ot of the Tennessee Synod) to minister unto,'them
in tholy things. And as their eall iand ordination belongs to
the Church, .even so does their removal from office .belong to
the ChurCh, and not-to the Tenn. Synod. The Elders,are call¬
ed- by the voice of their respective congregations;, they com*?
•pose 4 regular select commifte'e^ready on all occasions to at-
t'end to the good/order of the Church, whether thp offender be
a minister or priyate member. They are to see .that their
congregations are served by an 'orderly minister—of course if
a eharge of Tmrhordlity is prefered, they are , the proper per--.
SOris, not only to superintend the'matter, but to try and" decide,
the crise; rf necessary, arid their act is the act of the Chufch;
aS this'power is transferred to them by the voipe ot the Churchy
and what they bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. * And*
•as-many congregations may be served.by the same minister,
their Elders should feel themselves bound and 'concerned for
the.welfare and prosperity of their common cause (the holy
christian Church,)'wherein is the, iriipropniety for the Elders to
unite their authority in trying a minister I If an authority
could.be uriited, as JVIrt B. s'ays, in the Synod, a human insti¬
tution^ >vby not be uriited in their regular authority, their own
Elders, and their decisions in Sucji a case be final,'the same
^ if it had, been tried by an individual congregation, inclu¬
ding its own- proper officers ?
This is what the' hate Rev. Gw Easterly says:
, (i. «Resolved, That this body* deem the rights and liberties
of- the Church, sacred and inviolable as well'hi a .congrega¬
tional as in. a universal capacity.
;2, 'UFesolved, That the decagons 01 'the Chutch are
not to be interfered ^ilh<?r made void by Synodical influence
or power, either by a majority or minority of. votes', unless pro>
ven erroneous by ihe word of God."
3. "Resolved, That in- .the'jndgment of this b'ody, all at¬
tempts to create ail extra-judiciary 'power to be exercised by
iheSyp'od, afe"arbitrary"and wilhout foundation in the consti¬
tution. And therefore rejected.* Sec minut'es^of Re. 'Synod
of 184$. '
How Mf/B. could, in the face of such facts have the assu¬
rance to assert that' Elders, according to the usages of th'e Lu¬
theran Church, haVe ho authority, by virtue of their office to
try"a" private member, muclf rfiore-a ^minister of the.gospel,'foY'
immoral conduct. We canpot see; as.this has' been the cus¬
tom'of the Church, and she' knows/of ho-other, .according,to
"the" word of God. That tbe Church'.may .lawfully' exercise
the authority which she transfers to her Elders, is not denied.
And t-fie 'Liturgy, to which Mr: B. refers'his'readers; establish*
es this fact, beyond ihe shadow of a doubt. For No. 2, sayst
"It is'your (the Elders'), duly to see' lhat this congregation'is
provided wjth art orderly minister of'our Qhurch." And iti
'No. 4, it i-s also said lhat it L the Elders' duty, "fo~ see that
jgohd order and decorum are- observed in the congregations*
If, therefore, the'Elders have transferee! to them, by the Church,
the'power .to try/ a private member, Ihey huve the same power,
by transfer, to iry k minister. And from the same parity of
reasoning that it could be denied that the'Elders or the ChurcH
in a congregational capacity hate the right to try a minister,
itbould equally be. said tfiat they have no right to try, a.private,
member.' But this power was,vested in the"Church by the
Savior himself, 1828 years 'before the Tenrr. Synod existed;
therefore t'he 'authority of the Tennessee Synod?to try minis¬
ters or any one else, is always 1828 years too laid in the day to
>do this business, or to establish such Church government., Lu'«
ihersays: "Neither Peter nor any other preacher of the wOrd
'dare arrogate to fiipiself any power or authority over the
Church." Con cor,di a, page'550. Again, "No'man shall bur¬
den the Church, with his owh traditions."' And again, "the
Church never did yield her power 19 the clergy." Page 552: '
Having now proven .beyond-the shadow of a doubt, that the
Gt
luuthbraii Ch'urch is congregational. in her mocje "of Chutch
•government, &nd,that eftWgregation^ have the sovereign right,
to' select, Qr$ain, and transfer to their servants to act fpr themj
and such act is fhe.act of the Church, when the'word of God
is'adhered to. "But ye are a ehose'u generation, a royal priest-
flood an holy nation, a peculiar people, thai ye should show
forth the praisbs'of hipi who,,hath called you,put of darkness
into ljis marvelous light."' 1 Pel. 2:9".' "And ye shall be un¬
to me a ki'ngdorri of* Priests; and dn holyvnation." Ex,*19: 6.
■Rev. 5: 10. To the Riders then, is given the power to,attend
to the good" order of-the Church a'qd to the minister.to labor
fn the word and dodtrine.
SECTION VII. ,
• We shall noVv proceed to; pxamine this subject in the nega¬
tive. A'nd'here wumaybe permitted, with all due respect tq
shy, that Mr. B. is a crafty designing man, and his object has!,
been'self-agguandizement. 'He'has for many years been iu
pursuit of powqr, and should he succeed in his attempt, !he
Vvolild doubtless use it to suit his taste. .
Itfi.-j a'matfer well.known that tlie* Roman Catholics crept
into pofwer by gradually'assuming the powers of the Church,
pnderjthe pretence of improving, refilling,, and purifying ths
Church. '.They would tell us that their pbjefct was to do good.
Even Purgdtory and thcjioly Inmiidition-themselves were in¬
vented 'under the- pretence :of cleansing and purifying-the
Church., By these tT\eens, iti lime,' they succeeded iu placing
thamselveS'in possession pf absolute dominion over ibe Church.,
f Mr. B.i.in a similar rpannei, is seeking opportunity to eje-
vate'hifriself and the Synods He 'has vested the supreme pow-
pr in-the hands of,the clergy, "by making them'the property of
the Sy'nod> instead "of the servants of the Church,-under the
beautiful idea of .3. union qf all the ClTurches "u'nited in the
Synod, By which.he makfes the savant of* the. Church, the
property of the Synod ; of course the Chureh has no ultimate
Control obty .his- private conduct, and the minister stands or
falls before hls'ewn master, iho&y hod, and oot the Church, fit
1 his way he- has ingeniously .prepaVgcf the way to nullify'any
decision which tfie Church 'may make, and place the powerpn
<the hands♦ of jan unauthorized bo^v- Mow s?y*.f*,!y t"?
©8
maiiaged this subject; by - connecting tfi'e minister's ordinal
tion a'nd subscription 'of the constitution'to- get tier so as 'to.
make' them'afiswer the same end.-' We have already proied
that a minister by his call and ordination becomes the servant
of tlie! people; (the Churcli,) this was the casein the' time of
the Apostles, also in the time of the Reformation. Ordina-v
lion ha£,' at all times,-• answered the same erfd. It is utterly
false .to say, that ordination makes a- man a member of the
'Synpd; Christ's Apostles were ordained, so were the Reform¬
ers, and yet-were'they not members of the, Synod. , Men, as!'
well as "(Jhurches, are .united to the Synod by'subscribing to
the constitution, and if this act gives the Synod tfye supreme
powfer to-try a minister, k would do the very same with respect
to any other member of the Church in its connection. The
constitution, is -nof the constitution' of the Church, but of the
Synod, and that while in session. When out of'ses^ion, they
afe all' simply members of. the Church., Should, therefore, the
Synqd carry out her positions, she Would hav'e,nothing to do
but to conduct trials. ' ' . ' * ♦
The word of God grants the Synod no siicb pbwer. Neith¬
er has R/pjrdved this position. ' Rut he has, by making tlie
minister the property of the Synod, committed treason aga,inst
the'Chqrch ol. Christ, qhd elevated the Synod' above the
Chutch, and gives'.the Synod, (a human organization,) the
power to jndge and condemn the servant o'f the Church; con¬
trary to the- words, of Paul, who. says that the minister is the
servant of the Church, and'befqre his own master he stands
or falls, of course, makes the Synod the higher authority.—-
What is this'-but that man of sin, the son of perditibh, w.hb
opposeth and'exalteth himself above all that'is called God, &e.
2 Thes. 2 : 4. They should not complain, of pur statements,
•when we tfell them of their wrongs, in a biiristian spirit. '
" 1. We shall now proceed to show the gradual advance to
obtain thi^ power. Before our present difficulties existed, this
designing creature frequently came to mej 'soliciting my aid
and influence to amend the constitution. He alledged that it
was defective in this particular—.that it granted ho power to
try a minister for immoral-' conduct! 1 then,replied, that he
should furnish the scriptural authority for such trial, and hp
should hqvb my assistance. .This he did not do, and of coursq,
69
.the proposed amendment, .was riot "accomplished."
Mr%B;'when'in, conversation vvltlVMr. P. H. (a man of
\undou]b.ted.veracity,) said "that the.re wa«a lame place in the
'constitution of" the'Tenn. Synod, in that it mad'e no provisions
Jo fry h'ministerjor immoral Conduct."#
3.vl haveyehsons' to believe that he- had reference ',to this'
same subject yvhen he'sUid to Col. P{ Hok'C, uf Lincolntoh,
■ffthat he'k.hew 'that the Synod' .(in, 1845) had not,'acted in Eicl
^OrdancejvitH the constitution,"'in my case.fi
,"4. A^ain, in'p. letter to''myself, under rate l)ec'.'24th, 1845,
hie says: Pin reference to th£-right whifch the .Synod "might
have'of investigating the matter, Ivyih heahtily^r'epoat.the opin-
ion which I expressed to yog ,in private conversation' on the
subject. Whilst provisions ,,are*made'. in-' the constitution for
' trying a niinister for hetrodoxy, no express provisions 'are
-made for trying him for-immoral conduct, though, perhaps the
bower is implied,' He nee,4 this "would, be. "ail -extra-judicial,-
• though, npt unconstitutional ^.afct" Notic^ yell ;• perhaps
the power is implied!" But it.must be qtialifjed by the "term
f extra-jjiditial", ,\v'e suppose something Similar to an expost facto
lata.
5. Mr, B. in his pretended vindic'afioh, says:♦ "We main-'
"tain'that tfye constitution does giv'q tolhe Synod,, the power to
try, a minister for immoral cqndhct. We admij; that there is
no express provision, to this effect; but the power is clearly im¬
plied." See page 28.' The reader will discover from these
statements, how fast'he. improves. -First he says thpVe is wq
power tq this effect, and secondly the pOiber is clearly implied:
k *SULUVA,N CoUNTT.Y, TeNN., Aug. 3(1, 1&51.
*1 do certify that I was,in conversation with Rev. A. J-. Brown, on the sub-
ject' of the constitution cf- the,T enneSsee Synod. And Mr, Brown said to me
in that conversation, that there was a'lameness in t]he constitution ih not ma¬
king provisions lor the purpose of trying a' ipihister for immorality. The
pbqve is true to the best faf ihy reb&llection! , v "PETER HUNT.'1
LivcoLNTpy N. C., Sept. 4,1847,
, }By request of the Rev. A. Miller, I state that Rev. A. J. Brown and myself
were in conversation abojzt Rev. A- Miller's qase in the Synod of .1845. Rhv;
Brown said to me in that conversation, that he knew one tiling, and that was^
that the Synod did not act ih accordance with the constitution.
The afhove'conversation occuredin B. S. Johnston s store m Lincolnton.
- . • - P HnifT-!.
7°
His-p7c?/Wea#,'nq douk his favored himAvhb a Mir/or. fp stdt
faste.
We shg.ll' now prpcbed to show that olhers bf.- the .Official
piem'bers of; t,l)e Synod fully concurred, \yith" the vfew/, that
the constitution efca'nts no punier id try any'one for immoral,
. » - . ^ •* ».» f ^ " - *.(!*•
conduct. (
, T.^Rev. Qoodrtia'n .ahdltillian, when* taking;hewpte; pf my
cpn^regdtjo'ns iii 1345," §3id' repeatedly*' We diaye not comes;
totby" IVf i 11 ^r*> forV hq. :h a s been tried and"acqnit leckaccprdirig t,6'
the,cbMSti't.uf.idii, by.l.he'qqmm'Ute at. Trinity/, But' mat '-their-
objbct \yas«t.o, ascerta,ur^vhether the .churches jve^e wilfing 'id
retain Mr. Mifler'as tliefir rninister. Now jf, I had been tried
according lo/th^ consttfutjon, then was the intention of the
constitptmp cpihpijfd.wbh. '
2. After" hay in g,Verar q ed horpe from the session of 1845? if
.was r-umored tbrpuglythe country, that'I was to,be' tried "agaiiy
• at the ses^pn^of l^liE)^ ,1 wrote to,the llev.'H. Wetzel of Vir¬
ginia, oh the^pbje^'' And,be returned to me the JoJlowing
ansyer: ,kindeif date Jandary J.7tb 1846. ."'But you- say that'
it is talked4)/ to bring7y'pu m another trial at t.lid nexfjSyhod,
It is a new.idea to me; .. "Another(.trial!-' Qh yes, I rempmher.
.something.iijke ,it. ^,he'n the Jews could'not-destroy, ihe
, Aposfle Pa nl .by one trial,* they would subject him tp another,
<&e. If those trial-foyers wilf.hpM on a little .in this way, hav¬
ing trials,- nY»'doubt oiir Synod-will become 'quite farhous, and
"withal,*, quite expert in conducting trials. Then 'instead ol"
cor.ning together to consult and deliberate mutually'oft t.bings
-pertaining to ihe-.welfare au(T',prosperityTo'f the Church of God,
we miisfrheet to see h'ovy \\'e can. best ruin the ministry in .our
Synod, and how we can make their' families most miserable,
and. let-every body know that our business is lolling fire-
tyaiids and laqrl' distraction arourfel us. May,God -speedily
interfere ,a'nd sa'vfe iis> from;-this proud "Vindictive, and .destroy¬
ing spirit, that is'not only creeping jn afnong -us, '-biitls walk¬
ing in openly with brazen front; Amen." The above does
hpt only speak volumes, bjut in tones, of thunder, and show^
| he , light in which, the Rev.'Wetzel, then viewed those trjal-
fiolders, as well (a$ the .oopsti-lutionality oft such a bourse—as
finfeeljng aiid .unchristian.
* It is remarkable that the Tennessee Synod for years'
AV
'Was so. very', fearful, of synoai'cal powe.tj 'ma., ffi/yr, eyen refused
to have fhe lP'fcsid'entvs,nanie recorded,' in thefir ' minutes^ least
)t should Create jaty a^pirfng^afier power.-.
^ From the aboye the'reader -will'clearly see that' the Rev,,
^gen'tlemet/aja^ye named did! rio't bel ieve that the Synodpos-^
6esteed'lhe po>ver to try a miinsibr*
. LpMr. JBls,statement to myself -was, iha't.fhcr'd wah no po\v-
"er granted .in thC constitution' tp try a rriipistpr forimmoralitj*.'
.2. 'His admission'to Mr.' P.; IF that, the CoVislitutiori made
,no provision to try a .flimsier'for personal Conducti *
■ 3/Heli-PeV.that the Synod 'had ,not'acted in accotda'hte
,, wit.li, the "coitisiijptlon. ' M'*e' confidently believe, that lie iiac^
reference .to the act of recte-ixdrag^my case into the' session'of"
S 1845j and,referring''the,same, back,to fhe Churched
ii 4: Theylo'ubffuf,matt net in, whidh he expressed himseli to
rhe in his letter, ^ougjh it" is'plainly seen that'he mends in
jiis views jdf synpdical power. Rut'at the same time he ad-
(4hat it wouhj -h^ve to be termed &n extra-judicial^which
•>von(d arn«Tu,!t to an JexP°f facto.. .
& When. Ke.v" ^00dp»a'n .apd-lullian a^rpittpd that" I .had
been constiiutionqliF ,r|e^ and acquitted1 by the Elders, fhe^
jSarpiv: intended to .--a/ tua,t f. Hynod had no power to tryf.
6. Rev. H. W!. remonstra^ n§> ^ earnestly "ag^ibst further
trial, wishes-'to be understood that t'"e 'he contjti-
• tution1 had been-complied* with by the Filc,erf\ '
7. The Tenhcsse;e Synod, -ioT84o, in seLsslon' din'yiedm fhe
• whole matter.' They say, "This SynOd is pot a yudiciary1, but
ptl advispry body."' A«casp pf. personal conduct u before
them, and .that of a min'isfer of tlte-gospel. DotheydaFe to
liot Claim the right of tria|'by the"Synod, No, but the vefy
reverse of this is acknowledged lo be the business of ihe'Syn^
.pd, leaving the right of'trio I,, and that'too of a minister to the
Church in a congregational capacity. The Rev. A. Henkefj
who was well acquainted witfi ihe original intention of the*
CoijStifcutjoB, 'did not then dare to rjairn or vest, t'h£ Synod with
judicial -authority. Doubtless.,knowing that the churches
Would npt then' be prepared to receive it. But this discovery
remains to''be .developed by the superior wisdom of .Mr. Bj
who does not only give the Tie to the resolution of .1845: .But
is instrumental in causihg the Whole Synod,to do'the same iri
1J3£0. In4§4§»*lft6 'Syiiod gay§-.tiiat she' is nhx ^judMdfy
'an' advisory, Jid.cjy/and ofj&oifrtfe has no .^ower .to' try a mini§-
t'erj or any QtherpeiVon for.immprplity, and j'n- l'80O,^h'e would,
Sly that phfeis a.'judiciary', kody.atid jh'as the'txdiisify fight, to-
Uifyrifer; far 'iTntpbr'al conduct, and fiot wK^rtdSe^ by
'the same .cdnStitutionV Lying dips.are abpminatipn^to the
Lord ; but'theyjh&Kdeal truly,are hie delightV - Prov.42: 22.;
We shall not^dispu'te jVfrAHenlieFs definifiur/qfa ^ynod..
Ijhat.. it is to be goveriieo "by eertaip. chrisfian ■ .ruleS /qunded
dpon a constitution.. Could it besaic[to(.be a.ch'ristian- f ule■
for a Synod to assume thp .authority ofHfte Church ?' 1 answer
it.would not. • Have we divine^aiithority for the practice^ of*,
holding Synpd's ? ' We have.not. Therefore Synods.can on¬
ly ,'bp' viewed,as an bipedienl of'.the,vChprch.' Is the'Synod,
essential to the - government of.the Ch'urelj^^It'is^not., The»
yules, for governing th£ Chjirch are/ju§f,&s complete* without
as,with a Synodl If the ^ynod was'done away,'the govern-
zneht of the Church would be -tlie same. ^Why was, the 'Synod
organized ? It was formed /or tlie' simple purpose of' meeting'
the; general demands of the several'Qburches in its'connection.
'It is the-creature, of the Churc'h entirely'dependent upon the
will of the congregations-'—the sarpe £ower which originated,
it, can,do*it away without dpin> violence to, the government
of the Church. Its constilu^Qn then isi'thp constitution of "the
Synod and not that of t^e Chutch. Its powers are whollyyol-.
pntary/ mutual, aci'visory and dependent, possessing no orig¬
inal'pow.er o\?er -tjie .Church. But the Church posses'ses h(er
puthority '0y divine right, "in the Same independent sensfe as if
gt Synod had never existent As members4of the Church,'fhev
are subject.-to, each .other "by the1 word of God, and as-mem¬
bers of the .Synod, they pre subject to'each- other by virtue of
the constitution, dependent upon the word of God. This was-
the harmless intention of tip© originators of, the Tennessee
'Synod. In their, sy nodical capacity they'could "h a Vea more
general view of th'e ..exigencies qf 'the «*yhole oohnecti'on, they
might represent. 'And by their mutual efforts *to build.'up -and,
defend the true doptrine of the Church. ' Leaving all the pow¬
ers originally granted to the Church by .Christ, tq beyxercised
by the. Church in her independent relation, to be finally inde¬
pendent of. Synoclical influence or power.' *£his is .clear from*
73*
iie explanatory remarks on Art.'4, a's referred' to by Mr, B,
"When ministers' and layidelegaths are assembled, they, may
have a more accurate knowledge of the exegencies,. 'pf the
whole connexion they represent; hence are the better enabled
to impart' their council by their simultaneous .efforts; vacant
churches may be supplied with ministerial labors, and others
formed and organized. I-ndeed; the same end may alsp be
attained,'by .individual ministers and •churches; nevertheless^'
as it frequently becomes necessary for such; to receive co-oper*
ation fiorcrtheir brethren, this end may be attained with more'
facility by'the 'meeting of a synod. That k shall-be the.
duty of this, body to detect erroneous doctrines andfalse teach-,
ers, does*by no means suppose that the same does not alsode-s
volve .upon individual-Chqrqhes and ministers; for this body ,
does not claim it as their prerogative. But' it is believed.'that
this duty rtiay be performed more advantageously by a Synod.'
. fjiekher, does this body claim, 'the exclusive right of ex arm
inihg candidates for the ministry. For every congregation
has the privilege of choosing1, fit'persons forthpir ministers,
and. individual pastors have author by to perform their ordina¬
tion. This! is evident frprp the practice of the prirhitive Chris¬
tians, as well as from the scriptures. , But when any congre¬
gation shall request this body td examine and ordain the .per-
s6n" of their choice, it then devolves pn this-body to perform'
this duty/ , , ,, t
.As the aforenamed duties devolve off all churches and mirn
isters,'£hey"undoubtedly have the privilege to perform' them
jointly; i. e. they may constitute a Synod."
Mr. B., haying in a clandestine manner, referred to the
above: Aslcs the question, "What are .thepower?.of the syn-v_
od ?" He ansvVers! ''The^xplana'tory remarks on the 4th Ar¬
ticle,1" (as above quqted) "after an enumeration of the most
important powers and duties of individual congregations,"'
says, &c. , ( i, _
Mark well the tri^ck of tbias^y poyier^ seeker I The term
power hccurs twice in the above quotation, ffi the negative,
but not once in the affirmative. How artfully'hUs he slipped
in the term pow'er instead of privilege, as if power and privi¬
lege were synonimous terms. Who does not know that poth¬
er and privilege are not the same in signification. He then
-74
|i3s the impudence to quote the. following} as evidence, "As„
fhe aforesaid dulies devoi'vp'on all» Clmrehes and-,ministers,
tfiev undbubtbdly have ihe power to .perform (hem.jointly; i. e.
fhey may Constitute a synodP Here'ihis devoted power-seeker
has positively been guilty -oi forgery, in substituting .power for
privilege', and doubtless wpuld Jiave his readers to;believe that
he had quoted this passage correctly.
' Mrl'B., proceeds, "From ihese; quotations it is evident that
thb synod is not aMiody disti;nci from fhe Ch'urch, but'a 'union
of all' 'the .Churches, that attach* themselves to' it, possessing
many 6$ \he poioers originally inherent in individual. Church-*
es*. In thfe synod alt the.congregations speak through, their
delegates. Its acts thffnj-are the acts of the Church united.?—
its' design is to perform with greater facility t and trio re suc-
• cess'fplly, duties originally devolving upon all congregations
separately" -' - • , ^ •
He has here entered 'into the* arrangement to clothe Ms bedst
with head ^nd horns. He -says, that the synod isnot a body,
distinct from Jhe Church, but a upibnof all ihe Churches that
attach themselves to it* Possessing many of, the po'ivers orig¬
inally, inhererlf ip individual Churches, Where -did such
power .exist w^i'ly thosecongregafions'wero'detached from the
synod?- Answer, in the congregations, where Christ placed
-.it. Now, who cannot' see that this .is an attempt to transdet
the' powers, originaljn the cpngregai ions', to ihe synod, con"
trar| to the principles of congregational Church'government^
yba, aft attempt to.grasp'tlie powers of the jC'hufcb in a con-
. gregatjoqal-capacity—under ihq pofrers.of a mere human aiv.
range men t, and substitute' the acts of the synod, for'the, acts*
pf the Church. This% is meretricious,. and treason against
Christ apd bis Church. "" • • ' , " , ;
If a minister, by subscribing to rhe constitution, would be
subjected to. judicial powers by the sybod. It would-do thb
very -same when Churphes attach '(subscribe) themselves.-^
Frorn such ycasoning the synod would be the only, tribunal
oh earth tb try any member of the Church.
75
Section y hi.
' . Havingrshown • that.our Church governme.nf is cobgrega*
tional ; that Elders, as the servants of the Church, haye'-the
right, and that, by virtue of their office, to try a minister, eith-'
er in a congregational or united capacity. We shah npvy pro¬
ceed'to examine'Mr. H's statements relative to what be.cajl^
the' main question, page 28. • He says * "1 ,to maintain that the-
synod'has no power to tfya minister for immoralliy, is to>
make our constitution sadly defective, the synod a weak and:
inefficient organization, and to "detract gteaily from \he-intelli¬
gence and fdresighl of the framer^ of our, constitution.' vFor,
according to.this view, caseS might occur, of 'the grossest-im¬
morality, which-could no,t be- readied by any'ecclesiastical try
banal: Some of our ministers have hO charge^ VYe will sup¬
pose that'one of .these is guilty, b6yond a shadow of''a<doubt,,f
of .sortief gross immorality, which .wholly disqualifies him for
thp work of the ministry,' and -is a disgrace'to the christian
pame. Our opponents shy thaf 'his case cannot cofne into the'
synod, but that he is'-amenable to liis congregations, and to
them -alone. But he h'as no congregations. 'Hence there is
not an ecclesiastical body on earth that 6an rdapb his Case.-r-^
The synod me.ets-. Hp appears-ahd.takes his seat; he^pa'rtic-
ipates in all the discussions and" votes upon evefy proposition!
Is this, we ask in a,l'l candor, the policy'of thfe Tennessee syn¬
od? If indeed it is1",'well had-it been for ft, had it long since
been, disorganized; any! had we been, convinced that such was
its-policy, we would not have stooped to a violation of our-
constitution^ in the case under cou-i deration, bqt would forth¬
with have disorganized, and re-ctrganized uiider a Constitution'
lpss defective,, and left our opponents t6 bear'the name and en¬
joy the glory of the Tennessee synods.
Ans. Mr. Brown here appears not,to have-lost sight of what,
be expressed in private conversation, that the synod in the afy-
peope of thepower to try a. minister, would be, as he ^termed
it, Hamef Of course, the synod as a human organization,
would, be a. weak, dependant "body; and denied the privilege*
of being a Lord over Clod's heritage: 'This, he says^. woqlcl
greatly detract frotn the intelligence andJaresight of the"fra-
mers of the constitution.. We ask, with,all due respect. Does
humility and submission to . the superior wisdom and good-
megs of God; or reverencb to Christ, his kingdom and govern;
.me-nt, (ag established4n his Church,) detract- froni the real in¬
telligence" of,any map or set of men?' Nov verily, it does,
pot: - if any.mah would-be wise,-let hirp become a.fool, that
he may - be wise. Such submission and reverence may- be
mortifying to hellish pride; but it is the glory of the true
christian tp debase himself jn -the sight ot God. But B., for
the putppse^of vesting the synod with supreme power to try el
minister, has not only perverted-.facts'; £.ut has dorte'the -most
shameful,violenee to the language pf the dead. * He would
make Mr.Easterly and bis. friends say lhat a grossly immoral
minister who, has no congregation to serve, or in charge, shohld
be tried,- by his congregations 'and them alone, when lie "had
none-td be tried by. Now, does JVIr. Easterly-and his.friends
Jiold s'ueh• absurd v'ipws% No! And thank's be' tp-God, the
de^d-cah yet speak for himself, .He says:- "I believe.that a
minister is the servant pf the people, (his congregations) hence1,
he is responsible to thern for his private conduct pin confirma-'
rion of this rehd,. 1 Cor. 3: 1, 9 and verse 21, 22, and 2 Cor. 4:'
5* .Fey we preacVnot ourselves, but .(Christ'.Jesus the Lord;'
and ourselves your servants^r JesUs' sake. If he is'amen-
able' to them,-and theim alone wherein- is the constitutionality
of the proceedings,of synod." -'Mr. E., did believe that.when
-a,minister had congregations to sprye, that he was amenable,
to them, *ahd them"alohe,for his private'epnduck . But, in. the
eye'nt thai he had no;congregations in chafge,' he-was' amend¬
able ,tp the people pf.God,' in their authorities., 'fie -says:—
"The Church of Christ is the highest tribunal on earth, ag well
in a'congregational as in a u'n)versal capacity." Itis evident
that,, he - believed that the authorities ' pi the Chjnrch had'the
right to call such delinquent Id account. Now, Mr. B., we ask
you, hag .not Jesus Christ established-an authority to reach the
case of any ^delinquent on earth, and that independent of the
Tennessee Synod? Then;,has Christ in his word established
a government to r<*aeh any case on earth ? J£ he has then*
doeS B.,knot only belie Easterly and hiS friends,* but- Christ,:
For he says; That the poiuev, to try and silence a'mihistet rests
in the synod and no where else. ,
Would venerate the' intelligence of the Cramers'of
-?1
iho 'coiis'titution—he is not. willing to detract from th'eir real'
iperitSj—hq is hot willing to disgrace them by admitting that
they were the ..authors of a "constitution so sadly defective.—.
yet, he can without a rqurrrmr, charge such weakness, dis¬
grace and sad defect upou his God, for he says in the absence
'of the Tenn. {Synod there was no Ecclesiastical body on earth,
tq rq'aph such-case. Oh, horrible blasphemy!!
Again, paving exposed the consequences which would ne¬
cessarily flow from his perversions of truth. He comes out,
with-a foul triumpht'ls this, ,we ask, in all candor, the policy
of the Tennessee Synod? &c. We answer with candor, no.
But; it is*.the legitimate consequences' which flow from your
own wilful perversion of truth, which you would have your
readers -believe it ivas fairly'got up. > The constitution of the
TehnpsSee. Syhod, hold's forth no such policy. And though
she is pot a judiciary body. . The constitution presupposes
that the*Churches being such, send no disorderly members to
the synod;, of course, no need, of-trials in the synod. And
would the syrjod comply - with her-constitution and receive no
such irritable, cases in the synod, much good might be doue
by their simultaneous efforts. /■
2. Mr! B. {Sroceeds1; "we maintain that the constitution does
give to thp synod the power to try a minister for immoral con¬
duct. We admit that there is no express provisions to this
Effect'; but -the power \$[ clearly implied. We have already
proven that thesynq.ci.is the Church united, and that the Church
tnay perform duties which devolve upon.individual Churches;
•but individual Churches have the right .to try and expose false
teachers, whether in precept or example. A minister may
teach Talsly by example, as .well as by precept. He is to be 'aq
exartip'le -to his flock, for imitation. The constitution says;
It is, the business of the synod to detect and expose false teach:
ers^ But how can it perform this duty, unless it has the pow¬
er ,to(ca'll a minister to account, and examine into his private
cpnduct ? We speak here of a minister in connexion with-
the svnodv
,Again, thej, constitution. says:-It shall be the duty of the
lynodi to employ the proper means for the promulgation of the
gospel of ' Jesus Christ. We presume no one will deny, that
a minister intellectually and morally qualified, is a means
',® ■ ..... . • •. •
necessary for the promulgation of the gospel..' What moral*
qualificaiions are necessary ? The constitution says, a minis¬
ter' hn^ist.have the, qualifications described by St. Paul. 1
Tirh#3: 1—14. Tit. 1: 4, 9.' In 1 Tim. 3: 3, we'read: 'A
Bishop then must be blameless, the'husband of one wife, vig.-'
jlent,.sober, of good* behavior,' and in the 7th verse;. 'More¬
over, he must have a' good report of them which *are without,.
lest he fall intoireproach and ihe snare' of the devi!.'# If then,
(be synod bas\the power ho employ the proper means for the
promulgation,of ihe' gospel.' If .a ministry,'intellectually and;
morally qualified, is a means indispensably necessary for this;;
if a minister, in the Tennessee synod, 'jpnust be blameless, and.
of good behavior and. have "a"good report of ihem which are
without;' if; ihe synod alone has the power to silence and ex--
pel from its connexion,.an unwonhy minister :—if all this be
so,.as we think we have clearly proven, does jiot the conslilu-.
tion,. we ask, give the synod the puiqer to try a minislerl'or im¬
morality? If this power is-not clearly implied in iheconsii-:
lutiotiy its language is without meaning. And if it is implied^
how did we violate the constitution h> 'receiving -Mr.^Miller's-
case into the synod ? , To our oivn minds the case is periectly.
.dear"
*'Mr. Brown evidently intends to apply tin's to myself, and manifests Bis su-.
fiebior holiness. .Of all the deaths tjiut ever u man died, lliis" thing.'of being
iedtto.death, by preachers, is' the'most cruel. They come under la heavenly'
garb, and have the'most irre«istabte influence." Would they inflict the cruel";
tortures of the inquisition,' their Victims sufferance would be. brofught to a
speedy termination1.1 But alas ! to be lied to death is a dying to die. • ,,
What do you think the Tennessee Syttod woultMravq doqe with David, the
anointed king of Israel, had he beeu in their hands for his "crimes of murder 2-
8am. 12r. 9$ and also adultery,2/'Sam. 11: 2? 5,1," Ah! reader David thanked
his. God; that he did not full iu the hands of such creatures,—but he chose 1,6,
fall in the hand of God, as there was mercy with God, but with man there is.
none. 2 Sam. 24: 14. i Chron. 2l: 13. It is ti'ue that with christians there-
is mercy., $I'at. 5: 7.* Luke 6: 36: I submit'the following from my neigh-.
b6rs., ' ' - ' '
N. C. Catawba .County, August 31 1847.
Be it known to, whom it may concern, that the Rev. A. Miller.has lived in.
our immediate neighborhood for a number, of years; during whh h time he has.
conducted himself as a sober, fnOrul man, and has been a peaceable, accotn-<
mbdatiag neighbor. Giveil tinder our hand's. s
john h. Robinson,. johnhass,
john m.auncy,. .davld hass,
joseph bost, john shuford.,
n
We answer: Mr. B; gays, « We .have Already provm 'that the
synod is the Church united.' and that the Church thus united,
may perform duties which devolve upon individual Church¬
es." By what does he prove this, or are we to take his mere
assertion for evidence.* If the synod- is thc Church United,
wilt Mr. B. he so kind as to inform us, how the Church was
United before the Tennessee "Synod existed ? 673 years rolled
round,, from the commencement of *tbe- christian era before a
Synod.of thi.^kind Existed, and 1828 years before the constitu¬
tion of the Tennessee Synod was ratified,£//eiV center of union.
^Was the Church never united before? Luther never was a
member of a sy^od/and knew nothing of this uniting cf the
(Church, fin the Teknessee Synod. { Mr. R., it would seem, offers
this as prdof'for his discovery of the' Churches, unity in the
synod." ' Because, "A Synod is a body of ministers with lay-
delegates who superintend the concerns of the Church under
th.eircare,Agreeable to certain christian tuleS, founded upon a
Constitution.",- The word of God is the supreme rule for the
/government of the Church, and no,other. The synod has
adopted the constitution as .the rule of hpr gOveyrfment^this
constitution is,not the rdle'of the Church, but of the-synod.-—
W.henl'she organizes,,she assumes a synodic'al capacity; her
acts.therefore, are the acts Qf the Synod; subjert to rbe superior
authority and control of the word pf God, the Rule of the.
Church. But if, as B., says, the's^nod is the .Church united,
$he/rnust be the highest authority on earthi and the Church,
|the kingdom of heaven,) would be bound,' Bo^.oply to adhere
,to, but to submit.to*bet sUpdnor authority. If .this js riot ele¬
vating a human, organisation above the kingdom of Christ,
janxl the framen? of the constitution above God, I am utterly
at a";loss to know the-meaning of language. Ol>! horrible
blasphemy? He then proceeds to.say, that the Church thus
united," may petform. duties, which ^devolve ppcm individual
Churches, artd therefore that the synod may try a minister for
immorality. We -have.shown, fliat according to the cpnstitu-
• tion,' tl\e synod possesses a subordinate power.- But the very
cxpression-in the constitution ; "Butfhis Synod shall have no
power to receive- appeqls ffokCthe decisions of congregations,"
at once leaves the judicial authority with/the congregations,
and their decisions are final j, whether it. be a nunistey or pri-
&0
vate member. This was the policy of Luther! * And the con-
Stitutiorf was intended to defend Lutheranism, which is Bible-
ism: .
If is reatllv amusing to see how he exerts himself to drag
his .brother minister before'his '"golden image" to compel him
to bow ot resist Dan. 3. He'has, hi the nqost shameful man¬
ner, corrupted language, to accomplish his purpose. He quotes
the sentence; "It is the business of this body, to detect and ex¬
pose erroneous doctrines ahd false teachers'' (and in a elandes-,
tine manner applies it to myself.) He does, not impeach my
doctrine, but example. I ask, if a man has been charged^
and by the proper authority acquitted, is he to be considered!
a false teacher by hisexarriplfe? • (I wish Mr. B., to know that
I am not married to my sins, but have the privilege to cbnfess
and forsake, them.)' The phrase here quoted by him presup¬
poses "the members of the synod to be sound in thejaith,, both'
in precept apd example and as such they were tp delect and,
eppokk erroneous doctrines and false teachers. The word "de¬
tect", is lo? discover or point, out. ''"Expose." Is to lay Open,""
make bare or censure.' We .-ask in the fiam'e of common
sensej does sudh terms convey the. idea that the synod is a fu-1
diedtbry, or is vested with' judicial pow&r ? Every mail- of
common sense "can See the fallacy'of such' constructions of,
language.' I3ut he is veyy careful tcf' inform-his 'readers that
he has reference-to, ministers in connexion with the synod: It*
seeiifs that Wi,fh'those out of' the synod, he can "gim and' take
and be friendly with all? Who did we denominate' false-
teachers when the po'n^titution was framed ? I can establish
the. fact that what, we then called a false foacher, is now, by
some of them fioj only held in christian fellowship, but introf
duced'into thjeir pulpit ; to edify thfe flockf ,
Again, ,! do say, as one pt the' framers of the' constitution,"
that,judicial authofiiy to be exercised,by the'synod, was not
thbught of," sa'veih the negative. The severe trials and char-
ges brought against the ifeV. D?H.' w,as fresh ill our minds,
.and was the very evil, which we intended should be.'guarded
against in future, ana of which we complained, a? wrong on;
the part of bis opposerS. *Bul those day's are.forgotte'n by'
Some we fe^r wilfully.
,As to what "Mr. B.y Says concerning the'qualifications of ffi
.Ymnister, .We "shall hot object.- But to bis'cohcluslon^tljat it
implies, ori tfie part of the synod, judicial pouter, is absolutely
■false. That it is -the business o{ the synod" to ^employ the
proper means for the purpose of promulgating the gospel faf
J,esuS Chfist." W.e readily admit But, we would ask With
. meekness, who are to fie the judges in th'is matter with respect
to'-the-qualifications of- a ministef ? Mr. B., on the part ot the
synod,"claims the "exclusive, right to decide in this ease, page
32,. He .says."The $ynod, before .it could admit him; (Mil¬
ler,) .claimed the right ot* examining into, his moral Character,
ana'.of investigating the* charges against hirn. Tb- this Mr.
Miller would not submit.' Hence the synod could not receive
•him?' I could not submit to be tried'.by a Jlawless hody^and
b.ne who ha^l no,authority to try. I* had submitted to 'the de¬
cisions'of every- 'body vested <witj/ .judicial authority, and
cpuld do'no more, without violating conscience. There were
^four hundred petitioners' asking them to comply with'the con-'
stitfation, and be^ united. *Many.of, them said, that they had
examined, into existing charges and were- satisfied? and °f'
course da(\'nbi-request the synods examination or investigation
pf 'cKfirges. Compare their proceedings with the remarks on
".the.dth'Artl of the cbnstitution. * "Neither do this body claim
the exclusive right of examining and ordaining candidates for
tfife ministry. For every congregation have the privilege of
choosing fit persons/or their minister^, and, individual pastors
have authority to pe'rforrci -their - ordination. This is evident
from the practice.of the primitive christians, as Well as from
tfie Scriptures; " .But when any congregation shall request this
body to examine and ordain the person *o£ their choice', it then
devolves on this body to'perform this duty." •
.■Tfie afiove Olause leaves the original right of examining a
candidate for the „ ministry, with the congregations, whether
doctrinal,-Intellectual of moral. But when congregations re-.
quest the synod tofdb:tltis service for "them, they are in duty,
•bound to 'do so, as obedient servants. ' '
. That judicialpoweys,' (whether in or out of" the synod,) was
not'intended by the frames of the constitution, by the.phrase,*
"to detect and expose erroneous doctrines and false teachers"
js evident from the fact that we are living under a' civil form
ef government, where every man is permitted to worship Al-
-JS3
mighty ..Grod according'to 'jthe dictates of. hisown'Qonscienifc^
furider bis own (vine and fig-Wea, where non'e dare molest or
make hirn.afraid.y We are not lo be-subjected to the judicial
authority of any set of .men. • 'If, ibis phrase is to be under-1
sloocj judicially respecting those within the syhod : it must,
have the same meaning towards those without. Why does
>not-Mr. B., arraign- the falsd teachers that hre without, to* his
'tribunal and compel them to submit to his judicial- authority.!
' ThC Rev. D. HenkeJ, who wrote this document^ was a sa¬
cred lover of,civil and religion? liberty.. And any attempt to
.construe this sdntence'so as to imply judicial authority .or
•powCr; is iiot only a perversion of language, but'a base libel
"upon, him, as well astheframers of the constitution.- It is to
censutre their moral honestij, intelligence, foresight, and good
intentions, in framing that document which.forbid.s such, im¬
plications. ' . " ' •
All, therefore^ that was intended by this sentence "to detect
.attd expose false teachers," was something similar to lhat of
my present/effort; that'is, to develop to the! public mind, the
base yvickedness and deep laid schemes of B'., to' enslave'tfie
churches, bydaking away their congregational rights' and lib¬
erties,^and to elevate himself. He wbiild' tear Odd (jowof
from his throne, provided he could-asceiid in his haughty pride
and affluence to'take-the throne himself.
But again, mark well the. base corruption of this artful Vfe-
si'gning map. He argues,!hat inasmuch as it is the business
-of the synod, to employ-the proper means, for the purposeof
promulgating the gospel;1 and that because a ministry intel¬
lectually and morally qualified, ia necessary for this purpose.
Therefore, judicial powers must necessarily be implied. This
is trqlya strange mode of reasoning. -'We have already prov¬
en that the original right ot judging of "thq??e qualifications js
vested in the Churches. The Synod can only exercise this right
by the request of tfie Churoh pr Chufches. Therefore it is
presupposed, lhat the qualifications of its members'have been
attended to. The Synod in this case, possesses an'executive
power, that is, to execute the decisions of the congregations.
.Then .the designed fhe synod/is to' use ihe necessary means
,10 proclaim the gospel., There.is not a term used in the sen-
fence which implies judicial power, but the very -reverse. L To
8&
promulgate ' the;gospel Is to,remit sins:—instead vof'judging
andcondemning the sinner. But B.,'tp convert iBe synod^ntp
a judicatory, has- 4 edianged. ,gusy?e£ into law! He must, be a'
genuine son ofVMoose's, aW knows nothing of Christ.
But He has truly cappe^J the'climax, page ,27 and' 28, 'wh.err
he says: "The minister and private Chprch member.sustain,1
in some important respects, ah entirelydifiereni relatiofi to the'
^hdreh. A. private.member- belongs 'to some particular con¬
gregation; to^vhich" he is amenable and only amenable for hi§
private -conduct. Tp enjoy a- seat and vote m ihe synod, he
must be dujy elected a delegate .to the synod,^by the Ch'urdi to*
whiclrhe Belongs o/ by some other Church or'Churches, con¬
nected with the-syqod'. His connexion with the synod, in this
respect, continues only-duting its session. It is lay different-
with administer.. By his'ordination and subscriptioh of'the
constitution, he- becomes a member oT'tlie synod, and contin¬
ues a member of it until he voluntarily withdraws his mem¬
bership, <pr forfeits it, by heterodoxy or immorality. He is a
ipnen&ber, then, not of any particular congregation, or obhgre-
gatiops,.nOt even of those of which he "has Charge, but of the
whole Chtirch linked in the'synod, afid is accountable tp-the
wljole 'Qhurdh thus united, bo.th for his doctrines ,and moral'
Conduct. THC Church, or Churches, of wlrich hp has charge,,
may try him for heterodoxy or immorality, &nd djsmiss him .as'
their minister; lyut they have'no power to 'sitence iiirw, or ex*'
pel' him, from the 1 synod. The only Way,'therefore, that the
Chufeh'canti;"y pnd acquit,'or eonviqta minister of any charge,
is in p Synod ical capacity. ' If any pumberof .Churches; Jess
thauthe \yhol£ number embraced in the syrrodj, should assume
tjiis power, it caLnnot be said that their act,; i$ the' act of-the-
Church."' , , ' • 1 . * „ '
• Ans. Tt'is true that a.niinlster in onb, respect sustains a'
different relation to the Church, and that is, that by his call and
ordijiatim, he becomes'the servant -of the Church. We have
ajreadv -shown that*ministers, ah well as private members, are*
by baptism,-made incmbeVs df the Church. "For by one spir¬
it are \Te lall baptised, into onC body." By their confirmation
and commttnion at the Lord's, Table, they renew their baptis¬
mal covenant. By faith id Christ they continue to be Jiving
members of that one body: "There is One body and one spir- '
M-
•it ; .even as ye ate -called* in one hppe ot your 'calling.*; EpB*.
4f 1,6." The private member, belongs to some particular
congregation, to which he is amenable for. his, private conduct...
The minister,'being'the public servant of "the .people, (of his:
cqn gregarious," should he have a charge,) is accountable *to
them, in' their regular congregational authorities, while it is;
made the duty, pf Elders-to see that good order is observed in,
theif respective congregations. -It is also,made their duty .to-
see that their congregation or congregations are "provided" with'
an drderly Mmister of the Church:" 'As a servant, he rh'ay be
tried1 by' a congregation," or by their authorities united. • Ac¬
cording to,this- method,,there has been a regular authority to*
try .ministers for immoral conduet, from the eommenc,emenf of
the christian era. And their.dedisions, yrer'e final•, BuVBiowh
has, in his vanity, attempted to establish a quite different* tri¬
bunal; that is, he would** unite the" Church in the.. Tennessee
"Synod. - A' measure whielv the,. Fathers were whqlly'unac:-
quainted with,. And which has existed only' 22, years. ' Ac*,
cording to, this plan, 1828* years-had rolled'round befpre them
was an existing, authority t0 try *an. immoral 'minister or* to,,
silence him. For, he'says, thdt "this power is < vested in the',
synod and: pa? where else!' ^.nd as the Tennessee Synod ,.did.
not exis,t—there was no ecclesiastical tribunal on earth-to reach,'
such a case for, 1828 years- Luther knewjiothipg of the 'X!enr<
"nessee Synod., and "of course'must have been- a .stranger.to.,
such power. Mr. B,, says; "The only way, therefore, tpat the,
Church can try and acquit ox" convict a minister of any Crime,
is in. a synddicaj, capacity. If any,number of Churches, less
■than the whole number em'bfaced in the synod; should assume;
thi'sjjpwer, if cannot -be said, that -their act is the ae't'-of they
Church!!" If thp Churoh stoo'd 1828years without such aji-j'
thority, it wbuld really seem to, me, that it might as Ave If have
remained so, to the'end of time., No bonder' that there have,
been so many corrupt priests,, when there was no authprity, tox
bring them to an, account. What a great pity it is, "that' God
Almighty could.not have been possessed of a!s much wisdom
intelligence and foresight as A.J. B.r-oVv-n, so. that he*, could,
have, invented the Tennessee Synod,, from the beginning, of,
the gospel era; as the only judicatory to try ministers!!( But
alas! for -want of,the.necessary wisdqmmnd intelligence, the-.
85,
' Church, has, stood ^£128. years at least, .without this authority.
Bind of. <?ourse' "lartie" in her government! But there is anptlj-
ef sad misfortune, hud,' tha,t is, Mr. B.,\ failed to i-nake ins'dis¬
covery until,the yeay 1845, And his new invention has neith¬
er had the*honorwnor disgrace to try • any one as yet.' Poor
Miller, being unfortunate, foil into the, hands'of the synod ;'they.
evidently intended to try the. merits of .their new discovery, on
him: "When our astonishment- is augmented' by the doleful
.•sound," Miller has evaded our grasp.'v Of coursfc thoutiljiy of -
its operations has,'as yet, never been tested. Theintelligent'
reader vyilf please excuse ourapparant/'levity, l?6r We, are
truly af a ,loss for Language 40 discribe such contemptible,
meanness to,'grasp, power, Yea, it betrays a thirst after pow¬
er which Is beneath contempt.
SECTION IN.
/We, sjhaffiyeit' add a few remarks on. the utility and expedi
'etipij/oi the congregational mpde ol Church government. The1
thingsWhich, most distinguish the congregational plan from,
Others, are these" two. Thp .importance it gives .to the ■'suffrages,
of the members of the Church,- ip. matters of discipline arjdtk
the independence 'of Indilijdual Churches over synodical con-.
Irol, of sUflpryision.' Which t\^o things may he stated in one,
namely, the self-governmenL oi tlie Church,, 'In other systems,
the power of Church government is vested originally in the
officers, chiefly fh tile .clergy/ exclusive of the members!, > Inf
t'b.e-eongregatiopal, they are vested Originally ,in the Church as
a hody,; 'including its own officers; the latter acting in, their. .
official capacity,' executing the powers of the Chufch. And'
we have already proven thatffiiey may unite their authority, in¬
case of the tfial,of a minister, or public servant of the. Church-
f". * . '
en. , . v
These powers arc vested ffiu§ in 'the. Church: *
1st. Because it was thp-practice of the 'New Testament,
Churphes, Matt. 1,8:* 1,7, IS,
• 2d. It is the natural right, of. the Churches to govern thenyi.
selvesunless it could be.-proven .that this ii£ht is denied them
in the scriptures; which is nofdone, but, on the, contrary, this
right is the,re'conffiWdAc^dy.-, " .
3d. These powers being,veste^ ih the Churches, are. boffi
'86
safe and'scriptural; they .are competent to the. mamtaloanc#
of their own purity, peace, and good order, according, fo the
command of 'Christ.. And such powers are as likely to be
used conscientiously and as little subject .to dbuse, in. their ,
"hands! as they would be-in the hands of any humau arrange-.'
menf. When power .is" in ihe hands of a few; they aye not so,
dire'ctly concerned; such is the nature of man, that be is.
prone tp be consequential as well as dictatorial. And delights,
jn the show and exercise ol authority, and particularly in the.
submissive reverence^of his. subjects, and vdry often has his
own.importance as well as self-aggrandizement, in- view,-iri,
preference 1o the .Subject for whom he professes to act, as there-
is .too, much -meXeirnhQly^ history to show. * tiow many .have.'
been the abuses of these forms of Churcl) government! How
many their neglects!'" Ho\y often have-such assumed-Church-,
prerogative^ and powers—lordly in nature, name and exerciser
in the hands of aspiring' men', fhey have not only spoiled the'
simplicity of good men; but grbatly injured, the cause of,
Christ, dor \vhich *\hey, profess to act, altogether foreigri to 'the
best, interest of, the same; ^oppressive. and distressing' to the
'conscience of those under..their' lordly power, ^"nd ho,w. o£
ten have they been fopnd.entirely negligent and indifferent1*,
where corruption and ch'.wdeiy'botb doctrinal and-moral, have
demanded .prorapj; exercise!
The government of. the Church vested in,themselves; iivar
■ congregational capacity,-or iu thbir own immediate, authori-:
ties, .is.quite a different thing to what'it is ill the hand of-a
fgw' Lords, In the -hands of. the Church it -is incapable of
such vain show or aggrandizement, or grasping after, power.,
The discharge of duty is in the barrds of the brethren-,, where
ajl'are made to feel-alike responsible, and concerned, as to'the'r
Consequences resulting from tlieir, act. Hut shpuld any one
feel disposed to abuse this power, it may be balanced by the
equal, vbice of others, -And in cases of ■ censuref particularly,,
each is reminded to do what he doeskin the spitit of meekness;
^Considering himself,-Jest be also be tempted."' r
But it has been said that there is more learning, -reverence,,
intelligence and capacity In the synod than there1 is in the
fphurches, therefore they are better qualified tb decide in such
Gft^es, This may be triie in- part; but there is not always
87
ftttiore simplicity, £harity, brotherly-kindness and carefulness ip
the sypod, than there, Win our church decisions. Ahd if such
'cases had been better id 'the hands oi Synods. Why did the
Savior l ri!hj sin finite wisdom' leave' spell with the'Churdh ii>
, her simplicity^ • ' .
'4th.' .Discipline in the hands of the Church, is quite a dif¬
ferent thing, to .Ayhat it would be iti the hands of the synod. It
is,before the Church tha't the offender is to'be restored.. In-
this capacity, should he be a private member.lie is to deal with
a fcliovV member,—a plain man with a plain man. • They are
acquainted and understand each other better, and have more
that is comm6n between tHem of language arid sympathy.—.
'Should the offender be ah Elder or Minister, as the servant of
the Church', none- can have a lawful right to deal with him,
but the Ohqrch, and as the power is transfered to their author¬
ities,'they-are, properly speaking, that authority, before whom,
he stands'or.'falls.When 'the. decisions are made, they 'are
'.final: Christ dOe^'riot say that such case shall be carried to
the Synod, if this had beeh necessary, he would have invented
.a synod'. But'vye vy.il[ 'suppose that a minister be guilty and
the Churches are known'to. that fapt; could they be leconciled
' to receive hiffi 'because the synod had acquitted him ? No, hfc
' would have to be the syndd's preacher!- Then, as his useful¬
nesses with thd Ch'urch,.the Church h,as the right tp decide
vyitff respect to his moral character.
There is another weighty consideration why the phurch
-should have the right to try a minister. That is, he has b^en
their spiritual guider;.' they "are acquainted vVitb his real worth;
■'he W a'lso justly entitled to their charity and sympathy with¬
out the interference of busy men in other men's matters. The
'Savior himself gives this ultimate pouter to the Church. Matt.
1.8. He does not .say that the. case of a minister should be
parried tp the synod as a %igher tribunal; but,the case is to
terminate there. Again, there is an advantage in the compar¬
ative privacy and dispatch of such case rn the hands of the
Church. A matter of this kind is settled sooner; aqd with less
publicity, when it is settled within the Church. It cannot be
carried to the synod without extending, more or less its ag¬
gravated effects, and its unpleasant notoriety. Settled at home,
It is comparatively hidden, .from the world, whose glory it is
to triumph over the christian, usipg his sin^s and, mislorfun^3
:as a kind of 'permit for them to^ndulge in wicked t'less.' Whyv
not apply our Savior's rule to Ghiirches as wejl as 'ministers'
•^and'rrieiplpers? To let'their private diffieuhies,be settled at
home in.private as much, so as'-.possible. \"How much more,
publicity could the TennesseedSyhod-, have given to nfty mis¬
fortunes than they" have done.' Why they have Seen 'spread
Where ever their minutes have been 'circulated. I do not mean
to'say that the synod has no right to advise in such a case.—
But' I do -say, that there is not one term,Qsed# in the Constitu¬
tion Which gr^nts.tbem legal poWer to try a.member, either ex¬
pressed; or implied. \ The. synod can' Qnly be classed" among
those institutlons'of'm'ertf which jare forbidden to*be "riveted"
tapori.the consciences of men. See 26ih Aijl: Augsl Con. And-
wh'enever the synod "assumessuch--yshe<at once becomes a.
.cwrSe to the Churches in her connexion. Instead of settling.
their' Church, .business aV home in .a Comparatively private .
manner; the synod' is made the means of 'spreading the fdidts'
arid, misfortunes of-1 the ministry, over the world, in its most
aggravated appearances to the* utter disgrace'of the ministry-
It is said.;" "If any humbe.r'of Ghurchesj less'than the whole
number embraced'in the synod, should'assume, this-power, it
cannot be said that their act, is the act of the Church'." -I do
• not kno\y that during thp existence "of the Tennessee Synod,,
there has ever been a sessioii in which all the Churches were •
represented. Of course such trial would not only be protract¬
ed—bub matters could be so arranged as to defeat a decision
entirely.' Besides the trouble and expense'of dragging wit¬
nesses, &p.,'&c.,.from one session to another, which* would nob
only defeat the object for which the synod was designed, to
devise'plans and means to promulgate-the gospel '; but, on the
contrary*, would prove a very curse], a"tfd* truly well would it
have been for the Church if it had never been organized!
. SECTION X.
Oq page 29* and 30', My; B., undertakes to establish these
positions, as the polity of the Church by "precedent!" He says:
''These fapts utter a"voice which cann.Qt .be misunderstood," and
in view'of tfjetn, he maintains that the'positions of the Churbb
have been defined for years, and tjy way of triumplThe say Si
8?
"It is tbci late iri ,the day to obje'c.f'. (to their synoclicai' power)
"now." \ '
Any The precedent referred to,'is the case ' of .Rev. A. S.,
Who,'at the session of 1835,, was received in, connexion with
the Tennessee Synod. . It; is doubtless, well knoWn. ,that he
Was a very suspiciops. character., Notwithstanding^ by his
concessions to, and confession thdt he had'been, guilty of er¬
ror in'his previous course of conduct toward the^Synod, par-
fipularly in having separated himself from the true doctrine
ot the Church. . He said'that he was sorry tor the same. He
also prornised in future to- officiate according to the Augsi
Con. of faith. Accordingly he was^gain received in'fellow*
ship with the synod, ' } . - \
During-the ensuing year* the secretary received aletter from
an individual residing in Wythe county Virginia^ ^Hedging
that Mr; A. S. was guilty, of crimes, of a serious nature.—
"Whether those charges- were of, a doctrinal or immoral nature!',
I cannot recollect. The above named , jc.ttec Was read before
the synod. Rev. A. S. alledged that he was ndt,prepared tp
meet, those charge^. And, voluntarily agreed to be silent in
bis office during the ensfuing year, dnd in a short time,left the
synod' in a very abrupt manner'. He went, as vve were cred¬
itably informed-, to. a house immediately adjacent to the Church,
and got Spirits and wds Seen drinking, leaving the synod in a
(disgraceful manner. The synod considered- him a hard, bar¬
gain on their hand, as there were no hopes that? he would ever
j?e of any use to the Church, acting as he did. Accordingly
the following was inserted in fhe-minutes of 1836. 'And as
the Synod wishes to extend justice, bpth to the accusor and
the accused', it was resolved, that,the casp; be kid over .to the
next sessioh so that the subject be carefully investigated.
- On this subject we Yemarjfc »•*
1st. Here was a letter from an individual (probably not a
member of any Church) Which was,pubjicly read.,
2d., We resolved to investigate or examine,into the1 truth of
said report. . , . • <j.
3d. We intended to do justice* both to the accusor and the
accused. , ;
Now we ask, in the spirit of candor and soberness, dctes
this even-imply that we intended the exercise of judicial an-
thority on the part of the'synod ? If it does, then wd intenp*
ed to tr,y the accuser, as wejl as the accused, ,For we express,
the. desrreof do\i\g jmJAce to bath.
But'we rw,ill .suppose , that such powprs;were 'really intended
by the synod, and that J .vvas^he principal actor ill the, dase.
Anclt wjaat.does it-prove ? . It would s'im.ply prove that we did*
,\vrong and had-violaicd our' constitution, &c.. Does this jus¬
tify the Tenpdssee Synod, in following the example when they
knew better1? ^either in, advertent circumstances, nor my.
-weakness, is to govern the synod in her transactions. She is
to be governed by the word of God, and "the symbols of the
Church. Weak as such;circumstances, on my part might-be,
even so, and infinitely worse is the wickedness of B.,iin" ad¬
ducing/such to,sqpppvt his course. Much givcn-^much re¬
quired. This looks low in the extreme, to see the great, the
learned Master of 4 ^'..stooping -down to such small matters!
It plainly sjhdws lhat he.is< not'willing'to, humble himself to
God's'truth,-•but-vvopld stqpp to any mean artifice^ to .support
his cruelpyide. ; - -
Vi We shall, also refer the' reader \.o "precedents" in the History
of the svnoch . • ^
1; The Rev. D. H, was charged with grossly immoral con¬
duct., His case was .decided by 15 individuals constituting
a select committed: "The following is the verdict of. said
committee, extracted from their report:" "We? the subscribers,
constituting a committee, being jointly assembled horn our
several congregations, in Lihcolnton, in order to investigate*
the charges alleged.against the Rev. David Herikel; and af¬
ter exam'iningrespectable witnesses, who haveacuYate knowl¬
edge of .these thing*.. We report, lhat it would be no inter¬
est nor credit to us to uphold a wicked man; but as long, as
k we finc.1 no greatej*'faults wilh jVLr. D. Hepkel than hilherto,
we can by no means think of dismissing him as our pastor."
This caiSe was considered as having been decided by the con¬
gregations, and was considered find. Readers remember this
, case was not tried by the Tennessee synod nor any other sy¬
nod.' Was it then contended that the synod and no where
elsey was the place to try "a minister of the gospel? No, verily;
It was then most .vehemently contended for, that the Church
Iiad the exclusive right to try her ministers; And' that the sy-
9i
• » '
nod had nothing to do with ^uph matters,.more-than to advise,.
At)(l 1° view of this fact, the' constitution. >of thp '.Tennessee
synopl »was written, by the late Rev. D. Heukel .himself; and
Was intended to project the church* in this"peculiar'»isense."--n
For the scenes of that righteous contest being fre^R hi/mincl,
we intended, and that forever, in our transactions, to secure
this power of Iryiug ministers to the Church 'where-it properly
belongs^according to the* principles of HuthPrianfonvam/ no,
where^else: And that no appeal (or action) should be bad on
the case b^ the synod, (save the act of "imparting her useiui
h'dvice,") as We.ll in the; case of a minister as thpt of aprivate
member. It is-most astonishing to think that,men, who wit¬
nessed the. Scenes on that'occasion and felt themselves so deep¬
ly! nferes'tecl in matters'andthings which then transpired, should
at thisnipie even connive at'such attempts, op ihe part of the
synod, to establish herself as the only Ribanal t'o iry .and si¬
lencer ininister! 'The truth is, there is not-one spark of moral
honesty ill such conduct.
^ 2.'Is the cage of the Rev.,Audrey. See Christ, as referred
to,by Mr. B., as.a "precedent" jn*v-iew of which,1 lip plaims-
that'the .position, of the Teniiessjhe synod have been establish¬
ed for',years: Mr. A. S. as.has been stated, left the 'synod in
£&3(>, in a most disgtacofpl manner ajitsl.never more returned;
of. course >vas hot tried by the synod" nor'any where else, thafr
We knovy of; his name was discontinued in the minutes, (not
^excommunicated.), , • , - <
3. The Key. D. S. S.' His»casc wa"s tried by an individual
congregation, and * t.h.e decision, was. acknowledged by thp
.synod asfinal.
;4.v 'The R'ey. L. W/Hull's case was tried by, ihe elders of his
congregations: HR decision was not objected to by the synod,
But to manifest a hypocritical-show, to relpayp .themselves of
the 'cross, in 1845, they tqok the casp up and referred it back
to Mr. H's congregations d'he same as. mine,) for a decision by
.the, voice ot his churches. r It.worthy ,pf notice that in 1847
the churches ,fof JUjvH's charge, six in number, wrote peti¬
tion^ to tlje Synod to this effect, "that' they believed Mr. Hull
had been acquitpd 'of the charge against pirn, according to the
constitution of the.synod Un'd the holy scriptures, and that fur^
ther action upon thie subject would be - contrary, to both.'W
92
These petitions were . signed, by .73 members of, the Church,
-They dejnanded ,that no-further action .be, taken, upoij his,case,
a!s die constitution a.nd scriptures had been complied with:—
Now,' his'case had not been tried by the.synod! Did Mr.
Brown contend in that case that the synod was,the only tribu«-
<ual to try ministers'? He did not, but- tacitly owned tjaat the
consti'ution had been complied w^ithvby the Church. vIt is,
truedljey. tried toshow some 'difference between his case and,
tmine. : * ' • ,. .
■ 5th. I,-am the unfortunate victim to'fail into the. hands of,
these uncircumeised creatures., I am charged with crimes bf
•gross-immorality! I .submit to be tried by the Elders.,of my
,feha.rge, .they try and acquit me of guilt. The case is received(
into the" synod',—they refer it back to the CIiurchea.for'a (secp,nd;
apquital by them', (which to gay .the least, of it, , was a basein-
sult,)i they demand at their .hands ah honorable acquittal, that
is to imply, that what had been dope \Vas dishonorable!,' The.
case is taken up again by the'Churches; Tarn again acquit¬
ted by-tHe .voice of the congregations, 127 for, 24, against^-?
this decisiori is again nulii/iqd. And.now .for the first time
does synod, claim the .'right of implied power in' the copytitu-.
tioii,4o try'a minister! . , -' j '
: Now in view of "alfithese circumstances in the history of the
•Tennessee SynodJ does-it not "plainly appear,, that-nb case has
'ever been tried, by-the synbd ; and yet were they all .consider¬
ed valijdj except in my case!—should they plead a court decis*
jOn, we are preparecTto inept therb ir/that ease.' Npy'j "it is
Said in triumph,, that when my" case carpC into the ■synod, it,
was just fyhere it should have been,-and that no authority but
the synod, has the right to try Ond- acquit of convict and siletyce
■a minisleT ! L" Why was not the-former dases decided by the
Synod as Wed as my otvn ? ' We ledve'the intelligent reader
to decide for hirpfeelf. >
But Mr. Bq has uhblushirtgly.denied that I'.was ia?irly tried,
by the Elders. He says': "THat it >vas principally'a que side<J
trial," &e. We have fully proven that Elders, according to
Ihe government of the Lutheran ..Church, Have the right, and.
£hat by virtue of ^heir office tortry, not only h.priyhto member, '
but a minister^ veA, even the Pope! ' Do ye not know that,the
'fifitnts shall judge the world ? 'And if the world, slmll "be judged
by y°u,-afeyeu-nworthy to judge the smallest matters? know
ye not that-,, we shall judge angels? -Ho.w mtieh more,'things
which perta^to/thi/lire.V'l; Cor.'6:' 2,, 4../ I)an. 7: 22/ Luke
22: 29, pa ye pr.o'ved that Ciders, to.whom po\ver is
, regpiaflyjtransferred'; may'unilettheir authority, for the good
order of .Cbb/ch, "which* lauthbrityhis established by'divine¬
ly 'bispired^me,m , .It \vi\s .^aid of Chrls'f that* he fnad'e and bap¬
tized" more, disciples .than .John ; 'though Jesus himself bapt¬
ized. not, but .dns fdijipiplps. J .The disciples; baptized by the
• cornmadd and Authority of .'Chrjst and therefore ft is4the same
as, if jl'e hticl, done it, him self. , Even so whqn* Elders, are called
,by the Church,'to see that gOod-'ofder is preserved in tne Church,
.their dct,is the act'o'f;thc Church united. But how men pf
triijh can say* f,hat'there w,as .nonsuch transfer of power made
• in xny-ca^e 'to-the Elders-to1 try ^oe,' is.passing strange; when
their election by'the °f »the Church and th'eir ordination''
to office, £.re in (them solves, t.his regular transfer; and the syn¬
od can-prove no other. Any oilier. process would be out of
'khe/u^pal order, and of course an unauthorised act. Sep B'a
sfateijienh page 48. He ^ays, page 19. ."Far be it from us to
ipnpeach either the* capacity or the hojresfy of the Elders, who,
: gat In that trial. Their Capacity E admjtted and their integ¬
rity, j's'bey'ond'/ftispjojat^. ..Thpy a^ed pipon'the evidence be-
fore;thpm,.^.nd upon this acquitted him." (Miller.)
Doesi R. imagine lhAt the Elders who sat on that trial, arc
all so stfu'pid #nd ignorant a3 to-be'put off with such"1 base flat-,
ter-y as .this 7 NoI and- persuaded tl^t when they come to4
v,ie-w such .contemptible meanness in itb trae cqlors, they will
treat his conduct as it deserves. . - •
*1, He states that-they have done-an unauthorised act, Jf
• this isjiot impeaching* Iherp with jgnoiance of course a want
pf capacity, we are utterly at a,lqss to*perceive the meaning
of language. '. f . ' '
,2d. He speaks of their haying conducted principally a one¬
sided trial in thiyi case. :This must have been either for want
of capacity or mora) honesty. What act coqld they have been
guilty of, in the case-that would manifest thore'corruption than
to conduct a one-sided trial, in matters,of such vasl.impovtanqe
to the Church of God ? If Mr. B's statements are true, they
are among thq rqost corrupt tnen on earth. And could' I b$
94
convinced of this fact, I should refuse .their decision myself.
I then believed; and* do. yet, that*they acted aycprbTng.fo.the
word of God" and the chara.'dieristicr^ -of true 'christians,'' and
high minded gentlembn. *1 luiow'tjhfit.lbe'ir •deci.|i'ort is"'a right¬
eous /one; overruled By the direct prOvidenc-eof' God:' It/was
a matter that concerned'God and. his CHnrc^'aiW "if is the last'
case on earth" fo,r«jhen'lor trifle \viilh "And'4 pay id said to
.^Vbishai, des'troy hi'm-not : 'forV.ho .can slmtclfibrlh jiis Hand
against the Lord's anointed, and'ba guiltless?",• .l' b'aml 26*:'9,
10. 'Ch&pt., 24:o. A true"minister]'dl .the'gospelf's*God's-
anointed.' Now he- which eStablishetli us'with yrpu in/Christ,
and hath anointedjis~ is God;; .who ha'lh also'sealed-us,'and
given the 'earnest ofMh^spirit fn bur hearts. 2 Cor. 1:"21^ 22.
But to return to Mr. B's Statements. He .'^ays page 19;
"we4 deny that Mr.r Miilbr wa's fully'arid fairly fried in'ythe
meeting at" .Trinity Church. It was principally a one-sided
trial'. But little of the evidence against him, was flairfy before
that.meeting.' This,our opponents do not date to,deuy. 'Ajl
they pretend to say; it;,.that- the witnesses agains't hirn'were no¬
tified to appear, and that they did not'appear, was .their own
fault. This does not, 'however,] affect the 'truth of our-state¬
ment. .It is sufficient for us to -know that they'^vere not there.
Jt is.'true', the- simple, fact that a woman had -sworn' a chi[d to
Mr. .Miller vyas'known to the Elders, and'-upon rhi}s, it is said,
.they acted; but we repeat. lhat'.b'ut little of ihat -mass of ^evi¬
dence, difect and\circumstankal,'by which .he-wps afterward^
convicted in court] by.ajufy of .twelve men, acting under .the
solemnities of arf oath, w.as before tHe Elders.'' /
Ans. Mr. B./says ;."this our opponents do not dare to deny;"
•Yes Mr. B., Twill now dare-to states that-yob are 'guilty of a
corrupt falsehood, I need; hot'add .that 1 cap prove, it. , For I
shall simply call .upon you.to prove the fact yourself. On
page. 21 and 22. You say, "Now how does the maber stand?
In the session ot the synod, in 1846, on motion of Mr. Micha¬
el Rudisill, Mr.. 'Miller's father-in-law, and his devoted person^
al friend. Ft w.as, • , . . ( ,.
"Resolved\ That Mr. W. W. McGinnis.be appointed to
give a relation of < all the circumstances relative t6 the. charge
against the Rev.. A. Miller. * *' ' .•
Mr. McGinnis is a man. of undoubted Veracity.' He Uvea
95
iri the immediate'neighborhood' where, the charge was made,
•and -Was .fully acquainted", wjfh all the• circumstances connected
with 1 tlie case, from beginning to end. He gave the relation
required. A her he was ihiough with "his relation, he publie-
'ly asked MY.'Miller, before the open synod, whether he was
mistaken in.any,statement which he had made. Mr. Miller
replied thhL be was not. The matter was then fully beforei the
synod," "&c. " .
Now, vfe shall by no means impeach the veracity of Mr.
McGinnis, as a *mantof truth, and as Mr. B., says, was fully
acquainted with all the circumstances connected with the case,,
from beginning tb "epd. Then how does tlie matter stand?
■Why'Mr.-McGinnis who made his statements before the syn-
""odTn "1846, on'his ho,no.r; stood before the committee in my
\rial at Trinity Church, acting under the solemnity of an oath,
.Now if,"Mr. McGinnis was acquainted with all. the circum¬
stances connected with the case'from beginning to end when
he stood before 'the, syn'od in 1846. He was in po^sessiob of
the same fhcts when, he gi ve evidence before the "committee on
my trial,-and pf course the committee had all the'facts con-
•nected with thje ,case from beginning to the end; unless Mr.
McGinnis perjured5 himself. -Mr. McGinnis knew the facts,
and if he did not tell them, he is a perjured than. Mr. B.,
'will you dare to impeach Mr. McGinnis' oath ? Now if Mc:
Ginnis is.a man of.Truth'on path as B., says. Then'hasB.,
proven ;himself a ^vilful* liar. Pgr he knew that McGinnis
was before 1 We committee,.and so did many of the clergy who
composed the synod in 1850. Reverend sirs! have ypu learn-
•ed. tlie comniapdment,' ilThou shall not bear false witness
against thy neighbor." The iact .h?, th'at their statements do
not even .amount, to a plausible .falsehood. "He that hideth
hatred with lying bp's, and he lhat(uf/ereth a slander is a fool."
Prov. 10 : 18. We leave the reader to judge of such, men's
motives.. .
We shall ;next submit to our readers the verdict of the El¬
ders \yh'o sat on my trial, as follows:
"The committee after haying heard all the evidence adduced
in the foregping case, both' fpr and against the accused, find,
unanimously, that the said Adam Miller is not guilty as
charged.
96
• And fbrtlier of- opinion *that there is np cause why the"
accused should notresurrie his official " la bops'." "
B. S. Johnson Sedi/, DANIEL SEACLE, Qhfn.
As it may be a matter of inquiry what'Mr. McGiilnis did
awefl^tvR shall give" his oath as written down-at'the lime of
the Church trial.. But as if stands connected .with, tlie oath of
Mr..John Shell, we shall give bis first, as follows : '
. '.'John Shell being sworn and states that himself and W*.
W: McGinnis went to George Anlhoney's, and W* W. Mc¬
Ginnis wanted Caty to swear the child and -stbp ajl the fuss.
She' said she could swear it, but Adam Bellinger had made
her mad, and that she had paid her fine* acbording to law;, and.
would, not do it. McGinnis theti told* her that.Miller would
sue .some of them, that had been talking about ft. #She "then-
said; she did not care, that they might suffer as she had to,do/
hearing so much about it, that tlje child was not Miller's, that"
, if she'; wa!s, mean enough to have a'child by a married man,
she would not take a preapher.
"\jVitness, 'called on Caty to ksay On her ^honor, whether or
not, it was Millerls Child;' to which she replied, it was not.
W. ;W. McGinnis being swbrn and states' that '.the' time
John, Shell and himself went to Geo.-' Anthoney's, as alluded
to by J. Shelly was on the'11th day of May last, and that'his
'evidence is the same with John Shell-verbatim, except the fol-'
lowing -in the 'absence of Shell, viz: ^
That she persisted against it.'being-Milter's child to the last,'
and said that she did n(ot know "Miller'fiom a woman, only'
from his outward appearance; and that she proposed'.to*go to
a magistrate, or he miglff bring one there and she'would swear-
him (Miller) clear of 'the -charge! To which, witness, told.
Caty, that, that would not satisfy the people; she then stated
that before he (Miller) should be stopped from preach ingi site;
would swear it and let the world know whose it was." •
We shall also furnish the oath of Mr. Roberts as follows: '
"M. M; Roberts'sworn and states that he was called on by
Mr. Miller to go with him to Geo. Anthony's on the 14th day
of May 1845. The day CaU Anthony-give her certificate to
Adam Miller. Witness wrote it and read it oyer to her, which
she said was correct, and signed it willingly and without'any
persuasion. Of which the following is a true copy, viz :•
97
l ■ i Mat; 14, i.845.
I, the undersigned, do certify that my infant child born ori
the 21st day of ^February,1845 that it id riot the offspring of.
Adam, Miller: And that I have neitfter directly or indirectly
charged hind with the same. ■ .Neither \yould it be correct if!
were to. dp so: • ^ . , - • ,
Given'from under' my hand the day arid year ribove writ¬
ten. ' *
Witness, , . het
Moses M. rdberts, CATriARINB H ANTHONY/
Jacob ADERtioLD. • : , 'hiark
. ' To which witness Was asked,* whether lib heard Caty Ani
i»hony. say she #as willing to swear to Said certificate or not!
I do not recollect that she (Caty) said.she would s\tear< to it;
but' from her conduct he 'thought if a magistrate had beeri
there she would have sworri tp it.
. Witness states that - some tirtie after Caty gave her certifi¬
cate, he went back to get her to swear to it; which she refused
'to . do for this rerisbn, she said th'Cy had threatened to make her
give a libel,,arid' that she would do nothing riidre until -she
knew what to-do.'k ' * .
1st. On, this we.remark. Mr. Brown's strife men ts prove thai
the mass of evidence* was before the committee at Trinity
Church, arid therefore it was a fair trial; '
' 2d. The "verdict of the Elder? Concurs with this, and says;
having heard' all the evidenced Crithririne Anthony's oath was
known arid acted-upon for whaf'it was worth, by th'efn. "
' | 3d.*. Mr.' McGinn is; on' his oath, makes rid statement to con¬
demn any man. " Therefdre, the synod in 1846, acted accord¬
ing to the predetermination of their proud ambitious clergy;
.arid .that -was to remove Miller Quf of their ivay,' no odds how,
so as their ends were accomplished. * . ' " *
4tli.' The statements of Catharine Anthony are at any time
equivolent to her path. . To any set df rtiep whd werb allowed
io dispose of an path for what it is worth: ' ' . i '
But as B,, places the-court decision before his readers; (they
can judge of his motives.) We remark that,a Church and
court decision, are quite different, in their nature; neither cart
there be any justice in their comparison, or to make one de*
pend upon or strengthen the other. Church arid stateare'dis-
08
« f 4 v, fV
tinct authorities, The Church in her decisions, requires two
or/three- witnesses in such case.- And the laws of N. Caro¬
lina, out- One, and' that without-any regard to general, charac¬
ter. -■ If An angril was tf) come do\yn from heaven in-the shape
of a man, and he charged by the oath of a woman in such
case, he must necessarily be convicted of the crime if the law
is enforced. ,1 do not therefore blame the jury; they we,re
sworn to decide according totaw and evidence. Her oath, was
made prima facia evidence, and unless they could.have known
.,what 1. knew that is my real inrfocence, or something equiva¬
lent-, they were bound to decide as they- did. I hope that I
may ever be actuated by feelings too -sacred, and dignified to
"charge men with guilt for .discharging what they conceive to
' be a'sworn duty. But had the jury in. my .case known what
I knew, arid dbne' what 'they did, they would be among the
guiltiest creatures, on earth.-
SECTION XI.
We shall now proceed to exhmine the 4th section,of. their
vindication; page ,31. ,
■ Mr. 5 quotes our 4th specification as fpllows,:
- 4th: T,he act of the synod in' sending Rev. Goodman and
Killian, to .execute ,the resolve of the .synod (which was'b.ut'a
•tule,) arid to regulate this matter in the congregations, is un-
.'constitutional. ^This,Synod shall - have .no power to- make
' rulesj.n,or regulations for congregations?' •- .. * '"
, On this MivB., admits "that the synod Cannot legislate.-f-
-But the simple question is, did .the synod legislate ? We af-
.firra .thaithey did/ I hope that he will be so honest as to caf-
ry.'out his o wn r,ule to preach, both by precept arid example;
if so, I will then ask, jwhat is legislation but .the'act of giving
lqws to be governed by ? Does not - the synod prescribe .the
rule by which she,required-the' Churches to act and .decide a
case of guilt or inndGence? And she also requires an honor¬
able* acquittal! If+sucbis not laying down the lawvto the
■Chufches, Ik now not what terms .could be employed to do so.
Mr. JB., asks fhe Question; '-did. the synod in,the case re¬
ferred to, make rules and regulationsfoy congregations ?> That
jt aid,, we jdeny." Willyow-slr, be so kj.nd as to, ppint out to
'your Readers the authority by which Mr. Goodman and Kilf-
^e. governed in taking the vote 0/ my pongrega-,
tions . Their act was, either authorized, or it wa^- not. " If
their authority for this act, was. not the resolve of the14 synod,
T wish you Mr. B., to'produce the authority. But if it is,.the
fesolutiou of the synod, then surely W the synod the legislative
body. The synod 'does not only originate the law, btit they,
appoint the executive authority by which the process is "car¬
ried out, apd the congregations regulated with regard la , dis¬
satisfaction, which existed-, among them.
^ Bat he comforts himself with the thought that if the synod
did exercise legislative power &c., ''that Mr. Miller himself was
particeps criminis, f<or he agreed .to that resolution," This'
must be#a cheering-'comfort, to the' man, and a quick method
pf getting out of the scrape/1o makp Miller partaker in thp
guilt. But suffice it tp say that I heartily ,desired that the ,
matter migh^ be .apiicably settled, and was, ready to sub¬
mit ,to almost»ahy measure to accomplish this desirable
qnd. But, recollect, I theh said, and do yet say,, that the act',
was unconstitutional. If this'is to make me guilty be it so.,
I was nof afraid to risk my congregations;., And I was sol¬
emnly told that the aetwhi "clinch" the matter,.
' But, says B;, "the action of the s3mod'in 1845 was not inten¬
ded! to prescribe the manner of trying Mr. Miller^" Does the '
man"think that his readers are as stupid as beasts? that, they
have no minds of their'own', what is their Expost facto law
for but to reach and decide. this individual case, and' that by
trial. They do not say provided 'they honorably 1 elect him;
but acquit him; They held me as guilty and of course ab ac¬
quittal from guilt, was the thing to be-attained by the trial—,
If, there ~s any sense in their Resolution. But this cruel dis-,
serpbler informs his readers "that? the object of the synod was
rather intended to ascertain what the congregations had done,'
the grounds upon which they acted, and what they wished the"
synod to do." Mr. B., in the same breath,"or in the very next ■
sentence, says'; that the synod "denied that a few isolated con-,
gregations had a right to dictate to the synod." Now, if the
congregations have no right to dictate tp the synod, why does 1
she stoop to inquire of them what they wished her to do in
thecass? would this not be dictating to the-synod? In the
samp breath, he requests the.Churches to dor what he. says they
iqft
have no right,to do! If • the -synod wished the churches^ to say
to themj what-should be clofte, then does she desire to be dic¬
tated to;i and to receive instruction from the church,' relative
-tothe cause .they are.to pursue, which is the very, spirit and
letter of the constitution, that the synod should be a subordi¬
nate depending body, upon the sovreign- will of the congre¬
gations, But B. ,says; that'lhe synod ^'denies that a few iso¬
lated congregations had the right to' dictate to' the synod."
B., liars ought always to he blessed with good memories'. • '
, / Again, 'Where is the clause in the resolution of the synod
which intimates that the object of the synod was to ascertain,'
Vwhat the congregations had done,' and. the grounds upon
•which they, acted*" Mr. B;, you assert thus as truth; and it
is positively your own1 fabulous assertion,,the Synod was in
possession of, these facts from various sources. <•
I'Butif it is true that the congregations have no right to dic¬
tate tp the synod, we ask in the spirit of candpr, has not the1
synod assumed the supreme authority, and claim's abject sub¬
mission on the part of the Churches?. But this imperious au¬
thority fished to consult with the Churcheswhat wonder¬
ful Condescension, that such lordly powers should come down
so low, as to desire to ' consult with' the Church 5 What a
creature to humble itself.to a creator! - What contemptible
pride b. It is anything else bdt the spirit "of Christianity., If
the synod has a right tp1 treat a few isolated, yea one congre-,
gation, in this manner, has she not from the same parity o|
reasoning the-right to-treat all the congregations in her con-,
nexipp jn the same w^y?
. *But B .j concludes his. remarks oh this subject .by vesting
the synod with full power, in case' of disobedience on the-part
pf the .Churches, "to. the opinions of the ,synod." To excom-
jnwnipEitp them from'the synod's connexion,*'by her irresistible
Ptyer—;a majority of votes. He says-: "Had the Churches,
ow,ever, expressed it as their determination to retain Mr. 3VJ,
as.thpir minister, regardless of the opinions of the synpd; anq
the.synod, upon a review of the whole case,* bad regarded
their action as improper, it could only have declared, that Mr.
M,, and bis congregations were no longer recognized as be¬
longing to the-synod. Chprphes are received into connexion,
with the, synod" by its vote ; and by it's -vote they can be
101
put.", Now, how does such dogmatical assertions^gree- vvith,
the constitution; let us see: "The Holy scriptures, or the-in¬
spired writings of the Old and New Testaments, shall be the
only rule of doctrine and Church-diScipline." Art.'l. Again^
"Nothing relative to doctrine and Church-disciplirie ought, to*
•be transacted according to mere will of the majority or minor¬
ity ; but in strict conformity to the scriptures;'''-, It-is worthv
of notice, that he does not'say; that, if the synod should prove
♦"that the Churches' had', departed from the truth, as it respects,
•doctrine. or discipline., But from the opinions of the Synod I
Tn this case they would be subject to. her Bull of excommuni¬
cation—rthat i$ a lawless majority. It is plainly to be seep
tfiat the power is irresistible, thjey are equally as well qualified
tQ withstand all opposition as the R6man Catholics were.
t But is it correct that the synod is clothed with such power,
according to the constitution as to .volte members qr Churches
oift or into, the synod, at her sovereign will and pleqsifirp ? We
affirm Jhaf she has, not. The constitution tyinds her to con¬
sult the wprd of God and decide such ca&fe by the "Holy scrip¬
tures."'' Again, ministers are •called by the voipe of one or
more- congregations; this call precedes* the vote; If the- call is
according to the word of God, she has • no right to vote them
out. The Augsburg Confession-'says, "that no^person shall
publicly preach or teach in thd Church,' or administer the sac¬
raments without an orderly call." t See 14th Art, This call is
to. be made by "one or more congregations,". See 6th Art.
of the Con. /This call is the sovereign and independent right
of the Church according to the above Articles. And the min¬
isters of the synod are not to preach, neither-is'she to transact
any thing that mdy be repugnant to any article of the Augs¬
burg Confession. l'hen we affirm that before the synod can
vote a member or Churches Into her connexion,, or vote them
QUt, the scriptures and the symbols of' the Church must be
qpnsulted', and the vote taken accordingly. '
In the infancy of the synod, how would such Arbitrary con-.
dpcf have been received? , Why it would have been regarded
ps the most wicked attempt. The language then was, "I will
not give you my abstract opinion, neither will I receive yours
ip such matters." But we would have a "thus saith. the Lord,'*
pr some plain evidence from Luther or the symbols of, th$
102
Church. According lo the course now adopted by the synod,
sacred Church rights ai;e taken away, and the iChurches 'have!
no right to dictate, or demand redress; AVe ask with 'all se¬
riousness, 'is this the republican form of Church government
which,we then boasted-of? Or is it the-principles of Aristoc:
racy in a fog!- At the time of the s\nod's infancy such lord-;
ly authority, or dogmatical ,assumption of power, was wholly'
discountenanced, individual rights were considered most sa-_
cred, and congregrational authority and power were acknowl¬
edged with the most profound reverence'; their calls, requests
and commands were attended to with love and delight. No
other but advisory powers were then attempted at on the part
of the synod, in' such matters. r
We shall pass qn to 'our'5th specification.
5th. The synod 'has repea'tydlyj by a majority of votes, de-#
cided, dismissed^ or "evaded that which hajl been decided by
God's word. This is/to place the synod-above God and his
word—this is not onlymnconstityitional, but blasphemyj &c.
Says, Mr. B. . "Here av sweeping charge is made against
the Tennessee Synod, but not 'one particle of proof adduced
in suppbrt of .it," <&£. .
Aslte seems\.toT)e dnil' of .apprehension .we shall proceed
to adduce the,proof. Then, J ^
1st. In. 1845, my case was taken up by the synod, a case
\vhich had been 'decided, as .We have already shown, accord-,
ing to the word of God,' Matt. 18, and without consulting,
the word of God tippn'the subject, they by a majority of votes,
referred it, back' to the Churches, without any legal authority.
And some of them .intended that the decision to be made by
this, their self-invented. authority', should be; violated at the "
time they made the resolution ip 1845. They enacted.a law.
and appointed the executive, by which they made void the"de¬
cision Of the Church, and by a majority of votes sent the case,
back to be decided by au election in the Church! ^h® ^e"
pfsion was agairi made 127 for and 24 against me.
2d. Their exp.ost. facto law, being thus complied with, they
pgain took up the'case in 1846,* pnd by . a vote of the, synod
declared this decision also void,- without * once refering to the
word of Gpd, for their authority for1 such action. They have,,
pretended to sneer at the change, that they voted that 127- was,.
not &n honorable majority dver 24.' But we observe that the
vote of the Church was to' be taken, can it be reasonably sup¬
posed that thpy believed that every voting member would turri
out and vote. No,' they made no such calculation, neither is
such expected in any election. What then, are the rules by
.which, such elections are. governed? Every National mart
knows that a majority of the,votes giveri; Which in this case
was 103, decided the case. The synod in 1846 had ,no other
'grounds to vote on but this decision, and of. course voted that
' 127 was not an honorable majority over 24. 'Which decisioii
was rfothingless nor more than a wilful corrupt falsehopd.-—;
We leave the reader to say whether'this was "decided; dismis¬
sed or evaded." Upon this vote I withdrew my humble name
from their illegal proceedings, being'convinced thafthe, devil
would at any time be willing to extend to me as much justice
as they had done. . (
,3d.' In 1847 there were ,at,. least 400 petitioners, -several
•'Churches, arid many individuals, who petitioned for a peace-
sable, adjustment of this case, and that principle be complied
' with.' W;e sup.pdsfe there were 30 persons opposed* to. this
measure.] So it will be seen that When majorities were in.rpy
favor," being }n. direct accordance with the order of <3,od, they
were disannulled And their lawless minority was interposed.
Here again, they haVe "decided, dishlissed or evaded " by a
'majority of votes, that which had beeh decided by the word, of
.Grid. We leave the reader to-judge, if this is not putting the
'synod-'above God and his word; which is "blasphemy."
6tbV Specification.
Suppose a minister by some act.of his life to have forfeited
"iiis 'office.1 The Church of Christ'haS the right to call men'to
fKe ministry;, \n 1847, several- congregations, and many indi¬
viduals, inforrn'e.d-the synod that,they intended to retain Miller
as their preacher,, and requested the synod to concur with
them, as promised i'ri 1845. This'they .have refused to com¬
ply with;!evading their premise, and of course an unconstitu¬
tional act. "Both Pastors arid Deacons must be called to their
pffice, by one or more-congregations." Article 6.
Mr. B.," says; J'lst.' The synod is< charged With a breach of
promise. It is not. true; asintimated, that the'synod in 1845
104
• . -M ' * ' '
^rdmised, unconditionally, fo concur with Mr, - M's congrdgd-
>ti6ps," &c. Page 31. ' .
' Ahswer. ,We have not said that there was an unconditional
promise made. But we do say that there was a. conditional
piOriiise made and we also maintain that, that condition was
complied with; and the syn'od guilty of a corrupt breach of
promise., Bat Mr, B., says: "The synod was the proper tri¬
bunal to decide whether this condition had been complied
with or, not" We have already shown that the synod had no
right; to meddle with a decision of ihe Church, and that their
condticthas'been arbitrary. The- resolution of the synod in
1845; was a perfect nullity. - .
Again, he says; "It does by nQ means necessarily 'follow,'
that because the Church has a right to call then to the minis¬
try, the1 syridd is bound to receive every man into its connec¬
tion for which congregation^ may petition, page 32. ,
We. again -answer., We have not said that' the • synod
would be bound to receive, without exception, ever$ mail lor
whom Churches irtiight petition. But the'' constitutiqii holds
'forth thp coriditiOns tipon which they are to be received in its;
connexion; and when those conditions are complied with, the
synod-is,, not only honorably bound.' But scripjxirally bbund tb
bom ply* with such petitions: Then to the case in question: ' '
., My previous good character and orthodoxy have hot beeii
''disputed 'by the syrlod, until this present difficulty, and what'
how pxists is owing to their change of glasses.
Frail human nature is prone to err, "we sin as rrien." The
Wisest and best of fnen* have sinned, grievidusly.. God has
been merciful to their unrighteousness, and they have been 're¬
stored. God 'does, hot call angels aiid glorified saints to ad¬
minister his wOrd to mortals. But in his wisdom, has,chosen
btien of the mortal race—of the sinful children of Adam. If
ho onq should be permitted to preach, .but sinless being?, we
hre' truly of opinion, God would-have but iew'embassadors to
brO'ttiulgate his gospel. /'And thank Qbd for the assu.raiice of
the fact, that the efficacy of" the gospel does riot depend upoii
human holiness, But as Luthfer says f "It is not a small bless¬
ing, that trOd giVOs hi? WOrd also though knaves and the un¬
godly; yea, it. is in some fespects riiore dangerous,-when he
gives it through pious pfersonsj than if ho gives it through
10$
Ungodly; lor this reason, because the uninformed fall into an-
error, and cleave more to the holiness of men, than to the w&rd.
of God? : See Luther's letter on infant baptism, page 35. Al-
so> 8 Art. Augs. Co'n. "the sacraments remain equally ef»
ficaciqus, though the priest who administers them should not
be pious, as Christ himself saysMatt. 23: 2."
It is admitted that God calls his ministers to this work as-
the Apostle saith, Rom. 10: 15. "How shall they preach ex¬
cept they be sent." Ministers of the devil's sending are not
likely tcf profit God's people, for they will preach the world's
doctrine) &c. Rut God's- ministers vvill preach God's word,
&c.
It is conceded that God calls rneh to the ministry of the'
word, through the voice of the Church. This call, therefore, is
God's'call: The way to test a minister's fidelity to the cause,
. is by the word he preaches, Now for a set of men to oppose'
and refuse to receive such' call, is to oppose God himself, and
to be found fighting against God. He that despiseth you di's-
piseth -me and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that seht
me: Luke 10: 16, Matt. 10: 40, 42.
<We have supposed that a minister by some act of his life td
. have forfeited his office, as did Peter and David in their owri
esteem,- * God has the right, independent of the pride and self-
righteousness of men, to'restore or call them again to this
great work; neither is the gospel thereby weakened, bht iri re-
, ality magnified arid extolled. Paul says': "But I keep under
my body", a-ttd hiring it into subjection; lest that-by any means,
when I haVe preached to others, I myself should bb a cast¬
away ? 1 Qor. 9; 27. Now as the gospel stands on no crea¬
ture holiness; 400 persons calls on me to preach, the Word to
them, could 1 without guilt refuse such call ? But as it was
necessary to procure the christian concurrence of the. Tennes¬
see Synod, and to prevent a schism in the Church; they call on
them to concur and prevent such evil, which they have, obsti¬
nately refused to do; prefering to create a schisiri in the Church,
rather than to comply with what they themselves acknowledge
to be the order of. God; yea,'years of contention and strife,
rather 4han submit to the cross of Christ and that of their poor
unfortunate brother in distress: See Rom. 16: 16,17. Some
of them alledged that they pursued this course to prevent the
dow.nfall of the 8ynod, If spelt arguments are correct, great
is the pity, that it had not long since come' to naught. If to
submit to the order of God and the cross of Christ,- , would
sink it- in-God's name, let it go down; for it could not be of
God. Christ chose to bear the cross for us, which was the
sure way to victory, and from victory to glory. - And- we can
assure the Tennessee Synod' that if they expect to get to heav-
eii by shunning the cross, they are mistaken. All that will
live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution, 1 Tim;- 3;
12. ' _ ,
Then we contend that every thing that was christian, says
that they should have advanced the proof for the course they •
pursued, or submit to the,order of God.
But to evade the force of this, truth, Mr;. B, presents, these
twb considerations as evidence of the propriety of4he synod's
course. .
1st. "That the individual for whom.they petition'should ex¬
press a willingness and a desire, to become a member of the
synod, on. the usual conditions.- Mr. Miller in 1847, did no,t
ask for admission into the synod, nor did he express a desire td
bp admitted, except upon the condition, that the synod would
acknowledge that in its former proceedings irt'biscase, it had
violated the constitution and the. holy scriptures," &c.
It will be borne in mind that one congregation- is deemed a
sufficient call to the ministry.; but we nave shown that 400
petitioners called on . me to administer the bread of life td
them> and asked the synod's concurrence, and to prevent a
schism, that Ibe permitted to enjoy my just right in the synods
according to. the constitution.* I was there to comply with the
-wishes .of the, petitioners. It is true I did not bow to the gold¬
en image which they were want to set up! Had We submit¬
ted to hny other, but the principles of the Church, we would,
have been as-bad as they were, in violating the scriptures, &c;
Was this not. enough for christians? But,
"2d. Mr. Brown would have me submit to be examined' oil,
theology! -I studied divinity with an abler divine than Brown*
But, how this arrogant coxcomb could have-the impudence- td
talk, about examining any one on,the-subject-of theology, £
am at a.loss to know. When he in 1847, could.have fhe as¬
surance .to state publicly-.that he had made up his mind on
difference of opinion, that he was willing to give and take and
unite, or can he on terras of fellowship with all those differ¬
ences. Again, he has united himself with an associatibn of
men who are composed of Atheist, Deists, Infidels and figura¬
tively'speaking, of the world, the flesh and the devil; togeth¬
er, with every sect known in our country; his conscience has
become liberal enough to stretch over all this. Will this lib¬
eral hearted divine prescribe the rule by which he is disposed
to conduct my examination pn theology ?
We have shown that there were some 25 or 30 petitioners
in 1847, who declared that if I was retained in the synod thpy
would withdraw—of course were determined to continue the
strife. This is harped upon ..by Mr. B. Why does he not
have the moral honesty to tell, his readers that there were 400
that declared that I was morally qualified to be in the synod,
and if I was not admitted my. right in the same, they would
withdraw their connexion? Yea, there is not less than one
thousand members who. have maintained my moral fitness to
preach, ,
But admitting my guilt, as charged, I believe that my mor¬
al character will compare tolerably well with that of B's,
should he be guilty of an incestuous life. For this would be
fmt'an habituate life of adultery.
We will yet remark that the synod had no right to exam¬
ine me, neither have they proved the fact, and therefore" the
synod is guilty, as charged.
He says, that -I would not submit to an examination. I
heard of' no such proposals, at that synod; but they used ev¬
ery exertion to secrete their real design, as above stated. We
have shown that the Church possesses the right' by divine au¬
thority, to call, ordain and judge of the qualifications of their
minister; the synod can only have this right upon application
from the Churches. See 4 Art. 'Con. The petitioners, in my
case, made no such application, of course the synod had no
right to examine; 400. petitioners testifying to my moral worth;
"this ought to satisfy the synod, at least, to make a trial of the
case. They were well acquainted with my doctrine, and were
'informed by the petitioners that charges which had been pre¬
ferred against me, were investigated, and that they were satis¬
fied.
m
But as so much stress has been laid upon their conditional
clause "provided they honorably acquit him/' This sentence
was. not composed by the committee in 1845, but was added
by individuals who, we l^ave no doubt, were deeply concerned
about the loaves fishes.
We. shall now proceed to examine his remarks on our sev¬
enth specification. •'
7th. The constitution grants t|ie right of petition. • From
congregations in North Carolina, petitioned for a. redress' of
grievances; this the synod refused to grant, saying that peti¬
tions of free men "acquired no action from • synod." This is
unconstitutional. See Art. 4. '
Mr. B., says: "It is admitted that congregations belonging
to the synod, have a right to send petitions to the synod;, but
we think it would be difficult to prove that the synod is bound
to act upon every petition sent to it. The synod must deter¬
mine for itself what petitions require action. In the present
case two things must be observed." r
Mr. B., admits that congregations, which belong to the syn-
pd, have a right to send petitions to it. But the synod must de-
\erirninefor itself what petitions require action. We shall sup¬
pose that cases might occur id which it would be proper for
the synod to evade action, But that such was the iactj in the
case under consideration, we humbly deny. If there ever has
been a case in the history of the synod which demanded
prompt action, this was the case. The-principles of the syn¬
od were now tp be tried, to the very core. The deranged sit¬
uation of the Church called aloud for action, and that with¬
out delay. A time had come when deviation from principle
must be productive of much evil. And I have often thought
that divine providence intended this, dispensation to exist, to
manifest the deep rooted iniquity that was rushing into the
synod with ^brazen front" Then-to the first proposition.
Isb The reason assigned for their silehce, is, that the' petiti¬
oners did not belong to the synod. This is evidently incor¬
rect; unless.it can be made appear that an individual, is thp
Church. It is true individuals acted for the Churches. But
ill 1846 those individuals who withdrew their respective
Churches, returned and submitted their action to the' Church*
pither for confirmation or revocation.
.109,
^en the Churches, which in 1847, addressed the synod, had,
pot as Churches withdrawn their connexion from the synod.
Those Churches were respectable, their'petitions were present¬
ed with firmness and precision. They had a just right to speak.
'|br themselves, and demand satisfaction at the hands of the.
synod. This also would afford the synod an opportunity of-
assigning their reasons for apting as they did. But disgrace¬
ful to tell. That such case is dismissed by a (would-be) chris-
.tian synod, with; "Your committee are of opinion, require,
no action from synod." This is truly an easy way of getting
out of the difficulty! How does such conduct accord with'
the previous proceeding of the synod ? When they could1
hoqst of promptitude, to assign a reason for their actions. They*
were bciund as gentlemen and christians, to give an answer of
the hope that was in them.
There were two Churches in Greene county, which also, had
not withdrawn their membership. They also charged (and
Rev. G. Rasterly proved)' the synod with having violated the
constitution, arid the scriptures* I ask, with all candor and
firmness,'was she not fiouqd, yea, honorably bound, to advance
the evidence in jqstificatiqu of their proceedings ? But how
are those petitioners1 also treated or dismissed ? Why the
synod, "Resolves, That iri the opinion of the synod, the synod
has not, in its former proceedings, in reference to the charge
against the Rev: Adam Miller, violated either its constitution
or the holy scriptures, and cannot therefore disannul its pro¬
ceedings." Reader ii don't they understand the game of mum!
The Bible is of no use to such men.
•' We maintain that the synod is morally bound to answer
such petitions from the very language of the constitution.—
Then the
1st Article' says: "that the holy scriptures shall be the only
rule of doctrine and.Church discipline. The synod is charged
"with having violated this Article, in having annulled a decis¬
ion made according to this rule, by the Church. The Church
pleads that she has been aggrieved; And had the right to
speak; And the. synod was mutually bound to act and to ren¬
der satisfaction. ,
2d Article] says: "That no minister-shall be allowed' to
teach any thing, nor shall this body transact any thing thajt
11$
maybe repugnant to any Article" of the Augsburg Confes¬
sion of faith. Now, if the synod violates this Article; Who,
is to call her to an account? I answer the Churches have
the' right to demand redress, and the synod is bound to render
satisfaction. And if she refuses she dissolves that mutual re¬
lation. which existed between them.
4th Article says: "But this synod shall-have no power to
receive appeals from the decisions of, nor to make rules, nor
regulations for congregrations." It has been .affirmed that
this clause has been violated; 1st, by receiving appeals; 2d,,
by making a rule to regulate the congregations; 3d, by ap¬
pointing an executive to carry out their measure.
Now, have the congregations no right to speak'and demand
redress ? If th,ey have not, the synod can sway an uncontrol¬
led sceptre over the rights of congregations. I affirm that
they have, and that the synod is bound to show reason why
she acted thus, from the holy scriptures. From the above, it
is evident that the synod was bound by every tie of God and
man to act upon those petitions. But how ridiculous and
hireling-like does it appear to see a set of men conscious of
doing violence to. principle, and too proud to retract,' to. mask
themselves under a gown of-mum. St. Peter says;. And be
ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you
a reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness, and fear.
1 Pet. 2: 15. He does not say, that the synod must deter-,
"mine what petitions require action.
2d. Mr. B., alledges that the petitions "were not drawn up
in a respectful and proper spirit, they were highly denunciar
tory and menancing in their character," &c. How commen-
table it is that those petitioners did not send for Brown to
come and polish their petitions to, suit his miserable pride, and
flatter his vanity, and aid him in establishing his aristocratic
principles. We are truly of the opinion, that had this been
done, there would have been no complaining. But alas! The
petitioners were plain men, and did not use etiquette and flat¬
tery enough to suit this polished divine. They spoke plain
truth, and this wounded his pride, and of oourse he was'in¬
sulted. For the synod to retract her proceedings would bo
jpiortify ing, and therefore she owed a. duty to herself. ' Let the
pause of God suffer rather than retract. That the synod ha$
; lii
lh the most wicked manner violated her principles, does not
Require a Solomon to decide. And when a thing is self-evi¬
dent they have aright, to say so. But we unhesitatingly deny
that there was disrespectful language used. But admitting
this to be true,- it does not justify the synod iri doing wrong.
The reader will please observe, that notwithstanding we
have used the name of Mr.'B., as the writer of this, "their pre¬
tended "Vindication," notwithstanding hiswiews and argu¬
ments have been fully endorsed by the synod3 in 1850. They
Say, "The following pages contain tHeir (the committee's) re¬
port, which was -read before the synod, unanimously approved,
adopted and ordered to be printed."
Thus it will be seen that this production has not been that
'Of the young and inexperienced alone, but that of the whole
"synod". And for aught we know, sanctioned by the aged, who
acted in the 'former, arena with the general sjnod. Those who
then contended for congregational Church rights in the same
manner which we do now, "If I build again the things which
I destroy, 1 make myself a transgressor. Gal. 2: 18. Yea,
they" are standing on the very verge of eternity, with such in¬
consistencies in their hands !- This their pretended vindication
purporting to show the true government of the Lutheran
Church is now before the community for their' sanction. I
ask- you my brethren with alf seriousness, will you, after hav¬
ing acted through the former arena for liberty; now submit to
the most abject bondage, and become slaves to the synod ? and
establish this human organization as the highest tribunal on
earth, to the utter destruction of the power given to the con¬
gregations by Christ himself. I ask will you adopt the views
as held forth in this vindication as the government of the Lu¬
theran Church 7 If you do, farewell to sacred Church rights.
The general synod has never claimed more power, than is
lle're proposed for your adoption!
Some of the members of the synod have been very zealous
to warn- the' brethren, not to be partakers of my (supposed)
sins. I am heartily thankful to God that I have never desired
iny pne to become guilty of my sins. I hope by the grace of!
God to be able at all times *to repent of, confess and forsake
them, and so find mercy. 'And that from a very different be¬
ing to that of any member of the Tennessee Synod. For with
112
God there is mercy, But with man there seems to be nohe.-p
But will my brethren remember, that it is not my personal
sins or that of any other mans, that they are now called on to
sanction, but the most palpable violations oif their sacred prin¬
ciples, upon which cfctr eternal well-being depends. 2 Johii
11. 1 Tim. 5: 22. 1 Tim. 4: 16.
. SECTION XII.
A CATALOGUE OF VIOLATIONS OF PRINCIPLE
AS COMMITTED BY THE SO CALLED ifENNi
SYNOD.
; fn compliance witti the request of petit ionefs.from St. lohn's
Church, Catawba Co., N; C. We lay before our readers the
following additional violations of scripture and constitution.
VIOLMTONS OF SCRIPTURE.
1. Admitting tire case in dispute td have been one of real
guilt. They had no evidence of impendence, they were
therefore bound to restore their brother to christian fellowship.
"Which they have utterly refused to do: Rom. 15: 1, 7. Gal.
6: 1,5. Luke 10: 30,37:
2. ^Tlie Tenn. Synod pleads thdt I have trespassed against
them. The holy scriptures make it the duty of the offended to'
go to the offender and ^ell him his faults between themselves
alone, &c. This has neYer been dohe either by the synod, o&
any individual in its Connexion. Which is an open violation
of duty. Matt. 18: 15; 18: Lev. 19: 17: Prov. 17: -10. •
3.. It is inconsistent with the principles of a high-minded
gentleman, much more that of a christian, knowingly to tdke
advantage of a fellow creatures misfortunes, so as to destroy
his good reputation and usefulness in sdciety: This the Tenn,
Synod has repeatedly done, by refusing to acknowledge the
decisions of the Church, had in accordance with Gods word.
Matt. 7: 12. 1 Luke 6: 27, 33: Lev: 19: 18: Rom; 13: 9,
10. -
4. They have utterly refused to manifest that brotherly-
kindness to their brother in distress, which the scriptdres so
forcibly enjoin upon christians, 2 Pet. 1:' 5, 9.- Rom. 12:
Ibi Amos, 1: 9. 1 Thes. 4: 9, Heb. 13: 1.
113
, Th.ey '^ave exercised that, christian charity;, which
the word of God so strictly requires as a true,characteristic of
a christian, (this may.be owing to the fact'that they arc desti¬
tute of it, as charity where it exists never fails to discharge its
duty.) 1 Cor/13: 1,8, 1 Pet. 4:8. Prov. 10: 12.
.• 6. . They have refused to extend that mercy which the Sa¬
vior, requires of his people. Luke'6: 36; P's. 103: 9, 10.
Dan. 9: 9. Jas. 2: 13.
1 ,.7. Christians are bound to forgive their brother all sins
>vhether real or imaginary, without which they cannot exp'ect
• forgiveness. This they have not manifested. Math. 6: 12,
15, also 18; 21, 35. Mark 11: 25, 26. Luke 6: 37, also 17:
3, ,4. Eph. 4: 32. Col. 3: 12,13;
, 8. They hav6 utterly refused to' bear the cross of Christ
,and that ol their brother. Math. 16: 24, 26. Luke 14: 25,
33. Gal 5: 10, also* 6: 12. PhiJ. :3:18. Gab 6:, 1; 4,—
Christians should glory in the cross of Christ, &c. Gal. 6:
•14.. Phil. 3: 7, 8.
9. They have in the absolute sense of the word carried out
-the principles of the Pharisee^,,respecting self-righteousness.
Luke 18: 9, 14. Isa. 65;,5. Math. 9: 10, 13. S.ee the Sa¬
viors discription of this people; Math. 23. •'
.. ,1Q. They have by their self-righteous conduct been the
catise of continuing all the strife which has grown out of the
above named case. 1 Rom. 16 : 17. 1 Cor. 1: 10, 13, and,3:
3, also 12: 24, 27. Gal. 5: 15.
1L They have by their unchristian conduct virtually de¬
nied the doctrine of salvation by faith and imputed righteous¬
ness'; without which, the Church ceases to be the Church of
Christ- Tho Savior deals towards his people according to
,the order of grace ; And they are bound to; carry out this or¬
der in their dealings toward each other. If they, refuse- they
cease to. be of that household, and are condemned as unbe¬
lievers-. Rom. 3: 9, and 6: 14, also 5: 2. Gab 5: 13. Jas.
&12. Math.* 7: 1,5. The above propositions are open-for
discussion.
The reader will please'to turn to the texts referred to in the
above catalogue.
114
VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION,
The following are violations of the constitution both media«
iely and immediately,.in- addition to those found in Our min¬
utes of 1849. We shall, therefore, continue our catalogue as
follows:
8th. The synod being but. a human expedient or arrange¬
ment, cannot claim by divine right, the powers and authori¬
ties, thus granted to the Church, Of course cannot with pro¬
priety be imposed upon, the consciences of christians as ne¬
cessary to christian fellowship. Therefore the synod's inter-,
ference with the decisions and rights of the Church isTmscrip-
tural and unconstitutional. "Human traditions, otrules im¬
posed upon the Church as necessary to christian fellowship,
which have no foundation vin the scriptures, are condemned
by our Savior." Math. 15: 9, 13,14.-' See Introduction to
the Con.
9t,h.' The measures resorted to by the Tenn. Synod in the
case in question, is but to assume the grounds of deciding
matters'of discipline by a general voice, termed "si union of
all the churches'atlached to the Synod." Which is 'clearly
prohibited by the constitution. "Neither is the authority of a
general council considered as valid, or sufficient to establish
.$ny point of doctrine," or discipline. See Art. 2 and re¬
marks on the sarre. Doctrine and discipline are to be decided
by the word of God and no other rule.
- ,10th. The Tenn. Synod which was originally designed
to be an advisory body-—to impart her counsel in' ecclesiastical
matters-7-has by Her late movements been converted intpaiju-
dicatory, in express violation of the 4'th Art. of her Con., .
11th; She. now claims the exclusive'right ol examining
candidates for the ministry; in open defiance, of the '4th Ar,t.
and remarks, and every principle of Lulheranism. ,
, 12th. She has clearly exercised legislative power, in vio¬
lation of remarks on Art. 4th," which says: "No christian syn¬
od can ha^e legislative powers, consequently have no right td
make rules for Churches."
13th. She has virtually blended church with. .State, by ipa*
king a court decision binding in ecclesiastical matters, in
open defiance of the decisibns of the Church, in the same
115
case; Placing- the worldly government, over God and his
word. Which is a manifest contempt of God. "This synod
shall never be incorporated with civil government." See Art.
5 with remarks..
14th-. The synod did in 1847 examine candidates for the
ministry, after, which, it was proposed that the synod retire in¬
to the meeting-house, which Was accordingly done, and closed
the door after them. Whether they transacted business there
or not; iff. is for them to say; they were on business. If they
did nqt.intend to -transact' business in this situation, why did
they retire? The very appearance is unconstitutional. "No
business shall be done secretly or under closed doors." Art. 3.
15th. She has made 'the minister's ordination that act by
which he become a member of the synod. Hence claims- the
exclusive right to examinS, and if necessary to silence him.—
If she possesses' the exclusive righlt to examine and silence, she
must also possess the exclusive power to install ministers in of¬
fice. This is nothing short of high-treason against the rights
of the Church. "Both'pastors and deacons must be called to
their offices' by one or more congregations. Art. 6. The pall
of the Church is of itself the. transfer of authority, and ordina¬
tion is nothing more than an acknowledgement or conforma¬
tion of what the Church had done.
!"lGth. The synod did, in 1847, in the most positive manner,
deny the liberty 6f free discussion, in direct violation of the
4th, Regulation, and remarks on the same.
- We shall now' proceed to point out violations of the Augs¬
burg Confession. ' The synod professes to receive and to be
governed by this Confession. They say: "No minister shall
therefore be allowed to teach any tiling, nor shall this body tran¬
sact any thing tliat may be repugnant to amy article , of this
Confession," Art. 2 of the constitution. Therefore any viola¬
tion of the Confession, is also a violation of the constitution.—-
We proceed:
' 1. Article 7, says; that it is sufficient for the true unity of
the Church' that the gospel therein be purely preached, &c.—
Again, "It is not necessary to the true unity of the christian
Church that like ceremonies at all places instituted by men
should ie observed." Eph. 4: 4. Thus the christian Church
is united in Christ"by divine right. Ndw, In the nature of
116
things, what could; be the difference, whether we create a dif*
ferent unity by human authority,' in the person of the Pope, as
a visible, head, or in the Tennessee Synod ? In either case it
would be a power created of men opposed to the true unity of
the Church in Christ. Either position is a beast.
2. Article 8, Teaches that the "word of God .and sacra¬
ments are equally efficacious when administered purely by
impious men, therefore, to oppose such authority, is to oppose
Christ himself." Which is done by individuals and the synod
in direct defiance of this Article.. Math. 23: 2. Luke 30; 16.
The impious minister preaching the true doctrine, represents
Christ in his office. God's word, is God's word, preach it,
who may. * '
3. Article 12, we read that those who' have sinned after
"Baptism, may at all times obtain forgiveness Of sins, upon
condition of repentance, and that absolution shall not be de¬
nied' them by the Church." We will suppose the case in ques¬
tion to be one of jeal guilt; on the above condition we are
bound to restore our brother. But on the contrary the synod
and its advocates have adopted the principles ol the Novations
who refuse absolution,to those who sin after baptism, in open
violation of this article and the decisions of the Church.
But, say they; "we cannot forgive an innocent man!" Then
suppose an innocent man's character to be assailed by the
foul breath of slander, the synod cannot fellowship him for
want of a confession. This confession cahnot'be made with¬
out violating conscience. Thus, an innocent man must be
banished from christian fellowship, because he cannot (moral¬
ly speaking) violate his conscience, and thus purjure himself! I
On such grounds we might seal the damnation of any man.
4. Article 14 says; that no power shall publicly preach or
teach in the Churches, &c., without an orderly call. This
call is to be made by one or more congregations: Such hall
is but the voice of God; and the congregations in such case
are made the proper judges as to the qualifications "of the in¬
dividual called to preach. To resist sueh call, to any quail?
fied person, is to resist the order of God. Even Judas preach?
ed being called by the Savior himself; and his preaching was
salutary, otherwise the Savior in his benevolence would have
silenced him. Such order and preaching, (according to their
117
0\yn statements) the Tennessee Synod has resisted to the re*
proacfrof Christ, and the order of the Church.
-5. ■ Article 15, The synod itself can be no more than one
of those Church regulations instituled by men which may be
used innocently, provided, conscience is not thereby burdened.,
The synod could be safely dispensed with, without doing vio¬
lence to the order of the Church. But when the synod grasps
power (as it has done) to be lorded over conscience and the
authorities of the Church, well would it be for the cause of
Christ if a synod had never existed. Of course the exercise
of such power is a violation of this Art.
-6. Article 23. Marriage is an institution of God, and the
only one handed down to us from paradise. The right of this,
institution was denied the clergy by the Roman Catholics.—
The exercise of such power on the part of the Catholics was
pronounced by protestants to be'the doctrine of Devils. If'
the denying of the rights of matrimony to the clergy was the
doctrine of devils; we ask. with meekness, is not the act of the
Tenn. Sytlod to assume the right to judge the clergy by the
synod, equally the doctrine of devils? as human laws cannot
disannul, or change the law of God.
7. Article 25 says; "that no one shall be urged to enumerate
sins by name, or to betray himself, members (and indirectly
the.synod) have demanded such confession (in a case where
sin is denied to exist/by the decisions of the Church) placing
the synod's influence over the rights of -conscience. Which
is not only a violation of this article, but tyrannical and op¬
pressive. This must be the doctrine of devils."
>8. Article 26, shows the intention of various institutions
of men, &c., which, in and of themselves, could have been used
innocently; As the Apostle says; I know, and am persuaded
by the Lord Jesus, that there i's nothing unclean of itself. But
when such institutions are made necessary services to God, so
as to oppose the gospel, the order and authority of the Church
of Christ, they would have a very pernicious influence) and
could not be called a divine service, but the doctrine of devils.
Now the synod being a human institution can claim no other
place in the Church than to be classed, among such institu*
tions of men, which might be used to good advantage to the
Church. But when by an unauthorised authority it is im»
118
jposecl upon the consciences of christians as the only tribunal
,to judge of, try and silence ministers, fyc., this is assuming
;Oiie of the highest powers or functions given to the Church.in
a congregational capacity by Christ himself* , Therefore, in
such case, the synod itself, as a human organization, is in op¬
position to Christ and his. authority, and can therefore, only
ibe. classed among the doctrines of devils.
9. Article 27 speaks of the instituting of monastic vows,
*i&c., as being calculated to wound the consciences of married
persons, &c., and cast reproach upon marriage and the hon¬
orable avocations of life. We ask with all due respect, does
uot the self-invented authority of the synod claiming to be th.e
only tribunal to try the clergy, equally reflect disgrace upon
the Church of Christ. Making it a weak inefficient body,
>and thus causing its members to look upon its authority with
^contempt. Is not this the doctrine of devils !
10. Article 28 clearly distinguishes between ecclesiastical
;and worldly government. The synod has virtually made a
tcourt decision binding in ecclesiastical matters, and thereby
justify their conduct in disannuling the decisions of the Church.
This is in eftecl, blending Church with State, arid placing the
•worldly government, above the government of the Church.—
Which is a manifest violation of the above Article: ' This is
,the doctrine of devils II Seel Tim. 4: 1,3. Rev. 9: 20,21.
We do firmly believe, that the above are plain and positive
violations of the constitution as committed by the Tennessee
Synod. We do not presume'to say, that we have referred to
all the circumstances in the history of this case, as here refer¬
red to, but should this become necessary, they shall be forth¬
coming.
Now, friendly reader, where has the general synod, ever
made similar grasps at power? or; has the Roman Catholic's
surpassed them in this respect ? As to the consequences, which
might result from such proceedings, in the moral, social and'
relative relations in life, have they been surpassed by the in¬
quisition itself. The cruelty of the inquisition brought speedy
relief by terminating the life of its victim. But this modern
system of the Tennessee Synod is a manifest imitation of the,
worm which dieth not and the fire which is not quenched.—
To a man of real sensibility, desirous of being useful to soci-
I1$
cty, and a blessing to his family; such conduct is well calcu-'
lated to create upon him, hell on earth. Were we convinced-
that Christianity in its nature design arid influence upon the-
human heart, was productive of such fruits, or would be cab
culated to cause its professors to deal with each other in dis-»
tress in such a cruel manner j we would say the-human fam¬
ily would act wisely to. reject ,it as a system of cruelty un-
worthy'of its divine author* A system of religion' which
Would cause its professors, to close their eyes and stop their \
ears to all the claims of humanity itself, toward a brother and
family in distress, cannot be of God. But if such are the
fruits of Christianity, surely heathens must be excused. ' But
thanks be to God that the very reverse of such conduct arb
the fruits of, the spirit* But the fruits of the spirit is love, joy,
peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, > meekness,
temperance: against such there is no law. Gal. 5: 22; 23.—■
Again, but if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts,,
glory not,, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom de-*
ecendetb hot from- above, but is earthly sensual, devilish. For-
where envying and strife is, there is confusion, and every evil
work- But the wisdorn that is from above is'first pure,-them
peaceable, gentle, arid easy to be entreated, full of mercy and
good fruits, &c. Jas. 3: 14,17.
But how has the synod supported such conduct; have they
done it by referring their readers to the holy scriptures.- No,
but they have resorted to every means to operate upon the'
prejudices of their poor erring fellow man. Knowing that the
nature of prejudice is such that the creature infected with it,
ban no more see matters and things in their true light, to de¬
cide differences by the word of God, but'is prepared to go for
party, regardless of the plainest evidence. In this way,<dle--
signing men accomplish their ends, by preparing their adher-
ance to stick to party, right or wrong. Now what is this but
the .basest idolatry!
Tney have in a clandestine manner made mention of my
uvirtuous Wife) and rising promising family? as I believe for
no other purpose but to excite the deepest prejudice against
me' For what other object could they h^ve had in view, but
to represent me to their, readers, as well as that of my affec¬
tionate family,.as one of the most degraded beings, thus using
120
their whole influence to fasten conviction oi guilt riot only tip*
<on the public mind, but that of my family, calculated to create
the most incurable domestic broils, and by this means, destroy
•my earthly happiness, as well as my influence and usefulness
as a minister of Chiist. How does such conduct agree with
the doctrine and teaching of the godly man Luther, when, di-
"recting us how we should act towards our neighbor. He
says; "we should excuse and speak well of him and direct all
thing's for the best"
But.I am now (not formerly so) represented as a very crafly
ambitious man, trying to injure their good reputation^ and to
break down the Tennessee Synod! Is there one word of truth
in such charges!! I have for many years in my weak way
endeavored to support the original principles of the synod,
arid for conscience sake cannot change. .For these principles
I have ensured almost hell on earth; and for them, if neces¬
sity require it, I am willing to die. Now, is it not cruel to
charge me with attempting to destroy that which I have la¬
bored sb hard to support. I have truly tried 1o prevent my
infatuated opposition from destroying the original simplicity
of these principles, which alas! they have done; and are no
longer "the Tennessee Sy.nodl
Deluded portals, can they not see, that by their, unchristian
conduct, they are not only destroying me, but themselves -to¬
gether with the cause they are professing to support. • For
what rational being cannot see that their conduct is the works
of the flesh. See Gal. 5: 19, 21. Instead of uniting their
• efforts to "detect and expose erroneous doctrines and false teach¬
ers." They have united their whole influence to ruin me,- arid
at the same time admit that I preach the true doctrine. They
ought to know that the efficacy of the gospel does not depend
upon human merit or holiness. ,
Again, I am represented as a very great sinner. To this
charge in the general, I am bound to humble myself; Ifind in
me not only a spark, but a fiery furnace, full of evil lusts. I
have often thought myself to be one of the most unworthy"be-
ings on earth, guilty of the whole law. But suppose the sins
of the whole world tp be upon me, would that be a just reas-
oh that I should become a subject of their unceasing personal
abuse ? If I am a great sinner, I have also a great and mer-
121
ciful Savior. And where sin did abound, grace does much
more abounds Whaf: are the sins of the whole world when com¬
pared with the infinite merits of Christ? Why wpuld they
have me go back to the world and the service of the devil: or
perish in despair? Why should they as christians refuse to fel-.
lowship me, when the angels of heaven rejoices over one sin¬
ner that repenteth, &c. Luke 15: 7. It r^ight not be amiss
for my opposition, who speak of the, greatness of my sins to
read the text. Luke 7: 36, 48:
But we will come more directly to the object they have in
view. They have set up in the province of Babylon a gold¬
en image ninety feet high and nine feet wide. It is composed
pf precious materials, and they would have me bow, or roast.
I am required to bow to their standard of holiness, and bring
to it a righteousness of my own inventing, instead of the right¬
eousness of God'in Christ! I wish it to be distinctly understood
that I have not been in the habit of worshipping a golden .
Calf. And the God I worship can and will deliver me out of
their hands; Though I go to prison and to death,yet the eter-'
nal reward awaits me beyond the grave. Dan. 3 Chapt.
I shall now come to a close, surely there has been enough'
said to convince christians of the impropriety of the synods
bourse.* I again ask, will the Lulheran community suffer
their sacred principles to be taken from them just to gratify
the cruel pride of designing men? who wish to ride into pow-.
eh at the expense of the most sacred rights of the Church?
will you my brethren, by your example leave such a precedent
to the rising generation ? I humbly hope you will not. I do
not ask you to connive at my sins, but to reprove them. But
rentember that unchangeable truth is that upon which our
eternal all depends. Should we suffer ourselves to be led
away from the truth, and thus trifle with eternal realities; see-'
ing that we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ,
who will judge the world in righteousness.
The heart-rending dispensation# of divine providence
*1 have previously given notice of the melancholy fact that on the 3tst Oct.
last my eldest daughter Mrs. Catharine E. Setzer was called into eternity.—
This loss was so great that it seemed almost impossible for me to endure the
thought of it. But aW! since the above was written, on the 25 Dec. follow¬
ing 1 was bereaved of my beloved wife, the partner of my woes, my bosom
122
which has been so sore upon me, should abundantly teach us
that it is hard enough for christians to die, with the love of
God shed abroad in their hearts. How infinitely more so
must it be for human beings to be called on to realize the aw¬
ful scenes of a death bed with the malice of the devil in their
hearts. Yea, deeds of the most cruel injustice in their hands.
To contend against truth is to contend against God and out
best interest. I do humbly appeal to God the searcher of hearts,
that all i have ever asked of my brethren as a condition of
peace, is a faithful compliance with the doctrine and discip¬
line of the Church of Christ. Should I be in error let me be
converted. Amen.
friend. Surely would one say, it is enough, human nature can bear no more.
Yea, sad to tell on the29th but four days after the death of my beloved wife;
I am called on to witness the death of my ever loving and beloved daughter
Frances Eleanora, .being the last and'only remaining female member of my
once amiable and (to me) interesting little family. I am left with an only son,
and grand child, the infant daughter of Mrs. Setzer. Yea, I am left alone!—
My house which but a few months ago had been the abode of cheerfulness, is
converted into a house of mourning—a desolation—a mansion of death. The
loss of friends so dear, produces a vacuum which neither earth or time can fill.—
They were just such society as my heart desired to enjoy. They are gone
and will return to me no more. How shall I endure the sad bereavement.—-
Oh! the kind rememberance of them which rests within my fond breast, in
my sad desolation. But why do I complain; "It is the Lord let him do what
seemeth him good." But shall I pursue these awful scenes no further than the
cold confines of the grave, the recesses of corruption. This would be cold
comfort to survivors. But thanks be to God for that divine assurance that there
will be a general resurrection, and we shall be permitted to meet our happy
friends where tears forget to flow. Then in my disconsolate conditiou 1 may
be permitted to leave these painful scenes and soar aloof to yonder bright
etherial world, with increased desires to meet them in that happy abode.—
They are now far beyopd the reach of the foul breath of slander and earthly
cares, where God's own soft hand wipes the tears from every weeping eye.—
In this happy situation I hope to meet them, and enjoy the rest which remains
to the people of God.
Oh! what are all my sufferings here,
If, Lord, thou count me meet,
With that enraptur'd host t' appear,
And worship at thy feet!
Give joy or grief, give ease or pain,
Take life or friends away;
But let me meet them all again
In that eternal day.
APPENDIX II.
Were it not that a sense of duty constrains me to notice a
certificate signed by 12 of the committee which tried my case
at Trinity Church on the 25th July 1845,1 should pass it over
in silence. I have ever believed them to be upright men. And
were it not for their own confession as expressed in their cer¬
tificate with their names annexed, I should be constrained to
continue the same favorable opinion of .them as heretofore.—
But be this as it may, I have labored under the impression that
the certificate itself, is the production of some crafty designing
individual gotten up for the basest purpose. In this certifi¬
cate these individuals are made to say,
1st. That I am charged with crime.
2d. That they were called on in part to investigate the charge,
and of course were expected to act the part of honest men
and christians, with the fear of God before their eyes to do
justice to all parties ; But
3d. They are made to say; that having my previous good
character in view, they were thereby influenced to do an act
of injustice, of course to act corrupt. Now if a set of men
could be influenced to do a corrupt act to favor me, could they
not also be influenced to do a corrupt act against me ?
4th. They are made to say; that they had not all the evi¬
dence before thorn. If this be correct we would ask with all
seriousness; Why did they as honest men enter into the trial?
Yet these same men say in their verdict, that they had heard
all the evidence both for and against me! They also had the
evidence of Mr. McGinnis who, it is said, knew all about the
matter from beginning to end!! Some of these same men
previously signed a certificate to me, saying that they had tried
the case fairly, and that all charges to the contrary they deem¬
ed unfeeling and unchristian and now can bring that unfeel--
ing charge against themselves. Out of thine own mouth I
will judge thee.
5th. That they had not time for reflection! What time
was necessary for their reflection ? They had I think, the rise
of three months, with all that the foul breath of slander could
do to corrupt the public mind, and to influence them to act or
124
decide against me. What time is deemed necessary for a
jury of twelve men to make up their minds respecting the
guilt or innocence of a murderer? Before they can act as
jurors, they are asked the question whether they had formed
or expressed an opinion concerning the guilt or innocence of the
prisoner ? that is whether they had prejudged his case: If they
had, they are commanded to step aside, considered as disqual¬
ified to judge of the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. If
they answer negatively, they may be received as jurors quali¬
fied to try the case. What is to be the rule to govern them in
making out their verdict? the simple answer is law and evi¬
dence then before them. If these twelve men who have sign¬
ed the above named certificate tell the truth respecting this
matter, there is not one of them fit to serve as jurors to decide
any case of guilt or innocence, in a court of justice.
6th. That the meeting was got up by my own solicitations.
We shall cheerfully admit that I did solicit the Elders to
enter into trial as to my guilt-or innocence, kind heaven! what
criminality could there be in this act? I went to the proper
authority and demanded of them to discharge their duty.—
Was this attempting to screen myself from justice? No. But
is it not passing strange that men of sense should represent
this act to the world as criminal.
The whole truth is, that had I been condemned at this mee¬
ting all would have been right in the view of my opposers,
I mean such as was laboring for the loaves and fishes.
7th.'That they had decided the case differently to what they
would have done provided they had had the testimony before
them which was given in the judicial investigation. Some of
these same men did, after the legal investigation sign a cer¬
tificate seating that they had done on the Church trial what
they would have done under similar circumstances in a court
of justice.# Now in such case in a legal investigation one
* State of North Carolina, Catawba County.
To all to whom it may concern, <!?c.
Whereas, as we have been frequently informed a report bas gone out,
that the examination by the Church committee in the investigation of the
charge alledged against the Rev. Adam Miller, which took place at the house
of D. Lutz, Esq., was unfairly and improperly transacted with a view to screen
him, the said Miller from the penalty which he ought or might have incurred
provided justice had been administered, and in consequence of said report.
125
witness was to condemn a man according to the (then exist-*
ing) law of N. 0. This shows that the committee did. not
consider one witness against me, whereas the scriptures re¬
quire two or three witnesses to condemn an Jhlder'm a Church,
trial. Now, reader, some of these same Elders come out and
nally contradict themselves. Could any set of men, be guilty
of greater inconsistency! But what has their change ol sen¬
timent to do with the decision made by them, when actualed
by christian feelings, under the special providence and order
of God? What they had loosed on earth was loosed in heav¬
en. Would they erase such decision from the records of heav¬
en! Docs their certificate, given some three or four years af¬
ter, change that righteous sentence made according to the.di-
rect order of almighty God! No. All that their conduct does
prove, is that they were frail erring mortals, subject to be led
estray, especially when they subject themselves to be influ¬
enced by ambitious designing men; such as the writer of this
certificate.
8th. In evidence of the above they alledge that some of
We the, undersigned (being a part of the committee of investigation) and being
better able to judge of the motives by which we were influenced, and alter
hearing said report, deem it our indispensable duty to ourselves, and from one
to another, to contradict said report. We whose names are hereunto subscri¬
bed do therefore certify that the case was fairly investigated according to the
evidence before us, and not only so, but that D. Seagle and B. S. Johnson, act¬
ing in good faith as well for the Church and community at large, as for Mr.
Miller, spent one or two days endeavoring to collect the-evidence relative to
said charge; and having examined those who were present in the manner that
witnesses are generally examined in courts of justice, felt ourselves bound to
acquit the accused. Which we would have done in a court of justice with
the evidence then before us. ....
The committee" further declares that it was not their object to defeat the
public (as we understand is alledged.) but our object was to have a fair and
impartial investigation, keeping the witnesses separated from each other on
their examination. We say therefore, to those who may be disposed tocharge
the committee, (and especially those whose names are hereunto annexed) with
having used any partiality in the matter that they have taken upon themselvea
too ereat a responsibility, without they knew the motives under which the
committee acted. And we don't hesitate to. say that those persons who have
prefered said charge against the committee; charging them of corruption, have
published falsehood without any regard to what is just and right, and wedeen*
• . /* l* . .. .1 .. v, A t*lfl fl 51 tl .
it unfeeling and
DANIEL LUTZ,
SAM'L YAUNT,
B.S.JOHNSON,
JOHN SHUFORD.
MICHAEL RUDISILL,
JONATHAN CARPENTER,
JOHN HASS,
126
these same Elders had forsaken me some short time after,
and as they have intimated in their pretended vindication, lock¬
ed the doors against me! This can be no evidence of my
guilt or the impropriety of the cause lam laboring to sustain.
How would the member^ of the Tennessee Synod have re¬
ceived such arguments in the past arena? Was their doors
locked then? Was the advocates of the Tenn. Synod then
forsaken of friends? We confidently believe that these facts
will not be denied by those who acted during that struggle
with the general synod.
The reader will observe that such are the low, sneaking, dirty
measures resorted to by the writer of this certificate; for no
other purpose but to deprive me of the benefits of this Church
decision ; and to accomplish his wicked ends; and he has (in
my humble opinion! made plain men his instruments to work
■yyith.
APPENDIX III,
"The faults of our neighbors with freedom we blame,
But tax not ourselves though we practice the same."
How true is this adage,—how applicable to the times in which
we live—men delight to speak of the wrongs of others—when at
the same time, they themselves indulge in crimes of equal magni¬
tude—Yea! they indulge with delight in the commission of crimes,
which they condemn in others, as though their highest happiness
consisted in the commission of them. They can with freedom be¬
hold the mote in their brother's eye, when behold \here is a beam
in their own eye. So partial is the conduct of men in their own fa¬
vor—being self-willed, and viewing themselves with the partial mir¬
ror of self-esteem, that, that which they esteem criminal in their
neighbor, they esteem as virtuous in themselves. How necessary
therefore the sacred command, " Thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyselfand again; "All things whatsoever ye would that men
should do unto you do ye even so to them." The Tennessee Syn¬
od have dwell: with much apparant happinness and freedom upon
my alledged crimes; they have arraigned me to justice with the ut ¬
most severity, without the first offer of mercy. Humility before
their tribunal is taken as wickedness.
127
Are there no personal wrongs among themselves 1 Yes; this melancholy
nun is clearly confirmed not only from the word of God. But from sad expe¬
rience as manifested m their personal conduct. This ought to be sufficient to
men who profess to believe tbe holy Bible. It should long since have spoken
to them in tones of thunder, to forbear: God himself is judge- The Savior says;
'with what measure you mete it shall be measured to you again." I shall
proceed to apply this rule, to the writer of this vindication:
' Mr. B., you have, regardless of my feeling and that of my family, in defi¬
ance of the claims which I have, had upon you as a relative; also according to
the laws of humanity, civilization and the rights of man. And above all, the
sacred claims which I have had upon you as a professed child of God, where
you were bound to exercise the mind of Christ and the fruits of the spirit to¬
wards your poor brother in distress, you have in defiance of all the character¬
istics of a christian, faith, hope, and charity, wantonly and cruelly, developed
to the world myalledged crimes, regardless of every relation to which I stand
connected for my earthly happiness; regardless of consequences dependent
upon your actions.
Sir, will you not bear with me, when compelled by way of self defence as
well as the duty of suppressing sin, to deal with you acprding to the same rule?
With every sympathy which my humble soul can command to the inoffendiug
object which you have deluded, I shall pass over things of less importance,
and confine myself to such as I think you ought not to deny. I mean the con¬
nexion in which you stand with your present wife. You were not ignorant of
the fact that she was your sister-in-law; Yea, the blood born sister of your form¬
er wife.
For the sake of comparison, I shall admit all your personal charges, and if
you desire, you can multiply them by any multiplier you choose. I am not
married to my sins, I have the promise that all manner of sins and blasphe¬
mies shall be forgiven unto men. ' That if we confess and forsake our sins we
shall find mercy. I have not evaded the laws of my country—though consci¬
ous from the rigor of the laws of N. C., that I could not successfully vindicate
myself. But as you preach by precept and example, I will say, had I wished to
evade the laws of my country, I could have followed your example and fled to
some other state for escape. I did not do so, but answered the charge prefer¬
red against me in the. state where I was living, and still remain a citizen of the
same,'3 where nothing but the foul breath of slander can injure me.
Had you entered into the connexion which you now occupy and remained
in the state of Va., What would have been the consequences ? Why, you were
aware of the fact that you would have been subject to a fine of five hundred
dollars and six months imprisonment. May we not reasonably suppose' that
the object you had in view in leaving the state of Va., was to evade its whole¬
some laws? ' , ,
But this is not the worst. As you preach by precept and example, you of
course recommend your example to the world as worthy of imitation. Will'
you condescend to read the following.. See Burnett's Abridgement of the his-*
tory of the reformation of the Church of England, pages 19 to 23. "Henry,
H kjno. Qf England, disputed the validity of his marriage with Catharine his
■"Queen She had been wife to Arthur his brother. Henry now found out that
"it was''unlawful for a man to have his brother's widow. He laid the question
.. l.forc Sffiop. of Eashnd, and they decided in favor of , divorce." The
question being submitted to Cranmer he replied that they would do well to
" "ascertain whether the marriage was unlawful by virtue of any drone pre-
" cept, for, if so, the popes authority could not make that lawful which God'
128
" had made unlawful." Again "pursuant to the advice of Cranmer, Applies"
41 tion was made to the various learned bodies for their opinions concerning
" the divorce. Oxford and Cambridge decided that the marriage was unlaw¬
ful, as did also the universities of Padua, Bavaria, Orleans and Tbaulousef
" the divines of Feriara, many of the Jewish Rabins, the doctors of the Sar-
" hanne, -aiwl a multitude of oihers in Stalv. and other parts of Europe. Zu-
" inglius uuitpd in the same decision. Calvin afterwards pronounced a simi-
'• lar sentiment."
Dr. Scott on Lev. 18: 6, 16, says; "The only collateral relation, which is for-
" bidden to many are brothers find sisters, by whole or half blood, or by affin-
"ity, legitimate or illegitimate."
As a woman might not marry the brother of her deceased husband, it can¬
not be supposed that a man can be allowed to marry his wife's sister even af¬
ter his first wife's death.
Rev.. B. B. Edwards, Author of the Encyclopedia of Religious knowledge
says; ' 'The Levitical law, which is received in this country, and from which
the rules of the Roman law differ very little, prohibits marriage between re¬
lations within three degrees of kindred; computing the generations not from,
but through the common ancestors, and accounting affinity the same as consan¬
guinity."
Goshert, a pagan duke, married his brother's wife. Milner, in his Church
History 1 Vol. page 533, terms it incest. 2 Vol. page 621.
Lewis the Meek, intermarried with Dadith the empress; was reproved by
Frederick of Devonshire, Bishop of Utrecht, when diuing with the emperor,
as follows: The Emperor requested the Bishop to "discharge his duty with
faithfulness and integrity. The Bishop pointed to a fish on the table annd ask¬
ed whether it was proper to take hold of it by the head or by the tail? "By the
head, to be sure," replied the Emperor. "Then I must begin my career of
faithfulness," answered Frederick, "with your majesty." He proceeded to
rebuke the Emperor for an incestuous connexion, which he openly maintained
with Dudith the Empress; and in the language and spirit of John the Baptist,"
told him "that it was not lawful for him to have her." Milner, 1vol. page 3, 8,3.
, See Table of kindred and affinity. A man may not marry his "wife's sister."
I should be pleased to hear that the Tennessee Synod had tried the mer-
its of their new discovery on such a case, as it is the only tribunal to tiy a min-'
ister. Should they feel disposed to make a trial of its merits, we would refer,
^bem to the following texts. Lev. 18: 16, Chap. 20: 21. Math. 1J: 3, 4. 1
Col". 5: 1, 5. Mark 6: 18. The above texts constitute the general law, res-'
pectiug the sin of incest, which is but a habitual violation of the command,
"Thou shalt not commit adultery." Now sir, do you confess your sins? If so,"
do you also forsake them? Sir, your marriage has united you to them in such'
a'manner that you cannot forsake them without a divorce. But you deny that
you have erred, and glory in your deed. To err is human, but to persist in er-"
roF is devilish. It is in vain to plead those special cases in the scriptures to do'
away the! general law.
A. M.*
ERRATA.
\ ^aSe 21, 11th line from top, instead of "productions," r&ad
"'prosecutions."
Page 22, 20th line from top, read "in so doing" instead of
in his "pains"
Page 49, 9th line from top, instead of "Rev. J. HP read
"Rev. J. K."
Page 53,19th line from top, instead of "alterable" read "is
alterable."
Page 55,11th line from top, instead of "mistated" read ' Vi¬
olated."
Page 57, 4th line from bottom, read "Rev. G. Easterly.'
Page 59, 21st line from top, instead of "into the Church,"
read "to the Chwrch,"
Page 69,12th line from top, read "barely" repeat instead of
"heartily" repeat.
Page 71, 12th line from the bottom, read "to claim" instead
of "to not claim."
Page 88,6th line from the bottom, read "it (the Synod) had,"
&c.
Page 91,11th line from bottom, read "J. W. Hull."
Page 100, 4th line from top, read "the course they are to pur¬
sueP
Pa°"e 104, 3d line from bottom, read "through knaves."
Page 116,10th line from bottom, read "no person" instead
of no power.
Appendix, on 123 and 126 pages, should read "1 and 2?
instead of 2 and 3. .
Page 122,12th line from top, read let me be "corrected in¬
stead of "let me be convertedP
Page 128, 10th line from top, should read forbidden to
'marry' instead of many.