I f Religious and Political*, On, a ) against attempted measures, which in their nature are calcu- . . to Itv.d to the establishment of Popery among Protestants in an GRA HON. There are also other subjects inserted in this little Work, highly interesting- to the Lutheran community : Bt DAVID HENKEL, Pastor of the Evangelical Luthemn Church, residing in Lincoln Co. JV\ Carofina,- "Nam mysterium jam operatur iniquitatis, solum tenens nunc donee e me- dio fiat." " Et tunc revelabitur ille exlex, quern Dominus interficiet spiritu oris su'u et destruet illustratione adventus sui," &c. II. EPISTOLA ST. PAUII AD THE-S9. CAPUT II SALISBURY, Jr. C, PRINTED BT KPIDER & BOGHAX 1821, v*>>y\ f be following* ORATION is published as a precaution against a plan which was proposed by a Committee appointed by the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Pennsylvania, assisted by an individual from this State, at Baltimore, A. D, 1819. It is by no means intended to ridicule all the ministers of that venera- ble body : The strictures in said Oration are rather intended to apply to some leading characters only. Neither are they intended, (with the exception of a few sentences,) to censure their motives as much as their proposed measures, i have reasons to believe, that the plan was not maturely contemplated by all who voted for it. I have not yet understood, that said plan has been adopted by a majority of Synods in the United States. Agreeably to this, there must be a goodly number who think with me in- this case. The Synod of Ohio, if my information by some of my northern correspondents be correct, are deci- dedly against it, and the Synod of New- York concurring in the same senti- ment. I must yet observe, that the Synod of Pennsylvania have hitherto en- deavored to support a good character. Their Evangelical Magazine, indeed, 'with one exception, which is noted in the following Oration,) breathes the pure spirit of the Gospel, and displays genuine knowledge and piety in the wri'&rs. No doubt the intentions of many were good, when they purposed to cultivate a more intimate union with us of the remoter States, by the estab- lishment of a General Synod: howbeit, they may be assured, that as many of us as knt>*w our Lord are already closely united — no human bulwark can make us more so. Our affections will also be much stronger towards them, pro\ided our present mode of Church government be preserved. Let them not at- tempt to deviate from the Augsburgh Confession of Faith, and our love and union shall never be clouded. TIYFa AYTllOH. Z Jf. C. 1820. LUTHERANS OF. NORTH-AMERICA, GIVE ATTENTION! BRETHREN : Do ye not think, amidst so many revolutions in the church, it is time for us to inquire whether our doctrine has not been spurned, an invasion upon our rights attempted, and destruction threatened to the simplicity of our church disci- pline ? Many are fond of being sheltered under the renowned name of Luther ; they think it an honour to claim kindred with hi-n, forasmuch as he is acknowledged by the protestant world to have been the blessed instrument of Reformation from papal superstition, the flaming Uriel, with his golden lamp kindled at the altar of heaven, flying through the horizon, and shedding abroad floods of everlasting light, over the be- nighted Eastern hemisphere, whilst kings and nations were basking in its lustre. But many of those pretenders to Lu- theranism are void of Lutheran principles ; they only thus de- nominate themselves through improper motives. The Augs- burgh confession of faith is the point of union among all Lu- therans, and their -ministers are solemnly pledged in its de- fence. The reason of this is, because it is considered fully scriptural. It stood the test against the papists, in the assem- bled Diet of Germany ; its doctrines defied all opposition ; its contents the very vitals of the holy religion of Jesus ; its truths like the immovable pillars of the universe, and fair like the gilded morning, have traversed the Atlantic ocean, blessing hs German Sons in the wilderness of America. Can I then be an idle spectator, and view with criminal indifference the measures that are taken to effect its destruction ? No ; duty con- strains me j the tongueless woes inflicted upon our bleeding churches, rouse me to opposition, and stimulate my mind from the revery. In the year 1819, apian was projected no^ hitherto adopted by the Lutheran community. It is a plan for the purpose of organizing a general assembly, which passes under the sweet name of a general union of all Lutherans* Nothing is better calculated to cast a veil over improper mea- : ire?, than pretensions to union. But have not Lutherans always been united ? Though a general assembly never here- tofore exercised jurisdiction over this church ; yet, annually her children increased in numbers, ministers and congrega- tions were concerted families. Schism was a stranger, bro- therly love was like the crescent of the moon, their communion sweeter than the sweet ambrosial hive, and their rural scenes 4 full of temporal felicity. Is it not very paradoxical, that some of their ministers now project a plan to unite a people who were never divided? I need no better proof of this, than what the projectors of the plan-proposals themselves admit in the introduction of said plan. It is there asserted, that the Lu- therans from time to time endeavoured to preserve unity a- mong themselves. I dare venture to say that unity has been preserved, before the plan-proposals appeared. If so, was not that sufficient. It is my design to shew what the consequences of this plan, if adopted, in the nature of things may be, without impeaching the projectors with a criminality of motives. Although it might seem as if some improper motive might be concealed at the bottom, yet I leave God, the searcher of all hearts, to judge in this case. I consider it a duty, which I owe to my brethren, to explain this subject, as clearly as I am able. I shall take the 1st, 2d, 4th, 5th, and 7th, articles of their plan- proposals into consideration.* To the others I have not such great objections. The first article says : " The central con- nection of the Lutheran church in these United States, shall be established and preserved under the title, The General Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran church in the U. States of North America." Agreeably to this, the unity of the Lutheran church, in America, would centre in a general Synod, invested with au- thority to prescribe uniform ceremonies, and to govern indivi- dual Synods by a general law. Is such a bulwark necessary to union ? If it is not now, yet it would be made so after its establishment. Hence, if it were then necessary, why was it not so always ? If it was always necessary, where then has been the union heretofore, as there was not always a gene- ral Synod ? Was there no union heretofore ? No one, I hope, will say that there was not. If there was, since when has it become necessary to effect it by a general Synod ? Have not some of the projectors of this plan owned other regular Luthe- rans as united brethren ? Why then is there a plan projected to vmitethe united ? Endeavouring to effect a union, presupposes a schism ! Is there a schism, how came it then that all regu- lar Lutherans have been owned as brethren ? O, were the pre- tensions to brotherhood sincere, the church would soon ap- pear, serene like the unclouded atmosphere, pleasing like pa- radisiacal fields, arrayed in living green, beautiful like love, shining with the sunbeams of heaven, with orient wings ex- panded from pole to pole, whose cementing cords are not * These proposals were printed m the German Lan^uo^, in Baltimore 1819. o uniformity of human ceremonies, nor her rallying point gene- ral Synods, such as established by men ; the place of her na- tivity is the bosom of God ; and has for her abode the circle of creation. But, let me attend to the reasons which are urged for the necessity of a general assembly, which, if only superfi- cially viewed, appear very plausible. They are : " If the Lu- theran church be spread over a vast territory, unnecessary dif- ferences with respect to doctrines and discipline may take place ; therefore a general Synod becomes necessary to main- tain the cords of unity. How, without that, can a body of divines be censured, if they should deviate from sound doc- trine V? The Lutherans have already a standard : the Augs- burgh confession of faith, which is considered scriptural. It is naturally understood that every Synod must act in confor- mity thereto ; and such as depart from it are not considered Lutherans. Such who transgress the rules of doctrine and discipline of the Synods to which they belong, would also dis- regard all the rules of a general Synod, unless such a gene- ral Synod were incorporated by civil authority. Experience proves this. Several other denominations who aie governed by general Synods, have experienced many disagreeable di- visions ; but did we ever hear of schisms among Lutherans, especially before the plan-proposals were projected ? That a general Synod is better calculated to preserve puri- ty in doctrine and discipline than individual bodies, remains yet to be proved. A general assembly is composed of indi- viduals ; now if individuals, as such, are liable to err, will they not be equally liable to err, when they are convened together ■? Can that make them wiser? If a general assembly were not liable to err, as well as individuals, then the cause of the pro- testant church must be wrong, and the victory be yielded to the papists ; because they were styled the general church, who declared the protestants excommunicated. Why do not . such as are of the opinion, that a great majority are not so Ii- to err, return to the Romish church ? But if a general Synod is liable to err, which protestants must own, what purpose can it answer? Such a Synod may err ; and that which may err, may err in rectifying that which may err. What ben- efit can it be to the church, to have an erring general Synod, to rectify individual Synods? Now it must either follow that such a general Synod must be infallible, or else it is to no chris- tian purpose. All the purpose it might answer, would be for a certain class of men to mount upon the horse of popularity. That general councils, or a great majority, have often erred, and the words of our Lord: " Wide is the gate, and broad the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go m thereat/' have often been verified, is evident from history. A few examples may suffice. How many false prophets, for- ming a large majority, were conspired against the prophet Eli- jah ! But were they right ? No. In the days of our Saviour's humiliation, how many were on his side ? A very little flock, chiefly consisting of fishermen, and such as were of the poor- est class. Lo ! the multitude in opposition ; even condemning him to the ignominious death of the -cross ! Who was right? He, like a victorious captain of salvation, rose again, hell trembled beneath his feet, he opened with his cross, as with a key, the emerald gates of the holiest place ; and has since proved, that he is the only king of kings, his words to be infal- lible and his government wise and invincible. Lo ! the pa- pists with their numbers, against a few of the Reformers. Who was right ? Protestauts in general are ready to decide this question in their own behalf. Whenever the government of such an assembly should be recognised, their laws and ceremonies would have to be ob- served on pain of excommunication, as shall be further illus- trated. .Gradually, by this mean, the church would become imitative of civil authority, although our Saviour says, u My kingdom is not of this world," as the Jews vainly imagined, and in which his own disciples sought distinction. It would also prepare the way for a visible head f o be created. This is the very soul of popery, " a visible uniori of all Christians^ centering in a supreme visible head, and allowing no invisible iviihoul a visible unity, the true mark of the Christian church" A general assembly having supreme jurisdiction, is the same as a visible head, if not individually, yet collectively. An hundred delegated to exercise supreme jurisdiction, must be considered as one ; because they must act jointly, or, at least, so by a majority. Now if no union be acknowledged but such as centres in a General Synod, then the papish motto, " No union without a visible head," would become a maxim among Protestants. As soon as there is a tribunal of the church ac- knowledged besides that of Christ, or in his stead, then ancient popery is again recognised, with all its horrors. A Generat Assembly is a supreme tribunal, from \vhich no appeal can be made without a schism. It was by general councils that the 'trst pope became elevated to his superior dignity. Do noL like causes for ever produce like effects ? Did the organi - zation of general councils once create popery? Will the same cause now not have the same effect? G, Protestants! where are any of you that are not struck with indignation, when a venerable chronicler paints to your minds the pope's enormous pretensions ; arrogating to Kin. self the vicegerency of Christ; poisoning all the pure waters of life ; who, being a monster in human &!rape,red with the fires -of he!!, premeditating destru< ticn with nre and sword by the Inquisition ; his flag unfurled , written full of blasphemies, reeking with innocent blood ? How can any of you, who participate in the woes of mankind, lay a similar foundation, which in its nature is calculated to termi- nate in scenes too bloody and horrible to be depicted ? Is un- ion to centre in General Synod ? Are all to be considered schismatics who do not obey their mandates ? How, then, can Christ be the alone object of union ? Is he the most per- fect object offdnion ? how is it possible to make the most per- fect more perfect, by an addition of a General Assembly? If union is also to centre in a General Synod, how, then, can it centre in Christ only? Whosoever is justified by Christ, is also united to him : his soul being impressed with his lovely image, he is in fellowship with all saints and angels in the uni- verse, whether they dwell in any of the regions here below, or in the high climes of bliss. The union of believers, like their king, is invisible — 44 their life being hid with Christ in God { ? it therefore does not matter whether their human ceremonies and modes of government harmonize. All their union which is discoverable, is their uniform obedience to the Lord's com- mandments : but carnal and full of darkness must be the eye that can see no union unless it be in a General Synod. What- soever is necessary to Christian union, is also necessary to justification. Justification through Christ unites all believers, independent of any thing else. How, then, in this case, should conformity in human ceremonies, &c. become necessary ? Would the General Synod not have all their members to ob- serve the laws and ceremonies they would be pleased to make? But in case'some of the members would not observe them, but such as they would make themselves, and ordain ministers and establish synods without their charter; how would the General Synod deal with such? Would they not coerce them to obe- dience, or else finally exclude them from their fellowship? They certainly would ; otherwise the organization of such as. assembly would be useless. Now for what reason ought sam person to be excommunicated from the church? It must be granted, that a person ought only to be excommunicated for such crimes as would debar him from the inheritance of heav- en. But if any one is to be excommunicated for not observ- ing the mandates of the General Synod, then it must also be considered such a crime as would debar one from heaven. If this be the case, they become necessary to Justification, which is repugnant to the scriptural doctrine of the Protestants. Uni- formity of human ceremonies, Sec. and a visible head, were considered necessary among the papists ; and this was the rea- son that the doctrine of free justification and Christian libertv became so darkened and oblivious, that it required the Lord g el Hosts to make bare his holy arm in restoring it, by the in- strumentality of the Reformers, to a benighted world. Should the same (viz. a visible head or General Synod) now be con- sidered necessary, and be adopted, then, alas ! we may put the light kindled in the Reformation under a bushel; we may draw the veil of death over our eyes ; Christian liberty may hide her lovely face, and weep tears of blood ; and O ! fare- well ye happy seats of freedom, where virtue had found an asylum ; farewell thou sweet doctrine of free justification, through the crucified — thou balm of Gilead, thou consolation to the afflicted; hail, horrors and scenes of destruction! ye must be the dreadful companions to mankind. The second article of the plan- proposals shows how each Synod is to be represented in the General Synod — viz : " Each Synod, of six ministers, may send one deputy ; of fourteen, two ; of twenty-five, three ; of forty, four ; of sixty, five ; and of eighty-six, six deputies to the General Synod, from the order of the ministry ; and for every two such depu- ties, one lay deputy ; and also one lay deputy for the Synod consisting of six ministers : and that all such deputies shall have equal votes." This mode of representation will give all the authority into the hands of the ministry : because there are to be two minis- ters for one lay deputy. Lay deputies might as well be alto- gether excluded, since their numbers are not to be commen- surate. The most numerous Synod would also have the great- est influence, which is that of Pennsylvania. Indeed, the very- least is to be represented ; yet the greatest is to claim the pre- eminence. Recognising this article, is at once surrendering the rights and privileges cf the lesser Synods to the greater ones : for if they did not freely acquiesce in their decisions, they would finally be compelled to do it by a majority of votes. Let me state to you, brethren, the consequences of this greater representation against the lesser, in the nature of things, is calculated to produce. The Synod of Pennsylvania, the most numerous, will have it in their power to adopt almost anv resolution ; or they might idrm the constitution of the General Synod to their best local advantage. Who can tell but what a clause might be inserted, that a general Seminary should be established in the very bosom of Pennsylvania ; and that none should be promoted in the ministry unless he had received his education there ? I do not positively say that this would be the case ; nor do I censure the present Synod with such sin- ister motives ; but they have left an open door for their suc- cessors to do so, if they please ; and the weakness of human nature is such, as to be very apt to prostitute power to selfish views. A general Seminary established in that state, would 9 not only cause many sums of money to flow there from tuc various parts of the Union, but it would also fan the fires of the spirit of aggrandizement. The mind of (carnal) man id such as to be delighted in something that makes a grand ap- pearance, and that is denominated by high sounding epithets : such as, " a General Synod;" a General Seminary, in a great City. Such a one has studied there, hence he must be a very great man. When a certain resolution, which was adopted by the Synod of Pennsylvania, (or a majority of them,) is consid- ered, the reader cannot censure me tor entertaining the above ideas. It was resolved by said Synod, in 1815, "That only such can be ordained pastors who have , for the space of three years, received a systematic education with an ordained min- ister, and have made some progress in the languages." See Evangelical Magazine of 1816, page 11. If this resolution was not erroneously committed to paper, it bears symptoms of contracted views. Is there no possibility of acquiring the ne- cessary qualifications for the office of the ministry, without studying three years with an ordained minister? "He must have made some progress in the languages." In which of them ? How vague ! In the German and English, in any other of the modern, or in the classical languages I No doubt but what the latter are intended, yet by no means specified. A wealthy person might afford to pursue this course, notwith- standing he still might remain a coxcomb ; yet, because he has studied three years with an ordained minister, he is entitled to a pastoral ordination : whereas, the most illustrious genius, highly improved, and living in a remote corner, no ordained minister near him, nor having the means to go far abroad, he cannot become a pastor, but must for ever remain contracted in his usefulness ! Why so ? Because he has not studied' three years with an ordained minister ! ! Is t!-'s the spirit of Jesus ? or congenial to that of American patriotism, which is far re- moved from proud, sanguine European nobility, adorning with chaplets only such who distinguish themselves by their quali- fications and merits, no matter how acquired or achieved ? From this view of things, it is safest to use every means of precaution. In this article it is also proposed, u That it should be left to the option of every Synod how to appoint their deputies, and hoxv to defray their travelling expenses." Why are not the travelling expenses to be paid out of the general treasury ? The greatest Synod, with her representation, may appoint the place of the meeting of the General Synod where they please ; hence in their midst, so that their deputies would not have far to travel, therefore not many expenses to defray ; but the id poor frontier deputies, who would have many hundred miles distance to travel, might have the liberty to provide for them- selves in this respect. Into their midst they would have to come, or else obey what would be decreed without their pres- ence. Is it for Pennsylvania to sway her regal sceptre over her sister states, with her major representation ? Is she alone the temple of the Lord ? She, indeed, has many pious, learned men, highly esteemed, who are an ornament to the church ; but she must know that other states are not void of such, who know how to estimate their spiritual liberty ; who, whilst they are animated with freedom's blood, will not, as men and Chris- tians, surrender their privileges to a superior representation. The fourth article of this plan-proposal says, that "The General Synod, with the concurrence of a majority of particu- lar Synods, have exclusive authority to introduce new books for the public use in churches, as well as to make amendments in the Liturgy ; but until that is done, the hymn books or com- pilation of hymns, the smaller cate chism of Luther, the litur- gies already adopted, and such ether books which are now received by the present Synods as symbolical, shall remain in public use ;, but the General Synod shall have no authority to make, or to request, any alteration in any of the Creeds hith- erto adopted by us." This article, if recognised, would take away the liberty of individuals and individual Synods, with respect to the forming and introducing of books and liturgies for the public use in churches. A liturgy prescribes ceremo- nies and regulations for public worship, and other transactions. Many of these are merely human, relative to local circumstan- ces. Now if none shall have the privilege to prescribe a lit- urgy but only the General Synod, and none to be considered as members of the church unless they be governed by it, then it would be the same as to say, Observe uniform ceremonies as established by men, or else no union \ The term u exclusive," sufficiently demonstrates this ; because it is thereby indicated, that such authority is claimed by the General Synod only. It would then be in the power of the General Synod to introduce entire new books, and such, too, which even did not contain the Lutheran doctrine. It is not said that the present books, such as Luther's catechism, &c. should remain the standard books ; but that thev should be retained in use until — " Unfit" when? Until the General Svnod shall introduce new books. The term u until," shows that our present symbolical books may only be of a temporary use. Would they reject Luth er's catechism, cur present liturgies, hymns, and the Aug'sburgh confession of faith, and introduce others in lieu of them ? I do not know. But they would have exclusive authority to do so 11 if they pleased. Had the projectors of this plan positively in- tended that our present creeds and symbolical books should always be retained in use, why was there not a clause inserted to that amount ? It is true that this article states, f h that the General Synod shall have no authority to make any alterations in any of the creeds hitherto adopted by us." But how in- definite ! No alteration is to be made in any of our creeds ; Our creeds can every one of them be omitted and rejected, if only they be not altered. To alter a creed, and to omit a creed, are two different things. They would need no altera- tion if they were rejected. Why is this article not expressed in positive terms, that no creed hitherto adopted by us, should neither be omitted, rejected, or altered? Agreeably to this, Luther's catechism, and the Augsburgh confession of faith, might be omitted without a breach of the article. Brethren, where are any of you who have not solemnly vowed obedience to their doctrines, when ye were confirmed, by the imposition of hands and prayer ? Are they not invaluable treasures of God, bequeathed to our forefathers when they were liberated from the chains of popery ? They are testimonies of the Hoi} Ghost in the house of God, and the heavenly productions of th Reformation. What a criminal sacrilege it would be to effect their destruction ! They, indeed, have derived their va- lidity and divine glory from the holy scriptures, which ought to be the foundation of all churches, with respect to doctrine and discipline. The Bible is not once mentioned in the plan- posals for a General Synod ! All that is said, is, that none of our creeds should be altered i Thus the Bible itself might be omitted, if it only be not altered; and without restraint, any system of infidelity might be established. Although I am confident that none of the projectors aim at such a thing — and perhaps they detest the very idea — yet I consider it my duty to lay before them their inattention in this respect. But these are not the greatest objections I have against this article. It is subversive to the liberty guaranteed to all Lutherans, by the 7th article of the Augsburgh confession of faith ; which ex- pressly saith, M It is sufficient for the true unity of the Chris- tian Church, that the preaching be pure, according to the true understanding of the Gospel, and the sacraments administered according to divine Scripture ; and it is not necessary for the true unity of the Christian Church, that the same ceremonies as established by men should be observed, as St. Paul sait^v, Eph. 4, "One body, one spirit, as ye all are called to the sanie hope cf your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism.'' L is to be observed, that the Reformers were opposed to the principles of the papists, who had obscured the doctrine qf frer- 12 justification through Christ by their human traditions. They imposed all their uniform ceremonies and traditions upon the church, as necessary to christian unity. Now the Reformers knew that this was contrary to the doctrine of free justifica- tion ; hence this 7th article was wisely inserted, declaring that it was not necessary to the true unity of the church that the same ceremonies as established by men should be observed. The pure preaching of the Gospel, and the proper administra- tion of the sacraments, become justly necessary, because they are no human inventions, but positive institutions of Jesus Christ. Human ceremonies, in their proper place, are not sinful; but they become so whenever they are imposed as necessary to unity. Neither was circumcision sinful in itself; but when it was urged as necessary to salvation, the Apostle does not hesitate to pronounce such in a lost state that were circumcised. But this article of the plan-proposal allows ex- clusive authority to the General Synod to impose a uniform liturgy, catechism, &c. upon the whole connexion : Her man- dates are to be obeyed; and thus uniformity of human cere- monies are made necessary to christian unity, contrary to the 7th article of the Augsburgh confession of faith. O, Lutheran ministers ! such of you who are the votaries of this General Synod plan, what must your conscience tell you, when ye re- call to your minds the days of your ordinations, when ye sol- emnly swore to maintain the very article your plan is calcu- lated to subvert ? In vain you inurn Luther, and shelter your- selves under the sacred covert of his name ; in vain you deem it an honor to claim kindred with him, who was the Orpheus of Germany, the hero of the Gospel, and the terror to popery, unless ye continue to be animated with his spirit. In the 5th article of their plan, it is proposed, " That no Synod should be established without a charter from the Gen- eral Synod ; and that no ordination should be considered as valid, that was imparted by a Synod not chartered by the Gen- eral Synod." At present, and as the church has heretofore been governed, a charter from a General Synod was never considered necessary to the establishment of a Synod. There is no Lutheran Synod in the United States which has been chartered by a General Synod ; and, I dare venture to say, none in Europe. The first Lutheran churches were establish- ed without it. Did the Roman Catholic church, who were the majority, give Luther and his adherents charters? No> Instead of that, they excommunicated them, and declared all the ordinations they imparted, as invalid. Notwithstanding, all such protestant ordinations which came through the apostol- ical channel, if even performed by individuals, are by thcrr generally considered to be divinely valid. We have not only a precedent in the pristine church, with respect to this, but also the warrants of the holy Scriptures. The inauguration of Christ as a High Priest, by John the Baptist, in Jordan, whilst the impenetrable doors of heaven opened ; whilst the Father spake ineffably mild, and the Holy Ghost, that celestial dove, anointed him with the oil of gladness, above his fellows : Without a charter from the Sanhedrim of the Jews, his office maintains its validity for ever and ever. The commission oar Saviour gave to his Apostles, though not ratified by a General Synod of men, is still valid ; and the individual ordinations they imparted will for ever remain authoritative, and their min- isterial succession will reach the very gates of New Jerusalem. It is an undeniable fact, that the ordinations which are in ex- istence among protestants, have been derived from individual sources; yet their validity is not questioned. Now whereas, such ordinations have always been admitted to be valid, since when have they lost their validity ? Should they always have been valid, until Trinity week of 1819, when a committee in the great city of Baltimore proposed, that no ordination should be considered valid unless imparted by a chartered Synod 1 If a charter from a General Synod becomes necessary hereaf- ter to make an ordination valid, why was it not always so here- tofore ? There is no such ordination among us now ; hence, if this is to become a maxim, that none shall be valid unless imparted by a chartered Synod, we will at once cause the world to believe that there is not a single protestant minister legally ordained, and that they were all a horde of impostors \ The aforesaid article proposes to pronounce all unchartered Synods which may be established hereafter, to be illegal. No Lutheran Synod being chartered, how then can any one, or more than one when they compose a General Synod, give charters I Jejune must be the idea, and grotesque the preten- sion, for unchartered Synods in a conclave to pronounce other Synods illegal, merely because they are not chartered ! Un- chartered Synods give charters ! Lo ! what an exotic plant is this ! at first germinated in hell, fostered by the old harlot in the garden of Rome ; poisoning all that is pure, and destroy- ing all that is lovely ; metamorphosed into a maniac demon, in the disguise of religion, is now proposed to be transplanted into the clarified soil of Lutheranism, which fills the agile mind with anticipated horrors of popery revived, even upon the unsullied shores of America. Could there be a better weapon given to the papists, to overturn the protestant cause, than what the projectors of the aforesaid article have done ? One of the peculiar diabolical depths of popery is. that that no thurch can be regular, no ordination valid, unless chartered by 3he Roman Catholic ; and upon this ground she fulminates her anathemas against all protestants. Is not what is proposed in the aforesaid article similar in its nature, when no ordination shall be considered valid, unless imparted by a Synod char- tered by the General Synod ? Let this become a maxim among the protestants, may the papists not justly argue, that they alone are a regular church, and the protestants to be schis- inades, not being chartered by the church universal ? How would it be possible for protestants, upon this supposition, to support themselves as a regular church ? It would be out of the question: they must be silent for ever; surrender their in- dependency ; offer their hecatombs upon the altar of idols ; and, like pusillanimous deserters, on bended knees, at the footstool of Rome, implore her majesty for charters, lest, by their own concessions, they lose their ecclesiastical existence. The 7th article of the plan-proposal says, u That the General Synod, with the concurrence of a majority of particular Synods, shall have the authority to determine general valid grades in the. ministry." This article is no where restricted how far they would be allowed to go in this respect. Whether fewer grades than are among us now would be determined, or whether their numbers would be increased, is not known ; yet this article allows them to form as many as they please. Who can tell but what there might be as many formed as there are in all popedom — or even enthrone a pope for America; There are four grades of ministers already existing, should there none more be formed ; yet, if the General Synod be formed with their officers, there would be a hierarchy replete. There would be the president and delegates of the General Synod - T the presidents of individual Synods, with the four grades already mentioned j thus the number, seven, would be full. The whore of Rome rides upon seven mountains, and the beast h;*s seven horns : And what a lair opportunity is of- fered* by this article, to introduce the mystic seven of iniquity >mo me Lutheran church. Who can deny hut what many grades in the ministry is one of the peculiar lifestrings of po- pery, and one of the lineaments of its image ? and ail that is wanting, is the breath of l?fe to be blown into its nostrils, for it to become a living beast, which may gore all the other beasts of the; field. Lo ! the gorgeous President of the General Sy- nod, at the head of all Lutherans in America ; enthroned, a sceptred monarch, gloomy, and peculiar, and unrivaled ; for- getting that his predecessor Martin was a poor excommuni- cated monk : he has delegates for his life-guard, presidents hi:» ••'srsss.ncs,, pastors his common people, deacons hi? servants*, 15 candidates and catechets his out-posts, and congregations his footstool. What may be the reason that fair, independent Lutheranism, the puissant arm, nerved by the Lord, to pull down the Dagon walls of seven-headed popery, should now itself, even where freedom's emblazoned flag unfurled waves in mild aurora's beams, be suborned into a seven-headed mon- ster ! If Luther was now to rise from his grave, and come to America, what would he say at hearing that those who called themselves after his name, had opened so wide a door for the establishment of many grades in the ministry ? Would he own them as protestant brethren ? Having thus briefly viewed some of the articles of the pro- posals for a General Synod of the Lutheran Church, I must yet observe, that the design of some does not stop here. The establishment of a national church is in view ; not only by some of the Lutherans, but also of other denominations. The most sanguine expectations are entertained that all Christian denominations will, ere long, join in one body. That such is the case, does not only appear from many verbal expressions, but also from printed propositions, of which, if necessary, I could produce a sullicient testimony. The attempt for a na- tional Synod is introduced under the garb of a universal broth- erhood among ail christians, and to hasten the period when they shall have but one shepherd, and be one flock. Now it is supposed by many, that this period being nearly at hand, nothing is wanting to form the zenith of unity but an agree- ment to be governed by a national assembly, to lay aside all party distinctions, and to drop controversial subjects of doc- trine for ever. This, then, would be the blessed Millennium; predicted by the holy scriptures. Such are the visional*}* dreams of many in our days ; hence the labor with assiduity to promote this cause ; and being the heralds of the destruc- tion of party walls, they anticipate in sharing great honors m this new dispensation. But let me examine these things <\ lit- tle closer. The scriptures certainly predict a very harmoni- ous time, which shall commence before heaven and earth shall blaze in the final conflagration, a period whose duration shall be a thousand years ; the jubilant sabbath of the world, ush- ered in by ten thousand myriads of bright Urim, and the rushing sound of the chariot of paternal 'Deity, shining from the east even unto the west ; reigning in his meridian elory, whose ensign, dipped in his divine blood, is planted on ZionV, hill, whereunto the nations shall assemble. But before such a charming union can take place; before such imparadised be- atitude can embrace the human family, all must become of one heart and mind, and be like instrumental harmony- To wake 16 the different denominations must be a vain undertaking, before they believe uniform doctrines. Differences in doctrine at first caused them to be separate people ; hence the effects will nev- er cease, until the cause be stopped. As soon as all believe one doctrine, then the cause of division ceases ; union then, without any further exertions, will be the infallible result. Nevertheless, the votaries of the National Synod, bent upon their designs, declare that disputed doctrines, such as divide the different christian denominations, should be dropped. Con- troversial sermons are even deemed by many to be sinful, be- cause they have a tendency to offend some, at least such who cannot support their rotten systems by sound arguments. What language is more current among people at this time, in- dicative of ignorance and lukewarmness, than the following ? viz : " It does not matter what or how one believes, if the heart only means it well; whatever any one thinks to be right, is right, (at least to him.) * u Let every man be fully persua- ded in his oxvn mind." What an encouragement to lukewarm- ness ! What is the heart of man, that any one can plead its meaning well in a state of error? It is treacherously wicked, and a fool only depends upon it. The understanding must be illuminated, so as to embrace nothing but the truth, before the soul can fully enjoy God. Our blessed Lord saith, " He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water" John vn. 38. Not he that be- lieveth any way, only meaning it well, but "he that belitveth as the scripture hath said" &c. The human soul does not only possess a will to mean well, but also an understanding to view the beauties of divine truths. Is*it rational that the will only, the half of the soul, should be devoted to the service of God? A divided soul ! how can that be well pleasing to him ? The understanding, that noble faculty, by which the soul claims kindred with angels, and walks the planetary regions, is it pos- sible that it should be excluded from the enjoyment of genu- ine knowledge, and leave all to the well-meaning of the will ? Was Christ indifferent concerning the truth? Did he leave it * " Let every man be fall - persuaded in his own mind'* Rom. 14, v. 5. This verse is shamefully perverted by some, who imagine whatever any man be- lieves to be right, is right to him, if it should be ever so wrong" ; because, let t"uery man be persuaded in his own mind. But the Apostle, in the preceding- part of the verse, only saith, " One man esteemeth one day above another an- other esteemrth every day alike" And then he saith, " J*et every man be ftdlr persnaded" &c. If this were true, that whatsoever any one believed to be right, that it then would be right, it would not have been necessary for the ho- ly Scriptures to be revealed, because every one might have followed his own imagination, and be right, lie might be a murderer, thief, &.c. and be right, because he believed it to be right ; therefore it would be right to him. MOfit shocking conclusion ! if to the well-meaning of the Pharisees, and the common popu- lace ? No : His life was devoted to it ; he did not only die as a sacrifice, but also as a martyr, for the sake of the truth, when he witnessed a good confession before Pontius Pilate. Does it now become those who are called his servants, to be silent upon points of doctrine, when there is nothing upon divine record which is a matter of indifference — '■treacherously to cry put peace, peace, when there is no peace, and to please all denominations, so that a general peace, a National Synod, might be the result ? It is evident, that the different creeds of the several denominations cannot all be scriptural : there must be heresies among some of them ; because they clash, even in matters of importance. Their doctrines are to be known by their books of confession and discipline ; and their ministers are commonly pledged to them, as by an oath, when ordained. Jtfow it is impossible for any of them to preach so as to please all denominations, without disguising and omitting some of his sentiments. To do so, would it not be breaking the most sol- emn vows, made through ordination ? All would have to drop disputed points, before all could be united: if so, there would be a union formed of persons with broken vows ! It then would become necessary that every minister should learn to believe his own creed, and every opposite one, before he could become a feather of this variegated halcyon. He must pos- sess the art of pleasing all, a conscience pliable to every creed, and alive to every touch of interest. He must be a Lutheran, a Presbyterian, an Episcopalian, an Independent, a Methodist, a Baptist, a Roman Catholic, a Quaker, a Mennonite, a Sha- king Quaker, a Moravian, a Universalian, a Republican and a Royalist, a Tattler and a Free Mason, a Jew, a Mahometan, a Pagan, and an Infidel ! Lo I a divided union — a united di- vision ! A connexion neither cold nor hot : not cold nor in different with respect to temporal interest, nor the love of fame ; nor hot in charity, nor zealous in maintaining the pe- culiar doctrines of Christ. Here the coldness on the one hand, and the hotness on the other, mixed together, will form such a climate that all manner of amphibious animals may live in its waters, even those of the dark nether regions may live in them without freezing. Such a national Synod might draw the cords of ministers closer together, make their temporal interests common, in- crease their influence, magnify their grandeur, and, by degrees, be established by civil authority. There have been too many of the clergy, (especially of the Eastern aud Northern states,) complaining and railing against our government for not estab- lishing the church by civil authority, giving them their annual 13 sjtipehcjs by taxation* Lo! what numbers of clandestine wor - shippers of monarchy and of law regulated or political religion, who afe dissatisfied with the liberties the common and poor people enjoy. They are enamoured witfi the grandeur of the monarchs of Europe, like the children of Israel in the days of Samuel were with those of the surrounding heathens. Many are not satisfied that they enjoy citizenship, free protection in their cause, and have every opportunity to manifest their use- fulness ; whereas their predecessors, the Apostles, were con tinually persecuted, exposed to peril and death : but they cannot rest until they be secular princes— until a gorgeous king be enthroned — until orders of knighthoods and nobilities be created for America. Our civil constitution, the best pro- duction of the kind the world ever saw, with outspread wings, equally protecting the rich and the poor, and is the citadel of our sacred temple of liberty, reared in our wide extended Un ion, whose spires meet the clouds— she, as if wisely inspired, knows what tends to our national salvation : she prohibits the clergy from getting temporal authority. It was the clergy in most ages of the world, though I mean the corrupted only, who were the cause of many bloody persecutions, whenever they possessed sufficient power. Notwithstanding the several importunate petitions for established churches, America, since her independency, never suffered the clergy to grasp her em- pyrean sceptre of freedom, and whose shores have not been *_>ntaminated with the blood of martyrs. Since, all direct; means to the establishment of political religion have proved abortive ; but now, Americans open your eyes ! another policy, under the cloak of a brotherhood, is at work ; a National Sy- nod is in view ! A majority of all the clergy, of all denomi- nations, with their good reputation, their wealth, their learn- ing, centred in a National Synod, their influence in society would be unparalleled. All they need is a general under - standing, a common interest, with amalgamated influence, to suborn the populace to send such representatives to Congress subsidiary to their long premeditated scheme ; the Constitu- tion might then be rejected, America enslaved, the bloody flag of persecution hoisted- — and they, like temporal lords, reigning in the plenitude of power. The clergy in Europe, a" an early day, were humble servants of Christ; but how scon,, when they drew their cords close together, whole countric; were overwhelmed in one promiscuous ruin, and drenched with blood I O, America, thou sceptred queen of the world, thou patroness of liberty, look to ruined Europe, and tzk warning! O, free born Americans, be watchful over our blessed constitution., lest it may be undermined before ye aware of it. It is not enough that we have it — we must als^ preserve it. Happy will it be for America, if the different denominations remain externally divided, whilst the union of all believers remains of a more invisible nature. Blessed will her climes be, as long as their temporal interests clash ; peace- ably will her citizens dwell under the fruitful boughs of her towering tree of liberty, whilst the clergy are not supported bv civil authority ; whilst they are maintained by the gratitude of their people, and venerated as the meritorious messengers of the most High. O, Americans ! the best means of preserving our liberty, is to cultivate the holy religion of Jesus, which is full of truth, justice and mercy. Infuse its principles into the minds of the- rising generation ; then our extensive empire may blossom like the rose — produce new heroic Washingtons and philo- sophic Jelfersons ; ages upon ages will unfold new splendors ; whilst bloody tyrants cause Europe to groan under oppression, with countries desolated, with fields smoking with human blood and gore, with cities wrapt in fire, and incessant woes filling the breasts of crying widows and orphans — ?a sight at which heaven bleeds and angels drop tears of sympathv. Vice debases a nation, and is the introduction of all the concomitant miseries. Where are now the nations and empires of ancient renown? Where the Assyrian, the Macedonian, the Grecian, the Roman — : once so celebrated among mankind, at whose voice the surrounding nations trembled? Alas! are they not precipitated from the clouds of heaven to the abyss of eternal shame and misery, where the ghosts of departed empires stalk about in sad lamentation of their former glory ! Their deso- lation and ruin followed their departure from the path of duty, virtue and honor | Americans ! I cannot conclude without alarming you a little more, that our liberty is endangered. Behold, how many dupes there are— duped by the worldly minded into their sec- ular designs. What numbers have become so lukewarm in their political as well as religious principles, that it becomes a matter of indifference for whom they vote as our represenia uves on the days of our election. This is the idle song of many : " It matters not what manner of politics one has imbi- fedy xvhetker of this or thai, if he only means it well,; if he can pTectie us imth his s?niles,his neighborly turns shortly before the day of election, or even zuith a boxvl of grog, he shall have our suJragcP O, what a shame for free-born Americans to be ike Esau, to sell their birthright for a trifle ; to despise so in- valuable a legacy of fcod, our liberty, costing the blood of many of our forefathers ! B«!t it seems trial liberty ^an auly 20 be enjoyed by a wise and virtuous people ; but dupes ami asses cannot live without tyrannical masters ! I add no more, lest I should appear too political for a man in my office. However, I claim no more than citizenship, and the freedom of speech. The humble servant of the reader. Of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of North- Carolina, and adjacent State?, held at Buffaloe-creek Church, in Cabarrus county, Trinity, A. D. 1819, The ministers and deputies from North-Carolina, &c. met, according to the constitution of the Synod, (see Luther, article of the constitution 2d, page 153,) at BurTaloe-creek Church, on Sunday the 6th of June, 1819. The following members of the Syno*d met : the Rev. Philip Henkel, from Tennessee, and the Kev. Daniel Moser, from Lincoln county, N. C. ordained ministers ; the Rev. David Henkel, from Lincoln county, N. C. and the Rev. Joseph E. Bell, from Tennessee, consecrated candidates ; Frederick Hoke, Esq. St. John's Church, Daniel Lutz, Esq. and Pete; Hoyle, Esq. School-house Church, Messrs. Jacob Forney, "White Haven, Isaac Mauney, Long-creek, George Howis ami Adam Kloninger, Philadelphia Church, deputies ; Mr. David Thronberg also took a seat among us, as a private friend — all from Lincoln county, N. C. The president of the last Synod, which was held in 1817, did not attend to his duty, (see Luther, page 155, article 9th constitution.) It was said that the Rev. C. Storck was very sick, at the distance of about two miles from the church ; but hoping that his sickress was not unto death, we addressed to him the following letter, and sent it by Peter Hoyle, Esq. and Mr. Ritchie; but when they arrived at the house, he was gone. They pursued, and overtook him going home, and Sanded him this letter : Bvjfahfi-crcek Meeting-house, Cabarrus Co, N. C, 1 Trinity Sunday, June 6th, 1819. J Rev. sir : We, your brothers in Christ, are met at this time and place, according to the constitution and discipline of the Lutheran Synod of N. Carolina, and adjacent states, in order to Hold a Synod j but, to our great mortification, no sacra- meat was appointed by you, the president, according to thfe constitution of said Synod. We request you to attend, as prescribed by rule. We are strangers, far from home ; and according to the constitution and discipline, we design open- ing Synod. If you will not attend, we must proceed without you ; but we pray you to attend, for the sake of the blessed Jesus and his church. We will wait for you till to-morrow 9 o'clock, A. M. Signed by all the ministers and deputies. Peter Hoyle, Esq. and Mr. Ritchie, returned to us the fol- lowing written statement ; a true copy of this was delivered to said Storch, and his answer was — "I am indisposed ; and if I were not indisposed, I would not attend ; for conference is over, and there is none now depending !" He further or- dered his elders not to open the doors, and thereby prevent a Synod from being assembled. Signed, Peter Hoyle, and I. Ritchie. We then sought, amongst strangers, an asylum for the even- ing, which, thank God, we easily procured. Monday, Jane 7th. — The ministers and deputies ail assem- bled, as the day before, at the church ; and about 9 o'clock. A. M. a number of persons met to hear preaching. The doors being opened, the Rev, J. E. Bell spoke from 1. Co- rinthians, c. 10, v. 15 ; and the Rev. David Henkel addressed the audience upon the subject of Antichrist. After preach- ing, we retired to the shade of the trees, near the church, where, with singing and praying, we opened Synod. The Rev. Philip Henkel was elected President of the Synod, and J. E. Bell Secretary and Treasurer. The following petitions were read, viz : 1. Petition from four congregations in Tennessee, praying that their minister, J, E. Bell, might be advanced to the highest order of the min- istry. 2. Petitions from Granger and Hawkins counties, Ten. prating for ministerial labors in their neighborhood, stating a wish to be supplied by our Synod. 3. Petition from School - house church, jLincoln county, in favor of David Henkel's ad- vancement, and remonstrating against a harsh and illegal de- cision against said Henkel, at a former illegal meeting, and declaring a final separation if not attended to. 4. Petition from St. John's Church, in substance the same as the 3d. 5. Petition from Philadelphia Church, stating how unfair and unlawful means had been taken to degrade the Rev. David Henkel, at a former illegal assembly ; and in other respects the same in substance as the 3d and 4th. 6. Letters from the Hevi Adam Miller and Jacob Zink, were read, excusing thtiy absence from this Synod. 7, All the deputies produced cer- tificates of their election, antl being in full communion with our church, were entitled to a seat and vote. They ail pray- ed, unanimously, that the Rev. David Henkel btr advanced ; stating that he was a zealous preacher of the gospel, a good citizen, and a moral and a well informed man ; and that all the complaints heretofore laid against him, were founded :n prejudice, to the best of their knowledge and belief. 8. Ac- cording to the constitution, the Rev. Joseph E. Bell and the Rev. David Henkel produced their theological treatises, which were highly approved. Then said Bell and Henkel were, by the laying on of hands, and prayer, ordained Bishops (com- monly called pastors) of the Christian Church, and received their credentials for the same. 9. The constitution of Union Seminary, in Greene county, Ten. is to be laid before the Rev. Paul Henkel and the Rev. Robert J, Miller, and if they ap- prove the same, it shall be the constitution of the same, and the money collected for it shall be given to it. 10. The Rev. Philip Henkel, sr J. E. Beil, or both, will visit the petitioners In Granger and Hawkins counties as often as possible, until the next Synod. 11. The ministers reported that they had baptised and confirmed since the last Synod, as follows : Philip Henkel David Henkel Joseph E. Bell Adam Miller 12. The Sync members, requesting them to conform, for the future, to the constitution of the church. 13. The Treasurer is ordered and authorised to have the reports of this Synod printed, and to pay for the same out of the money now in his hands, provided said money is sufficient to do the same. The Synod was dismissed with prayer. JOS, E. BELL, Secretary. Answer to t;.c Petitions in favor of David JTenfccl. Trinity Sunday^and Monday 1 folio-wing, A. D. 1 8 1 9. j The constitutional Synod, held at Buffaloe-creek Church, Cabarrus county, N. C. took into consideration the case of the Rev. David Henkel and his congregations : First, the decis- ions against said David Henkel were transacted at a time not according to rule— see Luther, page 153, nsrticle 2d, page 1 J6, article 13th — therefore, must be void: Secondly, the above petitions recommending said David Henkel as a 3-ealou? Infants. Adults. Slaves. Confirmed. Buried, - 137 191 105 8 - 383 49 38 135 11 - 105 27 ' 1 147 - 146 10 regrets the inexcusable absence of so many S3 preacher, of good moral behavior, a good neighbor, &c. and nothing appearing to the contrary at the Synod, and as the time and place of the Synod were sufficiently published, we consider it our duty to advance said D. Henkel to the grade of a Pastor, in conformity to the statement in Luther, p. 175. He and the Rev. Joseph E. Bell were ordained by a unani- mous vote of the Synod. PHILIP HENKEL, Prudent. ' Ji SHORT DEFENCE LX MY OU~J\* CASE, Whereas several charges were exhibited against me at the • extempore meeting in April,* 1819, which were then tried-, and the decision published in the minutes of April ; and as many persons are ignorant as to the nature of the case, the following statement relative thereto is made : The meeting in April was not a lawful Synod, not being, convened on a legal time; hence the decisions against me could not be binding on me longer than till the following legaf. Synod, which was held in June. It is true there has been a rule, adopted in 1817, which authorises the President, with the advice of two ministers, during vacancy, to silence any one until the next Synod — see Luther, page 164. Now had the:: conviction led them to believe me guilty of the aforesaid char- ges, they might have silenced me, agreeably to this rule, until the next Synod ; but it is to he observed, that they did not s : lence me. Two days after the trial, they gave me a license extending to the next Synod. The following is a true copy and translation of said license : " Nomine Jesu. This is to certify, that Mr, David HenVel has been examined agreeably to the order of the Evangelical Lutheran Ministerial Assembly of the state of North-Caro- lina, and adjacent states, with respect to his knowledge of the Evangelical doctrine, and the requisite qualifications to bear* the office of an evangelical teaches ; in consequence thereof, he is hereby authorised to preach publicly, to catechise, and to baptise, in the congregations of Lincoln county, and in all other vacant congregations of the evangelical church, wherever it may justly be requested, until the next conference. Testified * Said meeting in April was composed of the Rev. C. Storck, Robert J. Milter, Jacob Shercr, Godfrey Drt-hcr, and G. Shober, ordained minister*; also of Daniel Moser and Michael Roach, who were then ordained: to^eiLc: v*Hl> a few candidate.?. &<§ 24 by us, the officers of said conference, with the signatures of our names, and the ministerial seal affixed, this 30th April. 1819. CHARLES STORCK. [l. s.] G. Shober, Sec*y. The original of this license I yet have in my possession. From it, it is evident that they fully acquitted me of every charge, or at least they acquitted me of all criminality. The li- cense says that they had examined me, and found me to possess the requisite qualifications to bear the office of the ministry, and in consequence thereof authorised. Moreover, they also offered me a letter of recommendation — see minutes of the April meeting, page 12, sec. 21. Notwithstanding, I am pub- lished in said minutes as having acted rash, &c. Yet, for all that, it seems I was qualified for the ministry, and entitled to a letter of recommendation. From this the reader may learn, that the meeting of April did not deem the charges alleged against me so criminal as to silence me ; otherwise they would., or ought to have done so. Being thus declared, in the afore said license, to possess the requisite qualifications for the min- * istry, and a letter of recommendation proposed to be given me by the ministers who composed the April meeting, hence there was nothing to prevent my ordination by the legal Synod in June following. But I am blamed for not applying to Mr. Storck, at the ex piration of six months, for a candidate license, &c. I answer, that I had no need to apply for any, when I was legally of- dained a pastor on Trinity. The license I received from them only extended to the next conference, (or Synod,) which ap- pears from its contents, although their minutes say for six months, see page 12 $ or that they had thus resolved that m\ license should extend six months. Here is a contradiction. Agreeably to which should I have acted? Agreeably to the license which only extended to the next Synod, or agreeably to the minutes, which say that it extends for six months? It is evident that I could not have acted agreeably to both. Mr. Shober is, perhaps, ready to plead errors ; but who is to know which he means to be an error — the license he signed, or the minutes he had printed? What makes this case still more doubtful, is, that he has since declared, in his minutes of 1820, " that I received a license as catechet for one year," see pagt 5. Thus he gives three different statements of my license : 1st, in the minutes of April, " for six months 2d, in the li- cense itself, u until the next conference and 3d, in his last minutes, u for one year/' But whereas, a catechet or candi- date has no other authority to show for his administrations bu: opty his license — ^vhc c?*n blame me for having acted agreea- 25 bly to my license. My license only extended to the next Sy- nod : the next Synod was held on Trinity following. Now had I acted as a catechet after my license had expired, I would have acted for some length of time without any authority. It was therefore necessary for me to be authorised anew, in some manner, at the legal Synod on Trinity, or else to have acted for a while without authority. What man of common sense can blame me for not acting without authority ? The mem- bers of the April meeting unanimously agreed, that the decis- ions of a call-Synod should remain valid until the succeeding Synod. The following are the words of their resolution, ex- tracted from their minutes. This resolution was formed at the very commencement of their session. Their minutes say, page 5, sec. 2, " It was further unanimously acceded to, that our reverend president, with the consent of two or three or- dained ministers residing in his vicinity, is authorised to call a Synod, and to make other orders and regulations which will not admit of delay, and which should be valid until the suc- ceeding meeting of the Synod." Now the license they gave me was exactly in conformity to this resolution, viz : to be valid until the succeeding Synod. I acted agreeably to my license and this resolution, by them unanimously adopted. But it is a great pity that they did not act agreeably to this their own resolution themselves. The April meeting was only a call-Synod — but Trinity a legal one. Instead that they, agree- ably to their own resolution, should have owned their transac- tions to be valid until the succeeding meeting of the Synod, they endeavored to enforce their decisions upon the church as synodical and lawful, for a longer term than to the meeting of the next Synod, in open violation to the constitution, and con- trary to their own resolution. None of them, except the Rev. D. Moser, ever showed themselves at the legal Synod on Trin- ity, to give a legal account of their transactions. The most of the charges exhibited against me in April, were since published in the papers ; hence, for the satisfaction of my congregations, and other friends, a committee of investi- gation were appointed to examine said charges. They formed answers to every charge. The following is the verdict of said committee, extracted from their report : " We, the subscribers, constituting a committee, being jointly assembled from our several congregations, in Lincolnton, in order to investigate the charges alleged against the Rev. David Henkel ; and after examining respectable witnesses, who have accurate knowledge of these things, we Report, that it would be no interest nor credit to us to uphold a wicked man; but as long as we find 26 no greater fault with Mr. D. Henkel than hitherto, we can b)f no means think of dismissing him as our pastor. We are sat- isfied. With respect to the censure in the publication against the Rev. Paul Henkel, David's father, we reply, Where is the parent that would not inquire into the affair of his child when evil reports are exhibited ? And would not any parent rejoice to find such reports contradicted in the very neighborhood where they were first exhibited ? The Rev. Paul Henkel was 30 informed by persons of credit. But we cannot add much to the general reputation of Paul Henkel by our vindication, as his standing in society and merits are too well known, for a great number of years, in many parts of our Union."" Jacob Forney, Henry Rudisail, junior, John D. Abernathy^ Peter Stamy, Jacob Cloninger, Jacob Aderhold, Isaac Mauney, Jacob Plonk, John Dotters, George Seller, Peter Hoke, David Thronbergh, John Smith, Christopher Siegman, Adam Keiser. Lincclnton, N. C. July 18th, 1820. " We, the subscribers, constituting select councils for the purpose of examining the report of the committee of investi- gation, who had met in Lincolnton cn the 18th of July, for the purpose of investigating the charges exhibited against the Rev. jDavid Henkel, declare, that we have examined said report, and do highly approve the same. And from the just respec- tability we entertain of the persons who constituted said com- mittee, we have no doubt but they examined all the charges impartially, agreeably to the testimonies of respectable wit- nesses. We acquiesce in their verdict* It is also our opin- ion, that there are no just grounds why the Rev. David Henkel should not be respected as a worthy pastor of the church. All the charges exhibited against him have not in the least les* sened his good reputation, in our view." Abraham Forney, Philip Young, M, B. Garner, Michael Cloninger, John Leinberger, Frederick Kilion, John SiiFord, Andrew Derr, Gottlieb Helderman, Moses Abernathy, Alex. M'Corkle, Wm. Rader, Jacob Keener, Jacob Summit, of Leb- anon, July 23d, 1820 ; John Abernathy, Wm. Robinson, Peter Edleman, Alexander Reid, Christian Heaker, John V. Can- non, William Eeal, Wm. Hager, Miles D. Abernathy, of White Haven, July 30th, 1820 ; George Howis, Lewis Clem- mer, Frederick Howis, David Cloninger, Michael Rein, Lewis Thronberg, Jonathan Thronberg, Christian Best, Jacob Best, Lewis Leinberger, Frederick Leinberger, sen. of Philadelphia, August. 6th, 1820 ; John Moeney, John Boehm, Frederick Carpenter, of Beaver-Dam, August 16th, 1820 ; Daniel Grose, Anthony Shitel, Adam Segel, Peter Michael, Peter Vhm, 9 Peter Sane, Baniel Lutz, Esq. John Rudeseel, Jacob Haas*,. Samuel Yount, Jacob Probst, Jacob Heinhart, Daniel Segef, Daniel Michael, Henry Hoke, John Segel, of School-House., August 19th, 1820} Peter Little, Esq. George Smith, Joseph Isenhower, Henry Stein, Christian Sammet, Philip Hetrick, Daniel Bowman, Henry Yount, John Isenhower, sen. John Stein, sen. John Miller, Henry Gross, John Moser, Henry Dejenhart, Daniel Hoke, Anthony Moose, Lewis Haler, juuv Frederick Hoke, Esq. of St. John's, August 14th, 1820. I must observe, that it is my private opinion that my accu- ser would not have gone to the extent he did in opposing me, had he not been wrongly informed in several instances, and had tilings not been misrepresented. I have also reasons to be^ iieve that some others endeavored to fan the fires of conten- tion. But whether he would wilfully wrong me, or any other man, I leave to God and to his own conscience to judge. I positively declare, (although he may differ from me in his re- ligious sentiments,) that I entertain no private animosity against his person, nor do 1 wish that any of my friends should. Many of his relations and family connexions are res- pectable people, and a goodly number are friends to us both. Neither have I any hatred against any of his friends, in con- sequence of our contest. Several, and perhaps all, of the com- mittee and councils who subscribed the above verdict in my favor, are friends to him as well as to me ; nor have they sub- scribed their names to it with a view to injure his reputation. The reasons I have for thinking so are, because they, in a general way, were opposed to all harsh measures. I am much obliged to the committee and tjie councils, for their christian ipd benevolent advice. Shown why the Rev. Charles Storck, Hubert J. Miller, Gottlieb Shober, God- frey Dreher, and Jacob Sherer, full ordained Ministers, who composed the. meeting, of April, 1819, and all such as they then and since ordained, and their, candidates and catechcts, and such other ministers who since stand connected with them, cease tp be a regular Lutheran Synod of this and the adjacent slates ; and why my father, brother Philip, and myself, refu- sed *p join in with them on Trinity, 1620, at Lincplntuu. It is not ray intention to notice all the sneers and frivolities of individuals, btit to show to the Lathe ran community where yl the aforesaid ministers have departed from some of the vuhp and doctrines of the eharch. Indeed, tfcere nre some c* £8 this connexion who have not departed as far as others ; but as they belong to one body, they are partakers of one common cause. The Rev. Joseph E. Bell is certainly a very great ex- ception to any of the rest, both as it respects his talents and conduct. But O, eloquent Bell ! it was thy misfortune to join this connexion. Hadst thou known things and persons prop- erly, perhaps thou wouldst not have taken this step. The following sections will give a general view of their de- viation from the rules and doctrines of the church, &c. 1. Breach of the constitution in 1819. It must, at first view, be evident to all orderly and decent persons, that no well regulated church can be preserved as such, without adhering to certain Christian rules, founded upon a just constitution. What would be the result in a state, provided a majority of representatives could do as they pleased, without submitting to a constitution, or deviate from it whenever they saw proper? The Evangelical Lutheran Synod of this and the adjacent states had adopted a constitution, and which was legally amended in 1817, when translated into the English language. Said con- stitution wisely specified the time and place of the meeting oi the Synod, viz : " Annually on Trinity Sunday, in rotation of counties." This, indeed, was a wise arrangement to prevent designing men from assembling in a clandestine manner, at an improper time and place, when they might obtain a favorite point which they knew they could not in a full Synod. The succeeding Synod after the year 1817, was appointed to meet; according to rule, on Trinity, 1819. But contrary to rule, the meeting in April was called, not merely for the purpose o) consulting on things which would not admit of delay, and then to appear at the legal Synod, either to have their decisions ap proved or rejected: instead of that, they imposed their trans- actions as synodical upon the church, and published those tc be stubborn who did not attend at their meeting. The Rev. Philip Henkel requested them by letters, which were re- ceived and read in April, to meet on Trinity following, as prescribed by rule ; also stating that he had received no timely nor official notice of their premature meeting. Had he even been informed, yet they had no legal authority to require his presence, since the very ends they assign for their premature meeting are as unconstitutional as the time of meeting itself. The reasons assigned for meeting sooner than the It- gal time, were, because they wished to send a deputy to Baltimore t<. meet the Synod of Pennsylvania, who assembled on Trinity in order to establish a General Synod. But, in the first place, 1: must be observed, that the plan they proposed and adopted for a General Synod is contrary to the seventh article of the Augs- burgh Confession of Faith, as is sufficiently demonstrated in the preceding oration. Neither could they establish a General Synod, on the aforesaid plan, without altering and amending the constitution, as it does no where authorise the Synod to adopt any such thing. The constitution, inasmuch as it makes the Augsburgh Confession of Faith the point of union, is ex- pressly against said plan. The constitution cannot be altered nor amended, unless two-thirds of all the ministers and depu- ties agree: See Luther, page 156. No two-thirds ever al- tered or amended it since 1817, for there was no lawful Synod appointed until Trinity, 1819. Thus it will be seen, that they did not only violate the constitution in meeting too soon, but also in adopting apian unauthorised t>y the constitution, and repugnant to the seventh article of the Augsburgh Confession of Faith. Provided the plan of the establishment of a General Synod had been so laudable an undertaking, why did they not defer it until the meeting of the legal Synod, and suffer it to be openly investigated agreeably to rule? Why this illegal, pre- mature step in a good cause ? Would it have been impossible for North-Carolina ever, at any other time, to have got into the connexion of a General Synod with Pennsylvania, but only on Trinity, 1819 ? Since when has North-Carolina become so deplorably dependent on Pennsylvania, that she must break her own constitution to get into connexion ? It seems she must do evil, that good ma) 7 come ! Is it not a wonder that they did not first obtain the consent of all the ministers and congregations, in so great an alteration? Now if their inten- tions were good, as they declare, why did they not meet on the regular time, and give satisfaction of their conduct, espe- cially when Philip Ilenkel informed them that he had no time- ly nor official notice of their meeting ? They did not all go to J5alt;more....none but one. Is it reasonable to think that he, as also the candidates of Tennessee, should lose their votes, :.nd obey what the others would, without their knowledge or coRsent, arbitrarily impose upon them ? It is also to be ob~ served, that they, of Tennessee, were not all who were not present in ApriLg others were absent, as well as they. The offence of breaking the constitution may, at first view, seem a light matter; but it was mutually agreed upon — it served as a mutual promise, or as a truce: now if the breaking or disre- garding of a promise, or truce, or the falsifying of one's word, is not considered criminal, then we need to make no distinc- tion between truth and falsehood, and fidslity and treachery. 2. The constitution denied by their president, Charles Stor$k$ <$nd their secretary, G. Shober, in 1820, at Lincolnton, N. C. The Rev. Joseph E. Bell, my father, my brother Philip Hen- kel, myself, and our deputies, were willing to govern and be governed by the regular established constitution. Thus we were willing to be censured legally, provided it should have been proved that we had acted improperly. But the Rev. Storck and Shober denied that we had a ratified constitution. That they did so, cannot only be proved by a crowd of wit- nesses, but Mr. Shober also owns it in their minutes of 1820. Was it reasonable that we should have been governed without a constitution ? Should we have suffered them to have judged us without a law, and they not be judged at all? The Pope- only, in former times, judged, but refused to be judged; for none dared say to him, what dost thou ? But what may be the reason that these two men, who, in regard to their age, de- serve to be respected, had to shelter themselves under so bare- faced an assertion, in denying that we had a ratified constitu- tion ? Most melancholy circumstance ! Aged fathers, soon retiring to the silent mansions of the dead, must yet, when their course is nearly finished, justify a misconduct at the very peril of truth ! Why did they deny the constitution ? They well knew that they had violated it in 1819; that we were about to bring them to an account for it ; that, agreeably to it, their transactions in April would be declared void. Now, rather than to submit to law and justice, like humble and God- fearing men, they grasped the last desperate means, which was the denying of the constitution, and an attempt to accomplish their ends by a majority without a law, or by a lawless ma- jority. In what manner is it possible to excuse them ? Could they have forgotten that they had a constitution ? Can they plead this ! (a) Is it possible that Mr. Shober could have forgotten it, when he had compiled it — when he certified with the signature of his name, in the preface of said book, that the .Synod, in 1817, had adopted it — when he mentions the names (a) The case of the Rev, C. Storck is extremely pitiful. He was a man of good standing, highly venerated, and very popular. Uut being aged, full of bodily infirmities, which, in the nature of things, have a tendency to impair his mind, and also being" pertinaciously influenced by aafeubtilc individual ail this may have led him astray, and may measurably, in the eye of charity, ex- tenuate his misconduct. The Rev. Hubert J. Miller was not present on Mon- day, when the constitution was denied: but afterwards he made Shober ae knowledge his error. Uut did said Miller also insist (as some of the deputies did) that the illegal transactions in April, 1819, sbould be recalled, and even cue be tried by the constitution, after it was owned ? No. Had he, his conduct would be highly applauded. What did it signify tb qv/n. a QOiiiututioijj nTjti tiot to act agreeably t,p ;t ? of the committee who examined it — when he calls it a const** tution — when he had 1500 copies printed — -when he sold it a*i such — and when people bought it under that impression ? Was it net the constitution, then it was a forged book by himself, which he imposed upon the community : but was it, (which, beyond all dispute* it was,) is it not shocking that he could have the face to deny it ! But were Storck and Shober only culpable ? No. The others were silent when the constitution was denied. They elected said Storck and Shober as their officers the very same day; and, under them, a pretended Sy- nod was opened. A Synod having officers denying the con- stitution — a Synod without a law — a lawless caucus ! Wha$*J man of prudence, who wishes to support a good character, would associate with a lawless club? What man of common sense would suffer himself to be judged by the lawless ? Had we united with thtm in this situation, we should have rendered ourselves ridiculous in the sight of all lovers of rule and order. But this assembly, some time after the constitution was de - nied, owned it again ; yet they never recalled the former ille- gal transactions of April, 1819. They were so far from it, that they proposed to ratify said transactions. (See their minutes of 1820, page 11, sec. 12.) By this they wish their transactions to wear the aspect in the eye of the public, as if now they were lawful. But the very proposition they adopted to ratify them anew, proves that they were unlawful. Had their transactions before been lawful, what need was there to- ratify them again ? Lawful things need no new ratification, because they are lawful in themselves. How can wrong things be made rfght by a ratification ? A ratification of wrong things is the same as persisting in a wrong. Or, indeed, caii wrong be right ? Thus they must have ratified wrong things- as right ones do not need it. What may have been the reason that Storck and Shober were not silenced for their misconduct,, when the Rev. J. P. Franklow was silenced in April, 1819, for six months, for no greater fault, and perhaps not as great ? 3. This connexion deviating from the doctrine of the Lu- theran Church, with respect to the Lord's Supper. The most of denominations have certain creeds, agreeablv* to which their ministers are to teach, and by which they are distinguished. The Lutheran church is distinguished from Others, in her peculiar doctrines with respect to the sacraments and the person of Christ. This church, also, bus all along re- cognised the Augsburgli Confession of Faith, and Luther 1 ^ Catechism. Lutherans, when they are confirmed as members, of the church, asseverate that they believe the doctrines the} were taught, agreeably to Luther's Catechism : and when a minister is ordained, though confirmed before, yet he also vows obedience to the Augsburgh Confession of Faith. Why are men called Lutherans ? Is it not because they believe the doc- trines Luther taught? No one, I hope, thus denominates himself because he trusts in Luther the same as in Christ ; hut because he has learnt his doctrines from him ; hence be- cause he is his scholar. Now how can such be Luther's scho- lars who deny his doctrines ? If any one teaches contrarv to what Luther^ dii, he cannot be his scholar, but rather his teacher. The presence of the real body and blood of Christ in the Lord's supper, is professedly the doctrine of the Lutheran hurch. But this body of men do not teach this doctrine as j Luther did, nor according to the Augsburgh Confession of Faith ; which is not only evident from various testimonies, but also from their answer to Mr. J. Hill. (See their minutes of 1S20, page 18.) They say there, u We do not believe, nor teach, that the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is corporeally received along with bread and wine in the Lord's supper." The word corporeal, signifies the having of a body : the corporeal body of Christ, or the body of Christ, having a body ! Wonderful expression ! There is no body r% the uni- verse unless it be corporeal: if it were not, it could not be a body. Even a spiritual body is corporeal — that is, it is a bod}-. Why did this connexion not express themselves grammatical- ly? Whv this unpardonable tautology? "We do not receive the body," &c. " corporeally :" or, the body bodily— or, the body' as having a body !! ! Were there no scholars among them ? There certainly were. If the body and blood of Christ are at all received, they must be received corporeally ; because there is no body, &c. unless it be corporeal— that is, there can be no bod? unless it be a body. It is evident that they mean the real body and blood of Christ are not received in the holy .Eucharist. This is still plainer from their subsequent expres- sion, when they say, viz : u But the true believer does spirit- ually receive and partake of the same through faith in Jeslfts Christ, and all the saving benefits of his death and passion." Agreeably to this, his body and blood are not really present and administered, because they admit no other partaking than a spiritual one by faith. The unbeliever, therefore, does not become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord by receiving them in unbelief: in short, he receives nothing but bread and wine. I will now compare tfcts^ their doctrine, with the Augjsburgh Confession of Faith, and Dr. Luther's own declarations, in his catechism and elsewhere, in regard to this subject. It is not my intention to dispute with other denominations, (in this sec- tion,) who always have differed from the Lutheran church on this point ; but merely to show that this connexion, who call themselves Lutherans, do not believe the Lutheran doctrine. The tenth article of the Augsburgh Confession of Faith, posi- tively says : " Of the Lord's supper, we teach thus, That the body and blood of Christ are there really present, and admin- istered under the external signs of bread and win*." (A) If Christ's body, &c. be really present and administerai, it must be a real (not an imaginary) body, &c. That which is not corporeal, is not a real body nor blood. Now if the body and blood of Christ are really present and administered, how can the sentiments of these men be agreeable to this article, when they deny that the body ? nd blood of Chrfst are corporeally received — especially as the term corporeal/is the*same as bod- ily ? The article says, " The body and^blood of Christ are administered," &c. It does not say administered to the true be- liever only, but simply administered. Lest any person should think that my comment on this article should be wrong, I shall here translate Dr. Luther's own words from the German, as he undoubtedly must have understood tn*e true meaning of the Augsburgh Confession of Faith better than any man in mod- ern times, when it was penned by his coadjutor iYftlanchton, and examined, approved, and subscribed by himself. The fol- lowing are his own words, taken from his larger catechism ; "What is the sacrament of the altar? Answer : it is the true body anjj blood of Christ in and with bread and wine, fcm- mandecr by Christ's word, for us christians to eat to drink.'' Immediately after, he says : " The word, I s^, is that which makes and distinguishes the sacrament, that it is (/>) This article is quoted from the English translation, in the book called Luther, b^Mr. Shober; but the t>riginal German is more emphatical. The: literal trJ^lation is as follows : " Of the supper of the Lord, it is also taught, that the true body and blood of Christ are truly present, under the figure of bread and wine, in the Lord's supper, and which are administered and recei- ved: Wherefore/ the contrary doctrine is rejected." I must also observe^ that Luther frequently calls bread the body of Christ, &c. which might leaf! some to think that he taught a change of the elements ; yet he denies this. But the reason is obvious; he taught that the Lord's body is connected with the brcarjP&.c. ; hence, for this reason only, he sometimes calls it the Lord's body. Th^t this is the case, is evident from various passages of his wolks. Neither did he teach, as some of the vulgar blasphemously represent, that Christ's body and blood were received in a gross, carnal manner, and devoured by pieces, like the eating of other meat, Sec. Although it is taught that Christ's real body and blood are eaten and drank with the mouth, yet every communi- cant receives his whole body and all his blood, inconceivable by human rfason, and divindv rirt st^rious, Th'rs is Luthei's doctvine, not merely bread and wine, but that it is, and is called, Christ's body and blood. With this word, thou mayest strengthen thy conscience, and say, if an hundred thousand devils, together with all fanatics, bluster out, how can bread and wine be Christ's body and blood? Yet I know that all spirits and scho- lars in one crowd, are not as wise as the Divine Majesty in his little finger. Here are Christ's words : 4 Take, eat, this is my body ; drink ye all of it, this is the New Testament in my blood," &c. Further he saith : u If even a boy receives or administers the sacrament, yet he receives the proper sacrament, that is, Christ's body and blood, as well as he that treats it in the most worthy manner, inasmuch as it is not founded upon human holiness, but upon the word of God. And as no holy one upon earth, yea, no angel in heaven, can cause bread and wine to become Christ's body and blood, therefore no one can alter nor destroy it, notwithstanding it be abused. For the sake of the person or unbelief, the word by which it became a sacrament T and by which it was instituted, is not falsified. He doth not say, if ye believe, or if ye be worthy, ye have my body and blood, but take, eat and drink, this is my body and blood. Moreover, this do, (viz. what I now do, institute, give unto you, and command to receive,) that is as much as to say, you may be worthy or unworthy, you have here his body and blood, by virtue of these words which are added to bread and vvine. Such notice and retain well, for upon these words all our foun- dation, fortress and defence are built, against all errors and delusions which ever came, or yet may come." Thus far Lu - ther's larger catechism. In his book Wittenberg, fol. 243, he say£: 41 Whereas, I see that heresies and delusions increase, the longer, the more, and the raging of Satan does not cease. LeHRone may henceforth whilst I live, or after my death in future, prostitute me and my writings to strengthen their er- rors, as the fanatics of the sacrametit and baptism already do, I shall therefore, with this instrument of writing, confess, be- fore God and the World, my faith, from subject to s^ject, to which I intend to adhere until death. ...(God help me™ depart from this world, and to appear before the judgment seat ol Christ.) And lest any person, after my death, should say, * if Doctor Luther was yet alive, he would teach and hold tjiis or that article otherwise, as he bad not sufficiently studied it : against this I now protest as then, and then as now, that,th^pugi '■■ the grace#>f God, I have studied all these articles, and dili- gently compared them, again and again, with the Scriptures, and would certainly defend them." Then immediately he saith : " Through the grace of God, I have learnt to know a great share of SStan* If he can misrepresent and confuse the word of God, what should he not do with mine, or any other's words?" Further he saith : "I count them all in one cake, that is, as sacramentarians and fanatics, which also they are* who will not believe that the Lord's bread in the Lord's S p- per is his real, natural [human] body, whom the wicked, or Judas, receives with his mouth, as well as St. Peter, and all saints. Who will not believe this, (I say,) may let me alone, and hope by no means any fellowship with me." Thus far Luther. I also refer the reader to the Church History of Milner, abridged by Townsend, page 710, 7 It. He will find there, that Luther invariably maintained the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist, and refused broth- erly fellowship with those who denied it. Thus it will be seen, that the doctrine of the real presence of Christ's body *nd blood in the Eucharist, is not an inven- tion of my own, nor a novel doctrine, as has been represented heretofore. Should any one think that Luther was wrong, let him openly declare it, and forsake the Lutheran church, and join such as are of his opinion. It is no disgrace to be called a Calvinist or Methodist, &:c. as there are honorable men who are thus denominated. No one would be despised by men of reason if he were to do so, provided his conscience did not suffer him to believe Luther's doctrine. But is it not a mis- erable thing, that this connexion of ministers deny Luther's doctrine, and yet endeavor to cover themselves with his cloak ? As it respects myself and my associates, we consider our vows too sacred to break in fellowshipping this connexion, who deny the very doctrine Lutherans vow to maintain, especially as we are not convinced that it is unscriptural. Were we convinced by the scriptures that it was wrong, we should not think it wrong, nor hesitate to renounce it and the Lutheran church. 4. My ordination defended upon legal grounds ; and, also> upon the concessions of my opponents, in receiving the Rev. Jos. E. Bell without a re-ordination. Being assailed in various respects, my ordination also has not. escaped. A man who preaches and administers the sacraments without a proper authority, must be an impostor, and all per- sons receiving him knowingly are partakers of his guilt. Now should I not be lawfully authorised to exercise the office of a pastor, (or bishop,) then I certainly w r ould be an impostor, and the people who receive me a horde of ignorant dupes, or dis- orderly persons. But should I undeniably prove that I am legally ordained, what must one think of those who report that I am not? Not only for my own sake, but also for the sake of my well beloved, judicious, and respectable congregations, who cordially receive my administrations, not becau.se they 30 are duped, but they recognise my legal authority, I am cou^ strained to make this defence. I was not ordained when a mere novice ; but I had been a probationer ever since the Synod which was held in 1813, when I received a license ; and besides that, I was licensed some considerable length of time before, by three ministers. At every Synod held until I was ordained a pastor, I was de- clared qualified for the office of the ministry, and authorised. Ever since the year 1815, 1 was authorised to administer the rite of confirmation and the Lord's supper ; and, in 1816, I was consecrated, by the laying on of hands, for the same pur- pose — (See minutes of 1815, 1816, and 1817.) Thus I had preached upwards of seven years to the date of my ordination ; authorised at two sessions of the Synod to act as catechet, and at three to administer all the ordinances ; and at the extem- pore meeting in April, 1819, notwithstanding all the charges exhibited against me, 1 was still declared sufficiently qualified for the ministry, &c. I will leave it to the reader, whether a man who is upon trial (nearly, or quite) seven years, should not either be advanced or else dismissed. I must, indeed, be a very complicated character, that I could not be found out, in seven years' time, whether I deserved an ordination, or to be finally dismissed ! My ordination was not performed in a pri- vate manner, nor at an improper time ; but when and where the constitution had directed. Were there any charges against me, why did those who had them not attend at the legal Sy- nod, and allege them ? The time was sufficiently published, not only by letters, but also by the constitution. If any of the members of the April meeting were against my being ordain- ed, why did they not attend at the Synod as they were reques- ted ? They then could have had a seat and vote : hence, if they could have produced sufficient reasons, they might have prevented my ordination. Why did they not ? It is in vain for them to say, that, because the ordination was performed by one man, (the Rev. Philip HenkelQ that, therefore, it must be unlawful. Philip Henkel did not perform it upon his own au- thority, but by the consent and solicitation of the Synod, as he was directed by" rule. Of all persons, the members of the April meeting and their associates ought to say the very least about the lawfulness of any thing, when they did not cnly vio- late the law, but when their officers also denied that they had a ratified constitution. It must be out of the question to talk about legal or illegal transactions, when there is no law. And if their doctrine be true, which has been preached up by some of them, that, "in extraordinary cases, deviations from rules or constitution are often necessary and profitable, (sec their o7 Aast minutes,) why should not Philip Hcnkcl be allowed to preach the same, when he performed ordination ? If even this groundless assertion were true, that he had acted unlawfully, yet he would (agreeably to their argument) not have committed anv wrong, "as it is sometimes necessary and profitable to deviate from rule or constitution." Can they plead this? why should he not be allowed to do the same? Is it reasonable that he- should be bound to act lawfully, and the others have the privi- lege to deviate from the rules or constitution when they please ? How can they prove by the constitution, that if an individual minister, when authorised by the Synod, performs ordination, that he acts unlawfully ? They cannot, especially since they adopted the following resolution, at Lincolnton, (1820,) thai " It was unanimously resolved, that, hereafter, no ordination for the ministry in our church shall be performed, nor declared to be valid, except it is done by at least two ordained minis- ters of our church, and by such who were thereto appointed by the Synod." (See their minutes, page 10.) Now if the con- stitution had before prohibited any individual minister from performing the rite of ordination, what need had they to adopt a rule, that hereafter no ordination should be performed except by at least two ministers ? By this they prove that in- jdividual ministers before were never prohibited from perform- ing ordination. Or, indeed, is it necessary to make two rules exactly alike to answer one end ? I shall also prove by their own concessions, in receiving the Rev. J. E. Bell without a re-ordination, that they have no just reasons to say aught against my ordination. If they received Mr. Bell as a regular ordained minister, then they must have recognised the transactions of the le^al Synod held on I rinity, 1819, as legal: if so, how could they persist in their illegal transaction of April? But. did they receive him as an unlaw- ful minister, then they fellowship a disorderly man — they have a rotten member ; hence, upon this ground, they must be a disorderly connexion of men, because they fellowship an un- lawful, disorderly minister. They say, u it was admitted that he was ordained, but that his ordination was invalid according to the rules of all regular christian churches. His ordination was unanimously made legal, valid, and ratified." (Last min- utes, see page 10.) An invalid ordination is no ordination. There can be no ordination unless it be performed by a propei* authority. Was his ordination not performed by a proper au- thority, then he is not ordained at all. How then could they make that which was no ordination at all a valid ordination i But was he ordained by a proper authority, how could they say that it was invalid'? > .Was it valid and legal, how could they ratify and make it legal I Can a legal thing be made gal? Was his ordination unlawful, invalid, and wrong, how could they make an unlawful thing lawful, an invalid thing- valid, and a wrong thing right? Can wrong be right? Why did they not re-ordain (or properly ordain) him, before they received him ? But perhaps they mean, (and some have said it,) that, though Mr. Bell was not ordained according to the rules of all regular churches, yet he was ordained according to the scriptures, as we have examples upon divine record that individuals ordained others. What a pitiful subterfuge ! Is it not ridiculous to think, that the rules of regular christian churches should be contrary to the scriptures, and that the scriptures should allow of such ordinations which the rules of jegular churches condemn? Such churches whose rules con- demn a scriptural ordination, cannot be sound orthodox churches : they must certainly be daughters of th« old harlot of Home! If Mr. Bell's ordination be scriptural, which they must admit, (or else admit that he. is not ordained at all,) then it certainly must be valid ; for if a scriptural thing is not valid, then there is nothing valid, flow then could they make it valid? or, indeed, are the holy scriptures to be made valid by a. connexion of men ? Is Mr. Bell ordained according to the scriptures, so am I, as we were both ordained together, at one time and place, and by the same person. («) But upon the whole, if Mr. Bell's and my ordination were not lawful, then Philip Henkel would certainly be guilty of a great misdemeanor in his office, in performing such an unlaw- ful act. Now if they had been convinced that Philip Henkel had acted arbitrarily and illegally, why did they not silence him, or at least bring him to an account for it ? But they were so far from doing it, that they sent two messengers in order to make a compromise with him, and receive him as brother. What, offer a man a compromise who is guilty of so great a misdemeanor ? It would have been in his place to have done (a) It is spenenJy said, thai, a regular ordination mv.st cpmc through a pro per channel. My ordination is derived through two channels from Europe. The fjrst is through the Rev. Dr. Frank, professor of theology in the univer- sity of Halle, in Saxony; and the other is through the Rev. Yelthusen. Dr. Muhlenberg, Kuntze, &c. were ordained by Dr. Frank'. These two, with D:r. Smith of Philadelphia, ordained my reverend father. Mr. YeHhusen ordained she Rev. C. Storck and Nussman ; Storck and my father ordained my brother, (Philip Henkel,) and he me. Dr. Frank was born the 27th day of March, A . D. 165;>. at Eubeck, and died at Halle in the year 1727. Frank w as the foiu; tier of the orphan-house at Halle, and many other valuable institutions. He successfulry prepared many perso »i for the ministry, and supplied many parte af Europe with minister.",, and baa also £ent BQnie to India, in As'.a. Sc .- &: .vLamur's Researches; S9 it. Or did they wish to have another unruly man in then- Connexion? (a) 5. The question, "Who are, and who compose, the regula- Lutheran Synod of North-Carolina and adjacent states ? and who are, in the eye of the constitution, unregular?" briefly considered. Before this can clearly be answered, it will be necessary to ask, What is a Synod ? A Synod is a body of ministers, with lay deputies, who superintend the concerns of the church under their care, agreeably to certain christian rules, founded upon a constitution. But a body of ministers, &c. who act without a constitution, can be no regular Synod : they are the builders of Babylon. Neither are a majority to act contrary to the constitution; nor can such decisions be made legal because a majority say so, as some people vainly dream. The very in- tention of a constitution is, to be a check upon the majority ; otherwise, if the majority could act as they list, a constitution would be useless,' as the majority would then be the constitu- tion. If a majority act contrary to the constitution, it becomes the duty of the minority to coerce them to obedience ; and ii they refuse, they cease to be of that body, and the minority only then compose the body—because they had not departed from the constitution, their supreme law, and the truce to which they all agreed. The connexion I have been describing have departed from the constitution, v. men the preceding remarks undeniably evince. In short, their departure from the constitution, £fqre Luther was bom, $3 a token or an emblem of God. Bat what man, unless he be an Arian heretic, would suppose that Christ was only a token of God? But should this only mean a spiritual communion, i. e. that Christ's spirit had communion with the sacrament, as the other class of my opponents imagine, then the cup, could not have communion with the blood of Christ, but with the spirit of Christ ; and the bread could not have communion with the body of Christ, but again with the spirit of Christ. How ridiculous would it be to say, The cup of blessing which* we bless, is it not the communion of the spirit of Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the spirit of Christ ? Has Christ two spirits, so that one has communion with the cup, and the other with bread ? And since when is a body to be called a spirit ? And likewise, since when is blood to be called spirit, i. e. Christ's Godhead ? Body and blood no where denote Christ's divinity, but his humanity. In order to evade the force of this argument, that bread has commun- ion with his body, &c. some have, in former times, explained the body of Christ, in this passage, not to be his real, but his mystic body — that is, the Church. But how can this be, when the Apostle mentions his mystic body in the next verse ? — ■ *' For we being many, are one bread and one body." Should the Apostle make an unreasonable tautology, to mention the very same over again which he had described already ? If the term body y in the first mentioned passage, is to signify his mys- tic body, the Church, what then is the term blood, which is connected with body, to signify ? Or, indeed, has Christ two churches, so that the one is called body and the other blood ? "What a ridiculous conclusion this would be ! The Apostle does not say, " We being many, are one bread and one body, and one wine and one blood !" These words also show, that the Lord's Supper does not only consist of one kind of substance, but of two — bread and wine as the earthly, and the Lord's body and blood as the heavenly. This is also, one reason why Lutherans call it the real body and blood, in order to be distinguished from the Pa- pists, who teach transubstantiation, and from others who teach a substituted body, or emblem, or representation ; for an em- blem is in the room of a real thing. The Papists teach, that bread and wine in consecration lose their natural substance, and change into Christ ; hence this is called transubstantiation. Therefore, it cannot be the real body and blood, but a newly created body and blood, formed of bread and wine — for as much as Christ's body and blood are always the same, and cannot be formed anew at every sacrament. If the elements changed into Christ, they could have no communion with his body and blood, as it requires two things to make a commun- ion. It would be ridiculous to say, that the self-same thing- should have communion with itself. Now as transubstantia- tion is a vain dream, it must follow that the Papists only ima- gine it to be so ; and as they deny two substances to be in the sacrament, consequently bread and wine would be an imagi- nary body and blood, or substitutes for the real. Some of our opponents also deny that there are two substances in the sacra^ ment ; for they say that the elements are emblems or represen- tations of Christ's body and blood. If we ask them whether all bread and wine are emblems of his body and blood, the same as that in the Eucharist, they would answer no : for if they did not, they would make the sacrament no more than a common thing. What, then, makes bread and wine emblems, when it must be confessed that common bread and wine are not such 1 It must be answered, the consecration, or the set- ting apart from a common to a holy use : hence bread and wine must also undergo a change ; and what is this a whit be- hind transubstantiatiojn ? When the elements change into em- blems of Christ, it is complete transubstantiation, only in a different dress from that of the Papists. The Papists imagine that the elements change into Christ; yet it is only an imagi- nation of theirs : they have only an imaginary, or substitute, Christ. My opponents do not believe that they change into Christ ; but by consecration they become emblems of Christ, or a substitute body and blood. All protestants who are op- posed to transubstantiation, declare it to be a superstitious idolatry. Why so ? It could be no idolatry if the elements did change into the real body and blood of Christ ; for it is no sin, but a duty,, to worship Christ. But transubstantiation is idolatry, not because it is Christ, but because it is considered as such, when it is not, but something in his stead. Is tran° substantiation idolatry because it is substituted for Christ, then emblems, representations, or images, must be idolatry for the very same reason, for they'are also substitutes of Christ. But is it not contrary to God's word, to make emblems or images ? u Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any like- ness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath" &c. Exod. c. 20, v. 4, 5. Is it not astonishing, that many Christians who affect to be enemies to all image wor- ship, themselves argue that bread and wine are emblems of the Lord's body and blood, which they eat and drink with great veneration.* But it is to be remembered, that idolatry, * There is a gTeat difference between emblems, and tlie types in the Old Tes- tament. Emblems in the New are substitutes of a real Saviour, who is in ex- ~£cnce: but types showed one to come, who was not. Emblems now aro 5+ or the making of any likeness of any thing, will debar sudb souls who are addicted to it from eternal salvation. But on supposition it were no idolatry, would the breaking of bread and the cup be fit emblems to represent the broken body and shed blood of Christ ? Broken bread cannot represent a bro- ken body. Christ's body, indeed, was bruised and wounded, and in this manner broken ; but by no means broken into pie- ces, like bread is broken, for not a bone was broken in him ; (see John, c. 19, v. 36;) hence the breaking of bread cannot represent the breaking of his body. Jesus broke the bread in order to use it, so that each of his disciples might receive a portion. Neither can wine be a fit emblem to represent the shedding of his blood. His body was pierced, and from the wounds his blood flowed. I}ut bread is not pierced, so that wine gushes from it, like the blood did from our Saviour's body: hence bread and wine, viewed in this light, cannot rep- resent his sufferings and death. f ("^ The words, u This cup is the New Testament in my bloody which is shed for you," examined. The cup is not only the communion of the blood of Christ, but it is also the "New Testament in his blood" What does the word testament signify ? Answer — the last will of a per- son concerning his estate after his death. A will conveys real property : an emblem, or a token, is only a representation of property, but conveys none. What would it profit, if a father would give images or tokens of his property to his children I This would not be giving them property, therefore it could not be a testament. Now if the Lord's Supper only consis- ted of emblems, it would be false to call it a testament, because that is no emblem, but a conveying of property. Christ calls it " the cup of the Nezv Testament in his blood." A new tes-? likenesses of things that are ; but types were no emblems or likenesses of au> ^hing that was, but showed things to come. Should we now have types, r. would prove that the Saviour was yet to come. f Lutherans do not suppose that the Lord's Supper is his body and blood, but only when it is administered to* and received by, the communicant, agree- ably to the divine command. Otherwise, when the elements are not distribu- ted, they are simply such, without any other import, The giving and the ta- king of the elements according to the words, " Take, eat, this is my body," &c. is what makes the sum and substance of this sacrament. But if the ele- ments were to change into Christ* or into emblems of Christ, they would be such still after the celebration, as well as before ; hence it would be criminal to cat and drink them in a common way, or let them be destroyed. What could be more idolatrous and superstitious, than to esteem those elements in such a manner as to preserve them, lest they be destroyed or misused ? The doctrine of Lutherans is far removed from all such superstition ; because they teach no change of the elements, neither into Christ nor into emblems or to* kens of Christ ; but simply, when administered, his body and blood are recei- ved, by virtue of the command which is added, " Take, eat, this is my body," &£. lament must convey new property, otherwise it coultl not fee? new ; hence types and shadows can find no place here, because they were already appointed under the Mosaic dispensation, and were properties of the old testament, and all pointed to the substance of the new, which is the Lord's humanity. The old testament was also dedicated with blood, but not with such precious blood as that of the new.* 44 Whereupon neither the first testament xvas dedicated zuithout blood : for when Moses had spoken every prece4$ iq all the people ; according to the law, he took the blood of calves, and of goats, zvith water, and scar- let wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you" 8tc— Heb. 9, v. 18,20. See fcxod. c. 24, v. 8. This was typical of the New Testament, hence of the blood of Jesus. See Heb. 9, 8, 14. The blood of ani- mals could not be a type of the spirit of Christ, for his spirit, or divinity, is from eternity, (see John, c. 1.) hence could not be typified. There can be no type where the substance is present. His divinity was present, but his human blood was not then in existence, hence it could be typified. Now as th« blood of animals was sprinkled upon the book of the old tes- tament, and that being a type of the blood of Jesus, so now is his blood in the cup of the sacrament. He doth not say, u This cup is the new testament in my spirit," as his spirit was noth- ing new, for the Israelites partook of it already in the wilder- ness — L Cor. chap. 10; but he saith in his blood, which was * The word fS testament," in the original Greek, diatJiehe, also signifies a covenant. Perhaps this expression is* borrowed from some oriental custom. History informs us, that it was a very ancient custom among the monarchs of the east, to enter into covenants with each other, which was done by drinking a cup of wine, in which the covenanting" parties put some of their own blood, to show their covenant to be so intimate that even their blood was incorpora- ted with each other. Now if the expression, "The cup of the new testament or covenant," be borrowed from such a custom, which is very likely, then it would prove that Christ makes such an intimate covenant with believers that he even puts his blood into the cup for them to drink. It must, therefore, be very criminal to despise such a covenant — Heb. 10, 29. The passover was also a divine institution in the old testament : it was in lieu of the Lord's supper, and annually celebrated on the tenth day of the first month in the year — Exod. 12. But the Lord's supper is not confined to this day, once a year only, but may be celebrated oftener : " Thi$ do ye, as oft as ye drink it, 9 &c. I. Cor. 11, 25. The passover consisted of a lamb, which was eat, and the blood thereof was struck upon the two side posts and the upper door post oi the houses — Ex. 12, v. 7. They eat unleavened bread, &c. with it. It is also evident, from Luke 22, 17, that there was also a cup used in the passover. Agreeably to this, the passover had, with the paschal lamb, bread and wine, the same as the Lord's supper. The paschal lamb was a type of Jesus Christ . " For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for as" — I. Cor. 5, 7. The Apostle calls him the passover, because the paschal lamb was a type of him. See Heb, 11. 28. If the lamb in the passover was present, why should not the Lore!-' body, be present in the sacrament, when tbe lamb was a type of him? something riew. Thai the Son of God became man, in the fulness of time, was so unprecedentedly new, that angels and archangels gazed with wonder at beholding this mystery. This new thing is given to. sinners, in this new testament. Lest any one should mistake this blood for another blood, such as emblematical blood, or even to mistake it for his spirit, he adds, "which is shed for you." That same blood which was shed on M^unt Calvary to atone for guilt, ia connected with the cup. The same is also said of his body: "This is my body, which is given fox you"— Luke 22, 19 ; given into death, and rose again from the dead ; hence his real human body. Wonderful c up, indeed ! A cup in the beautiful blood of Jesus, sprinkled therewith ; a blood that cleanses from all in- iquity ; a cup of medicine held to the lips of sick, dying sin- ners ! The words, " Do this in remembrance of me," considered. "Take, eat, this is my body ; do this in remembrance of me." It is thus expressed by St. Luke, and likewise by St. Paul — I. Cor. 11. Some of my opponents imagine that the Lord's body and blood cannot be present in the sacrament, be- cause it is to be done in remembrance of him ; for it is said, if a person is to be remembered, then it is necessary for him to be absent ; therefore Christ is absent. And again, it is supposed that the words, "do this in remembrance of me," destroy the force of the former, " Take, eat, this is my body," &c. ; so that the whole is to be considered as mere memorials of Christ's sufferings and death. This is the principal fortress on which the opponents ground the most of their arguments. But if this were true, that the Lord's supper could not be re- ceived in remembrance if Christ was present, then it would prove that the first sacrament the Lord instituted in the night in which he was betrayed could not have been genuine ; be- cause the Lord was not only present, but visibly present. Xiow, then, agreeably to the argument of my opponents, could the Lord's disciples eat and drink the elements in remem- brance of him when he was visibly present ? The disciples were then commanded to do it at that time, in remembrance of him, as well as afterwards, for as much as the institution was not afterwards to be changed. This, of itself, would be sufficient to show, that the argument of my opponents, "That Christ must be absent if he is to be remembered,", must be groundless. I have proved that Christ was visibly present when he gave the supper to his disciples ; and yet, at the same time, he said to them, " Do this in remembranae of me." The objection of my opponents would be of some force, provided Christ was to be remembered in the same manner as sorm? 57 good friend who departed this life, and left some tokens of h;s love. Bat if this were the case, it would suppose Christ to be dead. Is he dead? No: he is alive, for evermore: hence it must be out of the question to remember him in the same manner as a deceased friend, unless his resurrection be denied, It is evident, that neither an absent nor a dead Saviour is to be remembered. What manner of remembrance, may it" be asked, is it then ? There is a remembrance mentioned in the scriptures, which implies a believing or trusting in another help. " O my God, my soul is cast down within me ; there- fore will I remember thee," &c. — Psalm 42, 6. Why does the Psalmist say he will remember God ? Answer : because his soul was cast down within him. But what consolation could it have been to him in his distress to have remembered an absent God ? Could a God that was afar off afford him any assistance in his gloomy situation ? This shows that the Psalmist trusted in God ; hence not in an absent God, but in God who "is a very present help in trouble"-- -Psalm 46, 1. Thus to remember God in one's distress, is the same as to trust in him. Now as a living Saviour is to be remembered, it is the same as to trust or believe in him. But how can one trust to him when he is afar off? Is it possible to trust to bread and wine ? Are we to believe in, bread and wine ? Are we to eat and drink in remembrance of him, which is the same as to eat and drink trusting in him, when he is not present ? What, trust in an absent help ? How paradoxical ! If we are to do it in remembrance of him, or in faith, which is the same thing, our faith must have a foundation to rest upon. Em- blems are no foundation ; neither are they an object of faith ; hence it is impossible to receive the sacrament in faith, unless an object of faith be therewith connected. The only object of faith is the crucified Jesus ; hence, if the sacrament is to be received in faith, he must also be received thereby. As it respects the other objection, that the words, "Do this in remembrance of me," should destroy the force of the words, " Take, eat, this is my body," &c. so that all should mean mere memorials of Christ's sufferings, &c. I reply, that if our Saviour had intended the latter words should destroy the force of the former, he never would have uttered the former. What man of common sense would make a thing which he intended to destroy at the very same instant? Or can it be imagined that Christ did not know what he was saying, that he would speak a thing in a careless manner, which he would afterwards be compelled to recall ? No one can, without blasphemy, say so. Had he meant that the words, "Take, eat, this is my body," &c. should mean the same as a memorial or remem- 38 bvance, why then does he add the words, £t Do this in remem- brance of me r" How would it read, " Take, eat, this is my body, &c. which is a mere remembrance : Do this in remem- brance of me ?" What, should one thing be mentioned twice In the same sentence ? Can our blessed Saviour be charged with such absurd folly, to express himself in such a ridiculous manner, which even would be exploded in a school-boy ? Nov/ if we allow our Saviour to have expressed himself like a man of wisdom, we cannot imagine that he would mean one thing by tWo different expressions in the same sentence : hence, " Take, eat, this is my body," &c. means one thing ; and " Do this in remembrance of me," another. The former words mean what they say ; and the latter show in what manner the Lord*s body and blood are to be received-— in faith, or in re- membrance of him. The former mean the eating and drink- ing of Christ's body and blood with the elements, with our mouths ; and the latter, the eating and drinking of the same by faith, with our souls. The eating and drinking with our mouths enables our souls to do the same, since body and soul are united, so that when an object of faith is presented to the body, the soul may feed upon it. The question, u Do not Unbelievers, who partake of the sa- crament, also eat and drink the Lord's body and blood V ex- amined. Whereas, some of my opponents assert, that the true believer eats and drinks the Lord's body and blood by faith in the sa- crament, and the unbeliever receives nothing but the elements, and thus cast a mist Upon the subject, it will be necessary to examine it. The question is not at all whether the unbeliever is benefited thereby, which the opponents forever confound with it. No man believes that an unbeliever receives Christ by faith, nor that he has eternal life abiding in him : But the question is, whether the Lord's body and blood may not be eat and drank in unbelief, as well as in faith, in the sacrament? If it was impossible to eat and drink his body and blood in unbelief, he would have had no need to command communi- cants to do it in faith, or in remembrance of him. Where, there is no possibility to omit a thing, there is no use to com- mand it. We should by no means be commanded to believe,, provided it was impossible for us to disbelieve. It must be granted, that no man's faith can cause the Lord's body and blood to have communion with the elements. If our faith could cause bread and wine to be his body and blood, then it would be as great as himself. Nothing can cause bread and wine to have communion with the Lord's body and blood but the w r ords of his own institutione If unbelief could destroy 59 the words of our Lord, it would prove that it was stronger than the truth, and cause the truth to be a lie. " For what if some did not believe — shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?" — Rom. c. 3, v. 3. " If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself" — II. Tim P c. 2. v. 13. Can it be supposed that faith can make a thing, or unbelief destroy it ? For instance, I preach the gospel to two men, the one a believer and the other an unbeliever : can. the one who believes it make it the gospel ? was it not that before ? or can the other, who does not believe it, cause that it is not the gospel ? Perhaps the opponents do not mean that their faith can cause the presence of Christ, but that they are excited by the elements to ascend with their faith into heaven, and there spiritually eat and drink Christ's body and blood* If so, why do they talk about receiving the sacrament in faith, when their object of faith, Christ, is to be apprehended in heaven ? Where is it proved that we must ascend to heaven to receive Christ in faith ? The apostle affirms the contrary : " Say not in thy heart who shall ascend into heaven, that is to bring Christ down from above ; or who shall descend into the deep, that is to bring up Christ again from the dead. But what saith it ? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy heart," &c. — Rom. x. 6, 8. It is very strange, indeed,, that the Lord is not nigh us when we commune ; that we must say in our hearts, who shall ascend to heaven ! If we are to ascend to heaven with our faith, where it is supposed the man- hood of Christ is, what purpose can it answer to receive the: elements, as we might do that without them ? If I am to re- ceive a thing by faith, it must be such a thing which I cannot comprehend with my reason ; for what I know I do not be- lieve : where reason has its limits, there faith has its begin- ning. Bread and wine we can see ; and if they be emblems,, we may comprehend them with reason. Now if nothing in- comprehensible be connected with them, it is in vain to talk, about receiving the sacrament in faith, as there would be no object of faith there. Our faith must have a foundation^ whereupon it is to build. Bread and wine, in themselves, are no foundation ; yet we must receive them by faith, agreeably to the argument of the opponents. But when the Lord's body and blood are connected with them, there is then a complete foundation, which cannot be destroyed by the unbeliever, though he may abuse it. In short, if the Lord's supper is to be received by faith, the object of faith, the crucified Jesus, must be present and received. Faith must not only build on the spirit of Christ, as that would not be the whole Saviour^ but upon the mysterious God-man. It is evident that Jucte 60 iscariot, who was a traitor, partook of the Lord's supper. St. Luke, c, 2^, v. 21, saith, " But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table." The. two preceding verses contain the words of the institution : " Take, eat, this is my body," &c. ; which plainly shows that Judas was with the other disciples at the table at the same time. See Math. c. 26, v. 24, 26, Mark, c. 14, v. 19, 24. It was administered to the twelve, hence also to Ju- das : but we find no exception made in the words of institution, when admin- istered to him Christ did not say, "Take, eat, ye eleven that believe, this is iny body, &c. but Judas thou shalt eat and drink bread and wine only." Moreover, Christ saith, concerning the cup, " Drink ye all of it"— Math. 26, 27. Judas was there, hence included. K And they all drank of it" — Mark 14, 23. If the eleven received the Lord's body and blood, Judas received the same ; but if he did not, it would prove that the eleven did not — for they all received one kind of bread and wine, with the same words, " Take, eat, this is my body," &c. St. Paul saith, L Cor. 11, v. 27, " Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." How could any person be guilty of the Lord's body and blood by receiving the sacrament, if he received nothing but bread and wine t Can the eating and drinking of mere emblems make one guilty of his body and blood ? Could the Jews have been charged with the crime of cru- cifying the Lord of glory, if they only hadcrueified his emblem, or image ? I imagine not. But my opponents say, the unbelievers become guilty of his body and blood because they mingle with the pious, and pretend to be what they are not. But how do they prove it ? I know of no proof they can ad- vance : but if they have any, they would do well to let the public know where it is written in the Bible. Their bare assertion is no proof. Yet, if this were the case, that the mingling of the unbelievers among the pious, and the pre- tending to that which they are not, would make them guilty of the Lord's body and blood, then the attending to public worship, or the being baptized, or even their joining in prayer with the faithful, would equally make them guilty of the Lord's body and blood, because they would in these cases also mingle with the pious, and pretend to what they were not. In short, every act of hypocrisy would make one guilty of the Lord's body ' and blood. If so, what difference would there then be between the sacrament and other things, such as preaching, praying, &c. ? Where do we read, that one becomes guil- ty of his body and blood but only by receiving the sacrament unworthily t No where, as far as I know. The apostle further saith, v. 29, " For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself,* not dis- *"~ * These words terrify a number of people from the Lord's table, as they imagine if they were not fully converted before they approached it, their souls should be ruined. Notwithstanding, it is the opinion of a number of such peo- ple, that the Lord's supper is no more than a shadow, or an emblem. How strange, that a shadow can injure a soul ! These words are grossly misrepre- sented. They do not say that an unconverted sinner eats and drinks eternal damnation to his own soul, as they are understood by some. From the 20th, 21st, and 22d verses of this chapter, it is evident that some of the Corinthians were drunk at the time of celebrating the supper ; so that they did not know what they were doing ; that they made no difference between the eating and drinking of the sacrament and other viands. The Corinthians were accus- tomed to make feasts at the time of the celebration of the Eucharist ; so that some, in the flow of their festivity, got intoxicated ; hence the apostle rather reproves their disorderly manner of celebrating it, than their mental qualifica- tions. He uses the adverb "unworthily," instead of the adjective " unwor- thy." - The adjective "unworthy" would show an improper qualification in the minds of the communicants ; but the adverb " unworthily" shows the impro- per, disorderly manner in administering and receiving it in a state of intoxica- tion. They did eat and drink damnation to themselves. What manner of damnation was it ? The original Greek has two different words to express 'damnation," viz : krima, [Lzt'm, jzidicium,] judgment, or a temporal damna- 61 cerning the Lord's body.'* This shows it to be criminal not to discern the Lord's body ; but it could not be criminal if it were not present, as it would be impossible to discern a thing" that was not. An unbeliever might justly plead innocence, if he did not receive the Lord's body and blood. He njight say, I could discern nothing- but the elements, because I received nothing" etee„. But, on the other hand, he is justly accounted guilty, for he could have dis- tion ; and kata krima, [Latin, condemnacio,] eternal damnation. The text, reads, in Greek, krima judgment : they eat and drink judgment to them- selves. The German translation reads like the original g-ericht, judgment. This is confirmed the more by the verses which immediately follow, viz. " For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world" — : y. 30, 32. For what cause were many weak and sickly among them ? Answer : Because they received the Lord's body and blood unworthily. Why were the Corinthians judged? Answer: In order that they should be chas- tised. Why were they chastised ? Answer : That they might not be con- demned with the world. Who are the world ? Answer : Such as reject the means of the gospel. This plainly shows, that the damnation which was in- flicted upon them was not to destroy their souls, but to afflict their bodies, in order to bring- them to repentance, that they might be saved. God, like a kind father, makes use of the rod of temporal affliction to keep communicants from everlasting destruction. No kind father corrects his child in order to kill it, but to keep it from the gallows. It is beyond all dispute, that the apostle Peter, when he received the Lord's supper in the night in which he was betrayed, was not fully converted to God ; and his faith, (if it may be call- ed so,) was in a very imperfect degree. That night, after the supper, he de- nied our Saviour with an oath. See Math 26, v. 70, 74. That Peter was not then a humble, dependent believer on our Saviour, is evinced from the 35th verse, viz. " Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will not 1 deny thee. Likewise, also, said all the disciples." An exercised believer does not trust to his own strength, as it is here stated with respect to Peter and the other disciples. They all fled from our Saviour, Christ, also, said unto Peter, " And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren" — Luke 22, v. 32. Now if the disciples, who were in a very imperfect degree of faith> were permitted to receive the Lord's supper, why should not persons at this time be allowed to receive the same, even if they were as weak as Peter, and subject to fall as he was. Christ is still the same merciful Saviour as he was then. He came into the world to seek and to save that which was lost; but had* he instituted a sacrament which destroyed men's souls, it could not be true that he came to save the lost. A physician who, knowingly, administered poison to his sick patients, and killed them, would be considered a murderer. What could one think of Christ, if he had instituted a sacrament that would poison sinners' souls, and effect their eternal ruin ? Could he then be a merciful Saviour, who came to save sinners ? No he would be a de- stroyer ! To think or say so, would be a most horrid blasphemy : and yet many people are such blasphemers, and think they mean it well, when they are terrifying others, from the Lord's table, by representing it as a dangerous trap ! Poor sinners are afraid to approach to a merciful Saviour in the sacra- ment, for fear their souls should be poisoned. If we ask a number of such., who say they are not fit to commune, whether they believe in Christ, they say yes. What an absurdity ! A man who believes in Christ shall be saved : he is entitled to heaven itself ; why then should he not also consider himself al- lowed to commune ? What, is the Load's supper more holy than heaven it^ self, so that one may be fit to enter into heaven, and yet not be fit to approach to the Lord's supper? If these people" believed in Christ, they would com- mune ; but as they do not, they are disobedient to God's institution : a dis- obedient person is an unbeliever ; and he that believeth not shall be damned Where people were desirous to receive it, and could not ha v c: an opportunit v their case would be far different o2 cerned the Lord's body had he believed, because he reaiiy received it. Bill there are several objections urged against the unbeliever's eating and drink- ing- the Lord's body and blood, \vhic|i perplex the unexperienced. It is said by my opponents, if the unbeliever received the Lord's body and blood, that he undoubtedly would have eternal life, as it is said, " Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life ; and I will raise him up at the last day" — John, c. 6, v. 54. What c^n be proved by this ? Is it to. prove, that whoso eateth and drinketh Christ's body and blood with bread and wine, should have eternal life ? The Lord's supper was not instituted at that time when our Saviour spake these words ; hence the objection is groundless. Luther- ans admit that there may be an eating and drinking of the Lord's body and blood by faith, in addition to that of eating and drinking with the mouth. Au ihe time our Saviour spake these words, the eating and drinking with the elements was not in vogue ; hence people then could only do the same by faith. But if there was not another eating and drinking in the sacrament than by faith, then it would be a useless institution, because that was done before. Jft is readily admitted, that since the sacrament is instituted, we must eat and drink Christ in two ways ■ first, with bread and wine with our mouths ; and secqndly, with our souls in faith ; and that the eating with our mouths is to as- sist our souls ; hence, a person who eats and drinks with his soul as well as with his mouth, indeed has eternal life - x but this does not prove that every one who eats and drinks with his mouth, should have eternal life, because he may not eat and drink by faith. There is no inconsistency to' say, that one may eat and drink of Christ, and yet not be saved, for the want of a constant faith. It is expressly said, that all the Israelites who left Egypt, " Did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink ; for they drank of that spiritual Kock that followed them— and that Hock was Christ : But with many of them God was no.t well pleased, for they were overthrown in the wil- derness" — I. Cor. 10, v. 3, 5. Were all those Israelites who partook of the .same spiritual meat and drink, that is of Christ, believers ? If they were, how came it, then, that God was not well pleased with many of them, and that they were overthrown in the wilderness ? If they ever had any faith, it was not a constant faith ; it w T as soon shipwrecked. " But with whom was he grieved forty years ? Was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcasses fell in the wilderness ? And to whom swnre he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not ? So we see that they could not enter in, be- cause of unbelief" — Heb. 3, v. 17, 19. Yet we are informed that they did all eat and drink of the same spiritual meat and drink, that is of Christ. Why were they not saved, if it be true that whosoever eats arid drinks of Christ cannot be lost ? I have positively proved that the Israelites did partake* of Christ, and yet that many were lost because of unbelief They cither did not. believe at all, or else if they did, they immediately departed from the faith, and ihus had rib constant faith. If they did not believe, then it proves that they did eat and drink in unbelief : but if they did believe, it proves that it is possi- ble for a person to tall from faith. It is in vain to endeavor to evade the force of this argument, by saying that the Israelites only partook of Christ typically. What then ? It must, if it be typical, correspond with the substance, else it could not have been typical. What they djd with the types, we may now do with the substance ; hence, for our admonition, it is recorded, verse 6. It is, therefore, not impossible Tbr a person to eat and drink of Christ, and yet be damned afterwards' ; either because he did not do it in faith, or else because he loses it afterwards. Because rnany do not believe that Christ is omnipresent with his manhood as well as with his godhead, therefore they deny that his~ body and blood are administered in the sacrament It is also a natural conse- quence, that if his omnipresence be denied, that he cannot be omnipotent. But if we believe the mystery of the incarnation of the Son of God, it cannot be denied that the manhood, in consequence thereof, received all divine per- fections. " And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" — John i. 14 What manner of word is it that was made flesh ? Answer : The word that was. In the beginning, by whom all things were made ; hence the Son of God. be : - 63 gotten of the father fronv cteiflpty, of the same essence, equal in power and glory, was made flesh. The term flesh denotes the manhood of Christ, having; a body and a reasonable soul : thus the Son of God was made man, or, " God was manifest in the flesh," &c. — I. Tim. 3, 16. The Son of God is omnipotent, for by him the universe was made : he that is omnipotent must also be omnis- cient, omnipresent : in short, he must possess, of himself, all divine perfections. This Son of God became man ; therefore, this man, who is called Jesus, must: likewise possess all divine perfections. God and man are inseparably one me-' diator, so that there is no Son of God, unless he is in this man, and this man can- not be without this God. In this man " dwelleth all the fulness of the godhead bodily" — Col. 2, 9. Is God almighty, so is this man, because an almighty God. is ibwJhng" with almighty power in this man, which makes this man almighty. Is God omnipresent, so must this man be, because omnipresence dwells with fulness in this man, which makes him omnipresent, &c* We do not teach that God changed into man^ nor man into God ; but because God bodily dwell:-; with all his fulness in this man, this causes this man to have all divine perfec- tions. Man, in himself, without this unity in God, could not have them ; bu'; with it, this man has what God has. Now if there be a God who is not man, then it is not true that God was made man, which would be contrary to the gospel, if a God can b6 found any where (I mean the Son of God) in the universe, and not the man Jesus with him, then there would be a God who was not man ; hence it would be false, what the gospel saith, that " the word was made flesh." If a God be found where the man Jesus is not with him* we may rely upon it, it is the very Devil, instead of Jehovah. f Then to deny * It is the common objection of my opponents, that Christ's body is not large enough to extend over the whole world ; that, therefore, he could not be om - nipresent : and, likewise, that two substances could not occupy one and the same space at one and the same time : hence, that Christ's body could not fiU. every space that every other substance did. Thus these men suppose, that i£ Christ be omnipresent, he must be expanded like the air over the universe, or like a sheet in a room. This is the crude, ridiculous philosophy which many- introduce to disprove the omnipresence of our J^ord's humanity. Do these men imagine that God, as a spirit, is omnipresent like the thin air is expanded over the universe ? They must ; or else, how 'could they ever ha\ e made the above objection. God is without parts, indivisible ; hence cannot be omni- present like the thin expanded air over the universe. Before the creation of the universe, how could God be expanded over the universe like the thin air, •when there was nothing- ? God surely did not change since the creation, so that he is now expanded with parts. The humanity of our Loi'd is omnipres- ent in the very same manner as God is omnipresent, because " God was made flesh." If any one can tell how God is omnipresent, then he can also tell how the Lord's body is omnipresent. But without controversy, this is a great mys - tery ! Yet many do not believe his humanity to be omnipresent, merely be - cause they cannot see with their reason how it can be possible. Such make a God of their reason, and even wish divine revelation itself to bend to its dictates. A sacrament, or a Christ, that we could comprehend with our rea- son, would be no greater than our reason. An imbecile Christ, indeed ! whom we could comprehend : he could not be a Saviour ! Pitiful must be the argu- ment " I cannot believe the Lord's humanity to be omnipresent, because I