Fi » t r^ i i ai 
 
 CE COTT 
 
 COH-ECTIO^f 
 OF 
 
 NORTH CAROLINIANA 
 
 ^ 
 
 r, ' ' I 1 11 I i i ipi i i ii ' 
 . .^J ,L, 
 
 ifPflHiff'!]''!:' 
 
P; C. HENKEL 
 
 r 
 
 VINDICATES HIMSELF 
 
 AMINST 
 
 THE FOUL CALUMNIES ID MISREPRESENTATMS 
 
 OF THE JS7 CALLED 
 
 ^'EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN TENNESSEE SYNOD RE-ORGANIZED,'^ 
 
 CONTAINED IN THE MlfTOTES OF ITS SESSION 
 
 HEU3 
 
 IN 
 
 ST. JOHN'g CHURCH, 
 
 I 
 
 CATAWBA COUNTY, N. C. 
 
 i 
 
 From the 12th to the Mlth of OctoUri 1850. 
 
 
 SALEMj N. C: 
 
 PRINTED BY BLUM & SOMi 
 
 1851. 
 
 % 
 
To THK Ki:Ai)(':n 
 
 It is a fact well known to thousands, that some time in the spring of 
 1845, the Kev. Adam Miller, (formerly a member of the Ev. Luth, 
 Tenn. Synod,) was accused of being the father of a bastard child. And,, 
 whereas the said 31iller is not content with having ruined his own char- 
 acter, and bringing reproach upon his family; but is making every effort 
 in his power, unjustly to tarnish the character of our Synod, and particu- 
 larl}' to destroy ray reputation as a minister : I deem it not only a privi- 
 lege, but an imperative duty I owe U myself, to lift my feeble pen in my 
 own defence ; since recently the mo^t nefarious attempts have been made 
 to destroy my reputation. It appears that Mr. Miller, and those who 
 sympathise with him, are not satistijd peaceably to do the work of Him, 
 whose servants they claim to be, but resort to every intrigue, if possible 
 to injure my reputation, and also tlat of our Synod. It will be appre- 
 hended, by referring to their minutes, (year 1850, pages 13 to 18,) that 
 I am variously charged of imprudeitand blasphemous conduct, relative 
 to the reading of their minutes, &c., which, if correct, would have a ten- 
 dency to do me a serious injury. 
 
 Be it known, therefore, that in tit spring of 1850, 1 and my assistant. 
 Rev. H. Goodman, when apprehending that some of the more illiterate 
 part of our church members, were somewhat difficulted to discover the 
 falsity and futility of the seven grave charges against our Synod, con- 
 sidered it a duty devolving uponfus, to render general satisfaction ta 
 all, v/hich could not conveniently pe done otherwise than by reading, 
 and giving them a general and piiblic refutation; which, at the voice 
 of the congregations, was perforuud, to the entire satisfaction of every 
 unprejudiced mind, as hundreds AFOuld testify. 
 
 Now, dear reader, it is my intention, to set forth matters of fact in 
 my own defence, since recently some very dangerous attempts have 
 been made against me, too insufferably mean not to be known, at least 
 by those who have regard for safety and honesty. I humbly trust, no 
 one will censure me for making tae following plain defence, after they 
 shall have given it an examination, It is true, some may at first thought, 
 conclude that it is stooping almo.'^fi too low, to notice such a wicked set. 
 I, however, beg leave to differ from such, particularly since the glaring 
 and foul misrepresentations are iii print. I, nevertheless, do not ex- 
 pect that this will stop their awful fulminations, as I have abundant 
 reason to know that there is almost no measure too low and mean for 
 some of tliem to resort to. 
 
 I shall feel myself perfectly at liberty in future, to notice any far- 
 ther publication, or not. I shall therefore only present to the reader's 
 notice in this, such facts as may be necessary to vindicate my charac- 
 ter, and somewhat to illustrate the manner in which Mr. M. and his 
 friends, together with his Synod, are treating me. 
 
 I humbly pray that my enemies and bitter persecutors, may speedi- 
 ly repent, ere it be too late. And that those who may have been kept 
 in the dark by designing, wicked men, may come to a knowledge of the- 
 truth, and embrace it, is the prayer of the reader's humble servant. 
 
 r, C. HENKEL.. 
 
I 
 
 SECTION r. 
 
 Dear Reader I If Mr. I^Iiller and some of his party, had only compar- 
 ed mo to < Bull-dogs,' and ^Jack-asses,' as he frequently has done, I 
 should not have lifted my pen to iiotice it. And even for him and his 
 party to pronounce me a liar, in Ihe region of country where I am 
 personally known, I do not fear, neither do I much regard it, as ho 
 cannot induce any honorable persoa to believe any such thing. But 
 for him and his Synod, to publish to the world, in print, notorious 
 falsehoods against me, shall not be permitted, and passed over in silence, 
 as it might induce persons at a distance, and generations to come, to 
 believe them, | 
 
 Now, Mr. Miller, do you not know that it is against the law, to com- 
 pare a human to brutes ? or do you not care for law, either civil or 
 moral ? It seems you do not. Sir, deny if you please, that you have 
 compared me to the brutes above mentioned ; and I assure you, that I 
 can make it appear, by men as resi^ectable as there is any need to men- 
 tion. Or did you intend to provokome to bring suit, so that you might 
 have an opportunity to let men sTv^ar for you, who can testify to what 
 they have neither seen nor heard. You may feel thankful that you 
 have abused a man who wishes yoiunoharm, and that would do you no 
 injury, when it is in his power. I humbly pray that you may speedily 
 repent of your wickedness, before it be eternally too late. I am sorry 
 that you have suffered such foul misrepresentations to appear before 
 the public in print, as appear in the minutes of your last session. Why 
 did you suffer it ? Was it because you loved the truth ? Surely not. 
 
 Mr. Miller ! Why do you wish to break me down ? Have ycu not 
 said that I am the very man you wish to break down ? Sir, deny it if 
 you please; and whenever called upon, I am prepared to prove that a 
 devoted friend of yours has said so. But, I suppose you think, it 
 makes no difference how a ' Jack-asB,' or a ' Bull-dog,' is treated ; and 
 as you have compared me to such, I of course, can expect no other 
 treatment from you, than might be expected you would give a ^ BuU- 
 <iog,' that would not bark to your notion, or fight for you, to screen 
 and cover your dirty conduct ; or that an ass might expect to receive 
 from a Balaam, when it refused to carry him in the way where the 
 Angel of the Lord stood with a dravn sword, ready to slay him, (" be- 
 cause thy way is perverse before me.") 
 
 Now Mr. M., is your conduct christian ? Is it moral ? Or is it hu- 
 man, to compare a man to brutes ? Indeed, this shows, that if you 
 were in possession of facts against any of us, as exist against your 
 character, we would not be allowed to say one word about you, but 
 what you would make heaven and earth awfully to fulminate. Your 
 conduct and conversation is very chaste indeed ! ! ! No wonder that 
 some of your followers can have the impudence to style me a [ muly- 
 bull.' Oh ! shame ! ! It becomes you indeed, to tell the public, (page 
 IT,) "that it is Miller and not a Eenkel which has become a subject of 
 persecution ! ! l'^ Dear reader, judge for yourself. 
 
Furthermore, as there is a distorted relation of inatter given in the 
 jninutes of the so called "Re-organized Synod/' and certain notes 
 draughted and underplotted by some unknown pen : for, I am creoibly 
 informed, that those notes were not drawn up, read, and sanctioned in 
 the session of the so called "Ec-organized Synod;" and in addition, I 
 apprehend that they must be the production of some one individual, 
 as will appear from page 14, where it is said i " If this is not sin- 
 ning against' the Holy Ghost, I am mistaken.'' I from hence conclude 
 that the secretary was quite bigoted, or the above idea is correct. 
 Otherwise, he would have said, ice are mistaken, instead of " I am" 
 &c. And whereas the whole scope of the notes, together with the dis- 
 torted source from whence .they are drawn, is nothing niore than a 
 piece of diabolical perversion and misrepresentation ; and that the 
 reader may not only have my ipse dixit to rely upon, I shall here let 
 my worthy brethren from Miller's and St. John's churches, testify. 
 The public can rest assured, that those who gave and undersigned the 
 following, are men of undoubted veracity, and think it beneath their 
 dignity to bear testimony concerning things which never transpired 
 within their own observation. 
 
 Their replies are as follows, to wit : 
 
 Miller's Church, Catawba County, N. C, June 16, 1851. 
 Whereas a petition was gotten up at our church, dated Sept. 15, 
 1850, and sent to the so called "Re-organized E. L. T. S.," signed by 
 a few refractory persons, seemingly with no other intention than, if 
 possible, to ruin the reputation of our Pastor, P. C. Henkel. 'J he pe- 
 tition sets forth things, which are notoriously not so. Now, were it 
 not that the misrepresentations are in print, we would not in the least 
 regard them, as they can do to the said Henkel no injury in the region 
 of country where he is personally known. But in justice to his person 
 and reputation abroad, and to generations arising, duty constrains us 
 to vindicate his character, as it cannot be impeached, when nothing but 
 the truth is told. 
 
 Be it known therefore, that it was the desire of the congregation to 
 have the minutes of the so called "Re-organized Synod," read public- 
 ly in our church, and the allegations therein contained, (against our Syn- 
 od) answered; which was done to the entire satisfaction of every can- 
 did and honest mind. That it was the desire of the congregation to 
 have the minutes read, &c., is evident from the fact, that the vote was 
 taken, whether or not they should be read ; and the unanimous voice 
 was, to have them read. 
 
 The above mentioned petitioners, say in their petition :* " At one 
 time he proposed to read them as they were written, and at another 
 time, he proposed to read them as they meant or as they ought to 
 
 * We make our quotations from a copy of the original petitions 
 ^dersigned^^a true copy of the petition from Miller's church," by 
 Wm. b. Deal. The reason we quote from it is, that we apprehend 
 foioe alteration made by their Synod. • 
 
fead." Petitioners ! this statement is notoriously incorrect; for there 
 was no proposal mac'le at two different times, as to the manner in which 
 the minutes were to be read. We tell you that you have contemptu- 
 ously misrepresented Henkel's language. He never said that he would 
 " read them as they meant or as they ought to read" (merely.) 
 The truth is, he stated to the congregation, that the minutes very 
 frequently expressed themselves in such a manner, that he did not 
 think, they said what they intended to say ; and referred to such por- 
 tions of the minutes as the following, viz : (page 14 minutes of 1849,) 
 where it is said; '^They say, that they addressed them in 1847, in a 
 petition requesting them not to depart from the true doctrine & discipline 
 of the church, but to remain steadfast to the constitution, &c., upon 
 which, Mr. H remarked that he did not think, that it was their inten- 
 tion to admonish our Synod, "not to depart from the true doctrine 
 and discipline of the church," when we had been accused of having 
 already departed from them both. Also page 15 : " They then peti- 
 tioned for a redress of grievances, and, if not misinformed, there were 
 between three and four hundred petitioners for Mr. Miller and some 
 twenty or thirty against him, and some of those have since said that 
 they did not understand the design of their petition when they signed it." 
 Upon this Mr. H. remarked, that he did not think it said what it wished 
 to say ; unless it wishes to tell the church that the " 300 or 400 petition- 
 ers did not understand the design of their petition when they signed 
 it." Also page 18f where it is said: "1st, The constitution of the Ten-: 
 nessee Synod contains sis unalterable articles ; they were termed un- 
 alterable, because they were considered fully scriptural ; upon these 
 they were constituted a body, and pledged themselves accordinglv to 
 act in good faith towards each other. In the faithful compliance with 
 these principles, their union and existence as a body was sustained. 
 They have violated these principles, and their existence as a body, be- 
 came disorganized, and are no longer the Tennessee Synod." Upon 
 this he also remarked, that he did not think that it said what it wish- 
 ed to say, because it accuses the Articles of having violated their own 
 principles. -* 
 
 Now petitioners ! we will tell you how Mr. H. said he would read 
 the minutes. He said he would read them as they ought to read, so 
 as to be against our Synod,- — that he would set them with all their horns 
 against us : and then he would answer them to the satisfaction of ev- 
 ery unprejudiced mind; which we think he did. But who authorized 
 you only to give half of his statements, and thus give them a difierent 
 construction ? You remind us of the lame dog which the man lifted 
 over the stile, — which then turned round and bit him in the leg. Pe- 
 titioners ! you have corrupted Henkel's language, and read it 'false,' 
 and in the most important instances, acted the part of ' skippers.^ In 
 relation to what you say about "contending witli the enemy," we an- 
 swer, that you have not stated it as Henkel did. He said the phrase 
 is ambigUQuS; and implied to be on the enemy's side, &c. Again, you 
 
G 
 
 say, ^' lie further said, tliat tlie petitioners were forced to sign the pe- 
 tition contrary to the dictates of their own conscience." This is not 
 true. Mr. H. said, according to the language of the minutes, page 15, 
 Mr. Miller's own '' petitioners did not understand the design of their pe- 
 tition when they signed it." 
 
 Again, you say, '^ Mr. H. denied one ordained minister with lay-dele- 
 gates, could be a body (a constitutional Synod) to transact business; 
 therefore Mr. G. Easterly and delegates, in re-organizing the Synod, 
 was not a proper Synod." We cannot forbear telling the petitioners 
 that this is notoriously false. The truth is, Henkel stated, that accord- 
 ing to the language of the minutes quoted from Rev. D. Henkel, (page 
 18) their Synod is no Synod. You say, " He further stated that Rev. 
 Easterly had been an excellent minister, but that he had become child- 
 ish." This is another of their wicked perversions. Mr. H. said, that 
 he believed, that if Mr. Easterly had had the facts on both sides, he 
 would have pursued a diiferent course ; but hoped, that what Mr. E. 
 did, he did it in ignorance, thinking that he was doing Grod a service. 
 The sentence continues: " that Mr. Easterly had not been properly in- 
 formed on both sides of the controversy between us, and that Miller 
 had controlled him in the course which he had taken in re-organizing 
 the Synod, as well as the whole contents of the minutes." This is not 
 correct. Henkel made no such positive affirmation. The truth is as 
 follows, viz : He said he had reason to believe, that Mr. E. was not 
 fully in possession of the information on both side^ and that he believ- 
 ed that, to a great extent, Mr. 31. operated upon nis sympathies, by 
 his heavy appeals in behalf of his innocence, and his awful denuncia- 
 tions against us. The sentence continues : '^ that Mr. Miller made the 
 petitioners say what they did not intend to say." Petitioners ! you 
 are a crooked set. If you can only be in the paths of perversion, you 
 seem to be satisfied. Henkel made no such unconditional and positive 
 affirmation. But stated, that if Mr. Miller had written the petitions 
 from North Carolina, and provided the petitions are to be understood 
 as they read, he supposed Mr. M. had caused them to say w^hat they 
 did not intend ; as he did not think that the petitioners wished to speak 
 against themselves. 
 
 As to what you say in relation to ' typographical' and ^grammatical 
 errors,' we tell you that he did point some of them out. But you say, 
 ^' this course seemed to us as if the man's case was a desperate one; — 
 it looked like a busy man employed in doing nothing." We tell you 
 that we do not think you believe what you say : for, had it ' seemed' to 
 you ' like a busy man doing nothing,' you would not have said one 
 word about it. For, if it was equivalent to doing nothing, you should 
 not have criminated yourselves in misrepresenting his language. But 
 you feel irabittered against him, because he set forth the truth in such 
 a clear manner, as to convince those who wished to be convinced ; oth- 
 erwise you would not have suffered men to sign your petition who were 
 not present when the minutes were read, and who never at all heard 
 him read them. This reminds us of the language of soldiers, who were 
 
 « 
 
i 
 
 counseled to say: '^His disciples came and stole lilm away while wc 
 slept," It seems you would strain at a knat, and swallow a camel : — 
 you would misrepresent the language of an innocent and honest man, 
 who in your eye, 'is busy in doing nothing/ if you only by so doing, 
 can support an adulterer and a wicked cause. 
 
 You say, ''we are willing to confess with the Eev. D. Henkel, that 
 in all human compositions there may be errors, and that there may bo 
 such in these minutes, but in our humble view the minutes are plain 
 and convey th-eir own meaning independent of Mr. Henkel's gloss. '^ 
 
 Answer: We readily admit, and P. C. Henkel never at all signified, 
 that human composition is not subject to error. But you would signify 
 that he did. Now we do you no injustice, when telling you, that you 
 maliciously misrepresent him. You say, " there may be such in these 
 minutes." There may ! Astonishing ! ! You say, " We have read the 
 minutes of last session with great care, and cannot discover those errors 
 and contradictions which caviling has attached to them," &c. Well, 
 we would suppose they are almost infallible ! ! Nay, perfect corruption. 
 '' They convey their own meaning," you say, " independent of Mr. 
 Henkel's gloss." Very well, then we suppose they mean precisely 
 what they say. Then the Articles of the Constitution have violated 
 their own principles ! (See page IS.) But do not read it, as though 
 the Tennessee Synod committed the violations ; for this is what you 
 call " Henkel's glo^s^. 1**^ 
 
 Petitioners ! AVe are sorry to sec that you have resorted to such un- 
 just, unfortunate and unchristian measures, to support your ungodly 
 cause, and yet, with an air of foul triumph, say, "for, whenever a 
 cause is to be supported by falsehood, we can have no dependence in it.^' 
 Would to God, you were only sincere in the expression ; but it is not 
 possible, for .all who heard Mr. H. read the minutes, will, when regard- 
 ing truth, be constrained to say, he did you no injustice, as the min- 
 utes were read according to their print, and in those places where it is 
 quite obvious that they speak against themselves, he made the most 
 charitable amendments, altogether in your favor, and against our Syn- 
 od, in order clearly to illustrate, when giving you all you could ask, 
 that the allegations against our Synod, are utterly unfounded. 
 
 Now, dear reader, before we close, we deem it our duty to apprize- 
 you of the fact, that a devoted personal friend of the liev. A. Miller, 
 manifested the boldness to disclose their design, at least in part. Ho 
 said, that the Rev. A. M. said, that Henkel is the very man he wished 
 to break down. And behold ! how have they managed it? Why they 
 have the Rev. A. M. to draw up their petition, so as to pervert the 
 truth as badly as possible, and then get men to sign the petition, who 
 never heard Henkel read the minutes at all. And the principal intended 
 witnesses, who heard Henkel read the minutes, refused to sign the peti- 
 tion. But why ? Answer : " They Avere afraid suit might be brought, 
 and there would none be left to bear testimony." This is their own lan- 
 guage. Whenever it is necessary, we are prepared to give their own 
 language as to the wi^itcr of their petitions alsjo. And also, at any time, 
 
if desired, we can give the names of the three "children of Beliel/' who' 
 were about to witness "against Naboth, in the presence of the people," 
 &c., in behalf of the Rev. King Ahab* *****.« Hast thou found 
 me, mine enemy? And he answered, I have found thee : because 
 thou hast sold thyself to work evil in the sight of the Lord.'^ 
 
 " This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 
 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, 
 blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natur- 
 al affection, truce breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers 
 of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleas- 
 ure more than lovers of God : Having a form of godliness, but deny- 
 ing the power thereof : from such turn away. For of this sort are they 
 which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, 
 led away with divers lusts. But they shall proceed no further : for 
 their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was." 
 
 Oh that our enemies might repent whilst they are on mercy's side 
 of the grave. 
 
 Let this suffice for the present, on this subject, to which we sub- 
 scribe our names, and ever will defend. 
 
 DANIEL MILLER, SOLOMON EKERD, 
 
 DAVID MILLER, LEVI F. YOUNT, 
 
 DAVID E. MILLER, WM. F. BOVEY, 
 
 JOHN BARGER, W., LAWSON HOLLER, 
 
 JESSE MILLER, PHILIP H. DIETZ, 
 
 JOSEPH MILLER, HENRY W HUFFMAN. 
 HENRY YOUNT, Sen., 
 
 REPLY TO THE "CONCURRENT TESTIMONY." 
 
 Catawba County, N. C, August 18th, 1851. 
 
 We, the members of St. John's Church, of the County and State 
 above written, having seen a petition from Miller's Church, of this 
 County and State, addressed to the so called "Evangelical Lutheran 
 Tennessee Synod, Re-organized," (at its October session, 2nd Sunday, 
 1850,) and signed by several refractory characters, and having also 
 seen a piece, styled a "concurrent testimony" to the petition from 
 Miller's church, gotten up and signed by Wm. S, Deal and George P. 
 Sigman, which is a downright perversion of facts. Now, inasmuch as 
 the so called "concurrent testimony," in part of its misrepresentations, 
 corresponds with the wicked and corrupt statements in the petition 
 from Miller's church; and as our brethren at that church, who have a 
 deep regard for truth and good morals, have corrected that little refrac- 
 tory club, it will be unnecessary for us to notice those particulars, 
 ■wherein the two instruments are of the same import entirely, as we 
 ■would be constrained, when regai'ding truth, to identify what our breth- 
 ren have said in answer to the petitioners. As to the concurrent testi- 
 3nony, it bears date Oct. 14th^ 1850^ which was Monday during their 
 
!l 
 
 l^rolo-AeloJ session of Synod, that this foul testimony was i3olstcred up, 
 hffording ample opportunity to concur, and by the aid of additional 
 council, more grossly to misrepresent. 
 
 Deeming it superfluous to notice those particulars wherein the tw6 
 perverting instruments arc of the same import, for the reason already 
 iissigncjd, we proceed immediately to notice the additional perversions 
 and misrepresentations in the '' coucui'rcnt testimony.'' 
 ^ The first additional item we discoviir, reads: '^ "He spent some 
 lime in laboring to prove that Mr. Miller in his remarks on page 5 
 of the minutes, called the Word of God a symbol." To this wo answer, 
 Uiat ^Ir. Itenkel did not only labor to pfove, but did clearly show, in 
 few words from the reading of the minutes oil the abo\n3 cited page, 
 that it is the case. 
 
 The minutes read : "But, thai if to believe the Holy Scriptures as 
 they were revealed to man, as a rule of faith and practice, and if to ad- 
 here to the Augustan Confession ani the Constitution of the Tennessee 
 (Synod, constituted a man a member of that body, that he never had 
 forsakcji those symbols of the church." Henkel remarked, that /hose 
 is a demonstrative adjective pronoun, and that it points out the sub- 
 ject or subjects to which it relates ; and that the subjects raentidued 
 are " Holy Scriptures,"—" Augustan Confession,"—" and Constitution 
 of the Tennessee Synod.'^ He' then stated, that this and these indicate 
 the latter, or last meiitioned; thaf and fhose the former, or fitst men- 
 tioned. He then remarked that "Holy Scriptures" are the first mention- 
 ed object, and that, of course they musi. be the symbols, according to 
 the language used. He further remarked, that " Augustan Confession," 
 is singular, and that it would not be correct to say, those symbols, even 
 if they were first mentioned; and in addition, he stated that the " Con- 
 stitution" is no symbol. 
 
 Again we read : " Mr. Henkel following in the minutes, page 8, read 
 ihe following in the minutes." " They express their judgment that 
 Miller must have been a sore enemy to the Devil's kingdom. They 
 gave it as their opiniortj that it is just what the devil wants, that is, 
 to get him to quit preaching. And further, that those who are oppos- 
 ing him have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge." " On 
 this Mr. H. remarked that the language employed conveyed the fol- 
 lowing idea t That it is just what the devil wants to get the devil to 
 iquit preaching, and those who were opposing the devil had a zeal foii 
 God, but not according to knowledge." 
 
 Answer : As to the remarks Henkel made on the quotation from 
 the minutes, we do not recollect so distinctly, and therefore cannot 
 affirm so positively. But this we do recollect, that he said he did not 
 suppose that the sentence (" They give it as their opinion that it is 
 just what the devil wants, that is, to get him to quit preaching,") reads 
 
 * We also quote from the original copy, undersigned a true copy^ 
 l?y W^m. S. Deal. 
 
10 
 
 as it was desired. And in our judgment it docs not. We will liowev 
 er let those who are better acquainted with the construction of sentences, 
 &c., judge. 
 
 He nevertheless, corrected the language, and gave it the most favor* 
 able reading he could command; and throughout the body of the 
 minutes, he did as he promised in the commencement of its reading, viz 1 
 That in those places where it is obvious, that the minutes speak against 
 themselves, and at times accused other objects of doing things that in 
 the nature of the case is not possible, (such as the Articles violating 
 their own principles, see page 18,) he said, 1 will turn it with all its 
 liorns against us, by giving it the most favorable reading they could 
 desire; and that he trusted under such circumstances, no one, who is 
 desirous of knowing the truth, could take offence at him. Indeed, it 
 was far from rendering offence^ excepting to a few, who were prede- 
 termined in their course, regardless of truth. There were some on the 
 other hand, w^ho, after hearing the minutes read, and allegations answer- 
 ed, avowed their satisfaction with the proceedings of the Evangelical 
 Lutheran Tennessee Synod, that probably would have otherwise re- 
 mained our enemies. This so deeply enraged Mr. M. and a few of his 
 predetermined advocates, that they will grasp almost any measure, to 
 ruin the said Henkel. 
 
 The next item reads : "And page 13.^^ " \Yhen the Synod, to avoid 
 complying with their own condition, voted that 127 was not an honor- 
 able majority over 24, asserted that this was a falsehood, tliat there was 
 no such vote taken in Synod.'^ Answer : Mr. H. did deny that the 
 Synod voted that 24 was a majority over 127. Those who wish to 
 know how the vote was taken, arc referred to the minutes of that ses- 
 sion. (See minutes 1846, page 6.) Who could believe that any set of 
 sensible men would vote that 24 is a majority over 127. 
 
 The next item reads : " He (H.) read the clause on page 19. — The 
 church decisions were considered final, and said, according to the read- 
 ing there was a time when church decisions were final, but were not so 
 at present. Also Matt. 18 : AVhat they bind on earth shall be bound 
 in heaven. Here, said Mr. H., is a perversion of the text." Well, 
 Messrs. Deal and Sigman ! What do you want with this ? Can you 
 prove to the reverse '/ You cannot, unless you do it from the 35th 
 chapter of Matthew ! ! ! 
 
 Again it is said : " Mr. Henkel, upon being asked on that occasion, 
 whether there was no appeal received by the Synod, in Miller's case, 
 positively denied that there was. And on the same occasion being 
 asked whether the Synod did not act upon the case at all, he evaded to 
 answer the question." We answer, relative to the question concerning 
 of an appeal, that Henkel answered, to my knowledge, there was not. 
 As to the next question,' whether Synod acted upon the case: — We 
 answer, thatWm. S. Deal is the man who proposed the question, and 
 he was very angry from every appearance, as every person could hear 
 from his snappish declarations, that even could not see his countenance. 
 Asid Henkel did evade saying any morc to him, than prudence rcquir- 
 
II 
 
 r<], to stop a discussion with a man, in a rage of fury. The manner 
 in which Mr. H. treated him, commends itself to every prudent man. 
 
 There are a few more items we wish to notice. It is further said; 
 *^He denied in part, the right of petition of freemen." Messrs. D. and 
 S., you ought to be ashamed to make such a blind pretence. Call 
 the illustration to mind that Henkel gave on this subject; — Did he not 
 t€ll you very correctly, under what circumstances Synod would be un- 
 der obligations to grant the petitions of freemen? To illustrate tho 
 subject, he said, suppose St. John's church would send a delegate to 
 Synod, authorizing him to withdraw her from Synod, Did he nottHeu 
 ask the question: Who could hinder you? He answered: No one. 
 He then made the following supposition : Suppose you would call a 
 Roman Catholic to preach for you. — Then he asked : Who could hin- 
 der you ? And again answered : No one. He then said, suppose the 
 congi'egation would petition to the next Synod, informing her, that tho 
 congregation is determined to act like a set of freemen j telling Synod, 
 we have called our minister to preach for us, and Synod (our servant) 
 must concur with us in what we have done ; otherwise she will act un- 
 constitutional. For the Constitution says : " Both Pastors and Dea- 
 cons must be called to their office by one or more congregations.'' 
 Mr. Henkel then asked : Do you suppose Synod would be bound to 
 grant their request, under such circumstances ? And said, I know 
 your good sense and deep regard for Christianity would answer : No it 
 would not. 
 
 But, W. S. D. and G-. P. S. would say : Synod is bound to grant 
 their entire request, regardless of circumstances, otherwise it would be 
 denying '' in pai-t, the right of petition of freemen ! ! 1"" Very well, 
 we think we understand your policy now. If adulterers, whoremon- 
 gers, Roman Catholics and what not, petition your Synod, you grant 
 all their requests, regardless of circumstances, lest you " deny, in party. 
 the right of petition of freemen." Yes, and A. M. and D. F. can sit 
 in session with you, and acquiesce in sentiment. It is not very aston- 
 ishing though ! — Mr. Henkel, after showing under what circumstances 
 Synod is not under obligations to grant the petitioners' requests, show- 
 ed, by varying the same illustration, when she would be. Messrs. D. 
 and S. continue : " He said there were signers to them petitions from 
 N. C , in 1847, which did not understand the design of the petitions, 
 when they signed ; but referred to no particular one." To this we 
 answer : that Mr. H. said, according to the language of the minutes, 
 page 15, that some of the three or four hundred petitioners for Mr. M. 
 did not understand the design of their petition when they signed, and 
 clearly showed, that it is just what the natural reading of the minutes 
 sets forth. " But referred to no particular one ! ! I*^ Messrs. D. and S,, 
 are you naturally so ignorant ? — Or are you determined to be crooked ? 
 Mr. H. never intended to point out any particular one, but confined 
 himself to the language of the minutes, which clearly shows that it was 
 some of the three or four hundred. 
 
 Again you say, "Mr. Henkel was requested to read Mr. Eastxjrly's 
 
12 
 
 letter r.ppended to the minutes, wbieli was indefinitely postponed.'-* 
 ^' Requested to read," kc. Requested by whom ? By the congrega-. 
 tion? — If this is what you intend, you lie notoriously. Or do you 
 wish to make the impression on the reader's mind that ITenkel mani- 
 fested a reluctanee to read the k'tter ? If so, you tell an untruth Did 
 not Henkel state, after he was through with the body of the minutes, 
 that he would now read the letter also, if the congregation desired it ? 
 Did not the congregation conclude that it would be too late in the even- 
 ing to have the letter read also, aud to refer to Mr. E's. quotations,, 
 wjjich Ilenkel said he would do, provided the congregation said he> 
 should read it. Did not Mr. H. say, if you wish me to read it, I will 
 do so, if it even takes me till 9 or 16 o'clock in the night t Was it 
 not then put to vote, whether or not it should be read that evening^ 
 You know it was. And consequently deferred to some other lime by 
 the vote of thecongregation. iVud yet you ean say, ''it was indefinite- 
 ly postponed.'^ This can only be true, in one sense, that is : there wa& 
 no particular time set, when the letter was to be read. If this is the 
 sense you intended, (which, from its connexion, seems not to lie the 
 case) why did you not give a full and a fair statement ? You no doubt 
 saw that if you would give a fair statement, it could be no advantage 
 to your ungodly cause, and, of course, could not injure Mr. 11. Hence 
 you keep as dark as possible, (just like your leader,) so that when 
 closely pursued, you are ready with a slip-gap, so that you can dodge 
 in another direction. 
 
 The last item in reference to this reads : '^ But remarked that the 
 texts quoted by Mr. Easterly in his letter stood as proof to the re ader,, 
 and said, if I read that letter, I will prove quite different from those 
 texts to what Easterly has intended to prove from them." 
 
 To this we answer, that it is one of the most glaring misrepresenta- 
 tions that could well be made. Mr, PL did remark, that merely to name 
 the chapters and verses, without reading their contents, might by some 
 be supposed to prove, that Mr. E's affirmations are thereby fully estab- 
 lished. But Mr. H. said, if I read the letter, I will read the texts quot- 
 ed ; so that the congregation may be enabled to judge as to the correct- 
 ness of Mr. E^s sentiments, and the applicability of the texts quoted to 
 the subjects under consideration. 
 
 Now, dear reader, we have briefly answered the testimony of the said 
 W. S. D. and (x. P. S,, not that we are in the least partial to any man, 
 or set of men ; but seeing the most unjust measures taken to injure our 
 Pastor, P. C. Henkel, whom we have known from a child, we are hap- 
 py to say, that his character is unimpeachable. We, therefore, cannot 
 suffer a set of designing men to misrepresent him, and tarnish his char- 
 acter abroad in print. Had that foul Synod not went so far as to print 
 their foul perversions and misrepresentations, we should not have been 
 at the trouble to expose their v.icked attempts, as they have not, and 
 cannot injure the said Henkel, \vhere he is personally known. This hi& 
 enemies are well aware of, and therefore they have adopted another 
 plan. 
 
13 
 
 Wc humbly pray that the time may speedily roll on when repentance 
 and reformation of life, on the part of our enemies, may take place. 
 We add no more. Kespectfully submitted and undersigned. • 
 ELI E. J)EAL, MOSES HERMAN, 
 
 FREDERICK SMITH, GEORGE H. SIGMAN, 
 
 ELI SIGMAN, JOEL SIMMON, 
 
 TOBIAS MOSER, H. INGOLD, 
 
 B. C. ALLEN, DAVID SMITH. 
 
 That I read the minutes correctly, Mr. Wm. S. Deal publicly acknowU 
 edged. This, however, is not so distinctly recollected by all who were 
 present ; those therefore, who do fully recollect this fact, do separate- 
 ly testify, as follows, to wit : 
 
 "St. John's Church, Catawba County, N. C. 
 "We, the undersigned, were present when the Rev. P. C. Henkel read 
 the minutes of the Evangelical L. T. Synod, so called. When Mr. 
 Henkel had read the minutes, Mr. Wm. S, Deal said to Mr. Henkel, 
 had you called on me to read that minute, I could have read it that any 
 plain scholar could have understood it. Whereupon Mr. Henkel re- 
 marked, and said, I have read it right. Mr. Wm. S. Deal then said,. 
 I know you did.'* 
 
 GEORGE H. SIGMAN, F. R. SHOOK, 
 TOBIAS MOSER, ELI E. DEAL, 
 
 EU SIG3iAN. MOSES HERMAN. 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 It is apprehended from the above declaration, that the extract em- 
 bodied in the minutes of the so called " Re. S." for the year 1850, i* 
 utterly a mass of perverted stuff; and consequently, were it not for Mr^ 
 M's incessant importunities and attempts to make false impressions ovt 
 the minds of the weaker class, and those at a distance, I should say no 
 fliore in reply, as the fountain from whence the diabolical underplot- 
 ted notes is sufficiently defeated to satisfy those of ready discernment.. 
 
 But experience of five long years, and many abuses thrown upon me by 
 an untiring persecutor and a taunting contriver, teach me the necessity 
 to be very plain. But, in order not to extend the present pages be- 
 yond a reasonable limit, I shall confine myself more particularly to the 
 consideration of the undcrplotted notes. But, before entering upon 
 this, I shall take the liberty to remark, that the reading of the minutes 
 ia the churches, and the answering of the allegations therein contain- 
 ed, seems to have excited the feelings of my opjtonents to such an ex- 
 tent, that it reminds me of an interrupted hornets^nest ; — tliough they 
 say, it seemed to them " like a busy man doing nothing." — Which, if 
 correct, wisdom would have directed them to say : It is not vvorthy of 
 notice. — And consequently that long harangue, and piece of abuse and 
 reproach, would not have been printed ; and, of course, in that case, 
 xjpthing moxe would have been, said about it. 
 
u 
 
 "VVhcreas the minutes were rer:d according (o tLcir print, and as I 
 corrected them in those places where it is qnite obvious that they speab 
 against themselves, and so corrected them as to read altogether in their 
 favor, that every unprejudiced mind could see that I was doing them 
 justice, and meeting their allegations in a dress as fair as they could 
 Lave expressed thcm^ they should not have given their perversions in 
 return ; but should at least have tried to imitate the golden rule so far 
 as to give my expressions justice. And if this little "Re. S.'' knew 
 no better, as to what I said, tlian a few ambitious characters could cer- 
 tify, (together with a parcel of men, who testify that I read the min- 
 utes false, &c., and at the same time must confess that they did not 
 hear me read the minutes at all,) it seems that common honesty should 
 have forbidden this little " E.e. 8.'' to publish their stuff to the world. 
 But it seems that the petition and concurrent testimony was not per- 
 verse enough to suit their malice ; hence they must resort to a plan to 
 make their ridiculous perversions and misrepresentations appear in>. 
 augmented colors. 
 
 I shall yet briefly notice what this gigantic "Re. S." did, through its 
 committee, relative to the examination of the minutes of its previous 
 session. It is said, (page 7 last min.) after their encomiums to ther 
 printer, &c., " We have nevertheless discovered some slight typogra- 
 phical errors, and also some unintentional inaccuracies in diction, but 
 none to affect materially the sense intended to be conveyed. But so 
 far as truth and principle are concerned, we have discovered no errors; 
 and therefore recommend the adoption of this report.^' Well, proba- 
 bly I said too much above, when stating, and corrected them in those 
 places where it is quite ohvioiis that they speak against themselves ; for 
 I apprehend that A. Miller is at the head, and D. Forrester at the foot of 
 the committee of examination; and both, no doubt, perfect graduates T 
 And I, as some have said, graduated under Professor Rev. J. R. Mo- 
 ser, at the old Machine. Very well. But I think all your literary 
 tyros would, when contrasted with the Rev. J. R. Moser, suffer seri- 
 ously. 
 
 But, it is said, some of the best of scholars at Newton examined the 
 minutes, and all was found correct ; and this gives weight to the mat- 
 ter, and has a tendency to break you down.* Very well. I shall ex- 
 amine the matter ; and then you may call upon your Newton Scholars, 
 and let them display their literary powers as much as they please. — 
 You confess though, that there are errors in the minutes ; But not 
 
 * I have my doubts, whether any scholars at Newton examined the 
 minutes, and pronounced them correct ; unless they were enemies to 
 our Synod, and did it to give weight to a persecutor's cause. I care 
 but little for what such men may say, so far as it concerns my person. 
 But for any man to make pretensions that a wrong thing is correct, witk 
 no other intention than to give an unwearied abuser, (in his ignorance 
 and malice,) a chance to make a false impression on the minds of igno- 
 rant people, is unchristian and mean^ — be they who they may. 
 
1.) 
 
 j^'Lcrc irnth and jyrinciplc are concerned I : "Well, then it secni.s 
 that in some part of the minuter ncitlier truth nor princi' 
 j>le are concerned I ! ! If I had known that you would make 
 ii«uch an acknowledgment as this, I believe I v/ould have de- 
 ferred reading your minutes a few months longer, and would havo 
 tried to have given them a charitable correction. But, it might be, 
 that you would have bitten me in the heel for so doing. And in fact, 
 it might have led you to accuse me of being '• skilled in the art of spi- 
 ritualizing." Consequently, you can expect me in future to understand 
 your writings exactly as they read. As you say, page 13 : ** Is not 
 the language sufficiently plain to convey its own meaning to an intel- 
 ligent reader ? — or does he intend an open insult ?" If it in.sults you, 
 to correct your extraordinarily deep, sober, comprehensive and sound 
 ideas ! I shall in future endeavor to understand your writings, verbatim, 
 et literatim, et punctuatim. But then, for an idea, in many places, I 
 know I shall be greatly at a loss; for instance, (pa^e 5, last min.) I 
 read of a ^'committee appointed to extract petition's!**^ How do you 
 extract petitions ? See also page 4th, &c. And, page 16, I read : 
 *^ On this Mr. H. remarked that the language employed, conveyed the 
 following idea: that it is just what the devil wanted, to get the devil 
 to quit preaching, and those who were opposing the devil had a zeal 
 for God, but not according to knov,'ledge."''(See page 14.)^ See page 
 14 of what ? — I can find no such language on page 14 of any pamphlet 
 or book that I possess, unless this should happen to be a 14th page. 
 You have given us an errata ; but to what purpose ? To prevent any 
 t)ne from discovering errors in your minutes ? If so, you have failed. 
 But I suppose if a committee would examine it by order of your Syn- 
 od, they would conclude that, "so far as truth and principle are con- 
 cerned, we have discovered no errors \ ! '^ Come, publish " truth" and 
 ^'principle" to the world, and you will stand in need of no errata, as 
 to your other mistakes ; for so far as I would have occasion to read 
 your productions, I trust they would meet with as honorable correction 
 as you well could make yourselves j though it be at the peril of receiv- 
 ing abuse. 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 I shall now attend to those notes, commencing on page 13, in which 
 I perceive, there is neither truth nor principle, excepting the few texts 
 of Scripture and a few other little clauses, in themselves considered. 
 
 As to the phrase or address, "Miller's Minutes," I confess that I 
 have used it frequently, and all that I have ever seen or heard relative 
 to this, does not teach me any impropriety in so using it. But on the 
 other hand, I have enough to satisfy ray own mind, as to its applica- 
 bility. As to the partial honor of him, being the author of the minutes, 
 I conclude it is due him. That he denies acting " with the body du- 
 ring the preceding part of the session," does not prove, that he is not 
 its author. And with mo it docs not matter who m;iv be its author. 
 
1(1 
 
 The nest note says .' ^Olu H. sdcJins to be skilled iu tiic aft of' spin^-? 
 Ualizing. Who authoi^ized hhii to give an abstract meaning of the! 
 language used in the minutes V^ 
 
 Answer : This ia already answered by my brethren from Miller'^ 
 church. See their reply. It seems this little '^ Re. S." is skilled iri 
 the art of per\'er.sion ;ind uiisreprC^^entation. I return the compliment, 
 and ask : wha authon;Jed you to tell the world suc'a f<*Isehoods, and to' 
 have men to testify that it is so, Who know nothing about it. Ah ! 
 you would say, our intended witnesses we have kept back, to be ready 
 in case suit might be brought I ! I Header ! would you fear the bringing 
 of suit, in case you acted honestly and uprightly ? Surely you would 
 not hesitate a incrment. But when men are laying a plot of conspiracy, 
 they may act in that way, particularly, when they have no nfore affec- 
 tion for the object of their abuse, than to coiripare me to brutes of dif- 
 ferent kinds, Iveader ! can there be one spark oi honesty or Christianity 
 in such men 7 Further, it is said in the same note i ^* Is not the lan- 
 guage sufficiently plain to convey its own meaning to an. intelligent 
 reader ? &c.-^and does not need Mr. H's spiritualization to render it 
 intelligible.^' Well, tum to page 15 of your minutes for 1849 ; where 
 you will read : '' They then petitioned foi' a redress of grievances, and 
 (if not misinformed) there were between three and four hundred peti- 
 tioners for Mr. IMiller, and'^somc twenty or thirty against' him; and 
 some of those have since said, that the}'^ ctid not understand the design 
 of their petition, v.'hen they signed it." Well, I suppose it is all gra)n-- 
 matical enough. But, Messrs. A. M. and D. F.;, together with the 
 ballance of yrmr committee. Synod, — and if you desire, — say,- '"Newtoa 
 scholars," tel) me, according to the "intelligible" language of the minutes,- 
 which class of petitioners did not understand the cfesign of their peti- 
 tion, when they signed it. If you answer, the three or four hundred, 
 I shall acknowledge tliat it is so. But Avhy do you tell the com- 
 munity that your own petitioners did not understand the design* of 
 their petition, when they signed it ! But, if yoti say that it wag- the 
 twenty or thirty, I tell yon the Issnguage conveys no such idea, and I 
 defy you with all youi' polished literary accomplishments, Newton 
 scholars, graduates and what not^ to m^ike it appear. This, however, 
 may be one of those places where truth, and jrnnciple are not concern- 
 e.d! I -:im not laboring to satisfy the learned, but the illiterate. 
 If the nbove would say, some of these have since said, instead of say- 
 ing "some cf( I'hosc have since said," &c., then we could understand, 
 when taking- it as it reads, that somt) of the twenty ov thirty wore refer- 
 red to, as tne ones wht> " did not understand the design of their peti- 
 tion, wiieri they signed it." Let the common reader take the follow- 
 ing example : Suppose I have three or four hundred red apples, and 
 some twenty or thirty green ones, and I were then to affirm, that those 
 are for Johu and these are for ])ick, can you tell me, which are John's 
 and which are Pick's apples ? I suppose it would puzzle the three 
 children of Belial, (the principal intended witnesses against me,) to- 
 gether with those who bear testimony against me in the minutcS; who 
 
1 
 
 i 
 
 hever heard me reai them, but were absent, anil probably asleep at 
 the time to answer it. — And in all probability the polished graduates, 
 A. M. and D. V,, otherwise they v.ould not have said : '' But so far as 
 f r nth im^ principle are concetincd, we have discovered no errors;" — 
 xm(\. also said : ^' Is not the langua^^e sufficiently plain to convey its 
 own meaninir," &c. The note continues : "He must be an cxceedinoj 
 learned man." Would it be spiritualizinsr to correct this sentence 
 thus, and say : " lie must be an axcecdimlij learned man V If so, 
 keep your grammtir for your own purposes, well shrouded in the man- 
 tle of nonsense. It is possible for mo or any one else, to be an " exceed-' 
 ing" man in many respects, i. e., great in quantity, extent, &c., with- 
 out involving the idea of graduation at some literary institute. You 
 should remember, or first learn, that ^' exceeding " is a participial ad- 
 jective, and no adverb. My present limits will not permit me, to notice 
 all the ^^ exceeding learned" (!) phrases in your minutes, even where 
 *' truth and prviiciple are not concerned." 
 
 You seem to wish the information where I graduated, after which, 
 you conclude that, " In our humble view such a course of conduct is 
 beneath the dignity of a gentleman, much less a christian." " Such 
 a course." — What kind of a course? To make such opprobious epith- 
 ets, and to make inquiry for such information ? If so, why have you 
 done so? If, however, ^'such" has a reference to another source to 
 fetch its conclusion, you had better let your conclusion follow in quick 
 succession, so as to make it intelligible, lest such a feeble graduate as 
 you are trying to make sport of, might turn the tables against him, 
 who is trying in his intrigue to break the poor creature down, — 
 the creature, which the graceful lips of the Rev. A. M. could in his 
 humble and christian-like tone, compare to a stiff necked Jack-ass. 
 Such conduct as this, I suppose is christian enough for your Synod, 
 particularly, when one so holy and godly, as the Rev. A. M. utters it. 
 
 It matters not where I graduated ; even if it were in a log-cabin 
 shingled with clapboards, and ornamented with a wooden chimney, and 
 such fine furniture as may be customary in such stately institutes. If 
 I have only the required education, and natural talents, together with 
 industry sufficient to discharge the duties incumbent upon me ; and 
 also the christian fortitude, &c., to bear the many heavy persecutions 
 and foul calumnies, (such as are attempted to be heaped upon me by 
 your Synod and otherwise,) using only such liberties as christians in 
 all ages enjoyed, to expose the devices of Satan; leaving the Almighty 
 and civil governments under his direction, to punish offenders. I feel 
 satisfied, that Jesus Christ, the Judge of quick & dead, will not reproach 
 and condemn me because I am poor, and because I enjoyed not the pri- 
 vileges of the rich, and pleasures of this world ; and also regularly to 
 graduate at some great institute. No ! I still remember that my bless* 
 ad Saviour was born of a poor virgin, a manger is his palace. Under 
 the influence of such considerations, I feel my sentiments expand, and 
 my wishes acquire a turn of sublimity, and my throbbing desires after 
 worldly grandeur, die away. 
 
IS 
 
 But where did one of this gigantic 1\. E L. T. iS^uod's miniHters 
 
 graduate !** 1 1 *** — I ! ! ? Give the world this information, and you 
 
 will have enough to do, without trying to reproach me by your 
 bport, as one of your ministers, also on other occasions, has done, when 
 comparing me with a degree of sneering merriment, to the brutal crea- 
 tion. I shall let the reader judge, whether your course is not beneath 
 the dignity of a gentleman or christian. 
 
 I shall now pass on to the next distorting note. It commences thus i 
 ^* Mr. H. manifests a wonderful knowledge of language when he tells 
 his hearers that to contend with the enemy is not grammatical." 
 Answer: I never said that it is not grammatical j but as certified by 
 my brethren, I said that the sentences : ** Their struggles with the 
 Generalists," — " contended so hard with them," &c,, are ambiguous, 
 and implied to be on the enemies' side. Any person acquainted with 
 the rules of grammar, knows, that so far as the parsing of these sen- 
 tences is concerned, that they could be parsed when substituting any 
 preposition in the English language instead of the one used; as 
 " prepositions govern the objective case," It could be parsed, if it 
 would read : contended in the enemy, or for the enemy ', around j 
 towards^ frorrij upon, &c. But then the phrases would assume diflfer- 
 cnt significations. Not every sentence that may be parsed by the 
 rules of grammar, is free from ambiguity ; neither doea any such sen- 
 tence convey a fair idea. Now for you to attempt to afiirm, that I 
 said, " to contend with the enemy," is not grammatical, (in any other 
 sense than||in point of signification,) you afiirm that which is not so. 
 Again, in the same note it is said : *' If he is correct in his criticism, 
 he has not only corrected the language in the minutes, but he has con- 
 victed the Almighty himself ol the grossest wickedness. It seems 
 according to this view, that the translators of the Scripture did not un- 
 derstand grammar with this learned divine I" 
 
 Answ^er: Did the translators of the Scriptures into the English, on 
 all occasions, make the choicest selection of prepositions, and also, on 
 all occasions, select words, to convey the original import of the text in 
 the clearest sense possible '/ If so, where is the propriety for the criti- 
 cisms of many of the ablest theologians ? Where the expediency for the 
 framers of the constitution of the Tenn. Synod to make provision, in 
 case of dispute, to decide any such point, by appealing to the languagcw 
 in which the Scriptures were first written ? It seems that you view the 
 translators as being inspired ; and that we are allowed, under no cir- 
 cumstances, to call into question the propriety of the present English 
 translation in any respect; lest, forsooth, according to the present 
 translation, in some instances, we might discover certain ambiguous 
 expressions, and thus convict the " Almighty himself, of the grossest 
 wickedness !" 
 
 . The inference you have made, is a logical non-sequitur ; for it does 
 not follow, that because there are texts in the English translation, uir- 
 ing the preposdtion. ^' ici'fh," in a similar manner as used in your min- 
 utes, (and even by ether writers) that therefore, bccau.sc I affrrmcd; 
 
10 
 
 that to '' Struggle with tho Genpialisis—to contend with them/' &c., 
 is ambiguou?, (that is, doubtful, having two meanings,) this would 
 convict " the Almighty himself of the grossest wickedness." Such reas- 
 oning might satisfy a " dummkopfe !" 
 
 Before^you drew your conclusion, you should have proven (what 
 you never can prove) that those texts you refer to, cannot admit the 
 preposition against to take the place of withj without doing violence 
 to the texts, or injuring their primary import. Let the reader turn 
 to all the portions of Scripture you have quoted, (except Neh. 25: 1,*) 
 and as he reads, substitute the preposition against, in the place of with; 
 and if this will convict the Almighty of the grossest wickedness, you 
 must have a plan to spiritualize matter to suit your own perverse 
 
 purposes. . . 
 
 The preposition against signifies "in opposition to, contrary, 
 in contradiction to, opposite to." Hugh Blair, D. D. F. E. S., 
 when giving the difference between with and by, says : " but with 
 expresses a more close and immediate connexion; bi/, a more remote one. 
 Again, another able writer says: ''with, the imperative oi withan, to 
 ioin.'^ ^' I will go with hira." "I join him." Now, m the first 
 text you quote : (Deut. 2 : 9.) Are the children of Israel forbidden tQ 
 come in a more close and immediate connexion with the Moabites, or 
 join with them, (which is possible without involving the idea of abiis- 
 ing, injuring, wronging, offending or distressing them) or were the 
 Israelites forbidden to oppose, act contrary to, or contradict, or " dis- 
 tress" them? Undoubtedly, the latter, which, in my judgment, 
 would be more obvious and free from ambiguity, to render the phrase 
 thus : "neither contend against them in battle." Though it may be 
 admitted, that they were not to join them in any sense. At any rate, 
 I am well satisfied, that it would not convict " the Almighty himself of 
 the grossest wickedness.'^ Sirs : before you affirmed that I am " will- 
 ful," in an error, you should have proven, that I committed an error, 
 and that too, with design. You might as well accuse a man of sinning 
 against the Holy Ghost, who would affirm, that apo would convey a 
 fairer idea, when rendered from instead of out of, as in Matt. 3 : 16., 
 &c. You no doubt would be ready to accuse and reproach such, by 
 saying: " he manifests a wonderful knowledge of language,— has convict- 
 ed the Almighty himself of the grossest wickedness— the translators of 
 the Scriptures did not understand grammar with this learned divme ! 
 And all this, because this divine affirmed, that the prepositions employ- 
 ed, conveyed a doubtful idea ; and, that a different rendering would 
 remove all scruples. Though, I may not have thought, that your 
 volume or any other person's, in point of sublipiity, deserved a con- 
 trast with the present English translation of the Bible. o o \ 
 If you will turn to the Septuagint, and examine the text (Deut. 2: 9.) 
 and you will find the preposition pros, in connexion with the Aocusa^ 
 tive, which may justly be rendered, against, as in the sen tence: "/Va> 
 
 ■" There is no 25th chapter i^ Nchemiah. 
 
20 
 
 '/tenCra me lactize, do iiotkickag^\n<:t the pricks, ^-Escliyl." This text 
 according to the German translation, roads: " Bu soht die Moahittcr 
 nicht heleitigen nocli hehriegen.'" I suppose that the judge who has 
 passed sentence upon me, (page 14,) when he looks at the German 
 translation, that the translator or translators will suffer seriously ; for 
 they have omitted the preposition entirely in that clause. Will this 
 Judge accuse him or them with the crime of having taken " from the 
 words of the book of this prophesy?'*" And therefore, "his (or their) 
 part/' shall be taken "out of the book of life, and cut of the holy city," 
 &c. If it suits his ambition, he can do it by the same kind of reason- 
 ing and inference, which led him to sentence me so awfully; lest, for- 
 sooth, it might be made to appear by the translator, that he did not al- 
 ter or take from the primary import of the text, and thus avert this 
 awful judgment. 
 
 The next text which is quoted against me, is : Prov. ^8: 4. The 
 original (Greek) has, perihallousin, (com. oi pen about, and hallo^ to 
 cast, throw, pelt, &c. The German reads: — "' Slnd unwillig avf sic.'* 
 An able Lutheran (German Commentator) renders this phrase thus : 
 ^^streiten icicder sie,'' — contend against them. It is uunecessnry to 
 pursue this part of the subject any further, as the common reader may 
 easily decide, when substituting the preposition against j for ivitli, 
 whether it conveys a wicked idea, or whether it would " convict the 
 Almighty himself of the grossest wickedness," so to read and under- 
 stand them. Now, if to speak of the Almighty as being opposed to 
 wickedness, or of being against it, convicts him of the grossest Avick- 
 edness, I must confess, that this " Ke. S." so-called, has a clue to 
 spiritualize matter, beyond my penetration. 
 
 Again, page 14, it is said: "Can a man be a safe teacher who would 
 thus willfully misconstrue the word of God, to suit his own cruel ambi- 
 tion." Sirs : I have never misconstrued the word of God. I shall 
 hold you as a set of columniators, until you prove your assertion. 
 
 But, probably you will condemn me for speaking of ambiguity touch- 
 ing the present English translation. It will scarcely be pretended, 
 that the translators of the sacred volume did not accurately under- 
 stand the English language. It is nevertheless possible, for them' to 
 have employed prepositions in various texts, and also other words, 
 •which do not convey the primary import of the text, to the nicest 
 and clearest degree, in all instances. In ray humble judgment, it would 
 not amount to blasphemy, so to conclude : Unless you can make it ap- 
 pear, that they were under the immediate guidance of inspiration, at 
 least, whilst engaged in translating. Now that I have intimated no 
 more than I am able to maintain, a few instances from the present trans- 
 lation will be given. I Cor. 13 : 1 — 3. The word agapen, translated 
 charity, should undoubtedly have a different rendering: It is derived 
 from the verb agapac, — to be strictly united in affection, to love, &c. 
 The German has " Liehe." The primary signification of the word char- 
 ity, is alms-giving. Now it is possible for a person to give all he pos- 
 sesseS; and even his body to be burned ) and thus fill up the measure of 
 
21 
 
 tbe primary import of the word charity, and at the same time be des- 
 titute of love; and consequently nil deeds of charity, when performed 
 without' the proper affection, would profit the giver nothinf;. To give 
 the word charity its original signification, and pursue it in the text, (ac- 
 cording to the English translation,) to its ultimate consequence, it 
 makes the Apostle say, that which the original text will never justify, 
 VIZ : '*If I have all charity, and yet have not charity, I am nothing/* 
 
 Again, (John 16: lo.) " Kovrbeit, when he, the spirit of truth, is 
 come, he will guide you into all truth;"' that is, according to the trans- 
 lation : "into all truth whatsoever, into truth of all kinds," which holds 
 forth an idea, very different from the intention of the Evangelist, and 
 from the original. Inspired men were not omniscient. The proper 
 rendering is: '^into all tlie truth ;'^ that is, into all evangelical 
 truth, all truth necessary for you to know. I feel myself at no loss, to 
 produce additional specimens, if it were necessary. 
 
 The note marked thus (||) is clearly answered by my worthy brethren. 
 
 As to what is said of the note marked thus, (§) has also been answer- 
 ed by m.y brethren. I shall, however, remark, that I never attempt- 
 ed to show, what it takes to constitute a Synod, (when reading their 
 min.) in any other way, than from their own production and ({notation ; 
 (see min. page 18, for 1849,) where, in a note we read : "A Synod is 
 a body of minister? with lay deputies, who superintend the concerns of 
 the church under their care, agreeably to certain christian rules, found- 
 ed upon a constitution.'* What can we infer from such language, than 
 that a plurality of ministers is required to constitute a Synod ? — 
 Such language does not prove, that one minister alone can 
 constitute or reorganize a Synod ; having Rev. P. H. and J). H. as 
 judges. All that you can, or have proven, in relation to this, from 
 the pages and quotations you have cited in your minutes, is, firstly, 
 that a Synod is a body of ministers, &c., (one minister is no body of 
 ministers !) And secondly, that if a body of ministers, or a Synod, 
 makes a mutual agreement to meet at a certain time and place, to hold 
 Synod; and should all the regular ordained ministers fail to attend, 
 except one, that he, with licentiates and deputies, would have consti- 
 tutional authority to transact business, having ap}ieared at the consti- 
 tutional appointment : consequently the rest failing to attend, when 
 knowing of the appointment, must abide by the consequences, or pro- 
 test against them. The N. C. Synod must have viewed the subject in 
 this light; otherwise it would not have acknowledged J. E. Bell legal- 
 ly ordained; which ordination was performed at the session to which 
 you allude. At this period there was no final separation declared, and 
 consequently the session of which you speak, was not the first session 
 of the Tenn. Synod, as you wish to intimate, for it did not then exi^t; 
 hence, the session alluded to, was to all rules and purposes a session of 
 the North Carolina Synod. 
 
 The first session of the Tenn. Synod was held in Solomon's church, 
 (Cove Creek) Green County, Tenn., on the 17th, 18th and 19th days 
 of July, A. D. 1820. This cession ^a? composed of four PastorS;, 
 
22 
 
 viz; Jacob Zink, Paul Ilenkcl, Adam Miller, sen., Philip llenkel and 
 Deacon G. Easterly, together with 19 deputies. 
 
 Now, the so called '< Re. S." had no existence, till the year 1848, 
 nnd in its title pages, claims none antecedent to this date ; consequent* 
 ly it is approaching the fourth year of its age. But the Evan. Luth. 
 Tenn. Synod, will soon be in its 31st session. 
 
 If the so-called *' Pve. S." was designed to be the original T. S. rt 
 should have claimed some of its first sessions, at least ! 
 
 As, for one regular ordained minister, with catachists and lay-dele- 
 gates to transact business, when meeting pursuant to a regular Synod's 
 own adjournment, is one thing; and for one minister and delegates to 
 form a new Synod, or attempt to reorganize one, is another thing. 
 From dissimilar objects, no one, but an ignorant or deceitful man, (or 
 set of men,) will draw identical conclusions. 
 
 I shall now briefly notice the clause marked thus, (T^) which reads : 
 ^*We shall here insert Dr. B's letter without note, as it speaks for itself." 
 From this it seems that the petitioners from Miller's church, and the 
 two men from St. John's, did not, or could not speak for themselves. 
 It seems they could not at the first attempt, misrepresent matter badly 
 enough to suit their cruel ambition, to break him down, whom one has 
 compared to a Jack-ass, &c., and some of his followers, imitating his 
 godly conversation, comparing me to a Muly-bull. ! christian read- 
 er ! ! ie such conduct the conduct of christians ? 
 
 In relation to the contents of the letter of B. F. Bell, the celebrated 
 and seemingly magnanimous Dr., I answer, that so far as it concerns 
 myself, I have proven that I did not say that the Rev. E — . "was in 
 a state of dotage, vacillation, or what we sometimes call childishness. *'• 
 I doubt not, but that Mr. Bell was so informed. But this magnanir 
 mous Dr., before attempting to defame me, (as I see that this " letter 
 was intended to be draughted as a note from the word '^childish"') 
 should have looked at the source from whence he obtained his informa- 
 tion. A goodly number of those who certify against me, were not 
 present when the minutes were read, which is their own acknowledge- 
 ment. And their leader has frequently said, "If I go down, they * 
 shall go down with me," and in order to degrade me as much as pos- 
 sible, at different times he has compared me to brutes; yet it seems 
 that his conversation is looked upon as being in heaven ! Oh ! shame ! ! 
 Dr. B. ! may I not consistently turn the tables ; and ask, who will now 
 detract from, or defame my character, upon the strength of such men's 
 affirmations ? May I not justly respond and say : — "I know that envy, 
 pining at the superiority of others, anger, like the fire of iEtna, feeding 
 upon its own substance; ambition, in its restless effort, pulling down 
 disgrace upon its own head, will resort to almost any means of relief; 
 **but he who will charge" me with saying the Rev. G E. "was in 
 a state of dotage, vacillation, or what we sometimes call childishness," 
 ^' must brave a falsehood, at which even impudence itself would blush 
 
 ————— - ■- - " S"" I "I "ii • "'— " 
 
 '' Alladincr (o the ministers of the Tenn. Synod, generallyr 
 
9»l ' 
 
 ijcc." Now, that 1 ever, on any occasion, unconditionally said, that 
 llev, G. E. was childish, is a notorious, downright and corrupt false- 
 hood. Though such men might possibly swear to the reverse, who 
 have the impudence to certify, that things were said, which never, at 
 all, in any shape, occurred in their presence, or any where else. 
 
 For an answer to the next note, marked thus, (*) the reader is re- 
 ferred to the answer given on former pages, by my brethren. 
 
 In relation to the next note marked in the same manner, page 16, 
 the reader is also referred to the above mentioned answer. I shall, 
 nevertheless, remark, that the sentence : '' They give it as their opinion, 
 that it is just what the Devil wants, that is, to get him to quit preach- 
 ing," is a sentence under a distinct period. And Aristottle's definition 
 of a sentence is: '^ A form of speech which hath a beginning and an 
 end within itself, and is of such a length as to be easily comprehended 
 at once." Now if the above unfortunate sentence were given for a 
 sentence in the examples of parsing, the personal pronoun him, could 
 not refer to Mr. M. in that sentence without constructing the sentence 
 different to its present form. I suppose if this "Re. S." so called, were 
 to undertake to parse some of the sentences of which it speaks, and has 
 printed, we would see some artificial, and very superficial exertions 
 made. 
 
 It seems that this little "Re. S." does not hesitate, to attempt to 
 make the impression on the public mind, that my brethren are desti- 
 tute of ordinary discernment, or that they are " blinded by the demon 
 prejudice." A demon is a devil.- That my brethren are so very su- 
 perficial, — or to give it in your own language, — " can it be possible, 
 that the most superficial mind, could not detect such ambitious per- 
 version of truth, unless blinded by the demon prejudice." 
 
 That my brethren, who heard me read the minutes, are so stupid as 
 not to be equal to the most " superficial mind;" or that if they are not 
 so stupid, must be branded under any and every other consideration, 
 with the epithet of " demon prejudice," which is a barefaced slander. 
 You must recollect that the minutes were read in the presence of the 
 wisest and best of citizens, and members our churches in this region 
 of country, hold, and are excelled by none other. Sirs I my brethren 
 at any and every church in which I officiate, are so ready of discernment, 
 that an impostor, though once in high standing, must not think that 
 he can commit dirty tricks right under their nose, and that they will 
 never discover them. Nay, they are so far from being " blinded by the de- 
 mon prejudice," that they will support no ungodly minister, or character. 
 
 In relation to what is said on page 17, in the three first underplotted 
 paragraphs, the reader is referred to the report appended to our last 
 minutes ; and also to the reply from St. John's church. 
 
 As to the note marked thus, (f) we read : " We would inform the 
 Rev. H. that reference was had to the action of the Tennessee Synod 
 at the time when the constitution was ratified," &c. Answer : Turn to 
 the 19th page of your former minutes. We read : " 2nd. That church -) 
 decisions arc considered final ;" Matt. 18. •• ^Vh^.t th**v bind on earth 
 
 V 
 
21 
 
 Bliall be bound in Heaven." Sirs ! to prove tliat '' the clmreli decirilona 
 were considered final," you appeal directly to Matt. 18, and not to 
 the time the constitution was ratified. This is very evident, not only 
 from the manner in which yoU quote the te:st, but also from what you 
 say immrdlateli/ after, viz: '* Tiie church receives her authority direct 
 from Christ, to act in a congregational capacity." Now, why did you 
 quote this text at all, if you did not intend thereby to prove, how tho 
 decisions of the church of Jesus t'hrist are viewed according to the 
 blessed volume ; if this is not the design, tlien your quotation is quite 
 superfluous. In the note alrcad}- mentioned, it is said: "AYhy docs 
 not Mr. 11. prove a perversion of the text; both sentences refer to the 
 same object.^' If both sentences refer to the same object, I would 
 ask, to what object? Will 3Mm answer, to th*^ action of the Tennessee 
 Synod, at the time the constitution \<2iS ratified ? If .?o, I tell you there 
 is no such language to be found there, as, "The church decisions wore 
 considered final," '^ what they bind," &c. You no doubt saw, that 
 there is nothing to justify this end of the story; and therefore betake 
 yourselves to another refuge,' in ease this tale wont do, and say " The: 
 writers of the New Testament have quoted the scriptures in the same 
 manner." This is at once an acknowledgment on your part, that I 
 embraced 3'our first intende'd idea, according to the natural reading of 
 the minutes ; otherwise yoa would not have taken this last resort. Now, 
 for you to claim equal authority M'ith the writers of the New Testament, 
 to quote texts, and give them a rendering which the original will not 
 justify, is not only self assuming, but very dangerous; and that you 
 can justify the rendering you have ^iven Matt, l!^, I flatly deny. 
 
 It seems that you can take almost any authorit}^, and all ^rith you is 
 right, liut you seem to be. so very self-zealous, that should a criticism 
 upcm human composition be made, you can soon discover a plan to con- 
 vict such, "of convicting the Almighty himself of tlte grossest wicked- 
 ness," though it be upon no other ground, than that you have found 
 certain texts in the English translation employing the preposition simi- 
 larly ; and at the same tijjpe, you are unable, and I pledge myself to 
 maintain it that you are uriiible to prove, with all the assistance you can 
 procure, that to substitute the preposition against for icithj in the texts 
 you cited, would " convict the Almighty himself of the grossest wicked-- 
 ness." Notwithstanding the fi\ct, that the English translation of the 
 Scriptures, in the main, is the best that can be given, I would never- 
 theless, rather call in question one half of the English translation^ 
 than to intimate that 1 had authority to alter one word, or change one 
 letter in the original, even if I discovered that the inspired writers of the 
 Nev/ Tcstartient, in one half, or all of their quotations from the Old 
 Testament, had employed different words, or omitted some entirely or 
 paraphrased the language somewhat. 
 
 As to your statement, — " that it is Miller and not a Ilenkel which 
 has become the subject of persecution,^' I shall let the reader jiulge. 
 
 Eelative to the note marked, thus, (J) I refer the reader to the reply 
 from St. John's churchy on a former pnge. I shall; nevertheless remark^ 
 
'} 
 
 Z») 
 
 that r was not present at the aession of our Synod in 1847, and conse- 
 quently the information I have, relative to this matter, I gathered from 
 ro.^pcctable members who were present, and from the minutes of that 
 session. 
 
 Now as there are various questions in this note, proposed with paf- 
 tioular reference to mc, and also accusing Synod with not having 
 treated petitions at this session, with '^common courtesy '' and ^'civility ;^' 
 I sliall, in the first place, proceed to notice the charge against Synod 
 in this respect, as I am personally iniplicated, (though not present at 
 this session) from the manner and connexion in which your question 
 and answer are placed. I shall reason the case from your own ques- 
 tion and answer, and also from statements made in your minutes of 1849. 
 In the note above alluded to, we read, — "but what did the petitioners 
 in 1847, ask for? — Why, it was for the Synod to decide the existing 
 difficulties by the word of God, &c,, which they utterly refused to do, 
 and evaded the demand by a majority of votes." What? Did the 
 petitioners call upon Synod to decide existing difficulties by the Word 
 of Gpd!! What? decide ''that which has been decided by God's 
 Word ! ! I'*^ Do you not say on page 20 of your niinutes of 1849 : " This 
 is to place Synod above God and his Word— this is not only unconsti- 
 tutional, but blasphemy?'' Also page 11 same minutes, do we not 
 fead the following, in relation to the attempt made by those petitioners 
 to enumerate certain (supposed) violations : '' 1st. The act of receiving 
 (into the Synod) the case of Mr. Miller, which had been de- 
 cided according to the Word of Go^'?'^ What ? Had it been decided 
 by the Word of God ? Again, Rev. G. E. argues, that Mr M's case 
 was out of roach of Synod. (See his letter, page 24 of your minutes 
 of 1849.) Does he not say: "Now brethren, I did believe, and do 
 still believe that Mr. Miller's case, was at that time, out of reach of this 
 body." What? Mr. M's case out of the reach of Synod ! ! Again, 
 page 20, same minutes : " 3rd. The resolve of the Synod in a case over 
 which she had no jurisdiction." What ? Had she wo jurisdiction over 
 it? Same minute page 17, we read : "And asked nothing at their 
 hands, but that the Synod decide existing difficulties, by the Word of 
 God, the Augsburg Confession and the Constitution." Now, I ask, 
 had the Synod any authority over the case ? If not, I ask, why did you 
 ask Synod to decide that which she had no authority to decide ? But, 
 if you answer that she had authority, I shall then ask, how does it 
 come that Mr. M's case was out of her reach ? If all you have said, be 
 true, then you have no possible cause of complaint, as to their refusal. 
 For had they attempted to decide it, you have a sentence passed, which 
 if true, is enough to shock poor trembling Zion, and to cause her to 
 refuse ; iot you say, " This is to place the Synod above God and his 
 Word — this is not only unconstitutional, but blasphemy." It seems 
 you accuse Synod for deciding the case, and you accuse her for not 
 deciding it ! ! Could she decide it, and yet not decide it ? It seems 
 you have matter so arranged, that you are prepared to accuse, let Syn- 
 od do a^ ?he may. If she refuses to decide the case she is condemned ^ 
 
2H : 
 
 if she decides, she is guilty of uuconBtitutiouality and blasphemy ! ! But 
 you say it is, " A po3r rule that will not work both ways." But grant- 
 ing all you may have intended by this, I cannot see, how Synod could 
 decide, and not decide — reach that which was, as Rev. E. says, <' out 
 of her reach,'' &c. 
 
 The note continues, (page 18 last min.) "Mr. H. has said that Mil- 
 ler made the petitioners say what they did not want to say, and he 
 knew it. How does Mr. 11. know this ? Will Mr. H. furnish us with 
 the proof?" Answer : This has already been noticed in the reply from 
 St. John's church, and also somewhat elucidated on a former page. 
 The truth is, I never used such terras as this little "Re. S." in its 
 malice has given. I said, provided Mr. M. wrote the petitions from 
 North Carolina, and provided the petitions are to be understood as they 
 read, I supposed that Mr. M. had caused the petitioners to say what 
 they did not wish to say, as I clid not think that they wished to speak 
 against themselves. That the common reader may be enabled to un- 
 derstand, I shall give the list of demonstrative pronouns, viz : this and 
 ihat^ and their plurals these and those^ and former and latter. This 
 and these refer to the nearest persons or things, or the last mentioned ; 
 that and those to the most distant/ or first mentioned, Example: I 
 will say, I have two apples, one red one, and one striped one ; now I 
 will say, this is for John and that is for James. Now common reader, 
 which is John's and which is James' apple ? The only way for you to 
 deteri^ine, is, to notice which is first, and which is last mentioned. 
 You will discover that the red apple is first mentioned, and of course 
 must be John's apple because, that refers to the first mentioned, or the 
 most distant. I shall give an example of objects in the plural. I 
 will say, I have ten sheep, five black ones, and five white ones. Now 
 I shall decide, and say, those arc for James and these are for John. 
 Common Reader ! which are' James' sheep? Evidently the black ones, 
 because they are first mentioned ; and as decided, I said those are for 
 James : just as clearly so, us if I had said, the former arc for 
 James, and the latter are John's. Now, common reader, turn to the 
 15th page of their minutes for 1849. And let me invite the eager 
 graduates to look on too, who say, " will Mr. H. furnish us with proof.* 
 Well, we read, "They then petitioned for a redress of grievances, and 
 (if not misinformed) there were between three or four hundred peti- 
 tioners for Mr. Miller, and some twenty or thirty against him, and 
 some of those have since said that they did not understand the design 
 of their petition, when they signed it." Now, common reader ! which 
 «>.lass of petitioners, according to the language, did not understand the 
 design of their petition when they signed it ? Evidently some of tho 
 three or four Iiundred. — As evidently so, as I have decided, that the 
 five black sheep are for James. Now Mr. M. or Mr. Synod, was it 
 your intention to publish to the world the fact that your own petition- 
 ors did not understand the design of their petition, when they signed 
 ?t. Again, do you'suppose that the petitioners wished it published to 
 the world, that thry did not understand the design of their petition 
 
27 
 
 when they signed it? Now, so far as I am concerned ubout that partkii-: 
 lar, I think I have furnished proof sufficient. 
 
 I shall here drop a few remarks in relation to what is said, page IG 
 of your last minutes. " He spent some time in laboring to prove that 
 Mr. Miller in his own remarks on page 5, minute of 1849, called the 
 Word of God a Symbol. '^ 
 
 I shall quote his own language, viz: ^^But that if to believe the 
 Holy Scriptures as they were revealed to man, as a rule of faith and 
 practice, and if to adhere to the Augustan Confession, and the Consti- 
 tution of the Tennessee Synod, constituted a man a member of that 
 body, that he never had forsaken those Symbols of the Church," &c. 
 ^' Those Symbolsl''^^Which S3m-ibols ? Mr. M. must either have re- 
 ference to the Augustan Confession, or the Holy Scriptures, for the 
 Constitution is no symbol ! And Augsburg Confession is singular j 
 hence it would be incorrect to say those symbols. And even if Augs- 
 burg Confession were more than one symbol, in order specifically to 
 point out his objects, he should have said, these symbols instead of 
 those. The common reader is requested to bear in mind (as already- 
 directed,) how the demonstratives, this and that, these and those, also 
 former and latter, are used in proper conversation and phraseology j 
 and he will be enabled to see, (when misrepresentation and perversion 
 are taken away, which has been so copiously poured out upon me,) 
 that I am able to maintain whatsoever I have said in relation to their 
 minutes. ^^ 
 
 The few last sentences, in the note, page 18, read : " As to the pe- 
 titioners not understanding the design of these petitions, they must 
 answer this for themselves. It seems he referred to no particular one." 
 I answer that I never intended to refer to any other, than those you 
 refer to, which are some of the three or four hundred. But, probably, 
 trutli Siud principle are not concerned in such portions of your minutes. 
 Consult page 7 of your last minutes. 
 
 As to the charge made in the same note, to wit : " He also said that 
 the Rev. Easterly v/as not the author of the letter appended to the min- 
 utes of 1849." I answer, that I never made any such dogmatical 
 assertion. And it is not necessary for you to prove it by such men 
 who will certify to things they have never heard ; or by such who will 
 associate with them after learning their clandestine schemes. Men, 
 pretending to Christianity, who will compare me, or any other human, 
 to the brutes, and that without a cause, more than, if possible, to de- 
 stroy my reputation, can within their own organization, prove what they, 
 desire. ' 
 
 The last note page 18, says: '^Rev. Easterly has indeed proven 
 from the plain word of Grod the position which he undertook to prove. 
 How Mr. H. can prove quite different from those texts, is to us a mys- 
 tery, unless he has learned the art of explaining a book that says one 
 thing and means another," Answer: That I ever said I would prove 
 quite different from those texts to what Mr. E. intended to prove,, is 
 notoriously and corruptly fake. See testimony from St John's churek> 
 
28 
 
 on ft former page. You (the Re. Synod) may however pronounce them 
 so very superficial, or look upon them as being "blinded by the demon 
 prejudice/' But you can say about them what you will, they are men 
 T)f as good natural sense as the best you hold; and in point of morals, 
 it. is a slander to intimate that they are " blinded by the demon preju- 
 dice,'' or to compare their characters to those who thus abuse them. 
 
 Again, " Unless he has learned the art of explaining a book that says 
 one thing and means another." What? Does your book say one thing 
 and mean another ! ! It seems so in many places. But why have you 
 ■written it so ? "Was it with the intention to deceive ? — It must be a 
 strange book indeed, and well adapted to the understanding of ^'plahi 
 men! ! F*^' Surely ''a book that says one thing and means another" 
 cannot be free from error. Ah I But so far as truth and principle are 
 concerned, we have discovered no errors, &c. — ! ! ! Or if you have 
 reference to the Scriptures, as the ''book that says one thin. 2; and 
 means another," you should by all means prove it. Or what book do 
 you refer to ? That the Scriptures say one thing and mean another, I 
 flatly deny. Now, for you to signify, that I would make an attempt to 
 explain them contrary to their original import, is a corrupt slander. 
 And for you to argue that the preposition against, would, when substi- 
 tuted for the preposition with, in all the texts you cited, convict the 
 Almighty himself of the grossest wickedness, is a barefaced sophism. 
 The Almighty is in all senses opjwsed to or in opposition to wickedness. 
 Now in the Epistle of Jude, do you suppose that Mrchael, th«^. Arch- 
 angel, joined or united with the devil ? If in any sense whatever, it is 
 to be opposed to, or to be against him. Now if you^ can justify the 
 opposite idea, use your pleasure; I shall not embrace it. Dear render, 
 turn to all the texts quoted, that are cited in the minutes, which can be 
 found, ^»d consider as yt)u read, whether it would convict the Almighty 
 of the grossest wickedness, to substitute the preposition against for uith, 
 bearing in mind the signification of both with and against, and you will 
 
 be enabled to see, upon what ground a P e has attempted to 
 
 convict me of Sinning against the Holy Ghost. No doubt were it in the 
 
 P e's power, the jioor creature (sometimes compared to brutes, 
 
 and sometimes called understrapper) might begin to think of the tor- 
 ments of the Holy Inquisition — the faggot — the gibbet, &c. 
 
 As to the texts quoted by the Rev. G. E. in his letter, minutes of 
 1849, page 25 : I shall merely remark, that the texts. Matt. 18 : 22, 
 34, 35. Luke 6 : 86, 87. Rom. 2 : 1, 2, 8, 4. Gal. 6 : 1—5. St. 
 John 8: 1—11, provided they are applicable to Mr. M's. case, teach 
 me that he must be guilty as charged ; otherwise, that there is no dif- 
 ference between the conduct of christians and heathens, or persons in 
 an unregenerated state. And if there is no difference between unre- 
 generated persons, and tljose who have risen through the faith of the 
 operation of God, as to their conduct, I see no use for the deciplinary 
 part of the Blessed Volume at all. 
 
 Now, for one to confess that he is overtaken in a fault, does not 
 pnfy thereby acknowledge himself guilty of a fault, but thereby con- 
 
2i) 
 
 fesses that he has committed a crime, or i'uult of which he khuo not 
 suppose his brethren, who are spiritual, to be guilty in the same sense 
 that he is euilty ; otherwise, it will follow, that those who are spiritual, 
 and walk after the spirit, are in all respects, like those who walk after 
 the flesh. Hence, the dead might call upon the dead, to restore them 
 to life, with the same propriety that he who is fallen down, would call 
 on him who is fallen down, to lift him up, whilst his partner was as 
 flat down and as helpless as himself. 
 
 The woman, John 8, did not deny bei^g guilty as charged by the 
 Scribes and Pharisees; and the Scribes and Pharisees, who brought her, 
 were as far from being Spirtual as she was— they did it " tempting him, 
 that they might have' to accuse him," v, Gj and being in an unrcgen- 
 erated, hypocritical state, were in all respects, just as susceptible of 
 conviction as she was, which cannot be said of one who is a christian 
 or spiritual. Now, that Jesus did not condemn her to be stoned, ac- 
 cording to the law of Moses, does not imply, that he approved of her 
 conduct, nor that he viewed it as not being sinful. Hence, when he 
 says, " neither do I condemn thee," we must understand him as speak- 
 ing with a reference to the sentence of the law of Moses, which required 
 that such be stoned to death. It was not in accordance with the office 
 of Jesus Christ, to inflict bodily punishments, &c.,— neither of his 
 church. She nevertheless, possesses ecclesiastical power to excommu- 
 nicate an ungodly and impenitent member. Christ says to the woman : 
 '' G-0 and sin no more." This proves that he looked upon the action 
 as being sinful. Now if the Rev. A. M. is innocent, why did the llev. 
 E. introduce this in his defence? May we not conjecture, that the 
 Rev. A. M. acknowledged his guilt to the Rev. E. ? If so, and with 
 true repentance, the Rev. E., as a christian, was bound to forgive him 
 according to Matt. 18, &c. Likewise are we willing to forgive him, so 
 soon as he will confess, and promise to do so no more. But Mr. M. 
 is not so humble as this woman taken in the act of adultery ; she denied 
 it not; he denies being guilty, to hear him talk. Now if he is not guilty, 
 he can neither be condemned nor acquitted; and if he has committed 
 no trespass, and is overtaken in no fault, he can neither be restored, 
 nor forgiven; for how to forgive an iunocont man, I do not understand. 
 
 As it regards the ballance of the texts quoted in the letter, with re-, 
 ference to what bodi/ a minister is accountable for his conduct, &c., 
 the reader is referred to the report appended to our last minutes. As 
 to what is said in the latter part of the last note, page 18, viz : ''Who 
 did not only vindicate the character of his own father under similar 
 charges, but indirectly his own," &c. I answer, that Mr. M. ever 
 vindicated ray father's character under such a charge as the said M. is 
 charged with, is not true. That the charge was heterogeneous, and 
 not ''similar," is known by all who know anything about it. And 
 for the said M. or the '.'Re. Synod " so called, to try to reproach me in 
 such a manner, is contrary to every principle of honesty. 
 
 That my father was innocent, and falsely accused, is apparent from 
 every accompanying circumstance, which has been clearly evinced to an 
 
30 
 
 impartial public, by men of the deepest moral integrity. To illustrate 
 this fact is uncalled for, by an intelligent, impartial and reading com- 
 munity. The establishment of father's reputation depended not on Mr. 
 M's vindication ; and had Mr. M. no better ground to establish Rev. 
 D's innocence, than I have for M's, I know he must have acted contra- 
 ry to the dictates of a clear conscience. And if Mr. M. believed that 
 the Rev. J). H. was guilty, and aided in smuggling his guilt, he is as 
 guilty as the man himself, and deserves no credit. Now, if father even 
 was guilty, Mr. M. and his party, as christians, and no way else, should 
 attempt to throw it at me. If, however, the reader should be inclined 
 to think otherwise, I must, in humility, bear the reproach, which I can 
 very easily do. And why should I distress myself with apprehensions 
 of peril ? I have access to God, which is not only an indefeasible pri- 
 vilege, but a kind of ambulatory garrison. Those who make known 
 their requests unto God, and rely upon his protecting care, he gives his 
 angels charge over their welfare. His angels are commissioned to es- 
 cort them in their travelling; and to hold up their goings, that they 
 dash not their foot against a stone. Nay, he himself condescends to be 
 their guardian, and " keeps all their bones, so not one of them is bro- 
 ken.'' The articles of this grand alliance are recorded in the book of 
 Revelation ; and will, when it is for the real benefit of believerS; assur- 
 edly be made good in the administration of Providence. 
 
 Discontinued, till duty calls. ^ 
 
..>'. 
 

 
THE LIBRARY OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF 
 
 NORTH CAROLINA 
 
 THE COLLECTION OF 
 NORTH CAROLINIANA 
 
 
 JOSEPH RUZICXA 
 
 BOOWSfHDf »3 
 
 - - - - --oRe. MD