OF A PAMPHLET, ISSUED FROM THE 
 
 PRESS OF THE WESTERN CAROLINIAN, 
 
 ZAf SALISBURY, JWC> 
 
 Written by David Henkel, arrogating to himself, in said pamphlet, the title of 
 Bishop, by which he attacks the Lutheran Synod, which has no Bishops $ 
 and by which Review, the Latin texts he makes use of in the title page 
 will be found, by sensible readers, to apply to him and his confederates, 
 particularly the word " exlex" 
 
 Misum teneatis amid ? and, Parturiunt montes et nascitur ridiculus mm? 
 
 Is evident throughout his whole pamphlet, to men of common understanding ; 
 and which, in this Review, is exposed to the inquiring ignorant dnly, whom 
 he too successfully leads with bombastic nonsense and perversions of plain 
 truths, 
 
 SALISBURY, 
 
 1821, 
 
Bishop Watson, in his Anecdotes, page 363, says, that wher A 
 he was about answering a virulent pamphlet, written against 
 Tiim by orie Cumberland, he found his blood was now and then 
 heating, and he laid the pen down — -for, says he, what is the 
 use of cudgeling a dwarf .it is a miserable occupation. This 
 may be applicable to me with respect to D. Henkel's pamphlet ; 
 and it required a resolution to wade through dirt from page to 
 page ; and for his sake the peri would not have been used to 
 spoil paper ; but where so many absurdities, pompous brag- 
 ging, low-bred billingsgate, scurrilous language, scandalous 
 comparisons, perversions of truth, libelous charges, and mean- 
 ness throughout, are dished up for the digestion of the unwary, 
 who are not able to detect poison without assistance, I could 
 not help, for their sake, disagreeable as the task is, to review 
 the performance, especially as the name of God was so often 
 used in vain ; and hypocritical expre ssions of love to the mem- 
 bers of the church, is stated as the only object he had in view. 
 For their sake, then, it could not be avoided, otherwise it would 
 have been left for venal purposes. If nothing would be said 
 to it, he would strut about, and say to the ignorant, " They 
 dare not and cannot say any thing against it." I have, 
 however, tried to remain in the bounds of decorum ; but 
 should the reader now and then find a home-thrust, and almost 
 ■unavoidable satirical hints, whereby smiles are occasioned, and 
 horror when reading the appendix, they will have the goodness 
 not to ascribe it to our ministry, but to facts and me alone, 
 who am principally aimed at, and who have flesh and blood, 
 feut Who desire to be serious in defence of truth. 
 
 G. SHOBER, 
 
DAVID HENKEL. 
 
 It was expected that the disturbances which you created ia 
 the Lutheran Church would, by degrees, subside ; and yout 
 verbal exertions through the country to irritate the members 
 of our church against their ministers, were deservedly disre- 
 garded. Nothing was attempted in any manner to oppose 
 your inflammatory conduct, except what appeared in our two 
 last minutes according to truth, and which truth was recorded 
 as gently as possible. But when you began to print, read and 
 publish perversions of facts, some attempts were lately made 
 by me to open the eyes of the people. And now you come* 
 out with a pamphlet, in which you unsuccessfully appear in the 
 garb of an angel of light, (for malice is evident in almost every 
 page ;) and your object is, in the first place, if possible, to pre- 
 vent a union of our church ; secondly, to make your readers 
 believe that you are immaculate, and was treated with injus- 
 tice by our synod ; thirdly, that we preach wrong doctrine ; 
 and lastly and principally, your object must be to widen thet 
 breach now existing between us, your father and brother, so as 
 to prevent a re-union, in order that you may direct the whirl- 
 pool of a mudpuddle, for you have called your father and 
 brother dumkoepfe. Do not think that for your sake I re- 
 luctantly address you, for seven years' experience proves you 
 to be incorrigible. No; what is done here is only done for 
 such readers as have a desire to judge impartially. These 
 will expect nothing but plain language ; such I will endeavox 
 to give to them, and treat according to your deserts. 
 
 It is, therefore, in the first place, necessary to request you 
 to reverse your Latin motto, and apply it to yourself. Are 
 not you ashamed, counting yourself among those that know 
 the Lord, and yet not afraid of his judgment, for uttering and 
 printing such a bombastic Oration, in which you expose a clo- 
 ven foot thus plain ? You say, page 1, u The tongueless woes 
 of bleeding churches"^ rouse you to opposition. I do not un- 
 
 * I found the following in the Ladies' Literary Cabinet of March 10, 1821, 
 £ee whether it is not applicable to you. 
 
 Sublime beyond sublimest sublimation ! 
 In thoughts no fellow, and in words no peer,: 
 Sing on, great man ! Thou art thyself Creation $ 
 Thy truth exclaims, " The tongueless woes are here.'* 5 
 Proceed, great man ! and let creation know it, 
 That twisted nonsense is the true sublime. 
 Scorn those who think thou'It only reach fame's portal, 
 say thy cranium is a little craf<$ 
 
derstand such bombast. That woes and offences are existing 
 is evident ; but wo t© him by whom they come ! And is it 
 not you? Did not the Lutheran ministry exist in perfect 
 harmony before you (then a young stripling not twenty-one 
 years old) was curiously introduced thereto I Yea, ever since 
 that time woes began. But as soon as people know you, they 
 wilt pass away. You give to yourself great airs : But as you 
 call yourself a Bishop, (which title the Lutheran Church in 
 America never used, as under that title, as now understood, 
 distractive prerogatives were always assumed in Christianity,) 
 and as such you assume to teach your seniors, and the major- 
 ity of them, how to act. You know that your audacious as- 
 sertions against them, will be disdained to be read by them, 
 much less officially answered. But you did not write for thern^ 
 you wrote for the multitude, in order to irritate them against 
 their ministers ; seeking by all means, like a roaring lion, 
 whom you may devour. You attack them with language by 
 the common readers unintelligible. When they hear you in 
 the pulpit calling your seniors V4 Antichrist describing the 
 colors of the rainbow, and what they signify : see you riding 
 the beast of the revelation for hours, and explaining the mean- 
 ing of the horns, as if you held them in your hands ; inviting 
 youngsters, whether they can read or not, to a three days' cat- 
 echisation, and fit them in that time to partake of the Lord's 
 supper; proclaiming to them their certainty of salvation, if 
 they only partake thereof: They are astonished— -t hey never 
 heard such sermons from their preachers, who, as in duty 
 bound, confined themselves to simple doctrinals and scripture, 
 as necessary to salvation. And poor things, they will too soon 
 find out your drift. When with your doctrine they arrive at 
 the confines of hell, they will then say, he wanted our dollars, 
 &c. and deceived us. You sliiy creep into other ministers' 
 congregations, in order, if possible, to blacken their reputation 
 and doctrine. That you have not much success, shews that 
 the majority have sense ; and they will decide, not as you 
 dictate, but according to the unsophisticated Word of God. 
 
 Do you know Korah, Dathari and Abiram ? I see you do, 
 by your conclusion, p. 65. You better take care. It is use- 
 less to give you one single r6ply to the opposition you make 
 against the church, or the plan for a general union of the 
 church in America, for that plan has ripened into a constitu- 
 tion. It is, however, evident, that printing of books is your 
 principal objection against a union, which your family expects 
 to lose. And according to page 46 of your Libel, you was 
 afraid that when a general synod should expel a rotten mem- 
 ber, there would be no chance left to deceive the people. You 
 
call the Liturgy a ceremony — Catechism also. You know 
 your father's books have been in use for many years, for want 
 * of better. Some of his compositions are tolerable ; some are 
 below criticism. His Christian Catechism is not Luther's — 
 you know it. Was he not writing a Liturgy, to be introduced 
 among us, also, and which was defeated by an excellent one 
 now in general use, after being first approved of by two syn- 
 ods in Pennsylvania? In this point, your shoe pinches. I 
 expect your caucus will soon publish a volume of your ex el- 
 lent sermons on Antichrist, the rainbow, and your sin-forgiv- 
 ing poxver, derived from being equal to Christ, f know that 
 you make people believe as if I was connected with the prin- 
 ters in Baltimore, and share profits with them in the excellent 
 German hymn books approved and introduced by the Lutheran 
 and Reformed Synods in Pennsylvania, Maryland and North- 
 Carolina. I say it is not so ; and refer the readers to the ap- 
 pendix. You wilfully and designedly misrepresent things to 
 the people. It is impossible to think that you, calling your- 
 self a Bishop, should have no more sense than to compare a 
 general union of the Lutherans in synod to the whore of Rome, 
 as you do, page 14. Then what are you ? But according to 
 the spirit inhabiting you, and which shews malice in front, as 
 page 13, you cannot but rail at such an institution* which will 
 admit none to be members of the ministry by self-created au- 
 thority. You know that what you call your ordination to be a 
 Bishop, was against the precedents of all regular church gov- 
 ernments ; and that, as such, you cannot be admitted. The 
 bishopical title will make the Lutheran pastors withdraw from 
 you. " An exotic plant, germinated in hell, fostered by an 
 old harlot in the garden of Rome, poisoning all that is pure, 
 and metamorphosed into a maniac demon in the disguise of 
 religion." These are your own polite words, page 13. How 
 do you like such language, if applied to you ? 
 
 I have no objection that the half of your soul, which, page 
 16, you call " understanding," should " walk the planetary re- 
 gions ;" but if the other half, which you call " will," is not 
 ~with the first half, it will never arrive on Calvary and Golgo- 
 tha, from whence humble Christianity emanates; but it will 
 be tumbling from Parnassus to Tartarus, or be drowned in 
 Styx — for higher than Parnassus you would not reach. 
 
 Every true christian must shudder at your scurrilous lan- 
 guage about the desirable union in spirit of all true lovers of 
 Jesus, page 17. You have no shame in you, or you would 
 have beheld the astonished and abhorring physiognomy of 
 all the denominations of christians there named, against 
 
you,'^ while you dipped your pen in such gall. You know 
 that no such union as you invent can be effected, or is contem? 
 plated : but surely, it would be a millenium, and a desirable 
 one, if the sheep of one flock, guided by and belonging to one 
 shepherd, could, while feeding on his pastures, love one an- 
 other with all their diversified colors. Page 19, you say, that 
 u to cultivate the holy religion of Jesus, which is full of truth 
 and mercy, will preserve the liberty of America, and (O, sanc- 
 ta simphcitas!) produce new heroic Washingtons and philo- 
 sophic Jefferson$"\ Does this come from a christian teacher ? 
 or does it come from a hunter of popularity ? " Great is the 
 Diana of the Ephesians," was shouted by the populace, when 
 Alexander the silversmith had irritated them on account of 
 the craft* But I hope that our people will see through the 
 disguise; and after having read your production, will see 
 your drift to be..., I, by itself ; I, or egotism. 
 
 I pity you, that you gave yourself so much trouble, in Ger- 
 man and English, to write against the plan for a general union 
 of our church in the United States ; for that plan, as above 
 said, is out of date now. Four synods have, by their deputies, 
 in Hagerstown, adopted a constitution ; and our synod, begun 
 at Trinity Sunday, 1821, adopted that constitution. But you 
 do not care about it : your object is to keep our church mem- 
 bers in confusion, make the water muddy, and (alligator-like} 
 devour your prey unseen : thus keep it muddy, and always 
 bring forward irritable stuff, only to keep up a ferment against 
 your seniors. About this time last year, we were inundated 
 by German libels, without signature, addressed to our church 
 members ; in which, with bitter, yet popular language, pre- 
 tended ministers from Ohio were made to paint a contempla- 
 ted union in dreadful colors. These libels were, at our last sy- 
 nod, and in Pennsylvania, deservedly disregarded. For if the 
 writers had not had sedition in view, they would, like honest 
 men, have signed their names to the same. The plan for a 
 general union was adopted by the majority — by two-thirds of 
 the synod then. N. B. Take notice of this. ...see constitution* 
 For if there was any sense in your assertions, that we acted 
 herein contrary to the constitution, you know two-thirds have 
 a right to alter it. After the adoption of the plan, it w r as natu- 
 rally supposed that the German pamphlets would now go to 
 their proper use, as the poison therein contained could have 
 
 * As Klopstock, in his Messiah, describes the Angels surrounding" the Cross 
 of Christ, when Abadonna, a fallen angel, was sneaking into their circle as an 
 Angel of Light ; or when he stood on the last judgment day, demanding an- 
 nihilation, and all faces were turned towards him. 
 
 f If Mr. Jefferson should read this, he would smile contemptuously, and 
 Hijike you a present of Volney's Ruin qf Empiretf 
 
f - 
 
 no further official effect ; but you now revive it by your (Ora- 
 tion, and recruited the venom by spreading it in the German 
 language again. Here I will relate the following : N. B. The 
 postmaster in Salem has a right to open all bundles coming 
 from other states to North-Carolina. A large bundle arrived 
 from Virginia, which, on examination, contained printed stuff, 
 and which was properly put up, open at one side ; but knowing 
 from what quarter the bundle came, I suspected that letters 
 might be secreted therein which, however, was not the case* 
 There were, perhaps, two dozen of the above libels in the 
 bundle, signed by nobody, and addressed to nobody but to the 
 Lutheran community at large. They were forwarded to Lin- 
 colnton. After the arrival there, I was informed that on each 
 libel, on a blank spot at the end, some person had written 
 something; which, when David saw, he was ready to swear 
 that it was my hand writing — (see appendix;) threatened to 
 indict me, and inform the P svmaster-General thereof to dis- 
 miss me,f &c. He demanded the postage again of the post- 
 master, and was raving. Now I wish, David, you would let 
 the public know through a credible channel, (not you,) what 
 was written on the pamphlets. They w ould then judge of the 
 propriety of the words : but until you have that done, I do not 
 know what to say. If it was written in Salem, I am confident 
 that nothing improper was mentioned. But by your conduct 
 in returning the libels to the post-office, it appears that the re- 
 vived poison contained in a sheet which you again intended to 
 administer, found such an antidote in a few words at the bot- 
 tom, that you was ashamed to circulate them. This was surely 
 grievous to you ; and you, no doubt, have made it out as if 
 you had suffered a pecuniary loss. It is proper, therefore, to 
 inform the readers, that I have seen a copy of a letter to Mr* 
 Reinhardt, wherein He was requested to return to you the 
 postage, and buy the pamphlets of you at a high price. No 
 doubt he has made you the offer ; and if you have not taken 
 up therewith, it was only because you was afraid that poison 
 and antidote would circulate together, and that the first would 
 of course lose its effects. You now read what is printed to the 
 unwary ; but you don't act like an honest man, and tell your 
 hearers, at the same time, what is and can be said against it, 
 so that they may remain in such darkness as to believe that 
 whatever is printed is true ; and you do not tell them that, if 
 
 * It would not be worse than to fill up an order with 246, instead of g36. 
 Of which, more hereafter. 
 
 f I was postmaster before you was born, and have remained ever since. I 
 question whether your oath or certificate would have influenced the P. M. G. 
 to believe that I had embezzled your property, or your certifying- that before 
 you. was born I was unworthy of confidence. See the Star, of May, 1820, 
 
s 
 
 iich a pamphlet is published without signature, it can only be re* 
 garded as a seditious libel, &c. Be it as it will, I can assure you 
 that my conviction is, that any person who, with a few words, can 
 prevent one soul from becoming a rebel to his church, deserves 
 applause ; and every honest man will admit that. 
 
 The constitution of the union of our churches., which is now 
 adopted, eases me of the burden of exposing the many absurdities 
 against a union, as contained in your Oration. And what the con- 
 stitution is, I shall explain to the readers. To and for them, I shall 
 review the other part of your libel ; during which, I shall put ques- 
 tions to you. And as you endeavored to irritate the congregations, 
 Iby trying to convince them with far-fetched arguments, that injus- 
 tice was done to you ; and as you treated the Rev. Mr. Storke with 
 detestable meanness, me as a designing man, and all of us as crimi- 
 nals, (page 41,) and the whole synod as accessaries to injustice, it 
 is necessary to publish the papers which were laid before us at 
 Buffaloe Creek Synod, in order that the public may decide. I trust 
 that the impartial members of our church, and other friends, will 
 decide (if they know as much latin as you) in cafiut auc'oris crimen 
 plerumque redundat. 
 
 You will take notice, however, that I shall hereafter disdain to 
 take notice of any thing you may say or do against me personally . 
 
9 
 
 TO the Readers of DAVID HENKEV S Oration against a general Tfnioh of 
 the Lutheran Churchy and his other exhibits, printed in Salisbury, in the 
 year 1821. 
 
 We desire to believe that you are all well meaning and hon- 
 est men, and such as are capable to serve on juries : If so, you 
 will not decide between us by reading the statement made 
 against us in bitter language by the accuser, before you have 
 read what the accused has to say. If you cannot or will not 
 hear both parties, nothing can be said to you* But you ought 
 to be reminded of what you have often witnessed, that when a 
 man hath a bad cause, and must make shift to use such argu- 
 ments as he himself does not believe, and is, of course, laughed 
 at, he begins to rave, scold, and curse, and calls the other 
 party with opprobrious names, gives to his best devised plans 
 and actions a criminal and horrid complexion ; and all this for 
 the purpose of covering his own dirty designs* 
 
 Now if you read HenkePs Oration calmly, will you not find 
 that he makes out all those ministers and synods who approve 
 of a general union to be incarnate devils ; that they intend to 
 destroy the christian church ; that the true Lutheran doctrine 
 and discipline will be overthrown by them ? Does he not ac- 
 cuse all of them with perjury, and enforce this accusation with 
 puerile yet vehement assertions, (which yet every sensible 
 man, although, perhaps, an enemy, will at first view reject ?) 
 Does he not call the majority of the members of our church 
 (excepting in Lincoln) dupes and apes ?— Page 30. Did you 
 ever read such billingsgate language in support of truth, ex- 
 cept from a Pope ? Now let me ask you, my friends, serious- 
 ly, what did you ever see in your ministers, against whom 
 such malice is exerted, that you should deprive them of your 
 love and confidence, by which you hitherto smoothed their 
 rugged path? Can you believe such a young being as D. H» 
 that they are for a general union in order to tyrannize over 
 you? Are their children not among you? Have they no 
 sense, and can coolly agree that fetters shall be forged for them ? 
 Has any of them any prospect, through a general synod, to be 
 increased in worldly estate ? If, then, by only superficially 
 glancing over the above questions you will decide in the nega- 
 ative, you may still ask, What is a general union for, and what 
 good will it do to the church, to you, and to your children ? 
 
 Before these questions are answered, by laying the constitu- 
 tion, with observations, before you, you will attend to the fol- 
 lowing outline : The general synod will, by its delegated au- 
 thority, prevent one drinking-parson from ordaining another 
 bread-seeker in that line, and from being called a Lutheran 
 2 
 
M 
 
 minister, as it was the case forty years ago, to the disgrace of 
 our church, and which now seems to creep in again, although 
 in another shape. 2d. We are far behind other societies in 
 being able to give the necessary classical education to students 
 for divinity. We have hitherto, by the grace of God, made 
 shift to keep our church in credit, as to doctrine and disci- 
 pline ; but if we contemplate our natural increase, the disper- 
 sion of our members to the Rocky Mountains, north-west, 
 west, and south : 3. If we see that sects, holding and teach- 
 ing soul-destroying doctrines, are daily arising, and philoso- 
 phic religion creeping in among those who have money, to be 
 taught and instructed in worldly wisdom : 4. If we see other 
 societies laudably exerting themselves, by a classical education, 
 to enable their preachers to withstand the torrent of infidelity 
 and superstition with power, eloquence, and unction from 
 above : 5. If we behold missionaries, properly educated by 
 different societies, proceeding among all nations with the Bible 
 in their hands, and understanding the same in the original, so as 
 to enable them to translate it into unknown languages, in order 
 to proclaim the Saviour's love to the human race — should we, 
 the oldest publicly acknowledged Protestant Church, continue 
 to lay dozing waiting for chances of inspiration to fill up the 
 places of departing ministers ; or shall we see others exerting 
 themselves for the cause of Christ, and supinely lie on our 
 oars, waiting for a breeze to move us on, without even exert- 
 ing ourselves to hoist sail for the breeze ? Ought we not to 
 have been the first, in Luther's spirit and in Frank's zeal, to 
 proclaim the glad tidings to surrounding nations ? And are we 
 not the last ? Has it not the appearance as if the candlestick 
 is about to be removed from us ? — -Rev. 2, 5 ; seeing that per- 
 nicious, soul-destroying, superstitious doctrines are creeping 
 in among us— read II. Timothy, iv. 3, 4. But as we, single- 
 handed, are not able, and if able, not willing to establish a 
 seminary for the purpose of educating ministers and mission- 
 aries, (for it has been tried without success,) is it not a desira- 
 ble thing for the whole church to be united in one body, and 
 are we not, as one united whole, able to establish such a sem- 
 inary, so that our church, with its pure doctrine, may revive 
 and be supported by men capable to refute pernicious stuff ? 
 
 Reader, you that , love the Saviour and his Zion, think of 
 these outlines respecting a desirable union ; and if you must 
 then think that our rich brethren in the northern states will 
 effect the greatest part of the expense of raising sound preach- 
 ers for your children, grand and great-grand children, and 
 their succeeding race, say at once we must be united. If you 
 cannot say so ? surely you will say, (except you care nothing for 
 
11 
 
 your succeeding race, and whether you will meet them in heU 
 or heaven,) My fortune is demoted to my Saviour ; we are able 
 and willing to establish a seminary here^ raise ministers and 
 missionaries here y support them and their families also, without 
 assistance and without a union ; we can obtain endowed, un- 
 fluctuating, humble and learned teachers by our own means ; 
 but if you say, pray do it. What can you now in conscience 
 say against such a design for a union ? Has any of your pres- 
 ent preachers any private interest in it ? Or is their intention 
 not for the good of our present and future existence as a 
 church ? Reflect coolly. 
 
 We will now examine in detail the constitution made by the 
 General Synod last October. That constitution is in the room 
 of the plan against which D. labors with virulence in his Ora- 
 tion ; and because that is executed by a constitution, ready for 
 the approbation of our synod, it is useless to say another word 
 about the Oration addressed to you. It will not be expected 
 that a full verbal translation is here to be given, provided you 
 have the substance or marrow of it. The printed translation 
 will be among us in due time. It begins thus : 
 
 Constitution of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod in the United 
 States of North- America. 
 
 Whereas, Jesus Christ, the great Head of his Church, left 
 no particular prescription how church government should be 
 regulated, the church enjoys, in all her departments, the lib- 
 erty to make such regulations as, according to circumstances, 
 appear to be best : In confidence, therefore, in God our father, 
 in the riame of our Lord Jesus Christ, according to the gui- 
 dance of the holy spirit in the word of God, for the exercise of 
 brotherly love, for the furtherance of christian union, to pre- 
 serve the spiritual unity of peace, we, the deputies from New- 
 York, Pennsylyania, Maryland, and North-Carolina, have, for 
 ourselves and successors, formed the following constitution. 
 
 N. B. This preamble only expresses that our church has the 
 same power left by its head, to make such general regulations 
 in America, as the churches in Europe, and all societies in 
 America, have ; and has nothing to do with congregation reg- 
 ulations, or church discipline, which every congregation regu- 
 lates by the Bible. 
 
 Now friends, do you find any thing herein against the Augs- 
 burg Confession, and against the Bible ? Is not the general 
 creed of our church concisely expressed? Where, then, is 
 Antichrist? 
 
 Art. 2. This establishes the number of deputies to be sent 
 from each synod, such as was in the plan, excepting that Pern** 
 
12 
 
 sylvania only sends six instead of eight, if they have as many 
 as eighty-six preachers in their synod. Now you are told that 
 the Pennsylvania synod will govern the whole : this is false. 
 Are there not three synods besides, who, if ever so small, send 
 as many deputies as they, if their ministry is ever so numer- 
 ous ? And how many legal synods will surely be soon estab- 
 lished, so as to secure an equality and a majority against them, 
 in case they should propose inadmissible things. Or can it be 
 supposed that they, or any synod, will send villains to repre- 
 sent them ? — this can only be supposed by mean, grovelling 
 souls-r-or that they will saddle themselves and churches with 
 burdens ? Each lay-deputy has a vote, (and there are to be as 
 many as ministers,) except in one reserved case, where the 
 votes are to be by synods. This is true republicanism. In 
 our Synod it is not so ; but there the deputies have no more 
 votes than ministers present ; we had, however, swerved from 
 that rule, in order to give to our deputies full power ; but du- 
 ring our last aynod the former rule was (for sinister, yet inef- 
 fectual purposes) revived according to the printed constitution, 
 and the deputies ought to insist for amendment. 
 
 Art. 3 — Sec, 1. General Synod examines the minutes of 
 all the synods, in order to become acquainted with the situa- 
 tion of the church. Is this not proper, in order to find out 
 where help is necessary ? Is it despotism ? Sec. 2. With re- 
 spect to all proposed books to be used in public worship, the 
 General Synod acts as a united committee of the other synods, 
 In the following manner : 1. The above committee examines 
 all works, books, catechisms, liturgies, hymn-books, and con- 
 fessions of faith, and imparts thereon its well considered opin- 
 ion, advice, or admonishment* No synod, or ministry in con- 
 nexion with the General Synod, can, therefore, publish for 
 general use any new book or writing before such hath submit- 
 ted a complete copy to the General Synod, and hath received 
 their opinion, admonishment, or advice. Now what bugaboe 
 is this? The General Synod acts as a committee, of course they 
 must report ; and to whom ? surely to the synods individually. 
 And what are they to report? Gan a committee command ? 
 No : it attempts no such a thing ; it adviseth, counsels, and 
 admonisheth* And when ? Answer : On application to them ! 
 Of course, no synod or individual can palm a book on all the 
 churches before it is revised by the collected wisdom of 
 the church. And after all, if the synod proposing such a 
 book for revision should not approve of the advice given, is 
 there any prohibition here to go on with the publication. No : 
 They may go on, but it will not be introduced in other states, 
 a*ld remain confined to its own circle. Sec. 3. When the 
 
 \ 
 
13 
 
 General Synod thinks proper to propose new books, &,c. to the 
 synods or ministries, for private or public use, the synods or 
 ministries will truly reflect thereon ; and if any one of them, 
 should not approve such proposition, it is hoped that the cause 
 or causes of the disapprobation will be communicated to the 
 next General Synod, (perhaps after three years' time for re- 
 flection,) that it may be recorded among the minutes of the 
 same. Is there any despotism here ? They have a right to 
 propose, and we have a right civilly to give our reasons against 
 it — (surely not in such a vulgar style as David's Oration, par- 
 ticularly in German, and bombajst as in English, for such 
 would be thrown out, and not recorded in the minutes.) The 
 fact, upon the whole, is, you may print what you please, but 
 you cannot call it the standard of the church, to be occasion- 
 ally laughed at by religious and sensible critics, before it hath 
 received a true polish. Sec. 3. To no General Synod can the 
 power be committed, to prescribe every where uniform cere- 
 moniesy or to introduce alterations in articles of faith, or in 
 cases which embrace the manner of delivering the gospel of 
 Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and foundation of our faith, and 
 which might oppress the consciences of the brethren in Christ. 
 Is this not according to Luther, and Augsburg Confession? 
 Does not every one of us know the articles of our faith ? Dare 
 they make any alterations therein ? Is not our liberty respec- 
 ting ceremonies forever secured to each minister and congre- 
 gation? Twisted nonsense cannot change the above words, 
 Read them, and think for yourselves. 
 
 Art.' 3. This article provides, that in Pennsylvania, where 
 there are noW eighty-odd ministers, more synods may be es^ 
 tablished, if twenty-five ministers apply. And that if in one 
 state no synod or ministry is yet established, and six ordain^ 
 ed ministers make application, the General Synod shall 
 permit the establishment of a synod in each state. This is one 
 commanding authority given to the General Synod. You shall, 
 and for what purpose ? They must allow a separate synod in 
 every state, where six ministers request it. Reflect upon this,, 
 and see whether the General Synod can oppress the members 
 JDf our church in any state. But the article goes on and s-ays, 
 u But until the formal permission and admission in the above 
 cases is imparted, no deputies from a self-created or new-cre- 
 ated body can have seat and voice in the General Synod." 
 This is perfectly consistent with good order. And such self- 
 created bodies are not members of our church. We want no 
 dictatorial Bishops among us. 
 
 Art. 4. With respect to the degrees in the ministerial office^ 
 tlie General Synod imparts to th$ several ministries well con% 
 
14 
 
 sidered advice, in which time, situation and place is well con- 
 sidered ; and that, as much as possible, a beneficial uniformity 
 among the preachers is kept up. GeneralSynod will also endeavor 
 to advise such rules and regulations among the different synods, 
 by which disagreeable collisions, which eventually may exist in es- 
 tablished degrees in the office, or in other possible cases, may be 
 avoided. Is there any oppression here ? No : All is broth- 
 erly advice, and only relates to the ministers ; so that when 
 they move from one state to the other, they may stand as high 
 in the one as in the other. It is, however, very doubtful 
 whether an unauthorised ordination, performed under a tree^ 
 conveys any degree at all ; and, according to David's doctrine, 
 in his libel, he says, " what is once radically wrong, can never 
 be cured." Out of thy own mouth wilt thou be judged. 
 
 Art. 5. General Synod shall not properly be viewed as a tri- 
 bunal of appeal; but yet it takes cognizance of the following 
 cases, and in manner following: 1. It may, on accusation 
 respecting doctrine and discipline, which, by whole synods or 
 congregations, or individual ministers, are brought before them, 
 give their opinion and advice. But General Synod shall, with 
 great care and foresight, pay attention that the consciences of 
 the ministers are not oppressed with human traditions, and 
 that no person be afflicted respecting differences of opinion. 
 Here is again opinion, advice — no dictatorial command, no 
 Pope. If true doctrine is preached, respecting small differ- 
 ences no brotherly love shall be enclouded ; every minister 
 may there complain, every congregation, every synod ; and 
 they will receive advice. David may go there, if he is a Lu- 
 theran minister, and hear advice about his doctrine respecting 
 the human presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, respecting his 
 sin-forgiving power, &c. But our synod may also complain 
 of such creatures as David. The next section speaks more 
 plain. 2. If disunited parties respecting doctrine and disci- 
 pline submit their differences in a brotherly manner to the Gen- 
 eral Synod, the same shall, after strict examination, and ac- 
 cording to their view of right, equity, brotherly love and truth, 
 declare its opinion. Can there be any thing more christian- , 
 like ? Every person or party submitting, in a brotherly man- 
 ner, their differences, shall receive attention, and a decision ac- 
 cording to their view of justice. 3. Should differences arise 
 between synods and synods, the decision is had by voting by 
 synods, and the synods at variance have there no vote. This 
 is consistent with sound reason. But such differences can sel- 
 dom happen. But they shall do justice, if the case is refer- 
 red to them. 
 
 ' Art. 6, The General Synod may form plans for a general 
 
seminary, and missis (among heathen,) for the support of 
 ministers' widows, and poor ministers ; and prepare to have 
 them effected or brought into operation, with the assistance of 
 God, Can you say any thing against giving the General Synod 
 leave to form plans, if they will, for the above purposes ? If 
 they have leave to form plans, will they try to execute these 
 plans without seeking the assistance of their constituents > 
 And who are the constituents? Answer: The synods of the 
 states. 
 
 Art- 7. The General Synod may. also- establish a general fund, 
 to effect its purposes. How will they establish funds ? Can 
 they order you to pay a certain sum? No: they will depend 
 on free donations, on testamentary devices f and, in order that 
 such donations and devices may be properly applied, according 
 tp the intent of the donor, they will establish the regulation 
 and application of the same. And if you ask your oldest sons, 
 to whom you may give half an acre of ground annually* for the 
 purpose of applying the proceeds to some good purpose foir 
 the general benefit of the church, would you think it improp- 
 erly applied if he said, "The produce of my half acre I wiil 
 give to the general fund, to assist the poor servant of the Lord: 
 to effect the salvation of immortal souls, at home or abroad, as 
 they see cause ; and six cents out of that half acre's value I 
 will apply towards the travelling expenses of the deputies from 
 our synod to the General Synod" — surely you will say, Well 
 done, my lad ! 
 
 Art. 8. The General Synod shall, according to their best 
 ability, and with the supplicated assistance of God, operate in 
 such a manner that schisms among us may be prevented ; and 
 to watch incessantly, and to pay constant attention to the situa- 
 tion of the times, and the growing opinions of the christian 
 churqh in general,^ in order to make use of every opportunity 
 to assist in healing the already existing differences, and to the 
 furtherance of the general union and concord. Is it possible 
 that any christian can have any thing against this article ? Our 
 Saviour says, Thereby will every body know that you are my 
 disciples, if you love one another. Whosoever, then, writes^ 
 speaks and and acts in order to oppose love and union, which 
 will exist in heaven, and where the redeemed from all quar- 
 ters of the earth will form a united whole, notwithstanding 
 their different opinions here, is not Christ's disciple. 
 
 The above are all the enacting clauses of the constitution : 
 the rest is only regulations of the officers and the business of 
 the synod, which are uniform with all other such bodies, only 
 
 * Gemein werdende .Gesimungen, 
 
16 
 
 with this difference, that the President of the General Synod 
 hath no casting vote, but only a general one. The minutes of 
 that synod contain some other necessary resolutions, naturally 
 arising out of, and in conformity with, the constitution. And 
 as the synod supposed that three of the synods there represen- 
 ted would adopt the constitution, and that it would of course 
 go into operation, and meet again next October, and then, at 
 least, once in three years — committees were appointed to report 
 a plan for a general seminary, missionary purposes, &c. 
 
 Nothing further is necessary to be added, to prevent foul 
 suspicions to take root against your deputies who concurred 
 with the above constitution, as they disinterestedly believed it 
 for your welfare. 
 
 LET US PROCEED TO REVIEW DAVID'S PAMPHLET. 
 
 It is not necessary to take up your time to read why our sy- 
 nod assembled in April, 1819, on the second Sunday after Eas- 
 ter. This is sufficiently stated in our minutes of that year, and 
 again repeated by way of extract in the minutes of 1820, and 
 hath been twice sanctioned by a unanimous vote of those pres- 
 ent, who were more than two-thirds of the whole body. And 
 they had, of. course, a right to alter the constitution, on which 
 so much stress is laid. And it is evident, that if two-thirds 
 agreed at their home to meet at that time, they consented to 
 the alteration ; for the constitution does not confine the mem- 
 bers of the synod to alter the same only when they are met. 
 Nothing shall, therefore, here be said to justify our meeting in 
 the tune that David sings from. It is, to sensible beings, not 
 worthy to be mentioned. 
 
 Some observations may, however, be necessary on the meet- 
 ing which is now by him called their proper meeting, which he 
 describes, page 20, &c. This much is known, that the Rev. 
 Daniel Moser, although dragged along from his home to give to 
 their meeting a color, did take no part with them in their farce, 
 although there (David like) mentioned as if he did. They 
 met* as it is stated — and who ? Philip Henkel, the only ordain- 
 ed minister — (and the constitution in Luther says, synods con- 
 sist of ordained ministers and candidates) — of course, of each 
 sort more than one. He, candidate Bell, and catechet David, 
 constitute this synod, The first thing they do is this, they send 
 a vulgar letter to the senior and President of our church, the 
 
if 
 
 Rev. Mr. Storke, calling upon him to act as such. Shame on 
 you, David ! You use the blessed name of Jesus in that letter, 
 and in the same breath give a mutilated answer from him, so 
 as to suit your present purposes* And you forget to mention, 
 that he sent you word how the candidates in Tennessee, and 
 every where, would have their licenses renewed, and in what 
 manner the school in Tennessee would be supported. But 
 see appendix. It is surprising that Philip could write thus, 
 and sign his nartie. But it is understood who stirred the whirl 
 of the mudpuddle. 
 
 But for the better understanding of our differences, you will 
 please to attend to the following relation of facts ; you will 
 thereby judge for yourselves whether we acted as became 
 us, and whether injustice was done to David, for this is his 
 main object ; And because he will not state to you the causes 
 of his rebellion, and does not mention a word of what he stood 
 and stands accused of, you ought to know it. 
 
 When David was quite young his brother gave him license 
 to preach, contrary to all rule. As such he was introduced to 
 us at the Organ Church, in order to obtain regular license, which, 
 out of respect to his father and brother, was reluctantly consent- 
 ed to, for he was too young ; and during the same session a rule 
 was made, that no person under 21 years old should receive 
 license, and then only by Synod. At a succeeding Synod, 
 complaint was made against him of indecent conduct, and by " 
 a resolution of the Synod the Secretary reprimanded him open- 
 ly. From that time malice remained in his heart. 
 
 At our Synod in 1816, he applied for ordination. In the 
 committee where the petitions supporting the application were 
 considered, Philip, his brother, was the first who opposed his 
 ordination ; and the committee reported that Daniel Moser 
 should be ordained in one of his congregations, and the other 
 applicants, David, Mr. Bell, and others, should be licensed. 
 Before this could be approved of by Synod, the report respect- 
 ing licenses was, with shameful audacity, spurned at and refu- 
 sed by David and others, who were brought to that Synod for 
 the purpose, under the cloak of deputies,^ thinking thereby to 
 force us to ordain. They threatened to break off from us if 
 we did not— for their assertion was, that none had a right to 
 administer sacraments except hands were laid on him.f Here 
 we were in a dilemma ; and in order, if possible, to prevent a 
 
 * See Minutes of 1816, page 10, &c. where the case is reported as tenderly 
 as possible. 
 
 f And now David, in his pamphlet, page 34, quotes Luther, who is made to 
 say, that if a boy administers the sacrament, the receiver receives the proper 
 •sacrament. 
 
iccession and to keep peace, it was proposed and resolvedf, 
 that when the candidates receive their licenses, which were 
 for one year only, they should receive the hands of a mortal 
 on their heads, in conformity to the license. This was done. 5 ^ 
 But during the same evening, in the house of Mr. Sherer, 
 David proved already that mortal hands could not convey a 
 heavenly spirit, especially when the recipient is possessed of 
 other spirits ; for he there said, " Now I defy them.:.I am or- 
 dained now"~or words to that effect. And Philip was of the 
 same opinion, as appeared by his questions on the next day. 
 They acted for some time under such infatuation, and also 
 prevented Mr. Moser, during that year, from receiving ordi- 
 nation. But perhaps, by looking into their license, they were 
 Cured of their error* 
 
 During that Synod, and principally by the Henkels, it was 
 enforced as of the utmost consequence, that we should print 
 an English book containing our doctrine, discipline, and the 
 origin of our church— see minutes, 1816, page 13. At the 
 next year's Synod, the Secretary reported a book in compliance 
 with the charge given. He, in compiling the same, now called 
 Luther, examined no manuscript in his possession, but was 
 governed by a compilation of rules made since the year 1803, 
 edited and printed by the Rev. Paul Henkel, and he had no 
 cause to doubt its validity— in which compilation, the word 
 constitution is no where to be found. The Secretary, there- 
 fore, took the liberty to call the standing articles u Constitu- 
 tion, 55 and added the 1st and 13th articles of his own accord, 
 which are in no manuscript to be found. This book, in manu- 
 script, was examined by a committee, who reported it as ne* 
 cessary that 1500 copies should be printed— see minutes, 1817, 
 page 10 — with the rules made during this session ; and when 
 the expense was considered as too great, Philip Henkel enga- 
 ged to take 500 of them.... upon which the report was adopted. 
 This is all the ratification it received. Now please to attend. 
 On Monday the Manuscript was handed in for examination ; 
 on Wednesday the time of the Synod's meeting was changed 
 from October to Trinity, 1819 ;f of course that could not have 
 been a constitutional article in the manuscript approved on the 
 same day, yet prior to the alteration — but it was to be inser- 
 ted in the book as a new thing. When, then, the book was 
 finishing for the press, it was by mistake added to the second 
 
 ** * Our President opposed it, as contrary to our church government, and 
 succumbing to rebellious youngsters ; but he submitted, being outvoted. 
 
 f I am surprised that you did not see in Luther, article 2, according to your 
 father's compilation, that we were to meet annually : And surely we did noj; 
 meet in 1818. And constitution is your cry ! ! 
 
19 
 
 article of the constitution, and has nothing to do there p it k 
 liable at all times, and every year, to be changed and deter- 
 mined when and where the meeting is to take place. On this 
 point, now, David builds the unconstitutionality of our Synod 
 in April, 1819, and justifies the proceedings of his caucus 
 meeting. Surely it stands him in hand to whitewash his char- 
 acter ; and if he cannot do it in a manly manner, he shows 
 that he can do it by twisted nonsense; for no sensible or honest 
 man will screen himself under such subterfuge, when he know$ 
 that all the preachers had notice, and of the reason, of the 
 earlier meeting. The Rev. Paul Henkel had notice, and 
 promised to come- — his letter can be shown: notice to Philip 
 Henkel, with the cause, was evident by his letter which he 
 wrote to me and others, to April Synod : Mr. Bell owned 
 that he had notice. Now the ministers all met in April, with 
 their deputies, except Philip and those whom he leads ; and 
 all present approved of the meeting and its cause — See the 
 minutes of 1819. Now if the book called Luther is authority 
 in one case, it is (being cited by David in his support) also 
 authority on the other side ; of course, what is there asserted, 
 page 169, where it says, " Constitution, rules and regulations,, 
 are always subject to be altered, amended, extended, or ex- 
 plained, as situations, times and laws change, as the object is 
 thereby to assist practical Christianity &c. is surely valid* 
 The 13th article of the constitution, page 156, says, "this con- 
 stitution can be altered or amended, when two-thirds of all 
 ministers and deputies agreed Will it be denied that two- 
 thirds of the regular members of the Synod were present in 
 April, 1819? If not, had they not absolute right to alter 
 that article, and cure all defects i And they cured, also, the 
 defect of not meeting in 1818, which was imperative by the 
 second article, page 153. 
 
 It is true that an approved constitution was denied on Mon- 
 day, at Lincolnton Synod, 1820. But it was, at the same 
 time, openly admitted that the rules, according to Paul's com- 
 pilation, and which are now called constitution, were as bind- 
 ing on the church as a constitution, until they were repealed or 
 altered. When, however, the Rev. R. J. Miller, on Tuesday, 
 insisted that there had been a constitution written with his 
 own hands, and which, on searching the rusty manuscripts, 
 was found correct, the Secretary as openly acknowledged his 
 error — on which such stress was laid as if the heavens were 
 dissolving. But all this constitutional jargon, whether the 
 April Synod is valid or not, is worthy of no attention, as will 
 be perceived by the following questions : Did you, David, 
 not meet there with deputies from your flock ? Did you op,- 
 
20 
 
 pose the meeting at the opening as unconstitutional ? When 
 the question was whether this meeting is approved, did you 
 and your deputies say nay ? Was there then any opposition I 
 When your case came on, did you plead to the jurisdiction, 
 and say we had no right to try you ? Did you not bring your 
 witnesses and certificates along? Does this not prove that 
 you knew what you would be charged with ? Did not you, a 
 few weeks before, excommunicate a man, erroneously believ- 
 ing that when you disowned him he could not be a witness 
 against you ? Did not you defend yourself with virulence as 
 to the complaints against you ? Do you not remember, that 
 the first proposition was that you should be silenced a year I 
 Did we not, merely on the request and prayer of your wife 
 and deputies, (as you would have been without bread, and the 
 congregation without preaching,) reconsider our resolution, 
 and give you catechet license ? Answer this. This license you 
 did, at Lincoln, boast of ; and now in your book, page 23, &c. 
 produce it as evidence of your good character* Have you not 
 bid defiance to shame ? You know these licenses are printed, 
 sound alike, and your father is the author. And what does 
 this license say ?....viz : " That you was examined with res- 
 pect to your knowledge and capacity, and, in consequence 
 thereof," (of what ?....of the examination,) &c. &c. Is there 
 any thing here of your good moral character ? And you know 
 that you would not have obtained this, if we had not received 
 your open disavowal and denial (and we winked at this only 
 for peace sake, for it was proven) of having preached doctrines 
 of the mostdisgraceful kind, and your assertion that you never 
 believed such, and would never preach them — See minutes, 
 1819, page 11. In those minutes it was expressly said, that 
 we found the charges exhibited against you true-* Now did 
 you not submit to the final decision ? Did not you show a 
 momentary consciousness of our lenity ? Did we not separate 
 in peace ? Did we not, for peace sake, say we would write a 
 friendly letter to your congregation, on application ? Did you 
 not preach under that license (for otherwise, according to 
 your own doctrine, you had no authority, as there was no Sy- 
 nod in 1818, and we had no right to give you one in 1819, for 
 you say all we did was void.) With all your twisting and 
 turning, it is evident, that if we had rejected Mr. Hoyle's ap- 
 plication for justice, had disbelieved the Rev. Mr. Hall and 
 others, discarded certificates and depositions against you, and 
 
 * W e on ty went on the charges of 'Squire Hoyle, and proof, and not on the 
 exhibits of forgetfulness in swearing, which was too shocking for us to delibe- 
 rate on. The paragraph in the minutes was so worded for peace sake j and 
 the readers can now, by tjie appendix, judge for themselves. 
 
21 
 
 ordained you a, Bishop, we should have the disgrace of being 
 called by you honest men : You would have called our Synod 
 constitutional ; and we should have heard nothing about the 
 whore of Rome, the Pope, Antichrist ; nor would you and 
 your father jointly have proclaimed untruths, and declare that 
 we wronged you. All would have been welL But as we 
 acted wrong, as you now say, and appeal to the public, we must 
 exhibit the proof against you in public — See appendix. Let 
 the public now judge. 
 
 The farce of a trial you mention, page 26, where our proof 
 was not, nor Mr, Hoyle's, is to sensible readers mere fudge,, 
 What ! more than a year alter our decision, and months after 
 the exhibits in the Star of May 20, a few men certify.. ..and 
 what? "That, because they then find no greater fault with 
 you than hitherto, they* can by no means think of dismissing 
 you." Tnis, after examining credible witnesses, is all they 
 say in your justification. They might as well have said your 
 conduct was always bad ; we knew you to speak lies, but as 
 you don't now behave worse, nor increase in perverting truths, 
 we will keep you* But perhaps they would not sign a more 
 explicit exculpation ; for that you and your father had propa- 
 gated falsehoods against ministers, and your certifying to 
 things' which must have happened years before your birth, 
 must have been known to them. But you proceed and bring 
 forward a select council, (selected, no doubt, by you,) and that 
 council sanctions the above in its full insignificancy, and adds, 
 *' that all the charges exhibited against you have not in the 
 least lessened your good reputation in their view?'* Strange 
 beyond conception! Surely the charges can have no effect 
 upon an honest jury. But they say nothing about proof, &c. 
 Who these men are which you mention, page 26, is not known 
 to your readers ; or whether they all signed it, or whether they 
 are more renowned for veracity than those who tried you, and 
 signed the other paper, and who, it seems, wanted this prop to 
 establish their credit, their neighbors, no doubt, will inquire. 
 
 This digression was necessary for a clear understanding : 
 And now, dear readers, it surely is sufficiently established, that 
 David can say nothing against the constitutionality of the April 
 Synod ; for he acted under it, he voted with us, and approved 
 of the meeting. But you ought to know something more 
 against him : Philip his brother, and his father, proving to you 
 that they acted under the resolution of our Synod. 
 
 At our Synod in April, in order, if possible, to prevent the 
 farce acted on Trinity, and which was threatened by Philip, 
 we resolved that the absent candidates in Tennessee should 
 have their licenses renewed, with directions by whom* We 
 
22 
 
 also appointed (see minutes, page 9 to 14) the Rev. Messrs 
 Storke, R. J. Miller, and Paul Henkel, or a majority of them? 
 to assist the school in Tennessee with money in Philip's hands, 
 due by him for the 500 books above mentioned, if (N. B.) si 
 constitution is laid before them, of which they could expect 
 that it would be approved by our next Synod, This was 
 Imown to the farce-meeting by information from Mr. Storke ; 
 but David is shamefully silent as to that part, in his statement 
 of the answer sent there by Mr. Storke* The above resolu- 
 tions were likewise sent to Philip by post, to Greenville, Ten. 
 as soon as our Synod was over, in order to show to our mem" 
 bers there, and the inspectors of the school, that these things 
 were not forgotten. But now, in order to deprive us of the 
 money in Philip's hands, they made a like order when they 
 met,^ omitting the Rev. Mr. Storke, and say — u If a constitu- 
 tion is presented to the Rev. R. J. Miller and Paul Henkel, 
 and they approve of it, it shall be the constitution, and the 
 money collected shall be given to it." See the resolution in 
 our minutes, 1819, page 14, and compare it with David's libel, 
 page 22-9, farce-meeting. It is a crafty resolution on their 
 part, to cloak dishonesty. Let it be explained. At our meet* 
 ing in 1817, (see minutes,) we promised to exert ourselves to 
 obtain donations for an establishment where ministers might 
 be educated ; and we believed that the school in Tennessee 
 would be such a one. The Rev. R. J. Miller received a con- 
 siderable sum for that purpose from our church members in 
 Charleston ; and ail donations on this account received, amoun- 
 ted to g246 73, which was paid to the treasurer in April, 1819. 
 But as he had borrowed money on interest to pay for the book 
 called Luther, and Philip Henkel had engaged to take 500 
 copies, the money received as a donation was applied to dis- 
 charge part of the debt contracted for the book, in order to re- 
 duce the interest. And as Philip had 500 of these books in 
 his hands, so that if the president or treasurer drew an order 
 on him for the amount of the donation, it was where it was 
 supposed it might be wanted, if it could be applied to that 
 school. Now in the fall of 1818, Mr. Bell wrote to the trea- 
 surer, applying for money for said school ; but in that letter 
 things were stated which made it evident, that, without an 
 adopted constitution for said school by our Synod, the dona- 
 tion would be thrown away — and the school is now evapo- 
 rated. The treasurer had no order from the previous Synod 
 to order or pay money for that purpose, and he informed Mr. 
 
 * But it is believed that David fabricated that order since he saw our last 
 minutes, to give to the money matter a cloak, for the bystanders at thej£ 
 larce-meeting heard no such order made; 
 
23 
 
 Bell thereof ; and further advised him, as hid own opinion* 
 that without a constitution approved of by the Synod, so that 
 It is shown that said school is to raise ministers for our church 
 also, no support ought to be expected from Synod from the 
 above donation. (To insert here the treasurer's letter is use- 
 less : he laid a copy before the Synod in 1819; it was there 
 approved, and was the cause of the resolutions above stated.) 
 Since that letter, no correspondence with Philip took place. 
 But is it not evident to you, that they acted on our resolution 
 for the purpose of keeping the value of most of the 500 books 
 in their hands ? See how Philip and Paul acted. Mr. Bell 
 laid a constitution before Mr. Miller, (Mr. Storke they avoi- 
 ded,) and he, as he reported to us, believed that, with a few 
 exceptions, it would be approved by Synod. N. B. Mr, Miller 
 acted under our resolution, and not under the farce imitation. 
 Mr. Bell, like an honest man, asked no more than $ 36 75 for 
 books purchased. Paul was not present ; and as Mr. Miller 
 alone was not authorised to pay money, and he and Paul being 
 far apart, he signed a blank order, expecting that when Paul 
 approved of the constitution, as he had done, the order on 
 Philip would be filled up with the sum requested by Mr. Bell. 
 But in order to keep the money in their hands, Paul, or some- 
 body for him, (which I believe to be the case,) in order to 
 grasp the whole from our farther disposition, filled up the or- 
 der with S246 75, for the purpose of depriving your treasury, 
 which, my friends, ought to be under your direction in Synod, 
 of 8210: and this order was accepted, to be paid by Philip* 
 The purpose, however, did not succeed, through the honesty 
 of Mr. Bell, who received no more than he originally deman- 
 ded, viz. $3& 75 ; and he endorsed the accepted order by 
 Philip to our Synod. This is only related, to prove to you 
 that they acted under the order of our Synod of April ; of 
 course, they thereby acknowledged the validity, for their pur- 
 pose : and if in one case it is valid, it is in all. Whether they 
 acted honest in this or not, is for you to decide.^ If, then, 
 
 * By a letter which I received from Tennessee, June 23, 1821, and which 
 has no date, but is supposed to be written in May, I found a memorial inclo- 
 sed to our Synod ; which, of course, came too late. This memorial is, with 
 others, signed by Philip Henkel : and they now say that they conformed ta 
 our resolution of April, 1819, and that they laid a constitution before the com- 
 mittee by us appointed, and which was approved by them. But if these gen- 
 tlemen would read again, they would find that our committee was not author- 
 ised to any thing else but to judge of the probability that our Synod would 
 approve of it, &c. But no constitution was laid before us in Lincolnton. The 
 fact, however, is, (if David is to be believed, when he describes the farce- 
 meeting,) that they appointed another committee, and but two, and say, when 
 these two approve of a constitution^ it shali be the constitution— which is a 
 <Juite different thing r 
 
24 
 
 you have acted under our Synod, how can you now appear 
 before any man of sense> and justify your establishing a sepa>- 
 rate conclave ? You repeat the question again, page 39, 5, 
 What is a Synod ? You are already answered, and mjust be 
 answered again, by our constitution, Luther, page 153, article 
 ii : u It consists of ordained ministers and candidates/* This, 
 surely, must be more than one of each sort. N. B. — David 
 must be confined to the words of the book, by his own example* 
 Now, according to his effrontery, he gives us a journal of 
 their meeting, page 20. Let us examine the report, and see 
 what we can make of it. He surely thinks that he hath fools, 
 •dumkoepfe, and no other bystanders, for readers ; and that there 
 were but his own creatures. Reader, you may smile, but it 
 cannot be avoided : their proceedings must be reviewed ac* 
 cording to David's statement. Here, then, comes the Rev. 
 Philip Henkel, the only ordained minister, (for Daniel Moser 
 had no part in their proceedings,) and candidate Bell : they 
 meet at Trinity, in 1819 — (and they ought to have met in 
 1818, according to article 5, if they are reforming Luther:) 
 the first thing is to elect a President and Secretary ; then Mr. 
 Bell is the constitutional elector ; and as the office can only 
 be filled by an ordained one, of course Philip must be elec- 
 ted... by Mr. Bell ! But there is also a Secretary want- 
 ing, and he must also be an ordained minister. Here we are 
 stopped. Well, somebody must be ordained : this is a ques- 
 tion with the ministry alone ; a committee must be appointed ; 
 it can be nobody but Philip, tor Mr. Bell and David claim or- 
 dination. Here Philip holds conference with himself, reads 
 petitions — (no doubt fulsomely enough worded ;) he highly 
 approves of the theological treatises, (no doubt on the Pope or 
 Antichrist, by David,) and he reports to the Synod, (who is 
 it ? Mr, Bell and catechet David,) that he thinks them worthy 
 of ordination. No doubt the Synod concurred with this re- 
 port : and at it they go. The church not being open, and Mr. 
 Moser not connecting himself, Philip alone had to perform it, 
 contrary to all rule and decency, under an oak tree. He laid 
 hands on both. Then David elects Mr. Bell (who signed the 
 proceedings, at least in print) Secretary — for the President 
 hath only a casting vote. N. B. David, you cannot say that 
 the deputies you dragged along also had votes : if they voted, 
 it is nonsense ; and all had but two, at the utmost. Your cry 
 is " Constitution ! Constitution ! !" Then follow it. And you 
 know that the question, 44 Ordination, or not?" always was a 
 ministerial one only. 
 
 Now, then, Philip is President, Bell Secretary ; no Treasu- 
 rer appears to be made: but no doubt it is understood to be 
 
25 
 
 him who had funds, vifc. i$QO books in his hands : and they 
 command him how to act. Now they say they have three 
 ministers against nine of our Synod in April, and this body 
 arrogates to itself all the powers of the church, and say, page 
 39, that the minority is in duty bound to coerce the majority 
 to obedience ! ! Is this the doctrine of Americans ? Can you 
 endure such despotism ? Where is the Pope now ? Was this 
 the doctrine of heroic Washington and philosophic Jefferson? 
 Page 19. The words of David in that page, ought to be en- 
 forced to the members of our church against him and his Da- 
 than principles-— namely, " Americans, I cannot conclude with- 
 out alarming you a little more, that our church liberty, privi- 
 lege, order and regulations are endangered. Behold how 
 many dupes there are," &c* Reflect, then, American citizens, 
 >and say whether you can blame any person for calling the 
 above described meeting a farce-meeting ; and compare things 
 as your christian conscience is capable of doing. 
 
 Thus we followed David according to his own report, as he 
 printed it ; but inquiry was made of bystanders to their trans- 
 actions, and they relate a different story, as follows : On Mon- 
 day of their meeting, David first preached a very inflammatory 
 sermon against the old ministers, trying to influence the hear- 
 ers to rage against them— (He calls it a sermon on Antichrist.) 
 After all the harangues were finished, the door was locked 
 against them; and the question was, Shall we proceed? And 
 several, especially Mr. Philip, with tears, said, We better quit, 
 we have gone far enough. A gentleman (not of our church) 
 from Lincoln said, " You might quit, but it is too late after 
 David's harangue." Something was then read, of which the 
 informant took no notice— Philip listening mournfully to, per- 
 haps, theological treatises and petitions. Mr* Bell was already 
 on his horse, to move off ; Philip had the books packed up* 
 and it appeared as if good sense had determined them to quit, 
 and say, We will go no further. Then David jumped up in 
 a rage from the log he was sitting on, and bawled out, Then 
 I will be none 6f your preachers. # This intimidated Philip ; 
 he was thunder struck. What! (thinks he, no doubt,) to lose 
 such a defender of the faith, and set him afloat ! That must 
 not be. Immediately the scene was changed ; books were 
 unpacked ; Mr. Bell got down ; tears flowed from Philip's 
 eyes ; ordination was determined on.. ..and, instanter, execu- 
 ted, during a mournful silence. As soon as that was over, 
 David bawled out, now we can hold conference ! Here, then, 
 Synod began ; but it was by packing up and riding homewards. 
 
 * He saw that he was done then — could expect no bread— no employ as a 
 preacher among" us — no chance of preaching rebellion, 
 
 4 
 
m 
 
 This is from information of more creditable persons than Da- 
 vid and his description of their meeting. For it is known that 
 Philip is a tender hearted man ; but suffers himself, against 
 his cool conviction, to be led by David, who can call even his 
 father a dumkoepfe I 
 
 But notwithstanding all this, our object was to have peace* 
 Our minutes of 1819 were carefully worded* to avoid as much 
 as possible, consistent with truth, unnecessary irritation ; 
 nothing was published by us to inflict wounds, although we 
 inew that attempts were made by David to embitter, as much 
 as possible, the flock he intends to govern ; and thus we met 
 in Lincolnton, in the year 1820 — the history of our Synod of 
 that year is before you — to which the following questions, for 
 your assurance of the truth therein contained, are here asked : 
 Will you, Paul, David and Philip, deny that, on Monday of 
 Lincoln Synod, you at first denied us the church ? Dare you 
 to deny the truth of the general relation of that day as in the 
 minutes, from page 1 to 6 ? Will you deny that David, with ef- 
 frontery, acted impertinently I (Or have you had no education ?) 
 Will you deny that David prevented his tender brother from 
 uniting' with us? Will you deny that the Rev. Mr. Storke 
 offered to you all the calamut of peace, by saying, u Faults on 
 both sides have been committed ; let us forget, and forgive, 
 and unite ?" Did you, David, not use impertinent language 
 afterwards, and accuse the assembled ministers (two of them 
 in offices before you was born) with preaching wrong doctrine,- 
 in not admitting the corporeal humanity of the Saviour in the 
 Lord's Supper ? Did not you say, We will not submit to the 
 majority? Is not the latter part of that description, in min- 
 utes, page f>, true ? If you deny these questions, then I refer 
 the readers to the hundreds of witnesses present, and to the 
 appendix. 
 
 Let us proceed to review his reasons, page 27, as far as they 
 deserve it. Mr. Bell, page 26, is honored by the only civil 
 complaint in the whole book. Whether his saying " O, elo- 
 quent Bell !" page 26, is to soften even that, or whether it will 
 increase his fame, coming from such a quarter, he will know 
 best. About the breach of the constitution, enough has been 
 said. But, page 30 and 31, David discovers his malice, and 
 4i determination to discredit the Rev. Mr. Storke, and particu- 
 larly the Secretary. However, both deem it degrading to 
 themselves to say any thing to it ; they were known before 
 Henkel was born : and they know that it is acknowledged by 
 every one present, enemies and friends, that the heaven crying, 
 sin of disowning a ratified constitution, was as openly propi- 
 tiated by a repeal of that assertion, with \yhich David's own 
 
27 
 
 deputies {as he calls them) were fully satisfied : and surelyy 
 every honest reader also will be, if he hath flesh and blood, 
 and knows that when errors have been acknowledged, they 
 ought and will never be repeated except by demons. But 
 you will still recollect that, as it is explained abov#, the 2d 
 article of the constitution, so far as to the time of meeting on 
 Trinity, hath never been ratified as a constitutional article be- 
 fore the Lincoln Synod. This was overlooked when error was 
 confessed ; and the Secretary now says, that he repents of hav- 
 ing, for peace sake, child-like submitted to be censured by a res- 
 pectable ministry, as if the heavens were tumbling over their 
 heads for having committed and cured a fault. That David^ 
 in his note, page 30, wishes to make Mr. Stork e appear as a 
 tool of a designing, subtle individual, is the climax of mean- 
 ness in him ; and it would be honoring him to say more* 
 Hearers from many parts, and Salisbury, who heard Mr. Storke 
 last Easter, can judge whether, he shewed any kind of weak- 
 ness in the pulpit. His sermon there ought to be published £ 
 and it would have a more salutary effect than any thing David 
 hath said or can say. What shall we say to the third part of 
 his reasons, on the letter officially written to the Rev. Mr. Hilli 
 Is it worth while to attend to his criticisms ? If David reads 
 \. Gor. 15, 14, he will there find that a spiritual body (o£ 
 course invisible.. ..no flesh and blood) and a natural body do 
 exist. He hath often cited the book called Luther, as author- 
 ity in our church: be it so: then read that book, pages 205 
 and 206, &c. and see whether it clashes with the letter to Mr. 
 Hill. It is for the heart and believing soul what the Lord 
 made it; he said to his disciples who believed in him, saw* 
 him, touched him, u take, eat my body," &c. ; and that body 
 was afterwards tormented whole, and nailed to the c v ross. If 
 David would read that book, page 208, the last eight lines 
 from below, and further up, he would, if feeling in his bosom^ 
 find the application. 
 
 David insinuates as if the Secretary had designedly trans- 
 lated the Augsburg Confession wrong. Now you must be 
 informed, that When the manuscript of the book was sent to 
 the printer, he was requested to insert in the proper place the 
 translated Confession, which he did; and it was translated 
 before our time, and by better heads and scholars than either 
 David or his father shew to possess. Pray read Luther's 
 words to the formal christians, (book Luther, page 206 ;) u You 
 unbelievers and servants of Satan, if you partake of the sacra- 
 ment you do not partake in any other manner than the cloth 
 or cup in which it is contained." If it was otherwise, so that 
 God could unite with a devil, and that every person who par- 
 
28 
 
 took of the elements partook of the flesh and blood of the Sav- 
 iour, all those would remain in Christ and Christ in them— < 
 John 6, 56 ; and all so called christians would be saints. If 
 this mortal body partook of the humanity of Jesus (as David 
 says) in the Eucharist, the first enjoyment would make that 
 body incorruptible ; and if it partook of the glorified human- 
 ity, it would make the same like his glorified body, immortal, 
 which is only promised to those at the resurrection in whom 
 the spirit of Jesus dwelled. If the soul is here nourished by 
 the spirituality of the means, it must be a soul in a situation 
 to unite with God— a humble, contrite, obedient, believing 
 soul : with such a soul, Christ can indissolubly unite ; and she 
 will remain in him, if united ; she will increase in his likeness, 
 grow in grace, increase in sanctification : and such a soul can- 
 not die ; she lives in Christ, and Christ in her Now as the 
 soul governs the body, so will soul and body show that they 
 are his, and prove it by their actions. Whosoever, then, shows 
 works of the flesh.. ..adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciv- 
 iousness, idolatry , witchcraft, hatred^variance, emulation, wrath, 
 strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, rev- 
 e//m§^....Gal. v. 21, 22... .or either of them, his soul hath nev- 
 <er spiritually partaken of the flesh and blood of Christ, al- 
 though he' often partook of the consecrated bread and wine ; 
 for if he had, he could not act thus. If any M say he hath fel- 
 lowship with Christ, and walketh in (such) darkness, he lieth, 
 and does not speak the truth" — I. John, 1-6. They who have 
 partaken of the spirit of Jesus, and live in him, and have their 
 bfing in him, show it by the fruit of the spirit — which is love, 
 joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, 
 temperance — Gal, v. 22, 23. If any man has not the spirit of 
 Christ, he is none of his — Rom. 8, 9. 
 
 You see that now David openly supports that Roman doc- 
 trine which he, in the April session, (minutes, page 11,) says 
 he never believed, never preached, and never would preach ; 
 for on this doctrine, which he now and before supported, the 
 other with which he was accused is inseparably connected. If 
 he is like Christ, transformed into his body, he can forgive 
 sins ; he is the mediator between his flock arid God ; he hath 
 a right to sit on his throne ; in short, he is the Pope, who calls 
 himself the vicegerent of Christ. But why should he alone 
 have that privilege ? Surely every person who, by partaking 
 of consecrated bread and wine, and thereby making himself 
 equal to Christ by eating and drinking his body and blood, is 
 like Christ, and can do all which David H. arrogates to him- 
 self as above, for Christ remaineth in them. Such like was 
 proven to be his doctrine, and others more filthy, (see appen- 
 
m 
 
 d\x i) but we covered it with the mantle of peace, long-suffer^ 
 ing, gentleness. Now he says, Why did you not dismiss me ? 
 and instead thereof, give me a certificate of a good character and 
 license to preach. That certificate is reviewed above. And here 
 our goodness and love are deservedly censured, for we ought 
 %o have dismissed him forever, (see appendix,) andought to have 
 attended to our worthy President, when he, on the complaint of 
 his deputies, that the congregations would break off from us f 
 and painting other consequences with high colors, answered, 
 
 We must act like honest men the consequences are with God 7 
 
 This we did not do, out of compassion ; and he now whips us 
 for it. But xvhat a crooked soul must such a being have; xvhat 
 a crookea ^Bishop to guide the flock of Christ I 
 
 Dear Christians, beware how you are influenced by such 
 doctrine as you are ,told in his book. Satan cannot desire a 
 better attorney to serve his cause, than when you are lulled 
 into sleep by being told, that when you are baptized and you 
 partake of the sacrament, your heaven is sure to you. Behold 
 hundreds who do it, and they do not prove by their works that 
 Christ is in them and they in him. Are not many of them 
 reprobates ? — II. Cor. 13, 5; and show by their actions that 
 they are avowed disciples of Satan ? In our days, to hear 
 such doctrines, ar\d be compelled to disprove them, is enough 
 to create abhorrence. Those who hate to enter heaven by way 
 of repentance and faith, will, however, be glad to hear and 
 take up with such an easy method of going to heaven. Glad 
 to live in sin, they joyfully embrace the priest who can for- 
 give their most heinous crimesc They can compel Christ to 
 unite, with them— force him to open heaven's gate, and con- 
 strain him to make saints of them. What was it that Doctor 
 Luther rescued us from ? . The answer is, from that very doc- 
 trine which is the main pillar on which the Church of Rome 
 reclines. ,. .viz : the Pope and all his underlings can forgive 
 sins ; that the priest was a creator, and could create the body 
 of Christ out of bread ; and as that body contained flesh and 
 blood, the common people were debarred from the wine, as 
 blood enough for them was in the body ; and the priest drank 
 the wine, which he, as creator, had first made into blood, Lu- 
 ther redeemed the church of God from such superstition, by 
 which millions of poor souls were sent to hell, and had been 
 the cause, and is since, that millions of such who denied the 
 supremacy of the priesthood were called heretics, and became 
 martyrs ; and all who seek salvation through Christ without 
 the mediation of a priest, are to this day called heretics, anti- 
 christs, and all improper names, by those of the same trade, qo 
 matter what they call themselves? 
 
so 
 
 All explainers of the Revelations agree, that the church of 
 Rome is the whore, or false church ; that the beast is the mon- 
 ster reigning in said church, and by whose power vital and 
 true religion is suppressed.^ But in order to pervert or cir- 
 cumvent his readers, David, like a true Jesuit, wishes to make 
 them believe that a union of our church in America is the 
 beast... .See Libel, pages 6 and 7, 13 and 14. Ridiculous rant. 
 It is admitted, of course, that the above doctrine is not inven- 
 ted by David, as he says, page 35, but by the church and Bish- 
 ops of Rome. But he makes use of good Dr. Luther as a 
 catspaw to drag him out of the mire, and cites sundry expres- 
 sions of his, particularly out of a book he calls Wittenburg, 
 which, perhaps, no man has eyer seen, (for Wittenburg is a 
 city in which Luther lived ;) and he cites words, but no doubt 
 omits the context, as it would explain itself: But be it as it 
 ■will, and admit that Luther, in his battles with Bishops and 
 Calvin, made strong expressions, as he was bitterly attacked, 
 does any man of sense believe that he forgot what our Saviour 
 says, when on this topic of his flesh and blood, John vi. 63 : 
 " It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing ; 
 the words that I speak unto you they are spirit, and they are 
 life." Now read from the 53d verse to the 56th of the same 
 chapter, can you believe that Dr. Luther hath done so, and not 
 read through the chapter? Then judge for yourself who is a 
 Lutheran, or who is honest. David extracts authorities out of 
 the book called Luther, as far as they suit him, and leaves out 
 the rest. Does he not also do this with Scripture ? And will 
 he, of course, not also do it from other books ? But you may, 
 perhaps, say, we find nothing in the appendix to charge David 
 with preaching the doctrine of the Roman church. In answer 
 to which, I beg you to ask your consciences, Have not many of 
 you heard him say what the Rev. Mr. Hall relates ?.... See his 
 letter. Have you not heard him preach, that whosoever is 
 baptized and partakes of the Lord's supper, is safe ? and tha^ 
 those who insist upon further repentance and conversion, are 
 enthusiasts and bigots ? If you will not confess this to your 
 neighbors, it can be proven abundantly. Was it not proven to 
 his face, in the April session, 1819, (and which, for peace sake, 
 was not recorded in the minutes,) that in distress of soul, on 
 application to him for advice, he answered, u You have nothing 
 to do but to hear me preach, and commune With me in the 
 Lord's Supper — the rest is upon me to do ; make yourself 
 
 * Bishops (as David calls himself) have arrogated to themselves all powers 
 in churches ; and although the name originally was innocent, yet the Lutheran 
 church in America never made use of it. If Philip can make a Bishop, Paul 
 mx& Philip will soon make David Archbishop ! 
 
31 
 
 quite easy, v &c. Does the beast not show his horns here ? 
 It is true some of you may say, that this witness was his en- 
 emy : he is a drunkard — he ought not to be believed. But 
 why had he him excommunicated only a few weeks before the 
 Session, if he had not been afraid of his assertions to his face ? 
 And besides, if he was a drunkard* I am afraid that if all 3uch 
 are discredited, and not admitted as witnesses when ihey are 
 sober , creditable witnesses would not be very plenty, and se- 
 lect councils dwindle down : But it is for you to judge whom 
 you will believe. It is believed that Henkel denied the charge* 
 But see appendix. Is this not a most infamous Roman doc- 
 trine, to tell our youth before confirmation, and while they 
 listen to him as their religious instructer, not to intermarry 
 with Presbyterians or other denominations, as if they were no 
 christians — all heretics— and making such expressions as are 
 shameful to be repeated, but sufficiently certified— See certifi- 
 cates in appendix : And then to cite scripture, where it says^ 
 " Be ye not unequally yoked with infidels 
 
 It is not necessary to say any thing about his ordination » 
 enoagh hath been said to impartial readers on the subject ; 
 partial. ones will screen themselves as he does under Mr. Bell's 
 ease ; but it does not ajpply, as the latter was a candidate, and 
 David a legal but very improper catechet. And his baptizings 
 and confirmations are not valid in our church, and ought to be 
 in none. And there is a doubt whether our brethren in Christ, 
 the Presbyterians, will admit Mr. Bell's ordination as sufficient* 
 
 What David says about the great misdemeanor of Philip, 
 his brother, (page 38,) and how we ought to have acted with 
 him, deserves no answer. Every person present there knows 
 that we did all we could to heal inflicted wounds ; this was 
 our aim throughout, at Lincolnton. But I ask you, could you 
 reasonably expect it from us to humble to such a being as 
 David, and then unite with him, and remain honest men ? His 
 derivation of the validity of his ordination, is to make a blind 
 to children. Were the Doctors, Frank, Telthusen, Muhlen- 
 berg, Kunz, Smith, and Nussman, Bishops ? Is the Rev. Mr* 
 Storke a Bishop, and Paul and Philip, are they Bishops, in the 
 acceptation of the word now understood, or is he or his father 
 Archbishops, then we are to have a proper Hierarchy among 
 us. Doctor Luther was no Bishop : he was a Priest. 
 
 The drift of David appears to be this, (page 39, and note a^f 
 to prevent his brother (who, in hundred instances, hath shown 
 spiritual life in embryo, and is fond of peace and union) to 
 reunite with his former associates. David calls him to ar* 
 account, by virtue of his Bishopical authority, for a compro- 
 mise he made, as printed in our minutes ; and it is Da^vid alone 
 
who, by satanic misrepresentation, caused him again to retract 
 Nothing deserves to be said to the note, page 40, further than 
 that it shows how he had his deputies with us all the week in 
 Lincolnton ; that he governed them ; had motions made ; they 
 voted ; they debated according to his command. He states 
 that the question about his being tried was not suffered to be 
 debated. This is not so — See appendix. Here he acted by 
 his deputies, as a member, or as a spy. Look at the effron- 
 tery : He, the Bishop, keeps deputies, not the congregations ; 
 he commands them s he makes Mr. Aderhold report to him— • 
 {and no doubt Aderhdld's report was seen by him only when 
 it was printed ; if not, Aderhold can write good English in 
 Henkel's style, and by his pen.) Why did not Mr. John 
 Abernathy sign that report to him ? He also was his deputy. 
 The answer is plain : He, though eccentric, yet an honest, well 
 meaning man, departed from us in peace and friendship, fully 
 satisfied, by shaking of hands, that the horrid crime of disown- 
 ing a ratified constitution had been fully atoned for; and he 
 would not act like a devil, and repeat and throw up to the sin- 
 ner what he had condescended to pardon. 
 
 The pamphlet of David, from page 40 to 46, contains a de- 
 scription of an assembly called Lutheran Synod. It appears 
 thereby that Paul and Philip were ordained ministers ; Zink, 
 Miller, and Easterly, candidates, (perhaps.) The two Henkels 
 ,act as a Synod; and resolve, with their 19 deputies, (who had 
 Jbut two votes by the constitution,) that Zink and Miller should 
 
 be ordained— Bishops ! and Easterly a Deacon ! *....Fine 
 
 play. They make rules — 1st. The transactions should be in 
 German — the reports should be published in that language ; 
 but a note is put there, to show how the English may also 
 treep in. — (This is now printed for English readers, and no 
 doubt is added by David, for he wants support from them.) 
 Pray who was Secretary there ? Philip was President, by 
 prescription — see Trinity farce, 1819; Paul is a member of 
 Pennsylvania and Ohio Synods — see art. 16.. ..no doubt Arch- 
 bishop ; he is not Secretary : who then was it, according to 
 constitution ? I think David, though absent ; and he issued 
 his orders from Lincoln, as he did to his deputies in Lincoln - 
 ton. In article 5, only see what elbow room they allow to 
 themselves : the necessary qualifications, no doubt, are, to be 
 loquacious. The 3d article speaks of a christian life : No 
 doubt the meaning is, here, that he should go to the commun- 
 ion, and not marry a Presbyterian, (for any other vital Chris- 
 tianity is bigotry, as above stated,) &c. — Appendix. The 11th 
 excludes us poor N. C ministers, except we convince them 
 that we believe and teach that visible bread can be created into 
 
33 
 
 the visible body of the Saviour — (whether in his humanity, or 
 humanity glorified, is not yet determined.) 
 
 It is useless to say any thing further to what the Tennessee" 
 Synod has done. (The little satiric vein here shown must be 
 excused, and ascribed to G. S.) They wish to be called the Lu- 
 theran Synod ; and four of them (two being first thereto created) 
 change our whole constitution. Surely, the minority is deter- 
 mined to coerce the majority. 
 
 David, page 46, makes another blind to his readers, in ad- 
 dition to his Oration. Here his own case comes out ; he 
 thinks that if the General Synod excommunicates him, he hath 
 a slender opportunity to establish parties ; but if no General 
 Synod is established, then he can have an opportunity, if, ia 
 his opinion, he is treated unjustly, to leave one Synod and at- 
 tach himself to another, and there be whitewashed, (except for 
 crimes sufficiently proven.) In his German pamphlet we find 
 another objection : he hates, that when, according to the plan, 
 (which is opposed therein,) he entreats to uflite with another 
 Synod, that it must be with consent, and that he must produce 
 a good character in a certificate ; this he abhors, and says that 
 the evidence of his ordination is sufficient. Of course, when 
 he is once ordained, he may afterwards swear false, commit 
 other crimes, become infamous — and yet he must be every 
 where admitted as a Lutheran minister. But he may here be 
 comforted ; for the general constitution, now adopted, gives 
 no authority to the General Synod to excommunicate, nor has 
 it any clause respecting removals of ministers ; of course, his 
 full power of establishing parties will not be hindered by the 
 General Synod. And if any individual Synod should adopt 
 him as a member, with the charges and proof here exhibited, 
 before he proves to be a reformed man, they are surely wel- 
 come to him. But it is a question whether any serious body 
 will say, as the selected council in Lincoln did, " Because we 
 find no greater fault with you than hitherto," (namely, there 
 exhibited) — or, in other words, because you did not increase 
 in horribility, " we can by no means think of dismissing you." 
 
 From page 46 to 65, David gives us a long sermon on the 
 futile doctrine that unbelievers, as well as believers, receive 
 the body and blood of the Saviour in the supper created by 
 him. He condescends, at first, to argue as a sectarian should, 
 with all possible, yet civil, arguments, to support his tenets. 
 But in the first place, his attempts to convince the readers that 
 the humanity of Christ is enjoyed, are so far fetched that com- 
 mon sense cannot comprehend them, and are abhorring to the 
 understanding, (which is half the soul, see page 16.) And 
 2dly, it is a linseywoolsey cloth, calculated to make people 
 
 / 5 
 
ifeiieve tliat the warp is of good materials; and on reflection 
 thereon, to prevent the filling up from being examined, which, 
 if done, notwithstanding, will be found to consist of patches of 
 <old worn-out cloths, fit only to make domestic carpets for the 
 kitchen. He has, pages 32 and 33, &c. already said, what is 
 contained in the long and many repetitions of the sermon ; and 
 at is useless to take up the reader's time to refute what shines 
 here and there in civil, but mostly in the same arrogaiit style 
 as- the first. Whoever will take time to read it, may i he will, 
 if able, find strange conclusions, and answers to his own pro- 
 positions ; and if the points on which he argues were not too 
 serious to be treated with levity, he could easily be detected 
 as a false reasoner, perverting the clear object of the institu- 
 tion and the words of the Saviour, especially his recital of John 
 6'. But enough hath been said already to such who are not 
 satisfied with forms to confirm them in the certain object of 
 the spirituality, and not sensuality, of the holy institution. Let 
 me only repeat again, that if all who partake of the Lord's 
 Supper eat and drink Jesus bodily, they cannot see corruption, 
 they cannot die — they can forgive sins ; in short, they are 
 Gods — and every individual body of them is like Christ's- 
 body, (according to David,) every where present at the same 
 anoment. 
 
 To such who gladly embrace such doctrine, by which the 
 enjoyment of happiness and certainty of salvation is to be ob- 
 tained by visible means, (though he now and then, in his ser- 
 mon, qualified them, however unintelligible,) nothing can be 
 said in addition to what was said formerly. Be you, however.^ 
 warned how you make your election sure, with fear and trem- 
 bling ; for your saying, Lord, Lord, did we not eat with thee? 
 will not admit you to his visible presence, except as a judge: 
 but if his spirit and your spirit have been united here, and that 
 you, as such, received the sacrament to strengthen your faith, 
 love, and adoring inclination to him who bled and died for 
 you, then only you are safe. 
 
 The conclusion of his pamphlet, to his Lutheran brethren 
 and sisters, which is another farrago of twisted nonsense in 
 connexion with the Oration, may well, for diversion sake, be 
 read. The General Synod is again wrapt up in the Revelation 
 as foretold. He compares himself to Christ, a persecuted 
 man ; tells them they should not shun the cross to unite with 
 him. Incomprehensible it surely is, that where Christ dwells 
 in the heart of a believer, that a Judas, Herod, Caiphas and 
 Pilate, are also there. But it becomes him to say jargon, in 
 order to be believed great. He adviseth his readers by no | 
 means to leave his communion ; for if they did 3 it was perjury r 
 
35 
 
 (it se6ms he knows what that is). ...he calls it dreadful. Surer 
 ly schism is a great crime : you will read of the author of it in. 
 these pages. It seems he had occasion most humbly to beg of 
 those who left him and his unauthorised ministry, to return 
 to him, and refresh his heart, and the hearts of those to whom 
 he is constrained (not willingly) to be thankful for having 
 maintained his reputation and family. This shows why the 
 book is written for, viz : to increase disturbance, and make 
 the Lutherans and Reformed to remain at variance, and one 
 brother to differ with his neighbor. , 
 
 I cannot avoid to give the readers some extracts from the 
 letters of his father, and respectable brother Solomon, to show 
 that they know David, that they and I were in constant friend- 
 ly correspondence, and that they approved what was done. 
 Of Paul Henkel, Dec. 4, 1817— You have acted wisely with 
 the hand imposers at your last Synod# Whether Philip now 
 changed saddles on conviction, so as to ride a Pennsylvania 
 horse or not, it matters not, so that he rides on his own sad- 
 dle. David, (if he rides his own horse and saddle,) it is good, 
 that his horse dare not go where he pleaseth, but is guided by 
 another ; he might otherwise turn it to Scotland, and try to 
 ford the seas, and both be drowned." 
 
 > Point Pleasant, Jan. 5, 1818. 
 
 " You act quite right to cool hotrheaded David as much as 
 possible. He certainly has received severe reproof from me, 
 and in such a manner that he does not write any more ; but 
 he must have his course for a time. paul henkel.'* 
 
 By his letters of Nov. 18, 1818, and March, 1819, he had 
 knowledge of our earlier Synod, and writes that he will gladly 
 be there if he possibly can. After our April Synod, I repor- 
 ted to Paul all we had done ; and he writes, May 26, 1819? 
 <c The information respecting David and his conduct, it i§ true ? 
 is disagreeable ; but the remedy applied to him may be good- 
 It is a pity that he misuses his talents ; but I could never 
 bring him to think and act otherwise. Respecting Mr. Bell 
 and Philip, I will endeavor my best to make peace." 
 Extract of letters from Dr. Solomon Henkel, after my report to 
 him of our April Session* 
 
 u May 17, 1819. It is most miserable, that David canno^ 
 come to right again. His passions are too stubborn against 
 his soul. That you have reduced him in office, is right, if it 
 only brings him to more humility ; but I fear his pride will 
 not admit of it.. ..but the church better have fewer ministers^ 
 than quarrelsome heads." 
 • " May 22, 1819. Brother Philip wrote to my father res- 
 pecting his intention tQ hold conference $t Trinity ; but my 
 
86 
 
 father wrote him such a letter, that he will hardly do it. 5? 
 "May 24. That David humbled himself is clever j I hope 
 he will at last see that he hath flesh and blood. You have done 
 right. Let these young lords know that they shall not do as 
 they please, but do what is right. My mother says the Synod 
 did a father's part to him : now she believes that you love Da- 
 vid, and act with him according to right." Again...." Philip's 
 letter is of the 10th of May. He will hold conference. It 
 is likely that he had not then received your letter. It is ag- 
 gravating that satan hath his cloven foot also among ministers. 
 My father does not sanction it at all that Philip proceeds thus. 
 These are the gambols of children, performed by these lords. 
 Why did they not contradict the early conference from the be- 
 ginning ? Why don't they say any thing till now ? These are 
 no men in their office. This will not do, O, may the Lord 
 help, that unity may be restored. solomon henkel," 
 
 This shows a holy zeal of an honest man. This, my readers, 
 is principally to show you that nothing we did was secreted 
 from his father, and that he approved then what was right, and 
 disapproved wrong measures: since that, the father is gov- 
 erned by David ; but I hope not finally, for he labored many 
 years with fidelity in the vineyard of the Lf>rd, and it would 
 be a pity if laurels should fade, i wrote to Solomon from Bal- 
 timore $ and he answered, that his father and mother were 
 since three weeks on their journey to Tennessee, and he wishes 
 his father the courage of a lion, to conquer the young hot- 
 heads. What will be the consequence with these youngsters, 
 as I see by letters they speak of suing, in order to subdue us 
 old men. That is terrible, &c. After my return from Balti- 
 more, I found what was transacted at Trinity by Philip and 
 David, and communicated the same to the above honest man, 
 and also what was done in Baltimore. He acknowledged the 
 receipt, and is sorry for the perturbation occasioned (as he 
 says) by the boys. " Don't, by no means, excuse yourself res- 
 pecting my natural brothers ; in spirit they are, as I view them, 
 strangers, in the highest degree." This gentleman was at first 
 warm for the union* but his father always against it, and he 
 gave me his reasons, in civility, from the beginning. After a 
 while, Solomon was also of a different opinion : but this should 
 never break friendship; variance in opinion brings things to a 
 proper investigation. But if parties enforce their opinions 
 with such despotic, scurrilous, and malicious grins as David 
 does, farewell. I am sorry, however, that I must here extract 
 from a publication in the Star, May 19, 1820, and which is not 
 contradicted, that old Mr. Henkel could be turned from hif 
 former opinion. It is there said ? that " The facner of David 
 
came to Lincoln in Qctoher, 1819 ; and on visiting the several 
 churches, after divine service, addressed the audience as fol- 
 lows: 'That he had made particular inquiry respecting the 
 charges ^against his son David, and was, very glad to find that 
 ^hey were groundless as false'., ..when and where his son Da- 
 vid, myself, and several of the jury who tried and found him. 
 guilty, were actually present, and all knew that his assertions 
 were not true. And thus, instead of admonishing his son, and 
 endeavoring to bring him to an early repentance, aided him 
 with another untruth, (that is, if he alluded to the above char- 
 ges,) in order to persuade the ignorant that even that which 
 was proven against his son, and acknowledged by himself in 
 presence of the Syriod^ was not true." 
 
 I had forgotten this acknowledgment when I wrote the 
 above pages, and that he publicly asked Mr. Hoyle's pardon? 
 until I read the whole publication again in the Star. It is an- 
 other proof that he admitted trie validity of the Synod, and 
 that we separated in peace, without a distant suspicion that he 
 would send a messenger to his brother Philip, to make him 
 rush in, like a horse to battle, as if the greatest injustice had 
 been done him; or that he would take such infamous turns, 
 first, to compromise openly with Mr. Hoyle, only in order tcr 
 silence him, and then immediately to set ail machinery against 
 him. But the old man surely has no kind of excuse for act- 
 ing as he did. He knew of the meeting of our Synod ; prom- 
 ised to be there, and always, till lately, acknowledged himself 
 a member of that Synod, £Iow I ask any candid man, whe- 
 ther he was not, as a member of our Synod, in duty bound to 
 be supporting what we had done, as his absence was not our 
 fault ? Or whether an honest man, a judge of appeal, or Arch- 
 bishop, would not first have called us before his honor to show 
 our proof? Who gave him authority to overthrow what was 
 deliberately done in open congregation against his son ? What 
 kind of spirit does this show? A Pope, at best. Paul was 
 the first in Lincoln who, after Mr. Storke's offer of reconcilia- 
 tion, said, 4 1 cannot unite with such a body. 5 * 
 
 If paper enough had not already been soiled with that affair, 
 it would be well to insert the whole publication of Mr. Hoyle, 
 as it would serve as an index to the appendix, with one re- 
 markably dirty action, David's giving a man a certificate how 
 he acted before he himself was in embryo. But I suppose 
 those who have that publication will now compare it with the 
 proof; and those who have it not, may form their own judg- 
 ment, as far as the proof goes. 
 
 * And the reason he gave Was this, the majority would vote for a union, and 
 that we believed Mr. Hoyle'e publication. And who should not^ P But he dijj( 
 not know that we did. 
 
88 
 
 The Supplement which you published is not printed to 
 bound up with your pamphlet, but to be circulated separately. 
 The drift is easily discerned : you expect that your unwary 
 txnd ignorant readers, upon whom you will force supplement 
 and pamphlet, will not be able to understand any thing of the 
 " rushing sound of the chariot of paternal Deity," and what 
 the "rising in his meridian glory 1 * means— (see page 15 ;) and 
 that they will call it a production of such wisdom as cannot be 
 comprehended, and they will therefore lay it aside with awe* 
 Trjat the sensible part of your party readers will not wade 
 through it, but at once admit that it is unanswerable, and writ- 
 ten by inspiration, (this I also admit, in one sense,) and that 
 the converts you intend to make thereby will worship the idol 
 upon the ventriloquism uttered by the same, in detached parts. 
 It is for this reason that you have printed a separate sheet, 
 long enough to be read and admired after a sermon on Anti- 
 christ, or colors of rainbow, to very patient bystanders ; or to 
 avoid travelling over land and water to make proselytes, you 
 will disperse it — see Matt. 23, 15. You take this method, in 
 the first place, to create enmky against the ministry, whose 
 congregations hitherto lived in peace and union with them, 
 pitied your arrogant conduct, and would not listen to lengthy, 
 {sophisticated arguments to prove that the April Synod, which 
 you assisted in, was acting wrong. 2dly. To make people 
 believe that the Rev. Mr. Storke was heterodox, when one hun- 
 idred bibles would not convince him that the manhood of Christ 
 was taken into the Godhead, and that therefore Christ ob- 
 tained all divine perfection. 
 
 N. B. I do not know whether Mr, Storke said so ; and it 
 is well you do not say it on your incredible authority, but 
 rest on others, persuaded by you to sign it. I have not 
 seen the word manhood in the bible, (which signifies mar- 
 riageable ;) the German word is maunheit, manbarkeit. 
 You know what ideas are attachable to this expression. 
 And that Christ could not be a complete second person 
 in the Trinity before his manhood was taken up into thp. 
 Godhead^ I myself could not believe, if one hundred bibles 
 said so. But no bible says so. Humanity, the Son of 
 Man, Human Nature, exalted and glorified on the throne 
 of his father, conveys different ideas than the word man- 
 hood* 
 
 It is not edifying to enter deeper into an unprofitable inves- 
 tigation of this subject; and I do not write theological trea- 
 tises. The adorable divinity of the Saviour 5 prior to his in- 
 carnation and glorified and exalted humanity, creates too much 
 awe to treat it lightly ; and I would think myself little short 
 
n 
 
 blaspheming him if I said, as . you had your paper reatlj 
 (according to your awn account,) " that because (therefore) 
 the manhood of Christ was taken up into the Godhead, he had 
 obtained all divine perfection"* — for this is the true sense of 
 your quibble. This 1 have reason to believe, that in heaven 
 there is neither manhood nor womanhood, by what our Sav- 
 iour says to the Sadduceans, Matt. 22-30. 
 
 The above are my words in the nature of a review ; but the 
 Rev. Mr. Storke says that the discourse happened travelling 
 along the road, and the question was not about the manhood 
 of Christ being taken up into heaven, but it was about the 
 omnipresence of the body of Christ ; and, as I took it to be 
 David HenkePs opinion, that the bodily presence was essential 
 every where. He says that his expression of one hundred 
 bibles, (if it was so,) was a hasty, unguarded and hyperbolical 
 one ; that he would not have made use of it if at the time he 
 had had the least suspicion that notice would be taker} of it» 
 It was in a friendly conversation, for the idea was so absurd 
 that a body could be every where present, that the expression 
 was hastily made. Henkel's insinuation is intended to make 
 people believe as if Mr. Storke discredited the bible, or de- 
 nied the' human nature of Christ being in union with the di- 
 ving nature. But thousands of his hearers will testify, that 
 such insinuations are infamous slander ; and hundreds wilt 
 now testify in heaven, that he led them to their mediator with 
 this all-important doctrine. 
 
 But such is your crafty way to make people believe that: 
 We (particularly Mr. S.torke) do not teach right ; and this only 
 in order to lead them, if possible, to believe that the body of 
 Christ is every where in immensity of space at the same mo- 
 ment ; where, I am afraid, the half of your soul (understand- 
 ing) will never find him in your airy flights ; nor will your 
 whole soul united, will and all, ever unite with a glorified 
 body, if not soon converted— and of course you will not see 
 him, when your millenium is ushered in by ten thousand myri- 
 ads ef bright Urim — (see bombastic oration, page 15.) But 
 only at the conflagration of this system, you will behold him 
 as your judge, for creating and continuing disturbance, and 
 persisting in leading souls to destruction. I see Jesus after 
 his resurrection, not at the grave, Emmaus, and with his other 
 disciples at the same moment. 
 
 In the third place, you wish to show to your deluded flock 
 that you had authority over us and the doctrine we preach ; 
 and you copy from our minutes, page 12-16, like an angry 
 
 * Was he not God with the Father and Holy Ghost before >' 
 
40 
 
 child, "What we there said against you. Poor thing! Pride 
 was the cause of Lucifer's fall. I have the confidence that 
 the sensible part of your readers, although you may have made 
 them enemies to the doctrine of regeneration and persever- 
 ance in faith, in addition to baptism and communion, as 
 preached by us, will be ashamed of your uncivil arrogance, 
 as it shows that their preacher has had no kind of genteel ed- 
 ucation, and possesseth only vulgar haughtiness* Christ, and 
 him crucified, is our doctrine, but not yours ; and therefore 
 you cannot be answerable for us. 
 
 In your fourth partition, you again try to throw dust in the 
 eyes of your readers. You very hypocritically announce to 
 those of your flock who are for peace, that you are willing to 
 live in peace with us.. ...and you propose conditions* If you 
 have the sense of a human being, you must know that your 
 conditions are beneath notice. What ! first in bombastic, au- 
 thoritative style, to call us perjured, the whore of Rome, Popes, 
 Antichrists, a General Synod u a plant germinated in hell," &c* 
 and then, Nero like, in the same breath and pamphlet, com- 
 mand us how we shall act, before we can be contaminated and 
 disgraced with you. This beats all ! and is the superlative of 
 haughty meanness* You better continue to wallow in your 
 own puddle, until you are choked, or washed/ I think that 
 friends and enemies, if you have made any, should they read it, 
 or hear it read by you, will frown at your mean presumption. 
 
 Your fifth address deserves no notice ; for your committee 
 business hath been sufficiently elucidated above, by their own 
 certificate. Your seventy-odd councillors, meeting in detached 
 parties, at sundry times, if they all examined and signed their 
 investigation, had much trouble to prop the committee's insig- 
 nificant certificate. I wish you had given us the history of the 
 defence you made before the committee, where neither accu- 
 ser nor his proof was admitted. How can you have the ef- 
 frontery to publish such jargon? I know very few of these 
 men who signed the papers : the neighbors will guess or know 
 whether they acted from conviction, by persuasion, enmity, 
 pity, or good sense. That a committee and your church coun- 
 cils had good sense when they advised you not to bring suit 
 against Mr. Hoyle, is evident ; and although you are not ac- 
 customed to follow advice, here you did it because it was your 
 interest. Let the readers judge by the appendix. Why ? 
 Your hypocritical cloak that you did not see, because you are 
 meek and humble, will, by the readers of your virulent pam- 
 phlet, be judged to be a notorious falsehood. 
 
 Go on* Bishop Henkel ! Call those members (as you do in 
 ycmr supplement) to strict account, why they do absent them- 
 
4i 
 
 selves from your meeting ; why they will not commune with 
 you, nor forgive you before you ask pardon; let them feel 
 your power; excommunicate them; drive them oat frotn in- 
 fected atmosphere, that they may unite with such who preach 
 Christ, and him crucified, and who will, with Paul, know noth- 
 ing else, and whom you prohibit from preaching that doctrine. 
 
 David, 1 am done with reviewing your pamphlet, conclusion 
 and supplement, For your sake, I would not have spoiled 
 the paper, or lost a minute of my existence in exposing your 
 horribiiity, for I candidly think you are past recovery. What 
 I wrote, I did to show to the members of our church that you 
 was not wronged by the ministry, and that your conduct to- 
 wards us is nothing but rebellion against love and union. 
 That your puerile declamation against the April Synod, and 
 against the General Synod, proceeded only from malice, now 
 let honest readers decide. Suppose, for a moment, that our 
 April Synod was entirely wrong: pray what harm hath it 
 done ? Answer : it censured you, and sent a deputy to Balti- 
 more. Here are all the wrongs included. .•••the gnats which 
 you cannot swallow ; and these are the things on which you 
 write a pamphlet of sixty- odd pages. 
 
 The greatest enemies that may be raised against us by your 
 exertions, if, in their cool moments, they read this review and 
 appendix, will be ashamed of the error you pompously led 
 them into, and will own that no honest set of men, with such 
 proof before them, could have acted with more lenient justice. 
 
 I do sincerely wish that another spirit than the one which 
 inspired you to write twisted nonsense, would open your eyes, 
 to show you that you are standing on the brink of a gulph, and 
 that the holy spirit, with whom you say you are sealed in bap- 
 tism, may return to you, show you your depravity, the enor- 
 mity of your acting as a leader of souls without authority or 
 sign of grace, and make you so ashamed of yourself as to hide 
 your face from man, until you, by tears of repentance, hum- 
 bled yourself before Jesus, whom you have betrayed ; and 
 then not rest until you receive the assurance of his forgiveness, 
 and the spirit witnessed unto your spirit that you are a child 
 of God. Then will you understand what regeneration is ; then 
 you will know what it is to love God and your neighbor ; then 
 you will pronounce yourself openly, and in the pulpit too, that 
 you are a poor sinner, and have no power to forgive sins ; then 
 you will walk humbly before God, have patience with the faults 
 of your brethren, and lead an exemplary life. Your preach- 
 ing will then be influenced by the spirit, and not the letter of 
 the word of God only ; your soul will then enjoy communion 
 with God ; you will find that in the Eucharist the heart, and 
 
 6 
 
42 
 
 xiot the body, will enjoy what the Lord made it ; foolish que&* 
 tions you will avoid knowing that they do gender strife — II. 
 Tim. 2, 23; you will avoid them* and contentions, for they 
 are unprofitable and vain— Tit. 3, 9. Then there will be no 
 obstacle in the way to unite with all true lovers of the Saviour, 
 and you will forget railing against them, if your expressions 
 and theirs of the same thing differ only in sound. 
 
 Perhaps I owe an apology to the patient readers for having 
 dragged them through a mire with some force ; and I am 
 most willing to do so. 
 
 Before and at our last Synod at Lincolnton, we were threat- 
 ened to be sued, and to be exposed in print ; and on the ques- 
 tion being stated, whether we should first officially expose 
 the conduct of our opponents in print, it was decided in 
 the negative, in order not to increase the flame ; but it was 
 also determined, that if any thing appeared in print against us^ 
 nothing should be answered officially except three ministers 
 approved of the answer, but that every individual might an- 
 swer in the same manner as be is attacked — see minutes, page 
 12. But when the minutes were preparing for the press, it 
 ivas found that without a concise relation of the Monday trans- 
 action of that Synod, many things would appear quite unintel- 
 ligible... .viz : the reunion of Mr. Bell, the motion to readmit 
 David, Mr. Hill's letter, and invitation to Philip Henkel, &c. 
 This was stated to Mr. Bell, R. J. Miller^ Storke, Sherer, and 
 others ; and all saw the necessity. A few, however, would 
 rather have no minutes printed, and I was one of them ; but 
 printing the minutes could not be avoided, as it is a standing 
 rule that they should be printed ; a majority, therefore, agreed 
 that to insert the Monday's transactions was necessary. This 
 caused to appear what is related in our minutes ; and all those 
 that were present will say that nothing but the truth is there 
 stated, only too short. But when now David comes out with 
 renewed poison, in order to make himself of great importance, 
 and coupling himself to his brother and father, it was neces- 
 sary to meet it for the readers' sake, and that the antidote 
 should be ready as soon as the poison was delivered to be 
 swallowed, or soon after. This left very little time to the 
 author to have the review strictly examined by three preachers. 
 The rough was, however, communicated to three preachers 
 and others, at the Synod, June, 1821, and by them it was not 
 disapproved, although the language in part is sharp. The 
 points, then, relating to the General Synod, our Synod, and 
 the conduct of the same to David, together with the appendix, 
 is published with their sanction. The language is my own ; 
 &nd if it cuts, it is my razor, for I am principally ai*ned at. 
 
ft 
 
 and have a right to answer in the same manner as attacked* 
 See our minutes. That his attack is in any manner polite or 
 civil towards old age, none of the readers will assert ; and that 
 it is all clothed in hypocritical garments, all will own. Hypo- 
 crites and pharisees always were, and are, the bane of the 
 church of God. This was the case in our Saviour's time, and 
 he gave them severe lessons, according to Matt. 23 ; verse 24, 
 he says, " Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow 
 a camel" — (see constitutional jargon, and appendix, his oath f) 
 verse 26, " Thou blind pharisee, cleanse first that which is 
 within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be 
 clean also verse 28, " Even so, ye outwardly appear righteous, 
 unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity ;** 
 verse 23, u Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers," &c. 
 
 If you see the name of Jesus and his holy means, through- 
 out HenkePs pamphlet, intermixed with malice and perver- 
 sions of truth, how he threateneth those in his conclusion, page 
 65, who should fall off from him, with committing perjury, and 
 punishment, and then remaining their humble brother ; how 
 he labors to convince his readers by inapplicable stuff ; how 
 they one day unite with Christ, and that the next day the devil 
 takes them off, especially from page 47 to 64 ; how he, to- 
 wards the end, perverts the text, John 6, 63, only to support 
 his Roman doctrine, as if the Saviour only spoke of the spirit- 
 uality of his flesh, and not of his blood : you will own that he 
 must be a hypocrite, and deserves no lenient measures, lest he 
 should lead into error, if possible, the elect. 
 
 The Lord says, Jer. xxin. 1, 2, u Woe be unto the pastors 
 that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture : I will visit 
 upon you the evil of your doings." Show me, my friends, one 
 sentence in his whole pamphlet calling upon sinners to prayer 
 and repentance. I remember none ; and I cannot read it a 
 second time. I pray you to read the 33d chapter of Ezekiel, 
 to the 20th verse, and apply it as your conscience dictates. 
 You will there find, that if your water baptism and visible 
 communion, or any thing else, is your righteousness, you are 
 lost. Therefore, believe those watchmen who warn you of 
 the approach of such an enemy ; believe those that tell you 
 that repentance and faith, spiritual regeneration, not water 
 regeneration alone, walking humbly before God, continuing in 
 prayer, increasing in conviction of your nothingness, growing 
 in grace, humility and sanctification, and showing your Chris- 
 tianity by your works, is the only ladder to heaven. 
 
 I entreat my readers to understand, that I have no personal 
 enmity, against D. H. but that I abhor his official conduct ; an$ 
 
4*4* 
 
 from this view, you will judge whether my zeal is justifiable, 
 or whether I was too severe. 
 
 The learned and critical readers will be kind enough to ex- 
 cuse many errors, wrong expressions, and a nice, strict review 
 of the pamphlet, as I think all time lost that would be taken up 
 in polishing a review, and examining with a microscope a 
 mudpuddle. 
 
 ADDITION. 
 
 I am sorry to be compelled to say a few words to the Ger- 
 man readers, by a pamphlet 1 have, this 27th day of June, seen 
 in that language, printed in Newmarket, in Solomon Henkel's 
 printing office. 
 
 You will first observe, that the pamphlet is, like one already 
 mentioned, signed by no person as author. In one place> 
 Ambrosius Henkel, the printer, signs his name ; but it is only 
 to a criticism of the plan for a union, and which, of course, 
 requires no answer, as it is sufficiently hereinbefore exposed 
 as poison. In the second place, many of your ministers are 
 attacked without mentioning their names, in order that you 
 ma : ' i\ held in suspense respecting the person intended. This, 
 and M not signing his name, and not openly naming his au- 
 thority, proves that his design is to murder or assassinate the 
 characters of such he dare not openly attack. 
 
 As all books and pamphlets, letters or advertisements that 
 have no visible author, are, in their nature, nothing but slan- 
 derous libels, punishable by law, you will understand why I 
 do not screen myself under a cloak of politeness to expose the 
 invisible assassin, as I have no human name before me to ad- 
 dress. I shall therefore show that the author is, by uttering 
 falsehoods, a disturber of peace and harmony. 
 
 He first gives us the history of a conclave called the Ten- 
 nessee Synod, as already noticed in David's libel. The Ger- 
 man libel, sect. 13, says that none of their club shallhave seat 
 and vote in the Synod of N. C. because they do not look upon 
 them a true Lutheran Synod. David says, sect. 11, where he 
 records the same, that they will have no seat and vote, until 
 they are convinced that we are united with them in the Evan- 
 gelical doctrine of the Lutheran church, and renounce union. 
 
 It seems, then, that their records do not agree the one is 
 
 fabricated in Lincoln, the other in Newmarket. The sections^ 
 likewise, do not agree in their constitution. 
 
Page 12, the author begins addressing his dear readers, and 
 that in such polished language as was spoken 400 years ago, 
 and first relates what hurts no person. But, page 14, it is 
 evident that the author protrudes Paul Henkel as a most in- 
 dustrious champion as a preacher; but he forgets many lively 
 anecdotes about money and land matters, wh ch Paul received 
 in North-Carolina. He only says he received some support 
 from Pennsylvania. It is evident, page 15, that the same 
 champion is insinuated to be the creator of the Ohio Synod, 
 and now also ol Tennessee. However, Ohio w as not obedient 
 to him in 1819, for they then adopted the union, plan, as he 
 says, and we knew. But in 1820, after the German pamphlet 
 had been published, which is taken notice of in the first part 
 of this review, they were staggered, and recoiled ; they were 
 scared at a phantom. Page 15, the author begins to give rea- 
 sons why the Tennessee Synod was formed. 1'he last part of 
 page 16 is a perversion of facts : we had no constitution that 
 we should meet at Trinity,.! 819. This is sufficiently explain- 
 ed above. That the ministers in Tennessee had no timely 
 notice of our earlier meeting, refutes itself, as Philip Henkel 
 had written to me at that Synod, and to others, that he would 
 not come ; and the silly author acknowledged that himself, p. 
 21 — (he forgets, poor thing, that he had denied it). ...see, also, 
 appendix, and extracts of Paul's and other letters.) Page 17, 
 in. the author- says, a man who holds with the Pre^ T terians 
 complained against David. Now why not mention Andrew 
 Hoyl, Esq. Here every person knows whom he means : but 
 he wishes to slander us to his foreign readers, because we, like 
 honest men, attended to the complaint of a Presbyterian ; and. 
 then also to slander Mr. Hoyl, by saying that he had told Da- 
 vid before Synod, and before xvitnesses^ that he would not ap- 
 pear against him ; and that thereby David was made secure, 
 and came unprepared with proof. From the respectable char- 
 acter of Mr. Hoyl, and his conduct at Synod, Tbelieve it to be 
 a lie. The whole statement there is not true : they did not 
 make up and shake hands before the charges were found true 
 and after an apparent compromise, David immediately tried 
 to irritate him again. What the author says, p. 18, respecting 
 David's being catechet, happens to be true. What he says 
 next, that we are much inclined to the doctrine of predestina- 
 tion, is an abortion. I do not think that the author of the 
 pamphlet is predestined to be a vessel of honor. That we 
 acted partially, as the note to page 18 says, the readers will 
 judge of by the appendix. He also comes and gives you a 
 copy of David's license, to prove that we had confidence in 
 him. This is sufficiently explained already. He says, page 
 
46 
 
 £0, that a Synod has no right to annul a decision wrongfully 
 pronounced by the church council against an individual. I 
 ask you, where can an individual find redress, if a minister with 
 his chosen men oppresseth one of you, except in Synod ? Page 
 18, he asserts an absolute untruth, that, in 181T, it was resoU 
 ved that David should be ordained in 1819. This is only ad- 
 vanced to repeat the lies that were propagated in Lincoln, 
 from an error in the book called Luther, and which they there 
 charged me with having adulterated, as I had in some meas- 
 ure cured the error by pasting a paper over one word. It is 
 scandalous that any person, that will be a moral heathen or liv- 
 ing christian, should disperse such lies, knowing them to be 
 such. Page 20, iv. another assassination of character is at- 
 tempted against a minister not named, who is known by the 
 English libel of David to be the Rev. Mr. Storke. But here 
 he, the assassin, useth the proper word. ...not manhood, but hu- 
 manity. That the humanity of Christ was exalted to the di- 
 vine nature, Mr. Storke always preached ; but that the body of 
 Christ fills all space, none but idiots can believe.. ..and that was 
 the dispute. (We shall prove this, if necessary, by certificates, 
 signed by such who value an oath.) Enough hath been said 
 on this subject before. The description of their farce-meeting 
 in 1819, is a mutilated assertion against Mr. Storke, and is 
 sufficiently answered. But it is absolutely false that David's 
 deputies iiiere knew that, in Synod, 1817, his ordination was 
 determined on. David himself, with all his effrontery, did 
 not say so in his libel. What, then, must this author be ? The 
 deputies, if they read such lies printed against them, must de- 
 tect it, if honest men. 
 
 With his usual and accustomed itching to tell stories, the 
 author describes the beginning of the Lincolnton Synod quite 
 different from the facts. He says that no offer was made by 
 us to decide the dispute according to the doctrine of the scrip- 
 ture. Shame upon you ! Do we find any thing in scripture 
 of David Henkel's conduct, and how we ought to punish him I 
 or of a General Synod ? We then knew of no religious dis- 
 pute to be decided. David, in 1819, had openly disowned the 
 doctrine which he now attempts to establish, and then only 
 started. What he says from page 23 to 24, against me, the 
 Secretary, is an absolute lie. It was in the German and En- 
 glish language denied that we then had a ratified constitution ; 
 jbut it was, also, in both languages, asserted in the same breath, 
 jhat, whether it is called constitution or rules in the book call- 
 ed Luther, we were bound thereby. (See more of this above.) 
 Every thing of a discourse they had with us, as stated from 
 pge 24 to 27, is an absolute moral forgery, exactly like filling; 
 
4? 
 
 up an order for $210 over the true sum. It was beneath the 
 Secretary to enter into a dispute about the bodily presence of 
 the Saviour every where, on David's haughty challenge — to 
 whom he might have written a confidential letter on the pres- 
 ence in the sacrament. Page 26, we find the denominations 
 of all christians, excepting such Lutherans as they are, called 
 sheep, rams, lambs, cows, oxen, horses, bears, wolves, wild 
 cats, foxes, and hogs. I thought David horrid enough in ex- 
 pressions, but this author beats him to atoms. Read it, ye 
 christians.. ..what think ye of such a being? Page 27, another 
 story is asserted, viz. that we were compelled to confess that 
 we had erred. It is known to every person present, that as 
 soon as the error was found out, it was voluntarily done : but 
 see what I said above. 
 
 The author comes again and says, "One of our preachers went 
 to Tennessee, and acted in our name ; but as they had reason 
 to doubt, in the honesty of that preacher," &c. This is trying 
 to assassinate the character of Mr. Bell in the dark, as not 
 being honest — no doubt because he would not assist in depri- 
 ving us of g210. The author must surely be crack-brained, 
 to expect that when errors were confessed, we thereby depri- 
 ved ourselves from uniting with a General Synod. If you 
 read on, you will find the evidence that good Philip is com- 
 manded by his father and David not to unite with us. The 
 last paragraph, p. 28, is again killing some unnamed preacher, 
 with a charge of dereliction from the bible and Augsburg con- 
 fession. Dark, malicious slander is your object, although. 
 Was you a man, you would not act thus ; for who can answer 
 such stuff? 
 
 The author then hypocritically addresseth his dear friends, 
 and saith, that he does not publish the stories to bring us into 
 disrepute, and to be despised and rejected, or to deprive us of 
 our honor and renown. What a falsehood ! Every person 
 that can read will say that such is your main object. But with 
 all honest readers it will fall on your own head. 
 
 If you have written testimony against us, as you say p. 30, 
 why dare you not name the subscribers ? Is it that your read- 
 ers shall not judge of their credibility, or whether they mind 
 an oath ? or is it that you are afraid of being detected in for- 
 gery ? David also says he hath a certificate against the Rev. 
 Mr. Storke : he names no signers.. ..no doubt for some such 
 reasons as above. 
 
 Poor author ! must you, indeed, always hear that (as you 
 say, p. 30) you are the cause of the disunion, and that, there- 
 fore, you had to invent a salve out of David's mudpuddle ? I 
 really pity you. I wonder that jouhave not secured the copy 
 
4fe 
 
 right* We have treated you with all possible lenity in our 
 minutes, and you cannot deny the truth as there stated : but 
 see appendix. We do not crave your union* while David, 
 with your sanction, directs the whirlpool. Show us one among 
 us who, like you, preaches for bread, as you insinuate, p. 31. 
 Every one of us in N. C. have our plantations. Have you? 
 or do you live by preaching, or scribbling? We guess who 
 you are : your language betrays you in every line. Shame ! 
 how you treat your English supporters, towards the conclusion, 
 by saying that they only come to our English meetings to be 
 diverted, and for pastime. 
 
 There must be two authors to the pamphlet, for the doctrine 
 of baptism is either out of a controversial book, or by a man 
 who knows how to write his language not at all like the first part 
 It is ingenious enough 4 but I have no room to answer it ; and 
 if the readers will take their bible and the texts here mentioned, 
 and read them in connexion, they will be benefited : but if a 
 grown person depends upon his water-baptism for salvation, 
 he is lost. 
 
 It is surprising that in the German pamphlet we read noth- 
 ing of the omnipresence of the body of our Saviour, nor of the 
 doctrine of transubstantiation. This shows that the author 
 hath some good sense, and will not expose himself to be laugh- 
 ed at. The author dishes again the poisonous pamphlet against 
 the union, up to his readers. That poison now ceaseth to op- 
 erate, as before mentioned. 
 
 That he added the Augsburg confession, is good ; it will 
 keep the reader in mind of his predecessors 300 years ago. 
 
 Why do you print in your German and English hymn books, 
 songs on regeneration ? Why do you speak in your English 
 book, p. 265, hymn 272, of mournful prayer, of sorrow and dis- 
 tress, of grief and pain, delay of repentance, &c. ? And now 
 baptism is to be enough ; now all is enthusiasm what savors of 
 sorrow ; now kneeling at prayer is methodism ; and the preach- 
 ers in whose presence tears are shed, are wizzards, carrying 
 shaved rams horns in their pockets, and sow that on the people 
 to effect such. Did not you say so ? Is there not a doctor in 
 your neighborhood who gives out medicines to drive away 
 such devils ? Think of this, my anonymous scribbler. 
 
 This short review I thought necessary to publish against the 
 unknown libeller, that when it circulates, or is published by D. 
 Henkel from the pulpit, the hearers may be prepared. 
 
 You will excuse vour well wisher, 
 
 Gr. 8H0BEE. 
 
>A9 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 COPY OF A MEMORIAL., 
 The Memorial of Andrew Hoyl, of N. C. Lincoln county, tp 
 the pious and reverend Lutheran Clergy, at Conference, 
 now in session in Cabarrus county, N. C. at the Yellow 
 Meeting-House. 
 Most worthy and dearly beloved in Christ Jesus : You? 
 humble memorialist, being a citizen of Lincoln county, where 
 he was born, now 48 years of age, and having lived in peace, 
 harmony and friendship with my neighbors generally until now 
 for several years, that peace and harmony which is so desira- 
 ble has been assailed by Mr. David Henkel, preacher, as your 
 memorialist thinks he can make it appear to your satisfaction ; 
 and in order to lead you into the mystery, I will make as brief 
 a statement as possible. 
 
 Some time about 27 years past, your memorialist became a 
 member of the German presbyterian denomination ; atod that 
 we have had no stated preacher of that order for 20 years ; 
 that I paid stipends to the Lutheran ministers, and was held 
 and had a vote in said church as though I was in full com- 
 munion with them. (I will here refer you to the Rev. Philip 
 Henkel.) There existed no dispute between the Lutherans 
 and presbyterians in which your memorialist took part, to his 
 knowledge, until said David Henkel came to bear rule amongst 
 us : and the cause, I think, was this — during Mr. Philip Hen- 
 kePs time, the families of some of the presbyterians were grad- 
 ually joining your church, which your memorialist did not 
 oppose, knowing we had no minister, and thinking it the duty 
 of every person to join some religious society, and then as they 
 received Christ, so to walk in him : yet (I) for some reason 
 did not think proper to join your church. Meanwhile the 
 German Lutheran and English churches joined in one ; and 
 also some of our German presbyterians joined the English ; 
 and your memorialist having lost hopes of getting a German 
 minister of his order, and having an earnest desire to com- 
 memorate and show forth the suffering and death of our Lord 
 and Saviour Jesus Christ, and made it his choice to commune 
 with the English presbyterians, having previously informed 
 the few brethren who yet remained here, and they followed 
 the example ; as also some of the young people joined said 
 church — from which time Mr. David Henkel appeared to envy 
 ills ; and as the Rev. Mr. Hunter omitted laying hands at the 
 ■ 7 
 
sd 
 
 time of receiving hew members into the church, Mr. Henkel 
 has ever since preached more on the importance of laying on 
 of hands than on the plain doctrines of true faith in Christ and 
 repentance to God ; and held and taught some doctrines which 
 I thought dangerous.. ...such [as true believers were as perfect 
 as God and that the new birth of which our Saviour spoke 
 to Nicodefnus, John 3, was water-baptism only, and that water- 
 baptism alone would produce our salvation if we would believe 
 in it ; and that a person might receive the baptism of the Holy 
 Ghost, and be and remain a reprobate ; and that the Holy 
 Ghost would accompany water-baptism ; and that ministers of 
 the gospel could forgive sins ; and that, by the laying on of 
 hands by a minister fully ordained, the said Holy Ghost would 
 fully communicate himself to such persons ; and that those 
 who omitted that, left out one link (I suppose} of the means 
 of salvation ; and thereby caused some to doubt whether they 
 could be saved without. Some of those heads I opposed, and 
 endeavored to persuade some of the congregation to look be- 
 yond the watchmen, and search the scripture, which appeared 
 to set him entirely against your memorialist, and called the 
 presbyterians infidels. I told him that was a hard charge : he 
 said it wa3, but he could not help it, as they deny eating the 
 • real body of Christ and drinking his real blood in the Lord's 
 Supper and; all that did, were infidels : and instead of get- 
 ting the neighbors to weigh his doctrine, they got offended at 
 your memorialist, whose motives were pure. And since which 
 time, some of them have not held me with that esteem that 
 they did before : and to make the measure full, Mr. D. Henkel 
 swore an oath before me, (being a justice of the peace,) part 
 of which was disputed, as he also acknowledged he had forgot : 
 (I will here refer you to sundry depositions accompanying 
 this)— see No. 3 : which (oath) was circulated abroad by the 
 plaintiff, or her friends, against whom the tenor of his oath 
 ran. After some time, inquiry was continually making with 
 xrie with respect to said oath ; but I refused frequently to 
 tell, and desired a meeting, particularly where several men 
 from the different congregations should attend, so that the news 
 might go in the shape I gave it to the several churches ; and 
 that I also wished Mr. Henkel to be present, and telling them 
 that I expected that I and he would not differ, as you will see 
 by a certificate, No. 1, and hear from Mr. Mozer. But at 
 length, the Rev. Mr. Mozer and several of HenkePs elders 
 insisted so hard to know what he had sworn, and I at last re- 
 lated it to them as it was, and as the depositions will show. 
 
 * These eight words were, in a manner, stricken out ; but as they ar« 
 ttecessary for tte connexion they are retained^ 
 
*1 
 
 And it appears to your memorialist, that from that time Mr* 
 Henkel concluded he could, by his art and insinuations, cause 
 the world to believe that I had reported falsehoods on him';* 
 that he had neither sworn any thing but what was true ; and 
 also, that he never came back to make an acknowledgment, as 
 $vill more fully appear by deposition No. 2. Your humble 
 memorialist is therefore compelled to charge the said David 
 Henkel with being a rash man, and with having taken very 
 unfair means to rob me of my reputation, as will plainly appear ; 
 and in order to carry said intrigue into effect, proceeded to 
 take certificates " of persons who knew nothing of his oath, and 
 reported that I had told lies on him, and spread abroad other 
 falsehoods against me, as I think," which caused me to take 
 depositions and certificates to clear myself of his false reports, 
 and show that he has been more a disturber of the peace than 
 a peace 7 maker ; and, I am afraid, lacks the one thing needful. 
 
 And now your humble memorialist earnestly solicits your 
 pious body to take the foregoing into your wise consideration, 
 and devise that plan which will be calculated to bring about 
 a speedy reconciliation, and establish as soon as possible that 
 harmony, peace and friendship which existed among us before 
 he, the said David Henkel, bore rule among us. And your 
 humble memorialist, as in duty bound, will ever pray, 
 
 April 24, 1819. AND'W. HOYL. 
 
 P. S. Please to pardon my boldness in thus troubling you ; 
 and if any of my expressions are rash, also excuse me, as I am 
 a stronger to such business. A. hoyx-V 
 
 Certificates, only necessary for such as do not know Mr. Hoyh 
 
 [Copy.] That Andrew Hoyl, Esquire, has been in the cir- 
 cle of my particular acquaintance more than twenty*three years 3 
 uniformly living where he now lives, ^bout eight miles from 
 my house, and as uniformly supporting the character of a fair 
 dealer as a merchant, an impartial administrator of justice as 
 a magistrate, a peaceable, moral, and useful citizen, in full 
 communion w r ith, and highly .respectable standing in, the pres- 
 byterian church. Certified at Lincolnton, this 28th of April P 
 
 1819. H. HUNTER, D. D. 
 
 [.GQPY]..«.«Sfafe of North-Carolina,! 
 
 Lincoln County. J 
 We, the undersigned, being justices .of the peace in and fas 
 $he county aforesaid, do hereby certify, that Andrew 'Hoyl }K 
 
Slsquire, (the bearer hereof,) with whom we have been per* 
 sonally acquainted for several years, has been an acting justice 
 of the peace in and for said county of Lincoln for a number of 
 years ; that he has always supported the character of a vigilant, 
 attentive and judicious justice of the peace ; and that, as a 
 justice of the peace as well as a private citizen, he has and now 
 does support the character of an honest and peaceable citizen^ 
 &c. April 23, 1819. 
 
 John Willfong, J. P. Peter Hoyl, J. P. John Allen, 
 L Holland, J. P. G. Milligan, J. P. Wm. Martin,, 
 J. D. Graham, J. P. John Falls, J. P. 
 
 [copies.] 
 
 State of North-Carolina^ April 16th, 1819. 
 
 Lincoln County. y To whom it may concern* 
 
 This may certify, that we have been acquainted with An«* 
 drew Hoyl, Esq. for about 30 years ; and that he has always 
 borne the character of an honest, moral citizen, and a man of 
 truth ; and that he has represented our county in the General 
 Assembly for several years, and as long as he offered for that 
 place ; and has acted as justice of the peace for fifteen years., 
 or upwards, and has always been respected in his proceedings. 
 Given under our hands. 
 
 David Ramsour, D. Shiffard, Jacob Summy, John M. Motz, 
 Jacob Forney, acquainted for Id years, Jacob Ramsour for 20 
 years, John Fullenwider> Peter Forney, Daniel Hoke, J. Gra- 
 ham, Wm. J, Wilson. 
 
 Now readers, could any set of honest men reject the petition 
 of a man thus recommended, only because he does not belong to 
 our church ? Shall we not believe his petition, and what follows i 
 
 [copy.] 
 
 State of North-Carolina,*) To any lawful officer, to exe- 
 Lincoln County. J cute and return. 
 
 Whereas Andrew Hoyl, Esq. made oath before me, Isaac 
 Holland, one of the justices of tbe peace for said county, to the 
 following, and tp the best of his knowledge : That Davkl 
 Henkel, (preacher,) of said county, came before him, the said 
 Andrew Hoyl, in company with Susanna Williams and David 
 Lineberger, and informed said Hoyl that he, the said Henkel, 
 was summoned to attend at the court of Lincoln, in a suit then 
 in court* Susanna Williams against Lineberger, and that he 
 could pot well attend^ and requested him, the said Hovl, tp 
 
take his deposition, by consent of both parties, and not by aa 
 order or commission from court ; which was done, being much 
 solicited by said Henkel: and that said Henkel (preacher) 
 made oath before him, the said Hoyl, in due form of law, that 
 he had endeavored to bring the above suit to a compromise ; 
 but that, to his knowledge, no' offer had been made by the defen- 
 dant to the said Susanna Williams, or her friend Adam Costner y 
 to compromise or draw said suit, nor by any person for said 
 Lineberger ; which the said Henkel penned in the deposition 
 himself. And the said Hoyl further saith, oa oath, that he put 
 the following question at the request of the plaintiff, that it was 
 said that he, the said David Henkel, should have told several 
 of the neighbors that said Lineberger had made an offer of 
 S 100 to the plaintiff, or Adam Costner for her, if she would 
 draw the suit, or that Lineberger had authorised him to offer 
 it, and that he had done so: to which said Henkel answered, 
 that he had not ; and that if the said Hoyl would ask those 
 neighbors, he would find it to be a lie — ( which last part, Hoyl 
 thinks, was perhaps not put into the deposition, not being ma- 
 terial to the suit.) And the said Hoyl further saith, that he has 
 reason to believe, from information, and doth believe, that an 
 offer was made by the defendant or Henkel, to the plaintiff or 
 Costner; and also, that Henkel did inform some of the neigh- 
 bors that the above offer of §100 had been made: and further, 
 that the said Henkel called on the said Hoyl a few days after, 
 and agreed that he had forgotten that he had told any person^ 
 that said offer was made ; and requested said Hoyl to tell him 
 whether or not he could be prosecuted with effect, and that 
 Hoyl made the following answer.. ..he did not believe he could, 
 unless it could be made appear that he knew it to be an untruth 
 when he swore it; to which Henkel answered, that they could 
 not do so, as he thought rt was true when he swore : And fur- 
 ther, that the said Hoyl Is informed that said Henkel is en* 
 deavoring to clear himself of the above at a distance, and says 
 that those who have reported said oath are reporting falsehoods 
 against him, and that he could recover damages if he would 
 bring suit. 
 
 Now therefore, in order to show whether or not an action 
 would lie against said Henkel, and at the same time- to show 
 to the world the guilt or innocence of those who have repeated 
 the above oaths, or the substance thereof, you are commanded 
 to summon David Lineberger, John Hovis, sen'r. Michael 
 Costner, and Susanna Williams, (now Singleton,) to appear 
 before some justice^, to give evidence respecting the premises^ 
 
 I, HOLLAND, jT, ^ 
 
 April 
 
Korth-Carolina, 1 
 
 Lincoln County. J 
 
 Susanna Singleton, being duly sworn on her oath, saitk, 
 that she was at Andrew HoyPs, Esq. when David Henkel 
 (preacher) was sworn with respect to a suit then in court, 
 5- Williams vs. D. Lineberger ; and that the said Henkel said, 
 on his oath, that he had been once at Adam Ccstner's, trying 
 to persuade them to make up the suit, and that he did not 
 recollect of any offer being made by Lineberger to make up ; 
 and said Hoyi put the following question, at her request, to 
 said tienkel, whether or not he had told some of the neighbors 
 that Lineberger had made an offer, or some body for him, of 
 an §100 to the plaintiff, to make up the suit ; he answered, 
 that he had not— and if he, Hoyl, would ask the neighbors, he 
 Tvould find it to be a lie. This deponent being further asked, 
 whether or not she knows of any such offer being made, saith 
 that, being at the house of Adam Costner when the parties and 
 D» Henkel were present, said Henkel advised them to make 
 u p the suit ; and Adam Costner said, if Lineberger would pay 
 §100 she might or could make up — but Lineberger refused i 
 whereupon Henkel said to him, you had better give it; Line- 
 berger said he would give it, if she would pay the cost ; Costner 
 refused that ; Henkel said he would pay part of the cost him- 
 self, rather than have a fuss, and wanted no more to be done 
 about it till he came there to preach. Andrew Hoyl asked 
 her if she knows what came of Henkel's deposition— saith 
 that she does not know ; but saith that Henkel, about three 
 weeks ago, said that he expected said Hoyl had it yet, for he 
 lent it to Jacob Forney at court. 
 
 Sworn to and subscribed this Fth day of April, 1819, before 
 me* ,1ER 
 
 SUSANNA + WILLIAMS* 
 
 JoJm Holland, J. /V 
 
 At the same time and place, Catharine Hoyl, being exam- 
 ined on her oath, saith that she was present when the above 
 oath was put to the said D. Henkel, and saith that said Henkel 
 said, on his oath, that he never was authorised to offer, or 
 heard David Lineberger offer, to his knowledge, a glOO for a 
 compromise in the above suit, S. Williams vs. D. Lineberger ; 
 then he being asked, at the request of S. Williams, by A, Hoyl, 
 whether he (Henkel) never told one of the neighbors that 
 Lineberger had offered $100, or any body for him, to make up 
 suit, he said he never ^id ; and if he, Hoyl, would ask the 
 
neighbors about it, he would find it to be a lie : And furthef 
 saith, that said Henkel, a few days after, came back to said 
 Hoyl, and seerfied troubled ; then asked Hoyl if he .recollected 
 ivhat he had sworn before him with respect to the above suit; 
 Hoyl said he did, and related the substance of the abovt% as 
 nigh as she recollected ; tc which Henkel made no objections, 
 but asked him (Hoyl) if he thought they could do any thirsg 
 with him, like prosecuting him, for what he had sworn ; to 
 which Hoyl said, that he did not think they could do any thing 
 with him, unless that they could prove that he knew it to be 
 false at the time he swore it. 
 
 Sworn to and subscribed this 7th day of April, 1819, before 
 me*, John Holland, J. P. c. hoyl. 
 
 David Lineberger, being duly sworn as above, and in the 
 above case, saith that he was present when the above oath was 
 taken oy D. Henkel ; and saith that Henkel wrote down and 
 read in his hearing, that he had offered, or made the proposi- 
 tion, for Lineberger to the plaintiff, §100, but Lineberger ob- 
 jected to it, but does not recollect what Henkel related when 
 sworn verbally; then at the request of the plaintiff, Susanna 
 Williams, Hoyl asked Henkel if he had not told some of the 
 neighbors that Lineberger, or he for him, offered glOO to 
 make up the suit-*- does not recollect the answer: And further 
 saith, that he believeth he saw the deposition in the hands of 
 Peter Hoyl^ Esq, at the court of Lineberger's trial, but does 
 not know What became of them. 
 
 Sworn to and subscribed the 7th of April, 1819. 
 John Hollandy J. P. datid lineberg-er.* 
 
 John Costner, being examined on oath, saith, that the par- 
 ties in the above suit being present at the house of Adam Cost- 
 ner, and David Henkel proposed that they would make up the 
 said suit, and said that Lineberger would give SlOO if they 
 would make it up - 7 Adam Costner said that they would take 
 the g>10Q if Lineberger would pay the cost — but Lineberger 
 objected to it — but afterwards consented, if they would pay 
 
 * To understand the case, it is this : — S. Williams, ward of Adam Costner, 
 was aggrieved by Lineberger ; she sued him by her friend Costner ; Lineber- 
 ger wanted to make up, and got Henkel to do it, to which he himself inclined 
 for peace sake, apparently; afterwards an understanding took place between 
 Henkel and Lineberger, and lie wanted to screen him, &c. I may be wrong, 
 mt so l understand it* G. S. 
 
65 
 
 the cost; then Henkel said he would pay the cost himself, 
 rather than it should not be made up, and desired that Adam 
 Costner should do no more in it till he came back again, and 
 then it should be made up. 
 
 Sworn to and subscribed April 7, 1819* 
 J. Holland) J. P, john costne&.. 
 
 John Hovis, being also examined, saith that Henkel (being 
 in company together at HoVis's own house) said that Lineber- 
 ger offered Costner, or Susanna Williams, $100; then after 
 that again, that he, Hovis, asked Henkel who told him that 
 Lineberger offered the SlOO — he said that Adam Costner told 
 him so. 
 
 Sworn and subscribed this 7th of April, 1319. 
 John Holland^ J. P. john hovis. 
 
 Susanna Costner, also being examined, saith the same or 
 the substance of the above, what John Costner said ; and also, 
 that said Costner agreed to wait on those conditions, viz. that 
 it should be settled when he, Henkel, came back. 
 
 Sworn to and subscribed, this 7th day of April, 1819, before 
 pie. 
 
 HEll 
 
 SUSANNA + COSTNER. 
 Jotei Holland, f. maJie. 
 
 Adam Costner, being also examined in the above case, on 
 his oath, saith that, at his own house, the parties being present, 
 viz. S. Williams, ■ D> Lineberger, and D. Henkel (preacher) 
 being present, advised to make up their disputes, and men- 
 tioned that Lineberger should give him, Costner, SlOO; then 
 Lineberger agreed to give her §100, if she would pay the cost ; 
 then he, Costner, objected to it, unless he, Lineberger, w r ould 
 pay the cost ; then David Henkel said that he would rather pay 
 the cost himself than that they would not make it up ; and said 
 he would pay it himself, rather than have any more disputes 
 #bout it ; and said that if he, Adam Costner, would wait, and 
 do no more about it till he came back, it should be made up 
 then ; he, Costner, agreed that he would do no more in the 
 case on those conditions, and he believes shook hands with 
 said Henkel to the case, and then considered it made up, upon 
 their word being exchanged : Also saith, that he, Henkel, some 
 time after, acknowledged to this deponent, that he had told 
 John Hovis that the elFer of an $100 had been mack to tj*& ! 
 
if 
 
 above plaintiff, and that it is so, and that he never would forget 
 it again. Question by Andrew Hoyl to deponent..,. .Did you 
 call on Michael Costner after the above oath was sworn, and 
 ask him whether or not D. Henkel had told him that the offer 
 of a glOO had been made to S. Williams? Answers in the 
 affirmative. Sworn to and subscribed this 7th of April, 1819, 
 before me, JY Holland, J. P. adam costner. 
 
 I do hereby certify, that the foregoing warrant and deposi- 
 tions are true copies. ...to wit, of Sus. Williams, (now Single- 
 ton,) C. Hoyl, David Lineberger, John Costner, John Hovis, 
 Sus. Costner, and Adam Costner* 
 
 Certified by me, akdrew hoyl. 
 
 If I understand it, the original depositions sworn to by Da- 
 vid Henkel are not now to be found— and the question is, 
 Where are they i The following certificates relate thereto t 
 
 [copy.] 
 
 This may certify, that Peter Hoyl, Esq* told me on Thurs* 
 day last, after informing him what David Lineberger said res* 
 pecting a deposition taken before me of David Henkel in a 
 suit, Sus. Williams vs. Lineberger, that Mr. D. Henkel gave 
 nim papers ; that said Peter Hoyl understood it was a depo- 
 sition taken at Andrew Hoyl's, and that he should give it to 
 D. Lineberger at court, as he could not attend there- — and that 
 he had done so ; but that he does not know whether he read 
 it or not ; and that some time after, Mr. Henkel said he wished 
 to get it again ; and he told him he had given it to Lineber- 
 ger : and that still later, Mr. Henkel informed him that Line- 
 berger told him (Hoyl) had lost it : and after that again, Mr. 
 Henkel told him that the paper he had given him was not the 
 deposition, but a copy only. Certified April 12, 1819. 
 
 ANDREW HOYL. 
 
 I do hereby certify, that the above is, in substance, what I 
 related to Andrew Hoyl. peter hoyl. 
 
 State of North-Carolina^ 
 Lincoln County. J 
 This may certify, that Jacob Wike and Elizabeth Wike 
 made oath in due form of law before me, Joseph Lawrance* 
 8 
 
6tic of trie justices far and in said county, that David Henkei 
 (preacher) came to their house sometime in the night of the 
 gth inst. oA his way from the Mountain Meeting House to St. 
 Paul's, and immediately before he sat down, said that Andrew 
 Hoyl, Esq. had reported in the country that he, the said D. 
 Henkei, had sworn a lie, which was utterly false ; and that he 
 had now a copy of his oath, and the same certified, and other 
 papers so well authenticated that he could entirely clear him- 
 self of said charge ; that he had counselled lawyer Williamson, 
 and had proceeded according to his direction ; and he un- 
 doubtedly could now recover against him, the said Hoyl, in 
 consequence of his false report ; and read his copy and certifi- 
 cates ; and said that Hoyl had done all this only to break up 
 the Lutheran churches : that he, Hoyl, had long (for three 
 years) endeavored to entrap him ; but that he, Henkei, was 
 too cunning a fox— that he could hop about from place to place, 
 so that he, Hoyl, could not ensnare him ; but that he, Henkei, 
 had now caught said Hoyl ; that he certainly could recover 
 damages of hirn in consequence of said false reports, unless 
 Hoyl could or would prove that he never said what I charge 
 him with ; but that §2000 would not clear said Hoyl, as he 
 would bring suit in consequence of being dismissed as a 
 preacher at St. Paul's church* in consequence of said HoyPs 
 false reports ; and that he would advertise him in the public 
 papers ; and by that, and recovering the above damages, he 
 would make Hoyl look as black as their black wall : And fur- 
 ther said, that Andrew Hoyl kept the depositions concealed^ 
 which could be made appear by Jacob Forney, as Forney told 
 him he heard said Hoyl read it to Ramsour and old Mr. Sum- 
 my in Lincolnton : and further said, he had compelled said 
 Hoyl to acknowledge three times in the open congregation, 
 that he had belied him, Henkei ; and particularly in charging 
 him with having altered bis brother Philip's appointment for 
 preaching, and then endeavored to put it on said Philip Hen- 
 kei ; but that he had a letter in* his possession that would both 
 clear him and Philip ; and that if he did sue, that he would not 
 only bring suit against Hoyl, but also against Polly Fullen- 
 wider and one of HoyPs brother-in-laws ; but said, upon the 
 whole, if it was true what he had been told a few hours ago, 
 at John Abernathy's at dinner that same day, by one of Mr. 
 Abemathy's sons, (perhaps Jacob,) that said Hoyl had called 
 at Mr. Jacob Forney's, one of his (Henkel's) elders, who was 
 .hard against said Hoyl, and that he was so tightly pressed res- 
 pecting the aforesaid false reports* and had asked Forney 
 whether it would do if he, Hoyl, would give a libel ? that 
 Forney answered, he supposed it would : and said that young 
 
o9 
 
 Mr. Abernathy was present part of the time, and saw Hoyl 
 there ; and that he, Hoyl, had then proceeded, and gave a libel 
 to his said elder, Jacob Forney ; and moreover, agreed to have 
 it printed at Salisbury, and advertise himself a liar. On which 
 Mrs. Wike asked hiin (Henkel) who had given a libel ? And 
 he replied, Andrew Hoyl, Esq. At which we, the undersign* 
 cd, were surprised, being acquainted with the reputation of said 
 Hoyl. And Mr. Jacob Wike told him he had better be care- 
 ful what he reported on said Hoyl, perhaps Abernathy would 
 deny; to which he answered, that he could prove all he saidf 
 that there were three or four persons present when Abernathy 
 told him.. ..viz : one or two of his brothers, and his father and 
 mother. That Mrs. Wike then told him, that A. Hoyl waj* 
 so much respected in this quarter, that nearly all would be 
 disposed to believe all he said ; that he, Hoyl, was always call- 
 ed and held as an uncommonly good man : to which Henkel 
 answered, if they knew of said Hoyl what he knew, they would 
 be done with him, for in his own parts he was entirely des- 
 pised, and no person thinks more of him, Hoyl, than of an old 
 dog. And further said, that they went with him the day fol- 
 lowing (Good Friday) to preaching at St. Paul's church, where 
 he related part of the above in the meeting-house, before ser^ 
 mon, to his elders, Loots and Boleck, Mrs. Wike only present ; 
 and mentioned that it was Andrew Hoyl, as she understood, 
 against whom he could recover damages : and that after ser- 
 mon, he informed the congregation of a considerable part of 
 the foregoing, but did not mention HoyPs name, but said it 
 was a relation of his wife's, and also related to many of that 
 congregation. And deponents further say, that they asked 
 him whether he had not^ after swearing the aforesaid oath, gone 
 back to said Hoy Ps, and acknowledged that he had forgot a party 
 or that he had told any person that an offer of glOO had been 
 made to the plaintiff? To which he an5wered, that he had 
 not ; and that it was an arrant lie that he had ever gone back; 
 and that he, Hoyl, had set on William Kline, perhaps fee'd or 
 bribed him. 
 
 Sworn to and subscribed this 20th day of April, 1819, b$f 
 fore me, J. JLawrance, J. P. 
 
 A true copy : G. Shober; 
 
 • » . ' HIS 
 
 JACOB + WIKE. 
 
 ' ; «'*-J r •> * MARK. ? 
 
 ■i V . . ' • HEB» • ' 
 
 ELIZABETH + WIKI&i 
 
[cOPY.] t 
 
 This may certify, that Andrew Hoyl, Esq. never spoke to 
 me, William Kline, respecting an oath sworn by David Henkel 
 before said Hoyl, in a suit, Sus. Williams vs. D. Lineberger, 
 xior I to him, until this day. 
 
 Certified by me, William Kline, April 15, 1819. 
 Test : Paul Conrad* 
 
 March 27, 1819. 
 
 ' TO ALL WHOM IT MAY CONCERN. 
 
 I certify, that Andrew Hoyl, Esq. never read a deposition 
 to me that the Rev. David Henkel gave, nor that he ever had 
 it; and further, that no person ever told me they heard A, 
 iloyl. Esq. read it, or say that he had it in his possession after 
 the time of giving it. 
 
 JACOB TORNEYo 
 
 A true copy from the original : Andrew HoyL 
 A copy froni the above ; G. S. 
 
 Copy of a letter from the Reverend James Hall to G. Shober r 
 November 13, 1818. 
 
 Rev. and dear Brother : In my itinerations last fall, having 
 sent an appointment to Cosner's meeting-house in Lincoln 
 county, when I came near the place, was informed that the 
 Rev. D. Henkel was to have a communion there on that day, 
 and attended there on Saturday. Although I preached after 
 him on that day, he seemed shy of me ; but having a desire to 
 have some conversation with him, on account of what I had 
 heard concerning him, invited myself to go that evening to 
 Mr. David Conner's, where I understood he was to lodge the 
 following night. After dinner, I invited him to take a walk 
 with me, which he did — -and he immediately introduced the 
 subject of the presence of Christ's body and blood, or what he 
 sometimes termed, his humanity in the elements. I attempted 
 repeatedly to turn the conversation into some other channel, 
 m& told him I wished to spend the time in conversing on ex- 
 
6> 
 
 perimental religion, or something which tended to edify the 
 heart — but nothing would satisfy him only the above subject, 
 t told him that his view of the subject savored more of the 
 Roman Catholic doctrine than any thing I had ever known by 
 the celebrated Luther : but this he would not acknowledge. 
 
 On Sabbath, he took for his text I, Cor. 10, 15 and 16 ; and 
 from every view of his doctrine I could take, the tenor of it 
 was as palpable transubstantiation as ever was exhibited by a 
 Catholic priest, although probably not in such express terms. 
 I say, whatever his bigoted adherents may say, that it appeared 
 to me, and such appears to be the influence of his doctrine, 
 and some of his hearers. This i say, from what ope of them 
 said, when he considered himself about to enter the eternal 
 world, as I was informed. He said he desired to receive the 
 sacrament before he died. Being asked why i he replied, " I 
 cannot think of dying without .having God (or Christ-— I do 
 not recollect which) in my belly." For the correctness of this 
 I will not vouch ; but this information I had from some in. 
 those parts. 
 
 Fully two-thirds of his sermon was on the above subject, 
 under which I became very uneasy, as I suspected that I was 
 the object to which he pointed, from what passed between us 
 on the preceding evening ; and I intended either to leave the 
 house, or publicly request him to say something to the people^ 
 Hiore edifying on the solemn ordinance before him. I thea 
 asked Mr. D. Cosner, who sat near me, whether that was a 
 new doctrine with Mr. Henkel, or whether he had heard it 
 from him before ? And he told me he had frequently heard 
 him on it. I then concluded that his observations were poin- 
 ted to me. He observing my uneasiness, immediately quitted 
 the subject, and said, It is now tim« to say something as to the 
 qualifications of comniunicants-^-on which he made some per- 
 tinent and useful observations. 
 
 I was informed that several of his former adherents had left 
 him, perhaps both on account of his doctrine and discipline — * 
 which to me, from what I saw in and heard from him, he ap- 
 peared to me the most assuming and self-important man I ever 
 saw in the sacred desk. 
 
 I fear, from what I heard from him myself, and what X 
 learned from others, that he is making not agreeable work 
 among that people. Therg are several among them who wish 
 to hear our clergy ; but to fhis he seems to be opposed. 
 
 There appears to me a striking contrast between him and 
 his little brother Philip, with whom I was acquainted, and whq 
 preached with me at a communion held in Lincoln ; and the 
 people appear to have the same views of them with myself* 
 
&2 
 
 If you can make it convenient, I wish, in some of your itine* 
 rations, you would visit those people. The chief conversation 
 I had with them, was with 'Squire Hoyl, who perhaps lives 
 down the river a few miles from Cosner's meeting-house. He 
 appears to be a sensible, discerning man ; and to him I refer 
 you for further information. 
 
 I sent the people an address of a considerable length, in 
 v/hich I appealed to them as to the chief of the facts stated! 
 above, but have not heard how it has been received by thcm# 
 
 In this I hope, my dear sir, you cannot think I have g § §3 
 as I am conscious that what I have in view is the real 5 | * 
 nor have I any objections if it were necessary to fi^Z 
 them, as it only contains a summary of what I 
 
 It is doubtful with me, whether I will ever see these good 
 people ag^in. My prayers and best wishes are towards them, 
 as a constituent part of the church of our common Lord. 
 
 The rest of the letter is of himself, and not relevant to this. 
 
 He concludes — what shall I render to the Lord, for all his 
 goodness and mercy manifested to me ! 
 
 I am, reverend and dear brother, affectionately yours, 
 
 JAS. HALL* 
 
 [copies.] 
 
 This may certify, that we were at a catechising held by D. 
 Henkel at Jacob Costner's, in January, 1818, a few days before 
 the sacrament ; when and where the said Henkel advised or 
 exhorted his young people not to intermarry amon^ the Bap- 
 tists, Methodists, nor any other profession ; 
 
 That "birds of a feather 
 * Ought to flock together 
 
 that they well knew that it often divided the children, that 
 the half would be as the father, and the other half as the 
 mother ; and they were ( ) let them marry together, and 
 all be wrong; and let "the birds of a feather flock together," 
 as he would be sorry tha,t one half of the children should go 
 the wrong way, and on closing said — — , so might cows and 
 horses marry : and that he dwelled on this subject for upwards 
 of an hour ; and told them that there was scripture to prove, 
 that marrying in other professions was forbid — and quoted, 
 where it says, " Be ye equally yoked." 
 
 fortified by us, Elizaeeth Friday? Louisa Costner^ 
 Ma£. Friday* Peter Cqstner? 
 
) 
 
 0S 
 
 The said Peter Costner saith he told them this was wovt 
 nearly the last of his advice to them ; that he had only this to 
 impress on their minds. And in addition to the above, the 
 above directed them to be sure to get ministers to marry them.- 
 But said, perhaps, get behind the curtains, and break your legs* ; 
 then they would be ashamed to go to a decent man or a min- 
 ister to marry them, and would get some Squire only. And 
 also, that he said, if they would, after this advice, marry in 
 other professions, cows and horses might do so too. 
 
 V ' PETER COSTNER. 
 
 I certify this to be a true copy, by me. 
 
 ANDREW HOYL. 
 
 The following is in Mr. HoyVs hand writing, although it is- 
 not signed. 
 
 Yet Mr. Henkel has a certificate contradicting the above g 
 but there are several more that will certify in substance as 
 above, and say he did also treat on the subject of getting bas- 
 tards, &c. And on the close of all, linking all together, and 
 closed as above. 
 
 I have now drudged through the mire* am quite tired of it, 
 and afraid of such a lasting impression as will prevent any 
 cordial union between me and him, and his honest readers and 
 him. Had he shown any sign of humility, or only a distant 
 confession of having acted improperly, freely ought he to be 
 forgiven on true amendment, and every thing might before 
 now have been buried in oblivion ; but when, instead of con- 
 fessing errors, he boldly increaseth in malice, in telling stories, 
 and acting in M respects as a reprobate^ surrendering his tafc 
 
en:s to satanic powers, and with them continues, with renbva 
 ted strength, to cause bitterness to be established in congre 
 nations of Christians, there is no hope left ! 
 
 ERRATA 
 
 Page 3, seventh line from below, read, " and treat you. 3? 
 Page 9, about the middle, rea4 k , " dupes and asses — p. 20,' 
 Page 11, seventh line, read, " If you say so, pray do it." 
 Page 26th, fifth line, read, " father a Dumkopf" 
 
 do. 22d line, read calumet, hot calamut. 
 Page 3.1, twelfth line from below, read Felthusen. 
 Page 33, 18th line, read intents, not entreats* 
 Page 40, 5th line from below, read sue, not see. 
 Page 46, ifear thfr offset, read detest, not detest* 
 
* ■ • , 
 
/ 
 
 ft 
 
 f 
 
 c