USA > Tennessee > History of the Evangelical Lutheran Tennessee Synod > Part 2
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22
II
LUTHERAN TENNESSEE SYNOD.
gregations in the vicinity of his place of residence." It is not unnatural to conclude, that such connection and labor would ultimately result, to some extent, in disintegration and disturbance.
During the meeting of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of North Carolina, in 1816, it was resolved that the Secre- tary, Rev. Shober, "compile all the rules adopted by this Synod, and publish them in the English language." In accordance with this resolution, the secretary prepared and laid before Synod in 1817, a manuscript compilation en- titled : "Comprehensive Account of the Rise and Progress of the blessed Reformation of the Christian Church, By Dr. Martin Luther, actually begun on the 31st day of October, A. D., 1517 ; interspersed with views of his character and doctrine, extracted from his books ; and how the Church, established by him, arrived and progressed in North Ameri- ca, -as also, the Constitution and Rules of that Church, in North Carolina and adjoining States, as existing in Octo- ber, 1817."
This work also contains a translation of twenty-two articles of the Augsburg Confession. The translation used, is, according to a statement made by Rev. Dr. Beale M. Schmucker, in a little work entitled, "English Translations of the Augsburg Confession," that of Dr. E. L. Hazelius, with all its omissions and notes. In the tenth article, the word true is omitted, and the article is accompanied with a foot-note, which perverts the true sense, and so modifies it, as to make it acceptable to the various denominations; and so too, in regard to the eleventh article. Really, the trans- lation is very defective.
According to the first article of the Constitution of the North Carolina Synod, as presented in that book, the first twenty-one articles of this translation of the Augsburg Con- fession, are made the point of union, and the ministers en- tering that Synod were pledged to the same.
In that book, the Rules, made by that Synod in 1817, for its government, appear. In the eleventh one of these
.
I2
HISTORY OF THE EVANGELICAL
Rules, page 172, the New York Liturgy is designated as one of the Symbolical Books of the North Carolina Synod.
Whilst that work, compiled by Rev. G. Shober, ap- proved by the North Carolina Synod, and familiarly called "Luther," conforms in some respects to sound Lutheran principles, its general tone and tenor are compromising and unionistic, with a tendency to latitudinarianism and loose- ness in doctrine, rather ignoring the true Confessions of the Church, and disparaging her distinctive features, with a view to effect a kind of general, fraternal union with the different denominations. This is evident from the following remarks which the author, Rev. Shober, makes in the con- clusion of his book, called Luther, page 210 :
"I have attentively examined the doctrine of the Episcopalian church, and read many excellent authors of the Presbyterians, know the Methodist doctrine from their book. 'Portraiture of Methodism,' and am acquainted with the Baptist doctrine so far as they admit and adore Jesus the Savior.
"Among all those classes who worship Jesus as a God, I see nothing of importance to prevent a cordial union ; and how happy would it be if all the churches could unite, and send deputies to a general meeting of all denominations, and there sink down upon the rock Jesus, and, at the same time, leaving to each their peculiar mode and form; this would influence all the Christians to love one another when and whersoever they meet, and they would commune together."
Again, pages 211, 212, he says :
"I think my sentiments and experiences are as ortho- dox and Calvinistical as need be, and yet I am a sort of speckled bird among my Calvinist brethren. I am a mighty good church man, but pass among such as a Dissenter in prunello. On the other hand, the Dissenters, many of them I mean, think me defective either in understanding or in conscience, for staying where I am. Well, there is a middle party, called Methodists, but neither do my dimensions
13
LUTHERAN TENNESSEE SYNOD.
exactly fit them ; I am somehow disqualified for claiming a full brotherhood with any party; but there are a few among all parties who bear with me, and love me, and with this I must be content at present."
It requires no great acuteness to see how such loose, unguarded sentiments vitiated and corrupted the Church, and how they soon afterwards began to crop out everywhere, and still come to the surface in some sections.
Now, in view of all these vitiating, corrupting, and disintegrating influences which were brought to bear on the Church during that period, it takes no very great stretch of mind to see the indefinite, unsettled, lax, disin- tegrated, and dilapidated condition of the Church in regard to doctrine and practice at the time of the rupture in the North Carolina Synod, in the year 1820. Nor is it any wonder that, in view of such influences, such a state of disintegration and dilapidation should exist, and result in the trials and troubles which followed. For, at that time, according to all the facts in the case, there was not a Synod in North America that unreservedly recognized and ac- knowledged the full, Unaltered Augsburg Confession, much less the other Symbolical Books.
In view of such compromising, unionistic proclivities and unchurchly deviations and divergencies, differences in regard to doctrine and practice arose among some of the ministers of the North Carolina Synod, and they were more and more agitated. There were conflicts in the pulpit, in the congregation, and in the family. One of the leading ministers charged Rev. David Henkel with teaching doc- trines contrary to the position of the Church. To defend himself against such unfounded charges, the latter appealed to a Latin copy of the Book of Concord, which he had in possession. That gave him a decided advantage, in some respects, in the estimation of many of the people, who were not willing to acquiesce in the extreme, latitudinarian views inculcated by the former. To counteract this increasing advantage, that minister called into question the correctness
14
HISTORY OF THE EVANGELICAL
of these translations from the Latin. This proved disparag- ing for a while, but soon afterwards Rev. David Henkel happened to come across a German copy of the Book of Con- cord, at the residence of a German in South Carolina, with whom he spent a night or two. After mnuch persuasion, the German let him have the book. This he brought with him, rejoicing in his good fortune to get it, to North Carolina .- This he presented, to sustain the correctness of his transla- tions made from the Latin copy of his Book of Concord. For, this the people could read and understand for them- selves, and finding that his translations from the Latin copy referred to, were correct, many of the members of the Church took a decided stand in favor of him and his posi- tions, and faithfully defended him and his doctrines against the innovations and false charges of his opponents.
The council of the congregation met, and after con- sidering the matter, one of the Elders, Capt. John Stire- walt, father of the late Rev. Jacob Stirewalt, presented the Book of Concord to the minister, saying, We want to know whether you intend to preach according to this book, in the future. The minister hesitated and evaded, but being pressed, he raised the book up and brought it down on the table, saying, From this day henceforth, I will not; it is nothing but a controversial book. Mr. Stirewalt then raised the book up, and brought it down on the table, saying, From this day henceforth, you won't be our preacher.
The differences in doctrine becoming more apparent, the controversies and conflicts assuming a wider range and more formidable aspects, effecting some of the more vital doctrines of the Church, and the authority of her Confes- sions being called into question, furnished occasion for rupture and schism, and gave rise to the chief causes or reasons which ultimately resulted in the organization of the Evangelical Lutheran Tennessee Synod ; and all that was wanting to bring about the final rupture was a suitable opportunity. The elements were at work, and tlie oppor- tunity for separation was not long delayed.
15
LUTHERAN TENNESSEE SYNOD.
In 1818, no Synod was held, in consequence of the fact, that as the Synod, at its session in October, 1817, had, ac- cording to its constitution, adopted at that term, changed the time for its annual meetings from October to Trinity Sunday in each year, it was deemed unnecessary to meet in ISIS, so soon after the meeting in October, 1817.
Dr. Bernheim, in his History, p. 435, says: "This time of meeting was 'firmly fixed' (vest gesetzt)." Hence, on account of this change as to the time for the meeting of this Synod being firmly, unchangeably fixed, the Synod adjourned to meet on Trinity Sunday, 1819.
During the period of nineteen months which intervened between the meeting in October, 1817, and that appointed for Trinity Sunday, 1819, there was 110 opportunity for any united, official efforts to calm the conflicting elements in regard to differences in doctrine; and, hence, the breach grew wider and wider.
But notwithstanding the Synod, in its constitution, adopted October, 1817, had changed the time for its regu- lar annual meetings from October to Trinity Sunday in each year, and firmly fixed that as the time; notwithstand- ing it had adjourned to meet on Trinity Sunday, 1819; and notwithstanding the fact that on that day a considerable number of candidates for the ministry were, according to previous resolution of Synod, to be consecrated, the Synod was convened, without regard to the ordination of these candidates, five or six weeks sooner than the time designa- ted in the constitution for the meeting of the Synod, to which Synod had adjourned to meet.
The reasons assigned for this unconstitutional change were, that a communication had been received by the Secre- tary of the North Carolina Synod from the Secretary of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania, to the effect that there was a general desire among its ministers to effect a more general union, and that as the next meeting of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania was to convene in Baltimore, Md., on Trinity Sunday, 1819,-the same day on which the North Carolina
-
16
HISTORY OF THE EVANGELICAL
Synod was to meet, -it was necessary,-if the North Caro- lina Synod desired to take part, through a delegate or delegates, in considering the propriety of such a move,-to convene the North Carolina Synod sooner than the consti- tutional time.
Hence it was, that a portion of the ministers of the North Carolina Synod, who were in favor of, possibly, a more general union than the ministers of the Pennsylvania Synod contemplated, even of the different Protestant de- nominations, according to Rev. Shober's ideas which have been already stated, after some consultation, requested the "President, with the consent of two or three ordained ministers residing in the vicinity," to convene the Synod before the time fixed in the constitution. The interval between the time when the call was made and that of the meeting, was too short to enable ministers at a distance to ยท reach the place of meeting .* 'At this meeting, Rev. Shober was elected as a delegate to represent the North Carolina Synod in the meeting which took place in Baltimore in 1819. This meeting of the North Carolina Synod was afterwards called the "untimely" or called meeting.
When the time fixed in the constitution of the Synod for its regular meeting, to which the previous regular Synod had adjourned, namely, Trinity Sunday, 1819, came, a minister of Tennessee and several of North Carolina, to- gether with a number of lay-delegates, met at the place appointed for the meeting of Synod, and not finding the President there, the minister from Tennessee sent one of his associates, accompanied by one of the elders of the congre- gation, to see the President, who was only several miles distant from the church, with a written request that he should come to the church, in order that everything might be arranged and done in a regular, orderly manner. The
* In fact, some of the ministers knew nothing of this meeting, or "untimely" Synod, as it was afterwards called, until after it was all over.
17
LUTHERAN TENNESSEE SYNOD.
President replied that he was not very well, and if he were, he would not go, remarking that the Synod had been already held, and that there was no need for holding it over, or again. He also commanded his Elders not to open the church; yet after the messengers reasoned with him awhile relative to the matter, he agreed that the church might be opened for preaching, but not for any synodical business. At the appointed time the church was opened, and the regular services were conducted and a sermon was preached, after which the Synod met under several shade trees near by, and there being three petitions in due form from Rev. David Henkel's congregations presented, earnest- ly requesting his ordination to the office of pastor, his lay- delegates demanding it in accordance with the resolution passed at the previous meeting of the Synod, in which it was resolved or ordered, that he and a number of other can- didates for the office of the ministry, who had sustained their examinations and were approved, should be ordained at the next meeting of Synod, on Trinity Sunday, 1819. He and another one of that number of candidates who was present, were ordained, in a regular, orderly manner, ac- cording to the custom of the Church and the resolution of the Synod.
But afterwards, it seems, some of the ministers who were so strongly in favor of a general union among all Protestant denominations, began to call into question the validity of Rev. David Henkel's ordination, and to invali- date it, whilst they recognized that of the other candidate who was ordained with him at the same time and under the same circumstances. But the other party sustained the ordination of the said David Henkel, asserting that it had taken place strictly in accordance with the act or resolution of the previous regular Synod, which provided for its per- formance on "next Trinity," 1819, and according to the regulations of the Church. The opposite party, however, contended that the word "Trinity" did not stand in con- nection with that action or resolution of Synod which
18
HISTORY OF THE EVANGELICAL
appears in the book called "Luther," by Rev. G. Shober, but that the time for ordination was left blank. An exami- nation of the book was demanded, and when it was opened at the place. the word Trinity did not appear at first. . But some of those who vindicated the validity of the ordination in question having previously detected the fact that a little piece of blank paper had been pasted over the word Trinity, by some one whom they knew not, after the book was printed and before it was distributed or circulated, as they presumed, took a knife and removed the little paper, and the word Trinity appeared at the right place, in connection with the act or resolution of Synod. After this occurrence, it is stated. that very little more was said about the validity of that ordination. Some of these books are still in exist- ence, with the paper on the word Trinity.
Whilst it is unpleasant to make these statements rela- tive to that ordination, and whilst there is no disposition to reflect on any one, fidelity to the facts demands it.
The controversies in regard to doctrinal differences grew more intense, and assumed a wider range. Strong opposition to the move for the organization of a general union, including different Protestant denominations, which failed in the meeting in Baltimore, Md., on Trinity Sunday, 1819, and resulted in the establishment of the Northern General Synod, at Hagerstown, Md., October 24, 1820, which also afterwards met with opposition on account of its failure to adopt a well defined Doctrinal or Confessional Basis, was worked up and prevailed to a considerable extent.
The persons who became the leaders in these conflicts or differences in doctrine and policy, were Rev. Gottlieb Shober on the part of the unionists and Rev. David Henkel on that of the anti-unionists. The opportunity for the final rupture or separation was furnished during the meeting of the North Carolina Synod, which convened in Lincolnton, Lincoln County, North Carolina, May 28, 1820.
Rev. Dr. Bernheim gives the following description of
19
LUTHERAN TENNESSEE SYNOD.
these men in his History of the Lutheran Church in the Carolinas, pp. 441, 442, 443 :
"Rev. Shober was a man of decided opinions, unyield- ing in everything which he considered. right, as may be seen from a sketch of his life in the Evangelical Review, vol. viii., pp. 412-414; 'with a mind that knew no dissimu- lation, a lofty independence, an ardent temper, and a character decidedly affirmative, he frequently experienced difficulties and encountered points other than pleasant in his pilgrimage through life, and which a disposition more pliant could have averted.'
""The lineaments of his countenance gave indications of a strong and active mind.' 'He was one of the most active defenders of (the) General Synod, as he had also been prominent among its early founders.' But Rev. Shober was no Lutheran, he was a member of the Moravian Church, and never disconnected himself from communion with the same; he lived and died as a member of that Church. This information the writer received from his own daughter, the widow of Bishop Herrman. He merely served the Lutheran Church in the capacity of one of its ministers, being the pastor of several neglected Lutheran congregations in the vicinity of his place of residence, Salem, N. C. It may be readily perceived that no compro- mise could be expected on his part in the difficulties which distracted the Lutheran Church at that time.
"Firm as was the Rev. G. Shober, he found his equal in that respect in Rev. David Henkel, who, though a young man then, was equally as decided and unyielding in his opinions. He was a hard student and well educated, not only in the German and English languages, but also in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Theology, all of which he had principally acquired by private study and close application. He was the best informed candidate for the ministry the North Carolina Synod had at that time, and wielded even then a considerable influence in the Church. It is not to be supposed that he would readily yield his opinions to
20
HISTORY OF THE EVANGELICAL
others, or permit himself to be led about at the will of even those who were older than himself, when he believed his cause to be just. In him the Tennessee Synod had a cham- pion who could not be easily overcome. He had a mind that was clear, active, and penetrating ; he was quick in discerning an advantage, and not slow in making use of it. These characteristics are gathered principally from his own writings."
When the North Carolina Synod met in regular con- vention, in Lincolnton, Lincoln County, North Carolina, May 28, 1820, well represented by ministers and lay-dele- gates, especially of that State, it seems, the occasion and causes for a rupture were fully matured, and the much lamented and deplored separation took place.
The unionistic party, it appears, claiming that they had a majority, made no proposition to the other party, to investigate and adjust the difficulties and differences accord- ing to the teachings of the Holy Scriptures, in a friendly, Christian manner, but before they approached the other party who were at the church, they sent one of their minis- ters to one of the ministers of that party, with two questions. The first one was: ".Will you withdraw from the Synod?" The second one was: "Will you submit to the decision of the majority of the ministers and lay-delegates, relative to the controversies and differences?" To these questions no decisive reply was made. He then went to the friends of his opponent and asked the same questions, which they answered in writing, stating : "We will not withdraw from the Synod, nor will we be ruled by a majority, but are ready and willing to investigate and decide every thing according to the teachings of the Augsburg Confession and the Constitution of the Synod, but not otherwise?"
After all his opponents had gathered together, he again approached them, and demanded an oral or verbal answer to the same questions. The questions were answered according to his request. To this answer, he replied with a defiant mien, in a domineering tone: "That is not the
21
LUTHERAN TENNESSEE SYNOD.
thing. I only ask, Will you, or will you not?" They replied, "We will not." He then said : "This is all I want to know," and quickly turned around, and briskly walked away. Then he and his friends came and presented the same questions, and received the same reply as that given before. Their leader then attempted to show, that the Synod was not bound to any fixed or, definite regulation, according to which controversies or differences are to be decided, but that such things are to be decided only accord- ing to the majority of the votes of the ministers and lay- delegates, and claimed, that they had the majority, and that it is reasonable and just, that their opponents should be thus governed in these matters, but the other party con -. tended, that the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession, which they felt certain could be proved to be in accord with. the teachings of the Bible, ought to be of greater considera- tion, than is the majority of the votes of persons, who are opposed to the doctrines and regulations of the Church.
After a short interchange of words of a. similar charac- ter, the unionistic party went into the church, and were followed by the other party. The President then delivered a long discourse in the German language, to show what he had heretofore sought to maintain, He was followed by the Secretary in a still longer one, in the English language, in which he endeavored to show, that the Synod was by no means bound, to act according to the Constitution or Reg- ulation of the Synod; and, notwithstanding the fact, that he himself had compiled the work and had it printed, according to resolution and the approbation of the Synod, he still contended, that it was not the intention, that it should be a rule or standard, according to which the mem- . bers of Synod should be governed in their transactions. He claimed, that it was only a kind of plan or form, which, in the course of time, if deemed necessary, in the future, might be formed or arranged into a rule of order; but for the present, no one needs any thing of the kind.
But the other party showed from the Church Regula-
-
22
HISTORY OF THE EVANGELICAL
tion itself, that it was accepted as such a work, having been first examined by a committee of ministers appointed by Synod, and favorably recommended, and afterwards ap- proved by Synod, and handed over for publication.
In regard to this, he replied, that it was not so intended, and, that, for the want of time, he had written it hurriedly and inconsiderately, without previously investigating it properly ; hence, every thing must now be regulated and determined by the majority.
The other party regarded that construction of the mat- ter as very singular and unsatisfactory, in view of the fact, that the work was published, on the order and approbation of the Synod, and that an amount of money sufficient to pay for printing and binding 1,500 copies of the work, at a cost of 75 cents per copy, was taken out of the Treasury.
The controversy now turned more directly to differences in doctrine. Some of the unionistic party called into ques- tion, and even denied, some of the doctrines clearly taught in the Augsburg Confession ; while on the other hand, the other party defended the teachings of said Confession with zeal and earnestness.
In the midst of the discussion of these subjects, so vitally important, one of the officers of the Synod, who was so enthusiastic in regard to his idea of a general union. exclaimed: "Whoever is a right Lutheran, let him follow us out to J. H.'s hotel,"-this was John Harry's hotel,- "there we will begin our Synod !" A reply came from the other side: "Whoever is a real fanatic" (Schwarmer), "let him follow; for you are no true Lutheran preachers; you are fanatics, and to such you belong." They then left the church and went to the hotel, leaving the other party in the church, and there commenced their Synod .*
* It is hardly just to conclude that all those who followed out were in full sympathy with this move and the doctrines of the leader, but were carried along rather by the force of circunstances and their situations.
23
LUTHERAN TENNESSEE SYNOD.
Those who remained in the church, after some delib- eration and consultation, adjourned; and, on the 17th of July of the same year, they, with others, mnet again in Solomon's Church, Cove Creek, Green County, Tennessee, to organize a synod according to the teachings and doc- trines of the Church.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.