Skip to main content

Full text of "The Chicago Synod and its antecedents"

See other formats


/  I    S;V 


Y^ 


i^K#v  ¥11^  jfB#.^ 

i^/.^^  ^^^/^^X  ^^"^^'Ov^   '* 

^•'^M:^^  ^\i^^4-m  "\^4-'^- 


¥:^ 


„--    >r> 


3r> 


REV'D.  M.  L.  WAGNER 


THE 

CHICAGO  SYNOD 

AND 

ITS  ANTECEDENTS 


.JJL 


By  MARTIN  L.  WAGNER 


i 


WARTBURG  PUB.  HOUSE  PRESS 
WAVERLY.  IOWA 


m 


•'V(c« 


Pr^far^. 


TPHE  author  of  this  book,  the  Rev'd.  M.  L.  Wagner, 
-*■  has  brought  to  light,  and  preserved  historical  data 
of  great  value  to  the  church.  The  material  shows,  thor- 
oughness in  the  investigation  of  the  original  sources,  as 
well  as  great  care  in  selecting  the  same. 

Much  time  was  spent  in  unearthing,  gathering,  and 
editing  the  great  mass  of  matter,  pertaining  to  the  church 
of  those  early  times.  The  work  sets  forth  the  heroic 
struggles  of  the  fathers  to  preserve  the  truth. 

The  manuscript  was  given,  by  the  author,  to  the 
Chicago  Synod  for  publication.  The  committee  having 
this  matter  in  charge  sends  forth  the  book  with  the  hope 
that  it  will  bring  much  needed  enlightenment  relative  to 
the  planting  and  developing  of  the  Church  of  the  Refor- 
mation on  American  soil. 

THE  REV'D.  Z.  M.  CORBE, 
THE  REV'D.  J.  R.  E.  HUNT, 
THE  REV'D.  M.  E.  HABERLAND, 
The  Committee. 


3lnb^x. 


Page 
Academy,  Colburn 252 

Campbellites 200 

Carpenter,  Rev.  William 31,  32 

Chicago  Seminary 248 

Character  of  Population 9,  245 

Controversies. 

With  Southern  District  Synod 190 

With  Methodists 42 

With  Campbellites 85,  128 

With  Presbyterians 129 

Conferences,  Free 207,  215,  236 

Congregations,  List  of 165,  218,  267 

Candidates,  List  of 162,  218 

Convention^. 

Kentucky 64 

Indiana 71 

Jeffersontown,  Ky 72 

Reading,  Pa 202,  227 

Deacons,  List  of 164 

Deck,  Rev.  WiUiam  H 100 

Destructionism 96,  131 

Dill,  Rev.  John  Caspar 31 

Dissemination  of  Doctrine 119 

Education,  Interest  in 184,  247,  251 

Ft.  Wayne  Church  founded 22 

General  Council 203 

General  Synod 57,  127,  256 

Generaliste 55,  60,  66,  77 

Good,  Rev.  Samuel 132,  136,  143 

(truber,  Rev.  Jacob 21,  46 


Haverstick,  Rev.  Prof 27 

Henkel,  Rev.  David 41,  61,  111 

Henkel,  Rev.  Eusebius  S 50,  151,  212,  231 

Henkel,  Rev.  Philip 22,  43 

Henkel,  Rev.  Paul       84,56,58 

Henkelism  and  Henkelites 40,  55,  59,  66 

Heyer,  Rev.  C.  F 29,  31 

Hymn  Book 153 

Indiana— Chicago  Synod 223 

Organization 238 

Doctrinal  Basis 240 

Missionary  Operations 241 

Statistical  Summary 269 

Infidelity 10,  81 

Indiana  Conference 231,  236 

Itinerary  of  Early  Missionaries 27,  31,  47 

Joint  Synod  of  Ohio 187,  228 

Keller,  Rev.  Ezra 47 

Kentucky  Synod 64 

Kentucky,  Lutherans  in 23 

Kurtz,  Rev.  Henry  A 32,  63,  66 

Lautenschlager,  Rev.  J.  F 133,  137,  139,  141 

Licentiates,  List  of 163,  217 

Livengood,  Rev.  John  P 101,  158 

Markert,  Rev.  John  L. 23,  26,  44,  100 

Markert,  Rev.  Elias 99,  132 

Mau,  Rev.  John  Samuel 24,  30 

Meyers,  Rev.  L.  H 32 

Miller,  Rev.  Abraham 46 

Miller,  Rev.  Robert  J 57 

Miller,  Faction 145 

Moritz,  Rev.  Christian 46 

North  Carolina  Synod 20,  26,  57 

Owen,  Robert 10 

Pennsylvania  Synod 24,  27,  63 

Pastors,  List  of 164,  217,  262 

Political  Questions,  Attitude  on 155 


IX 

Rationalism 13 

Reck,  Rev.  Abraham 49 

Revivalism 55,  81,  88 

Rudisill,  Rev.  Ephr.,  M.  D,      .     .     .   84,  131,  135,  137,  159,  212 
Rupture. 

N.  C.  Synod 59,  113 

Synod  of  Indiana 142 

Synod  of  the  West 104 

Schober,  Rev.  Gottlieb Ill 

Schnee,  Rev 32 

Scherer,  Rev.  Daniel 26 

Settlements,  Early  Lutheran. 

In  Indiana 19 

In  Kentucky 23 

In  Illinois 24 

Simon,  Rev.  Andrew 31 

Smith,  Rev.  David 208 

Stirewalt,  Rev.  Julius  L 213,  234,  239 

Stirewalt,  Rev.  M.  J.,  D.  D 236,  242 

Synod  of  Indiana 71,  103,  108,  116,  159,  168 

Synod  of  the  West 72,  103 

Tennessee  Synod 20,  25,  68,  114 

Unionism 56,  58 

Union,  Efforts  at 75,  125,  186,  187,  201,  225 

Universalism 83,  131 

Union  Synod 177 

Organization 177 

Standpoints  of 192 

Missionary  Efforts 182 

Educational  Efforts 184 

Western  Conference 225,  230 

Wynnekin,  Rev.  F.  CD 94 

Zink,  Rev.  Jacob 34 


iltitrn&urttnn. 

By  G.  H.  GERBERDING.  D.  D. 

"Who  is  this  that  Cometh  up  from  the 
wilderness  leaning  upon  her  Beloved  ?" 
Song  of  Solomon  8,  5. 

THESE  words  have  often  been  applied  to  the  Church 
in  her  strange  and  varied  history  and  experience. 
DoWn  in  the  wilderness  she  has  often  been.  Up  from  the 
wilderness  she  has  ahvaj's  come.  Down  she  has  always 
gone  when  she  ceased  to  lean  on  her  Beloved,  and  sought 
to  nourish  herself  from  earthy  and  human  sources.  In  the 
wilderness  she  has  always  wandered  when  she  followed 
the  fox-fires  and  rush  lights  of  human  reason,  unaided  by 
the  Light  of  the  world.  Up  from  the  wilderness  she  has 
always  come  when  she  despaired  of  her  own  resources  and 
strength,  ceased  to  lean  on  her  own  understanding  and 
leaned  again  on  her  Beloved.  This  new  book  with  its 
strange  story  is  another  demonstration  of  the  old  truth  in 
the  above  text. 

The  writer  of  this  history  had  a  difficult  task.  The 
original  seeds  and  roots  of  what  is  now  the  Chicago  Synod 
were  scattered  in  distant  and  obscure  places.  It  required 
painstaking  digging,  searching  and  sifting  to  find  them. 
The  results  of  this  labor  of  the  historian  are  before  us. 
They  are  intense  in  interest  and  pregnant  with  practical 
lessons.  These  things  were  written  for  our  admonition. 
May  the  Church  take  them  to  heart  and  profit  by  them. 

Here  we  learn  much  concerning  the  unknown  and 
forgotten  beginnings  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  the  South. 


Mistakes  were  made  there  also.  May  the  Church  never 
repeat  them. 

What  a  graphic  picture  is  here  of  the  early  settlers 
of  Indiana  and  Ohio.  Their  isolation,  their  hardships,- 
their  struggling  in  the  solitude,  alone  with  nature,  did  not 
make  them  religious.  Nothing  here  of  the  refining,  edify- 
ing, renewing  and  elevating  influence  of  nature.  They 
were  not  lifted  by  nature  up  to  God.  They  needed  the 
supernatural  brought  through  Word  and  Sacrament, 
carried  by  the  messengers  of  Christ,  lifting  their  voices  in 
the  wilderness.  Here  we  meet  the  Hej^rs  and  the  Henkels, 
the  Rudisills  and  the  Stirewalts.  Here  we  are  reminded 
again  how  the  fathers  of  the  Tennessee  Synod  stood  for 
sound  doctrine,  studied  and  loved  our  catechisms  and 
confessions,  gave  them  first  to  the  American  Lutheran 
Church  in  English  and  contended  earnestly  for  the  faith 
once  delivered  to  the  saints. 

These  sturdy  pioneers  were  heroes  of  the  faith.  Amid 
privation  and  poverty,  ridicule  and  opposition  they 
threaded  the  wilderness,  fought  against  wild  beasts,  fever 
and  ague,  frost  and  storm,  content  to  be  homeless  here 
for  the  Kingdom  of  heaven's  sake.  In  the  early  spring 
time  they  saddled  their  horses  in  Tennessee  or  the 
Carolinas,  bade  a  sad  farewell  to  weeping  wives  and  chil- 
dren, with  Bible  and  catechism  and  hymn  book  and 
Luther's  postil  in  their  saddle  bags,  they  were  off  for  a 
six  months  homeless  itinerary  in  Indiana  without  promise 
or  prospect  of  worldy  ease  or  emolument.  They  labored 
and  suffered.  They  spared  not  themselves.  They  preached 
and  prayed  and  catechised  and  administered  the  sacra- 
ments wherever  they  could  gather  a  few  hearers.  In  barns, 
in  cabins,  in  school  houses  or  under  the  open  sky  they 
ministered  to  the  souls  of  men.     Their  story  puts  us  to 


shame  with  our  love  of  ease  and  earthly  recompense. 
We  need  to  read,  mark  and  earnestly  apply  the  lessons 
of  this  book. 

But  good  men  make  mistakes.  The  founders  of  the 
Tennessee  Synod  were  not  as  wise  as  the  founders  of  the 
Missouri  Synod.  Evangelization  without  education  is 
doing  only  a  part  of  the  Church's  work.  The  teaching 
office,  the  teaching  books,  the  teaching  family,  the  teach- 
ing church-school  are  needed  to  make  permanent  and 
sure  the  work  of  the  evangelist.  While  our  pioneers  deserve 
all  credit  for  trying  to  supply  the  most  needed  literature, 
they  did  not  seem  to  see  the  great  need  of  the  church- 
school.  There  was  a  long  and  losing  wait  before  the 
Academy,  the  College  and  the  Theological  Seminary  came 
into  being.  Had  they  planted  log  schools  like  the  Missou- 
rians  did  the  history  would  have  been  different. 

Another  serious  weakness  was  that  they  were  not  clear 
on  the  doctrine  of  the  ministry.  They  seemed  to  have  no 
conception  of  the  call  and  of  the  proper  relation  between 
pastor  and  congregation.  Even  after  congregations  had 
been  gathered,  they  were  neither  organized  nor  supplied 
with  settled  pastors.  The  band  of  itinerant  preachers 
supplied  all  the  congregations  in  turn,  each  pastor  taking 
his  turn  in  going  over  the  whole  circuit.  With  such  a 
loose  and  unchurchly  arrangement  it  was  impossible  to 
do  thorough  and  permanent  pastoral  work. 

Another  mistake  transplanted  from  Tennessee  to 
Indiana  was  that  no  provision  was  made  for  christian 
beneficence.  The  congregations  were  not  instructed  as  to 
the  great  church  of  which  they  formed  infinitesimal  parts, 
of  the  mission  and  duty  of  the  church  in  the  world,  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God  to  be  builded  and  of  the  relation  and 
responsibility  of  each  congregation  and  of  each  individual 


member  to  this  general  work.  There  was  no  outlook,  no 
great  hope,  no  training  in  giving  and  working  for  the  grand 
whole.  This  mistake  was  a  serious  hindrance  to  growth 
in  grace,  and  kept  the  congregations  ignorant,  narrow  and 
selfish.  And  this  spirit  was  carried  into  the  early  synods. 
It  required  several  generations  to  get  the  congregations 
trained  out  of  this  selfish  narrowness.  In  fact  there  is 
much  of  it  left  to  this  day. 

On  account  of  the  unsettled  pastorates,  the  roving 
and  restless  ministry  that  it  fostered,  other  evils  followed. 
While  the  preacher  was  a  traveling  evangelist  rather  than  a 
settled  pastor  there  could  be  at  best  only  occasional  lectures 
or  talks  on  the  catechism  and  its  teachings.  Regular, 
systematic  instruction  —  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of 
the  book  was  out  of  the  question.  And  so  that  good, 
effective  Lutheran  custom  of  thorough  catechization  was 
neglected  more  and  more  until,  in  most  places,  it  became 
obsolete.  But  something  must  take  its  place.  The 
earliest  preachers  were  wont  to  stop  long  enough  where 
there  was  a  group  of  hearers,  to  preach  a  series  of  doctrinal 
sermons  and  receive  into  the  congregation  those  who 
accepted  and  confessed  the  doctrines  and  professed  a 
heartfelt  desire  to  live  henceforth  as  becometh  those  who 
have  and  hold  such  faith.  Their  successors  became  more 
and  more  lax.  Doctrinal  preaching  was  neglected.  Hor- 
tatory and  rousing  sermons  took  its  place  and  by  and  by 
it  became  the  regular  custom  "to  hold  a  series  of  meetings" 
and  "sing  in"  new  members  without  any  previous  instruc- 
tion. The  results  were  ruinous  to  sound  and  spiritual 
Lutheranism. 

The  most  serious  drawback  of  all  to  the  Lutheran 
cause  in  Indiana  was  the  doctrinal  defection  of  its  two 
leaders.     The  Rev.  E.  S.  Henkel.   so  different  from  his 


noble  progenitors  and  relatives,  apostatized  from  the  old 
faith  and  for  a  time  was  a  Universalist.  The  Rev.  E. 
Rudisill  embraced  and  preached  Destructionism.  The 
whole  Lutheran  Church  and  cause  in  Indiana  received 
a  staggering  blow.  Confusion  reigned  in  the  congre- 
gations, some  laymen  followed  one  or  the  other  of  the 
apostates,  others  left  the  Lutheran  Church  and  went  into 
churches  of  a  different  faith,  still  others  lost  all  faith  and 
became  agnostics  and  unbelievers.  But  a  faithful  rem- 
nant studied  the  Word,  the  catechism  and  the  old  devo- 
tional books,  prayed,  believed  and  rejoiced  in  the  Lord. 
But  oh  the  blighting  influence,  the  ruin  and  wreckage  of 
false  doctrine.     The  Church  was  in  the  wilderness. 

But  she  did  not  die.  Lutheranism  has  a  strong 
vitality.  It  dies  hard.  Nay  it  never  dies  while  it  is  true 
to  its  name  and  faith.  And  "the  ears  of  the  hearers  are 
often  more  pure  than  the  lips  of  the  preachers." 

And  so  our  Church  did  not  die.  God  raised  up  true 
witnesses.  Neither  the  heresy,  nor  the  unholy  ambitions 
of  the  old  leaders  could  kill  the  Lutheran  Church.  And 
what  a  warning  against  pride,  ambition  for  leadership, 
desire  to  rule  which  grows  into  rule  or  ruin  have  we  here 
in  these  men.  A  drastic  warning  to  self-seeking  am- 
bition in  those  who  do  not  live  near  to  the  cross  and  have 
cold  hearts  even  while  they  preach  to  others.  A  sound 
faith,   a  warm  heart  and   a  holy  life  must  go  together. 

The  old  weak  and  poorly  organized  Synod  of  Indiana 
died.  The  Union  Synod,  disappointed  as  to  its  purpose, 
torn  and  distracted,  was  disbanded.  The  sainted  Dr. 
Passavant  saw  the  sorrows  of  this  part  of  Zion  and  from 
far  off  Pittsburg  counselled  the  good  and  true  new  leaders. 
The  General  Council  was  organized.  Help  came  from 
that  quarter.     The  new  Indiana  Synod  united  with  that 


body.  Good  men  came  from  the  Philadelphia  Seminary. 
A  new  hope  and  a  new  life  came  into  our  cause. 
Opportunities  for  enlargement  came.  The  great  cry  was 
for  more  good  men.  And  then,  in  God's  good  time  the 
Chicago  Seminary  was  opened.  The  Indiana  Synod  be- 
came the  Chicago  Synod.  In  ten  years  fifteen  congre- 
gations were  organized.  And  now  there  is  life  and  hope 
and  forward  movement  on  every  side.  Colburn  Academy 
has  made  a  noble  beginning  and  is  big  with  promise. 
The  Chicago  Seminary  is  on  the  eve  of  a  great  future. 
The  rustling  in  the  tops  of  the  mulberry  trees  is  an  earnest 
of  a  greater  wind  from  the  spirit  of  God.  Now  if  only 
the  spirit  of  self-seeking  could  be  kept  out,  if  each  would 
learn  to  esteem  the  other  better  than  himself,  if  each  one 
could  take  Passavant's  motto  for  his  own  and  ever  strive 
"to  live,  to  love,  to  labor,"  then  would  the  history  of  the 
next  twenty-five  years  be  devoid  of  the  narration  of  the 
mistakes  and  blunders  of  the  past ;  then  would  the  beauty 
of  the  Lord  our  God  be  upon  us  ;  then  would  He  establish 
the  work  of  our  hands,  yea  the  work  of  our  hands.  He 
would  establish  it. 

Cottage  Rest,  Grand  Junction,  Mich. 

May  the  fifth,  1909. 


PART  I 

A  GENERAL  SURVEY  OF  THE  FIELD 


CHAPTER  I 
OInlmtisatitm  an^  jprpparatton 


Chapter  I. 
Ololottt^atton  nnh  Preparation. 

CCORDING  to  the  best  sources  of  information 
the  first  Europeans  that  set  foot  on  what  is 
now  Indiana  soil  were  a  party  of  French  Ca- 
nadians who  sailed  up  the  great  lakes  in  1670, 
and,  landing  on  the  southern  shore  of  Lake 
Michigan,  explored  the  neighboring  regions.  They  were 
missionaries  bent  upon  the  conversion  of  the  natives  to 
the  Roman  Catholic  faith.  They  made  no  attempt  at 
colonization.  In  the  course  of  a  few  years  these  were  fol- 
lowed by  others,  missionaries,  adventurers  and  fur-traders, 
who  extended  their  journeys  far  into  the  interior  of  the 
state.  The  first  trading  posts  established  were  along  the 
Maumee  and  Wabash  rivers,  about  the  year  1700.  The 
most  important  of  these  was  Vincennes,  the  oldest  town 
in  the  state.  Another  was  Ouiatenon,  not  far  from  the 
present  site  of  La  Fayette.  It  never  assumed  much  im- 
portance, and  eventually  became  extinct.  The  third  was 
near  the  present  site  of  Fort  Wayne. 

The  Maumee  and  Wabash  rivers  were  the  highway 
for  these  missionaries,  adventurers  and  fur-traders  in  their 
expeditions  from  Canada  to  the  Mississippi  and  the  Gulf 


of  Mexico.  The  trading  posts  were  designed  chiefly  as 
places  for  barter  with  the  Indians,  to  furnish  halting 
places  for  the  traders  and  rovers  of  the  wilderness,  and  to 
establish  the  claims  of  France  to  the  fertile  valley  of  the 
Mississippi.  It  was  not  until  1725  that  Vincennes  as- 
sumed any  importance. 

The  first  settlement  made  in  Illinois,  also  by  the 
French,  was  a  mission  at  the  village  near  Starved  Rock, 
in  1682.  It  was  named  Kaskaskia.  Within  three  or 
four  years  it  was  removed  to  the  site  of  the  present  Kas- 
kaskia, near  Chester.  Soon  after  missions  were  estab- 
lished at  Cahokia  and  two  or  three  neighboring  points. 

At  the  close  of  the  French  and  Indian  War,  1754- 
1763,  the  territory  east  of  the  Mississippi  known  as  New 
France,  was  ceded  to  England,  and  that  west  of  that  river 
to  Spain.  At  the  time  of  this  cession  there  were  within 
the  region  embraced  by  Indiana  and  Illinois  about  two 
hundred  white  families. 

In  1778  Governor  Patrick  Henry  of  Virginia  sent  an 
expedition  under  General  George  Rogers  Clark  against 
the  British  posts  west  of  the  Alleghanies.  He  succeeded 
in  capturing  Kaskaskia,  Cahokia  and  Vincennes,  and  thus 
added  an  immense  fertile  territory  to  that  Colony.  Bj' 
virtue  of  this  conquest  the  western  boundary  of  the  United 
States  was  fixed  at  the  Mississippi  river  by  the  treaty  of 
Paris,  in  1783.  Virginia  subsequently  ceded  the  whole 
region  to  the  general  government,  and  in  1787  it  was 
organized  into  the  Northwest  Territory,  with  ample  pro- 
visions for  free  schools,  and  a  guarantee  for  the  free  exer- 
cise of  religion.  Slavery  was  forever  prohibited  in  this 
Territory,  and  these  wise  provisions  in  the  Ordinance  of 
1787  had  much  to  do  in  inducing  settlers  to  locate  in 
this  region. 


—     5     — 

The  first  settlement  not  made  by  the  French  within 
the  bounds  of  Indiana  was  at  Clarksville  on  the  Ohio 
river,  in  1786.  It  was  named  after  General  Clark,  who 
also  had  received  a  grant  of  a  large  tract  of  land  border- 
ing on  the  Ohio,  in  Clarke  county,  for  military  services. 
The  location  of  Clarksville  proved  to  be  unsuitable  and 
it  never  assumed  much  importance. 

In  1800  Indiana  was  detached  from  the  Territory  of 
Illinois,  and  organized  into  Indiana  Territory  with  Gen- 
eral William  Henry  Harrison  as  the  first  governor,  and 
Vincennes  the  Territorial  capital.  At  that  time  the  pop- 
ulation was  4875. 

In  1804  Fort  Dearborn  was  built  at  the  mouth  of  the 
Chicago  river.  In  1809  Illinois  was  organized  as  a  Terri- 
tory and  Kaskaskia  was  made  the  territorial  capital. 
The  population  was  about  10,000. 

The  settlement  and  development  of  these  Territories 
was  at  first  very  slow,  notwithstanding  their  immense 
natural  resources.  The  settlers  were  in  a  defenseless  con- 
dition, and  the  Indians  were  very  hostile,  being  instigated 
by  the  British  agents  in  the  north  and  west,  who  supplied 
them  with  firearms  and  ammunition.  The  British  still 
held  some  of  the  posts  in  the  extreme  north  and  west, 
contrary  to  the  stipulations  of  1783.  Tecumseh,  a  wily 
chief,  was  organizing  the  western  tribes  into  a  powerful 
confederacy  for  the  purpose  of  exterminating  the  white 
settlers.  The  notorious  Simon  Girty,  who  had  cast  his 
lot  with  the  Indians,  also  exerted  all  his  power  and  influ- 
ence to  arouse  the  savages  against  the  settlers.  Finally 
the  attitude  of  the  Indians  became  so  hostile  that 
Governor  Harrison  decided  upon  severe  measures.  After 
a  fruitless  effort  at  peaceful  negotiations  with  tiie  chiefs 
at  Vincennes,  where  treachery  on  the  part  of  the  Indians 


was  foiled  by  the  vigilance  and  foresight  of  Governor 
Harrison,  and  the  alertness  of  his  soldiers,  he  marched  an 
army  against  the  Prophet's  town,'  about  a  mile  from  the 
mouth  of  the  Tippecanoe  river,  intending  to  secure  a 
treaty  or  strike  a  blow.  Harrison  halted  his  army  for  the 
night  on  the  banks  of  Burnett's  Creek,  where  he  expected 
a  conference  with  the  chief's  the  next  day.  But  early  in 
the  morning  of  November  7,  1811,  he  was  furiously  at- 
tacked by  the  Indians,  who,  concealing  themselves  in  the 
tall  grass,  had  surrounded  the  camp.  After  a  hard  fought 
battle  the  savages  were  defeated  and  driven  off.  Securitj^ 
for  the  settlers  might  now  have  been  assured,  but  the  war 
with  Great  Britain,  which  began  the  next  year,  and  in 
which  the  Indians  allied  themselves  with  the  British, 
prevented  any  protection  until  after  the  establishment  of 
peace  in  1815. 

In  Illinois  the  same  hostile  conditions  prevailed.  A 
number  of  stockades  were  erected  for  the  protection  of  the 
settlers.  Fort  Russel,  near  Edwardsville,  in  Madison 
county,  marked  the  northern  boundary  of  the  settled  por- 
tions of  the  state.  When  war  was  declared,  the  British  at- 
tacked Fort  Dearborn,  which  surrendered  on  August  15, 
1812,  and  the  stockade  was  burned  to  the  ground.  There- 
after the  Indians  in  the  central  part  of  the  state  became 
very  hostile,  and  several  expeditions  against  them  were 
necessary  to  bring  them  to  terms. 

When  the  clouds  of  war  had  disappeared,  and  peace 
established  with  both  Briton  and  Savage,  immigrants 
from  the  eastern,  middle  and  southern  states  and  from 
Europe,  poured  into  this  region.     The  southern  portions, 

1  The  Prophet,  Elkswatawa,  was  Tecumseh's  brother,  a  vile 
imposter,  who  had  co-operated  with  Tecumseh  to  destroy  the 
settlers. 


—      7      — 

though  far  less  fertile  than  the  northern,  were  first  settled. 
From  the  banks  of  the  Ohio  river,  which  was  the  highway 
for  the  colonists  from  the  east,  they  pushed  northward 
into  the  interior.  Venturesome  pioneers  penetrated  far 
northward  into  the  almost  interminable  forests,  and  re- 
turned with  glowing  accounts  of  the  fertile  and  well 
watered  regions  of  that  section  of  the  territory.  Overland 
in  great  Conestoga  wagons,  and  driving  their  herds  before 
them,  came  settlers  from  Ohio,  Pennsylvania,  New  York 
and  Virginia,  entering  the  eastern  borders  of  Indiana, 
establishing  their  homes  and  subduing  the  wilderness. 
From  the  sunny  southland  came  hardy  pioneers,  desiring 
to  improve  their  temporal  conditions,  and  to  escape  the 
baneful  influence  of  slavery.  Everywhere  the  woodman's 
ax  was  heard  and  the  smoke  ascended  from  hundreds  of 
clearings,  where  the  finest  poplar,  oak  and  walnut  were 
consigned  to  the  flames  to  make  room  for  the  corn  and 
wheat  of  the  thrifty  farmer.  Towns  sprang  up  in  all 
sections,  many  of  them  surviving  only  a  generation,  while 
others  grew  into  populous  cities  and  centers  of  commercial 
activity.  Richmond  and  Cory  don  were  founded  in  1808, 
the  latter  becoming  the  territorial  capital  in  1813.  In 
1815  Fort  Wayne  was  begun,  it  having  been,  prior  to  that 
time,  only  a  trading  post  and  military  station.  The  next 
year  Terre  Haute  was  founded,  and  Indianapolis  in  1818, 
becoming  the  state  capital  in  1825.  The  rapid  growth  of 
population  in  Indiana  is  indicated  by  the  following  sta- 
tistics: In  1810  it  was  24,250;  in  1816,  when  admitted 
into  the  Union,  it  was  147,178.  Five  years  later  it  was 
250,000,  and  in  1830  the  state  had  343,031  inhabitants. 
Illinois  kept  pace  with  the  sister  state.  In  1810  the 
population  was  12,282,  in  1820,  55,162,  and  in  1830, 
157,445.     In  1819  Vandalia  was  founded  and  became  the 


state  capital  the  next  year,  and  retained  this  honor  until 
1839,  when  the  capital  was  removed  to  Springfield. 

All  shades  of  religious  beliefs  were  represented 
among  these  settlers.  Roman  Catholics  were  most  num- 
erous, but  Presbyterians,  Methodists,  Baptists  and  Quak- 
ers were  also  quite  well  represented. 

The  earliest  colonists  were  French  Catholics.  Those 
at  Vincennes  were  under  the  spiritual  care  of  the  priests 
residing  at  Kaskaskia  and  Cahokia.  The  first  resident 
priest  in  Indiana  was  Father  Meurin.  He  resided  at 
Vincennes,  and  besides  ministering  to  the  French  resi- 
dents, he  also  labored  for  the  conversion  of  the  Pianke- 
shaw  Indians,  the  head  of  which  tribe  was  near  that 
town.  This  was  as  early  as  1749.  How  long  he  labored 
here  is  not  known.  In  1792  Father  Benedict  Joseph 
Flagert  began  to  labor  at  Vincennes,  but  remained  only 
three  years.  He  found  affairs  in  a  deplorable  condition. 
He  set  about  vigorously  to  restore  order  and  to  establish 
his  authority,  but  in  vain.  Religion  had  lost  its  influence 
and  the  church  her  authority  over  those  people.  The 
church  building,  probably  erected  under  Father  Meurin's 
administration  nearly  half  a  century  before,  was  an  old 
dilapidated  log  structure,  open  alike  to  sunshine  and  rain, 
and  almost  tottering..  The  congregation  was,  if  possible, 
in  a  more  miserable  condition.  Out  of  a  population  of 
about  seven  hundred  souls,  and  after  earnest  admonition 
by  the  priest,  only  twelve  could  be  induced  to  approach 
the  holy  communion  during  the  Christmas  festivities. 

The  Presbyterians  were  found  in  this  region  at  quite 
an  early  day.  In  1827  they  had  17  pastors  and  44 
churches,  and  1352  members  in  Indiana.  The  data  for 
Illinois  are  not  at  hand,  but  doubtless  they  were  equally 
well   represented.      The   Methodists   and    Baptists   were 


THE  REV.  SAMUEL  WAGENHALS,  D.  D. 

Pastor  of  Holy  Trinity  Church,   Fort  Wayne,  Ind.  since   ISbS 

President  of  the   Board  of  Directors  of  the   Chicago  Lutheran 
Theological  Seminary  since    1894. 


HOLY  TRINITY  CHURCH 

Fort  Wayne,  Ind, 

The  General  Council  was  organized  in  this  church  in  1867 


THE  REV.  PROF.  R.  F.  "WEIDNER,  D.  D.  LL.  D. 
President  of  the  Chicago  Lutheran  Theological  Seminary 


—     9      — 

probably  as  numerous  as  the  Presbyterians.  They  mani- 
fested great  zeal  in  the  prosecution  of  the  interests  of 
their  respective  denominations.  Lutherans  also  were 
found  in  considerable  numbers  in  these  territories.  As 
early  as  1810  they  were  in  Harrison  county,  Indiana,  in 
Union  county,  Illinois,  as  early  as  1817,  and  in  Missouri, 
in  Wayne,  Madison  and  Perry  counties,  about  the  same 
time.  The  approximate  numbers  we  have  no  means  of 
determining.     The  records  are  scanty  and  very  defective. 

The  spiritual,  moral  and  social  conditions  of  the 
people  of  these  regions,  during  this  early  period,  was  far 
from  the  ideal.  The  first  settlers  were,  as  a  rule,  mere 
adventurers,  who  cared  nothing  for  the  claims  of  religion. 
As  there  was  practically  no  public  preaching,  and  no 
ministers  of  the  Gospel  to  present,  emphasize,  and  en- 
force the  claims  of  religion  and  morality,  the  social  and 
moral  conditions  could  not  improve.  In  these  matters 
everyone  followed  the  inclinations  of  his  own  will.  The 
vast  stream  of  immigration  which  poured  into  this  region 
after  the  war  of  1812-1815,  did  not  materially  improve 
these  conditions,  but  on  the  contrary,  rather  gave  strength 
to  the  prevalent  scepticism  and  irreligion.  That  deplora- 
ble conditions  existed  until  about  1830  in  many  sections 
is  the  concurrent  testimony  of  the  missionary  pastors 
sent  by  the  different  denominations  to  labor  in  this  region. 

From  a  religious  viewpoint,  there  were  three  distinct 
classes  found  among  these  early  colonists  —  the  openly 
defiant  unbeliever  and  ungodly,  the  polished  rationalists 
and  the  truly  pious  and  devout. 

The  first  class  was  very  numerous,  and  for  a  long 
time  largely  in  the  ascendency  in  many  sections  of  the 
state.  Among  these  were  found  men  of  culture,  learning 
and  refinement,  men  whose  private    life  was  above  re- 


10 


proach.  But  these  were  in  the  minority.  The  majority 
of  these  unbelievers  were  of  the  worst  character,  impure, 
blasphemous,  and  licentious  beyond  restraint.  These 
logically  carried  out  in  their  lives  what  the  more  cultured 
preached  in  their  public  utterances.  It  was  an  evil  sys- 
tem which  brought  forth  corrupt  fruit. 

The  most  prominent  among  the  apostles  of  unbelief 
in  this  region  were  Robert  Owen  and  his  gifted  son,  Rob- 
ert Dale  Owen.  Both  were  scholarly  men,  but  disbeliev- 
ers in  the  Christian  religion.  Robert  Owen  was  an 
avowed  unbeliever,  and  his  son  was  an  ardent  believer  in 
Spiritualism.  He  denied  the  supernatural  origin  of 
Christianity. 

These  two  men  came  to  Indiana  in  1823,  after  having 
zealously  disseminated  their  peculiar  views  by  means  of 
the  press  and  public  lectures.  Theirs  was  a  refined  form 
of  unbelief,  so  clothed  as  to  command  respect  and  win 
adherents.  It  was  a  fascinating  unbelief,  as  it  appealed 
very  powerfully  to  the  inclinations  and  desires  of  the  nat- 
ural man.  Along  with  their  religion  of  unbelief,  they 
associated  a  form  of  socialism,  which,  however,  proved  a 
magnificent  failure  in  actual  trial  in  Owen's  socialistic 
community  on  the  Wabash,  called  New  Harmony. 

The  salient  points  in  the  elder  Owen's  religious  views 
are  apparent  in  his  challenge  to  the  world  which  he  fii;st 
made  at  New  Orleans,  after  delivering  a  course  of  lectures, 
and  subsequently  published  throughout  the  whole  coun- 
try. In  this  challenge  among  other  things  he  proposed 
to  prove  that  "all  the  religions  of  the  world  have  been 
founded  upon  the  ignorance  of  mankind ;  that  they  are 
opposed  to  the  never-changing  laws  of  our  nature ;  that 
they  have  been  the  real  source  of  vice,  disunion  and  mis- 
ery of  every  description ;  that  they  are  now  the  only  real 


barrier  to  the  formation  of  a  society  of  virtue,  of  intelli- 
gence, of  charity  in  its  most  exalted  sense,  and  of  sin- 
cerity and  kindness  among  the  whole  human  family ;  and 
that  they  can  be  no  longer  maintained  except  througli 
the  ignorance  of  the  mass  of  the  people  and  the  tyranny 
of  the  few  over  the  mass." 

Here  was  the  challenge,  and  until  it  was  met  and 
disproved,  it  was  the  charter  and  warrant  for  the  unbeliev- 
ing class  to  continue  in  their  course.  It  was  not  until 
1829  that  a  man  appeared  who  was  ready  to  take  up  the 
challenge  and  meet  Mr.  Owen  face  to  face  and  debate 
the  merits  of  the  question.  This  man  was  Alexander 
Campbell. 

The  influence  of  these  apostles  of  unbelief  was  wide- 
spread and  powerful.  It  affected  all  conditions  of  societj-. 
It  is  the  testimony  of  creditable  witnesses  that  in  Ken- 
tucky, in  cities  of  twelve  hundred  population,  not  enough 
people  could  be  gotten  together  to  hold  a  religious  service. 
From  evidence  at  hand  we  infer  that  in  Indiana  and 
Illinois  conditions  were  no  better.  Christianity  had  be- 
come a  term  of  opprobrium,  a  synonym  for  superstition 
and  ignorance,  and  ministers  of  the  Gospel  were  looked 
upon  as  men  whose  business  it  was  to  interfere  with  the 
personal  liberties  of  the  individual.  All  moral  restraint 
had  become  removed,  and  the  vices  flourished  and  ma- 
tured their  bitter  fruit.  Society  to  a  large  degree  became 
abandoned,  and  reprobate.  The  carnal  nature  ran  riot 
until  it  exhausted  itself  in  its  own  excesses. 

Deplorable  as  was  the  moral  condition  of  society 
produced  by  these  tenets  of  refined  but  defiant  unbelief, 
there  was  a  determination  on  the  part  of  many  of  this 
class  to  oppose  and  frustrate  if  possible  all  efforts  to  im- 
prove  it.     When  Prof.   Haverstick,  in  1885,  proposed  to 


—    J2    — 

preach  in  a  German  community  in  St.  Clair  county,  Illi- 
nois, they  replied,  "We  need  no  priests.  Over  yonder 
live  some  ignorant  Germans  who  may  be  glad  to  have 
you  come  to  them."  When  Rev.  C.  F.  Heyer  visited 
Shawneetown,  Illinois,  the  same  year,  the  guests  at  the 
hotel  were  so  ungodly  that  Rev.  Mr.  Heyer  spent  the 
greater  part  of  the  night  in  the  stable  with  the  dumb 
beasts  rather  than  submit  to  the  insults  of  the  blasphem- 
ers. This  ungodly  class  were  everywhere  in  evidence  and 
looked  upon  all  religious  teaching  as  a  means  for  sub- 
verting their  personal  liberty.  They  were  determined  to 
be  let  alone,  and  that  nothing  be  said  or  done  that  might 
awaken  their  sleeping  and  seared  consciences.  The  man 
most  hated  by  this  class  was  the  minister  of  the  Gospel, 
and  the  temperance  lecturer.  The  minister  had  to  temper 
his  zeal  and  guard  his  expressions,  lest  he  incur  the  dis- 
pleasure of  the  bullies  of  the  community,  who  regarded  it 
as  their  special  calling  to  administer  chastisement  upon 
all  ministerial  offenders  against  their  code.  It  not  infre- 
quently happened  that  a  minister  or  a  temperance  lecturer 
was  assaulted  and  shamefully  abused  by  those  who  had 
taken  umbrage  at  his  public  remarks.  Only  those  minis- 
ters who  possessed  a  powerful  physique  and  were  ready 
in  any  emergency  to  use  their  fists  were  able  to  command 
respect,  and  could  be  fearless  in  their  denunciation  of 
vice.  They  were  respected  for  their  physical  strength, 
but  not  for  their  office. 

It  is  claimed  by  some  authorities^  that  the  term 
Hoosier  originated  from  this  custom  of  the  bullies  hush- 
ing the  preachers  in  those  early  days.  They  were  called 
Hushers,  and  in  course  of  time  the  term  took  the  form 


2  Prof.  Holcorab,  ex-State  Superintendent  Public  Instruc- 
tion, of  Indiana. 


Hoosier,  and  was  indiscriminate^'  applied  to  all  residents 
of  Indiana.  If  this  explanation  of  the  origin  of  this  term 
be  correct,  it  shows  what  a  reputation  the  early  Indi- 
anians  had. 

The  second  class  were  the  polished  rationalists. 
These  were  found  mostly  among  the  Germans.  They 
professed  religion,  confessed  in  some  instances  the  ortho- 
dox faith,  and  observed  the  external  forms  of  religion 
punctiliously.  They  came  from  the  Fatherland,  which 
had  but  recently  passed  through  the  throes  of  Rationalism, 
and  brought  the  baneful  seeds  with  them,  which,  under 
the  freedom  and  license  of  a  new  state,  soon  grew  into  a 
strong  plant,  maturing  its  fruit  and  exerting  a  pernicious 
influence  upon  religion  in  general.  There  was  neither 
decency,  consistency  nor  propriety  among  this  class. 
They  committed  shocking  indecencies  in  the  name  and 
under  the  sanction  of  religion  which  pained  the  devout, 
and  arrayed  the  sceptical  all  the  more  against  all  forms 
of  Christianity.  In  some  localities,  where  these  ration- 
alists were  numerous,  congregations  were  organized, 
churches  erected  and  pastors  set  over  them  to  perform  the 
functions  of  that  office.  But  in  a  few  cases  these  pastors 
lacked  every  virtue  and  qualification  for  the  holy  office. 
In  character  they  were  unfit.  Their  reputation  was  bad. 
Learning  they  had,  but  it  was  that  of  the  head,  and  not 
of  the  heart.  The  private  life  of  these  men  was  impure, 
being  drunken  brawlers,  profane,  vicious  and  corrupt. 
Some  were  renegades,  some  were  fugitives  from  justice, 
men  whose  offenses  in  the  Fatherland  compelled  them  to 
flee  to  America  to  escape  the  penalties  of  the  law.  Such 
was  the  character,  and  such  were  the  qualifications  of 
men  who  in  not  a  few  cases  were  elected  pastors  of  con- 
gregations   which    claimed    to    be    Lutheran,    to   preach 


—     }4    — 

repentance  toward  God  and  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
And  the  worship  was  the  merest  sham,  a  mere  form  with- 
out spirit,  saving  truth,  reverence  or  grace  in  it.  After 
services  on  the  Lord's  day  morning,  the  congregation, 
pastor,  deacons,  elders  and  all  would  retire  to  some  hall 
or  grove  and  spend  the  remainder  of  the  day  in  revelry 
and  debauchery. 

Many  of  these  congregations  claimed  to  be  Lutheran, 
but  they  were  not,  neither  in  doctrine  nor  practice.  They 
rejected  the  distinctive  principles  of  the  Lutheran  church 
and  abused  the  Christian  liberty  which  the  Gospel  con- 
fers. They  had  no  synodical  connection  and  their  pastors 
were  amenable  to  no  ecclesiastical  or  synodical  authority. 
In  some  cases  the  pastors  were  unordained  men,  in  others, 
men  who  had  been  deposed  from  the  ministry,  but  who 
still  had  possession  of  their  ordination  certificates.  There 
were  also  men  who,  because  of  the  lax  practices  that  ob- 
tained in  some  of  the  eastern  synods,  secured  license  to 
preach,  and  then  foisted  themselves  upon  the  churches  in 
the  West.  Very  often  Lutheran  congregations  were  im- 
posed upon  by  these  ecclesiastical  freebooters.  The 
stigma  that  these  unlutheran  congregations  and  these  im- 
postors in  the  ministry  brought  upon  the  Lutheran  name, 
and  upon  the  Lutheran  church,  has  not  yet  been  effaced. 

But  there  were  also  true  Christians  to  be  found 
among  these  pioneers,  Lutherans  true  to  the  name  and 
the  faith,  godly  men  and  women  whose  lives  shone  brightly 
in  these  regions  and  times  of  deep  spiritual  darkness. 
Their  piety  was  deep,  fervent  and  heartfelt  and  abounded 
in  that  ''GemuetlicMeit^'  for  which  the  English  lan- 
guage has  not  even  a  name.  The  Lutheran  church  had 
her  representatives  in  these  western  wilds,  who  had  been 
taught  the  true  faith,  and  who  adorned  the  same  with  a 


—     J5    — 

godly  life  and  conversation.  They  knew  the  power  of 
truth  in  their  lives.  True  they  were  not  so  numerous,  but 
they  were  the  salt  that  preserved  the  church  from  total 
corruption  and  decay.  In  them  the  spark  of  piety  was 
kept  alive.  They  had  their  bibles,  which  was  God's 
Word,  His  message  to  them,  and  these  they  studied  dili- 
gently. That  Word  was  the  fountain  at  which  their  thirst 
was  quenched  and  their  souls  revived.  They  had  their 
Catechisms  which  they  taught  diligently  unto  their  chil- 
dren. They  had  their  hymn  books,  from  which  they 
attuned  their  lips  and  souls  in  praise  unto  their  Savior. 
These,  although  without  the  services  of  a  pastor  for  years, 
were  not  led  away  from  their  faith.  From  such  moorings 
the  tides  of  infidelity  and  rationalism  could  not  sweep 
them.  They  were  anchored  unto  the  Rock  of  Eternal 
Truth.  Some  of  these  congregations  were  so  staunch  in 
their  Lutheranism  that  they  would  not  receive  the  Lord's 
Supper  from  any  minister  unless  he  belonged  to  their 
church,  nor  could  they  be  persuaded  otherwise. 


^ 


CHAPTER  II 


Chapter  II. 


UTHERANS  were  found  in  consideral)le  num- 
bers among  the  early  settlers  of  the  region  under 
review.  After  the  Louisiana  purchase  in  1803, 
"thousands  of  German  families,  as  well  as 
American  citizens,  induced  by  the  flattering  re- 
ports of  the  fertility  of  the  lands  of  the  west,  and  the 
advantageous  offers  made  to  settlers  to  secure  for  them- 
selves a  home  almost  without  money  and  without  price, 
sold  their  paternal  possessions  in  North  Carolina  and 
migrated  to  Tennessee,  Kentucky,  Ohio,  Illinois  and 
other  states  and  territories."'  Besides  these  from  North 
Carolina,  there  were  thousands  also  who  came  from  Ohio, 
Pennsylvania,  Virginia,  New  York,  and  from  beyond  the 
sea,  to  make  their  homes  in  the  fertile  valley  of  the  Mis- 
sissippi. It  is  with  those  who  settled  in  Indiana,  Illinois 
and  adjacent  parts  that  we  are  mostly  concerned  in  this 
History.  In  this  tide  of  immigration  we  find  the  Luth- 
erans making  their  appearance  in  the  southern  portions 
of  Indiana  as  early  as  1810,  when  their  cries  went  back 
to  the  land  of  their  nativity  praying  for  spiritual  attention. 
In  this  year  there  already  existed  a  congregation  on  Tur- 
tle Creek,  an  affluent  of  the  Ohio,  served  by  one  Andrew 
Alms.*     In  Harrison  county  there  were  many  Lutherans, 


3  Bernheim,  393. 

4  It  seems  that  Alms  was  an  impostor,  as  the  Penn.  Synod 
would  have  nothing  to  do  with  him.     Min.  Pa.  Synod,  1812. 


—    20    — 

and  doubtless  one  or  more  congregations  existed  in  that 
county,  prior  to  1820.  The  Mt.  Solomon  congregation 
was  probably  organized  prior  to  the  war  of  1812-1815,  as 
the  traditions  are  that  the  Indians  were  so  hostile  that 
the  people  went  armed  to  church  to  be  prepared  for  any 
emergency.  In  1819  Rev.  C.  F.  Heyer  visited  Harrison, 
Floyd  and  Jefferson  counties,  Indiana,  and  preached  to 
the  Lutherans  he  found  there.  As  early  as  1815  a  con- 
gregation existed  in  Washington  county,  which  earnestly 
petitioned  the  North  Carolina  Synod  in  that  year  for 
pastoral  services.  From  this  we  infer  that  they  were 
North  Carolinians,  and  that  the  congregation  dates  back 
a  year  or  more  earlier.  In  1820  a  congregation  existed 
on  Fourteen  Mile  Creek,  in  Clark  county,  which  petitioned 
the  Tennessee  Synod  for  preaching.  They  were  visited 
by  Rev.  Christian  Moretz  in  1823,  on  his  return  from  the 
meeting  of  the  Tennessee  Synod  in  Greene  county,  Ten- 
nessee, to  Cape  Girardeau,  Missouri,  his  home.  As  early 
as  1818  we  find  North  Carolinians  in  Knox  county,  who 
a  few  years  later  formed  the  nucleus  of  the  present  Mount 
Zion  church. 

The  Synods  of  North  Carolina  and  of  Tennessee  felt 
deeply  concerned  for  the  spiritual  wants  of  these  their 
children,  and  hearing  their  continual  call  for  the  bread 
of  life,  sent  missionaries  to  them,  who,  themselves 
becoming  enamored  with  the  flattering  advantages  and 
prospects  of  the  new  country,  likewise  soon  became 
classed  among  the  new  settlers.  In  this  manner  were 
congregations  formed  in  the  state. ^ 

Wayne  county  received  Lutheran  immigrants  from 
Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  and  the  Fatherland  as  early  as  1820. 
These    located    at    Georgetown    on   The  Walnut    Level. 


^  Bernheim. 


—    21     — 

The  name  was  subsequently  changed  to  Gerniantown  be- 
cause of  the  large  influx  of  Germans.  The  town  was  not 
laid  out  until  1832,  and  was  named  Georgetown  after  the 
surveyor,  George  Shortridge.  These  Lutherans  early 
made  provision  for  their  spiritual  and  intellectual  wants. 
In  1822  two  acres  of  ground  were  purchased  lying  south 
of  the  public  highway,  at  the  northeast  corner  of  this 
ground  a  log  building  was  erected,  which  served  for  a 
school  house  and  a  house  of  worship.  Part  of  the  land 
was  set  apart  for  a  burying  ground,  and  a  man  by  the 
name  of  Albright  was  the  first  person  buried  there.  The 
congregation  was  organized  in  1822  by  the  Rev.  Jacob 
Gruber,  who  was  a  member  of  the  Ohio  Synod,  and  re- 
sided at  Euphemia,  now  Lewi'sburg,  Ohio.  He  served 
the  congregation  about  ten  years.  In  1833  a  brick  church 
was  erected  which  for  many  years  was  the  largest  church 
in  that  region  of  the  country.  The  German  Reformed 
assisted  in  the  erection  of  this  church,  and  in  return  were 
given  its  use  every  alternate  Sunday.  They  had  no  title 
to  the  realty.  The  Reformed  element  became  extinct  in 
about  20  j'ears. 

About  ten  years  after  the  organization  of  the  Zions 
congregation,  Germantown,''  a  number  of  Lutheran  fam- 
ilies from  the  vicinity  of  Miamisburg,  Ohio,  located  in 
Henry  county,  west  of  Hagerstown.  For  a  time  they  at- 
tended services  at  Zion's  church,  from  eight  to  twelve 
miles  distant.  Services  were  also  held  in  their  homes, 
and  during  the  summer  season  in  their  barns  or  in  the 
groves.  The  interest  manifested  in  these  services  led 
them  to  organize  the  St.  Jacobs  church,  named  after 
Jacob  Kimmel,  a  godly  pioneer  of  the  community,  and  a 


6  The  name  of  the  post-oflice  is  East  Germantown, 


-     22     - 

church  building  was  erected  which  served  the  congrega- 
tion as  a  house  of  worship  for  over  half  a  century.' 

As  early  as  1829  Lutherans  settled  in  Parke  and  in 
Fountain  counties.  They  came  from  North  Carolina  and 
eastern  Tennessee.  In  1831  they  were  organized  into  a 
congregation  by  Rev.  Philip  Henkel.  This  was  the  Phil- 
adelphia congregation,  in  Parke  county.  The  first  church 
was  erected  on  Big  Raccoon  Creek.  Before  it  was  com- 
pleted, fire  destroyed  it,  but  the  congregation,  undismayed 
by  this  misfortune,  resolutely  set  to  work  and  rebuilt 
the  church,  which  served  them  as  a  house  of  worship 
for  many  years.  About  four  years  later  the  Phanuel  con- 
gregation in  Fountain  countj^  was  organized. 

Among  the  pioneers  of  Fort  Wayne  were  a  number  of 
staunch  Lutherans  who  were  willing  to  make  sacrifices 
that  the  church  of  their  fathers  might  be  established  in 
their  new  home.  Among  these  was  Henry  Rudisill,  a 
Pennsylvanian,  and  whose  wife  was  a  descendant  of  the 
Henkels.  Through  their  entreaties  Rev.  Jesse  Hoover, 
of  Woodstock,  Virginia,  a  member  of  the  Ministerium 
of  Pennsylvania,  cast  his  lot  among  them,  and  laid  the 
foundations  of  the  Lutheran  church  of  that  city.  But  the 
workman  soon  fell  a  victim  to  the  unhealthy  climate, 
1838,  and  his  ashes  repose  near  the  place  where  he  so 
faithfully  labored.  He  was  a  good  man  and  his  deatli 
was  sincerely  mourned  by  the  church  at  large. 

The  material  upon  which  to  base  any  extended  and 
detailed  account  of  the  Lutheran  immigration  to  the 
state,  and  of  the  founding  of  Lutheran  congregations  is 
very  meager,  fragmentary  and  defective.  After  a  long 
and  patient  search  only  a  small  amount  has  been  gath- 


<■'  This  building  is  still  standing,  1907, 


-    23    - 

ered  upon  which  to  base  our  conclusions.  But  we  have 
become  satisfied  that  there  were  Lutheran  congregations 
in  Indiana  in  no  less  than  twenty  different  counties  by 
the  year  1835,  which  marks  the  end  of  the  period  under 
review.  In  all  there  were  from  thirty  to  forty  congrega- 
tions, numbering  perhaps  2,000  communicants.  In  one 
year  one  missionary  organized  five  congregations  in  four 
different  counties.  Besides  these  already  mentioned 
there  were  a  number  of  German  congregations  which  re- 
mained independent  of  all  synodical  connection. 

From  material  that  has  recently  come  to  hand  it  ap- 
pears that  there  was,  at  quite  an  early  date,  a  tide  of 
Lutheran  immigration  into  the  state  from  Ohio  and  Penn- 
sj'lvania,  which  formed  colonies  and  congregations  in  or 
near  Liberty,  Union  county,  Philomath  in  Fayette  county, 
Raleigh  in  Rush  county,  and  Waldron  in  Shelby  county. 
This  probably  was  the  field  of  the  early  labors  of  Rev. 
John  L.  Markert. 

The  existence  of  the  Lutheran  church  in  Kentucky 
dates  from  the  year  1792,  when  the  congregations  in  Jef- 
ferson and  Nelson  counties  were  organized,  but  by  whom 
we  are  unable  to  state.  Thirteen  years  later  a  Lutheran 
colony  from  Virginia  located  in  Boone  county  and  in  1818 
Rev.  Wm.  Carpenter,  their  former  pastor,  cast  his  lot 
with  them  and  served  them  faithfully  until  his  death  in 
1833.  He  also  established  a  congregation  in  Lexington, 
but  as  he  was  unable  to  care  for  it,  it  in  a  short  time  dis- 
banded. In  1811  a  Rev.  Mr.  Zink  went  into  the  state 
and  labored  for  several  years.  He  claimed  to  have  been 
licensed  by  Rev.  Dr.  Helmuth  and  Schmidt,  but  acknowl- 
edged that  his  license  had  long  since  expired.  He  per- 
suaded the  people,  however,  that  he  had  a  right  to  act  as 
their  minister.     The  place  where  he  labored  was  Buler's 


-    24    - 

church.  In  1813  the  Rev.  S.  Mau  was  sent  into  the  state 
by  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania,  authorized  to  serve 
such  congregations  as  the  pastors  in  Ohio  might  desig- 
nate. In  1814  a  petition,  signed  by  seventy-two  persons 
from  the  vicinity  of  Bardstown,  prayed  that  Synod  to 
send  them  a  pastor.  In  response  to  this  appeal,  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Zaesline  was  commissioned  as  a  traveling  missionary 
for  that  region.  He  visited  the  place,  and  although  he 
said  he  could  not  settle  there,  he  remained  for  several 
j^ears.  In  1820  the  cries  for  pastoral  services  were  so 
urgent  that  the  Ministerium  decided  upon  sending  mis- 
sionaries thither  to  look  after  their  spiritual  needs.  Rev. 
C.  F.  IIe3'er  and  Rev.  Mr.  Wachter  were  appointed.  In 
1818  the  Rev.  Henry  A.  Kurtz  was  sent  into  the  state  as 
a  missionary,  and  labored  successfully  for  a  number  of 
years.  In  1822  he  appealed  to  the  Ministerium  for  more 
laborers  for  this  promising  field. 

In  Illinois  Lutherans  were  also  early  on  the  ground. 
Before  its  admission  into  the  Union,  a  colony  of  this 
faith  removed  from  North  Carolina  and  located  in  Union 
county,  not  far  from  the  present  site  of  Anna  and  Jones- 
boro.  These  were  followed  by  others  who  settled  in 
Wabash,  Jackson,  and  Montgomery  counties.  Their 
numbers  were  swelled  by  representatives  from  Lehigh 
county,  Pennsylvania,  and  from  Germany.  Some  of 
those  who  came  from  North  Carolina  crossed  the  Missis- 
sippi and  located  in  Cape  Girardeau,  Perry,  Madison  and 
Wayne  counties,  Missouri.     This  was  prior  to  1820. 

In  order  that  the  reader  may  form  some  conception 
of  the  vast  stream  of  immigration  that  poured  into  these 
regions  we  quote  from  a  report  made  to  the  Jeffersontown 
Convention  in  1834,  by  a  committee  appointed  to  present 
a  survey  of  the  field.     The  report  touches  upon  the  con- 


IH 

^^^KlT                                     8        ?■*'  ***• 

.      ■■'■,.         >'S^II 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^K.^.-«r::^.T-^H 

ST.  JOHN'S  CHURCH 
Anderson,  Ind. 


>  2 

*^  I 

a  > 

>  ^ 

r  ?o 

Q  'X 


THE  CHURCH  OF  MERCY 

Destroyed  in  the  great  Chicago  fire 

The  firit  English  Lutheran  Church  erected  west  of  Ohio 


—    25    - 

dition  of  the  church  in  the  states  of  Indiana,  Kentucky, 
Illinois  and  Missouri:  "From  the  land  of  our  fathers, 
thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  are  annually  pouring 
forth,  like  a  mighty  stream  of  water  in  a  manner  inundat- 
ing the  soil.  Indeed,  so  very  rapid  has  been  the  tide  of 
German  immigration  to  this  country  that  many  sections 
have  been  almost  wholl}'  settled  with  Germans.  And  the 
spiritual  want  of  this  German  community  has  become  so 
great  and  distressing  as  to  attract  the  notice  and  excite 
the  sympathy  not  only  of  our  own  church,  even  to  a  great 
distance,  but  the  English  community  of  other  denomina- 
tions has  been  aroused  on  the  subject,  and  the  whole 
Christian  body  united  in  the  same  feeling  of  commisera- 
tion, in  behalf  of  our  suffering,  aye,  almost  perishing 
German  brethren  in  the  faith." 

The  spiritual  condition  of  these  people  was  pitiable. 
They  appealed  most  earnestly  to  the  Synods,  both  in  the 
east  and  in  the  south,  for  the  ministration  of  the  Word, 
and  the  efforts  put  forth  by  these  bodies  to  supply  their 
wants  were  marvelous  when  we  consider  the  times  and 
the  means  of  transportation.  Lutheran  pastors  were  few, 
the  field  was  so  extensive,  and  the  points  from  which 
appeals  for  help  were  coming  so  numerous  that  it  was 
next  to  impossible  to  supply  them.  The  Synods  were 
ready  and  prompt  in  their  efforts  to  answer  the  call.  The 
Tennessee  Synod  especially  was  energetic  in  its  efforts  to 
follow  the  immigrants  from  their  former  homes  to  the 
distant  settlements,  and  supply  them  with  the  Gospel. 
It  also  was  diligent  in  seeking  the  children  of  the  church 
who  came  from  other  regions  than  the  southland.  To 
this  it  was  spurred  by  its  jealousy  of  the  pure  doctrine 
and  Lutheran  practices.  It  endeavored  to  prevent  a  fur- 
ther spread  of  that  type  of  Lutheranism  which  it  regarded 


—    26    — 

.as  fundamentally  heretical.  Other  Synods  were  equally 
diligent.  Before  1820,  the  year  that  the  Tennessee  Synod 
came  into  existence,  the  North  Carolina  Synod  was 
active  in  missionating  among  the  scattered  Lutherans 
in  these  states,  and  continued  so  until  near  the  close 
of  the  period  under  review.  In  1815  this  Synod  was 
petitioned  by  a  congregation  in  Washington  county  for 
pastoral  services.*'  In  1818  a  petition  from  the  Lutherans 
in  Union  county,  Illinois,  was  before  this  Synod,  and  it 
requested  Rev.  John  L.  Markert,  then  residing  in  Ohio, 
to  visit  them  and  minister  to  their  spiritual  wants.  This 
duty  he  fulfilled  within  the  next  two  years.  In  1825  a 
call,  signed  by  forty  persons,  came  to  the  Synod  from  the 
same  place,  praying  for  a  pastor  who  could  preach  in 
both  German  and  English.  Rev.  Wm.  Jenkins  was  sent 
to  visit  the  place,  but  his  brief  stay  only  intensified  their 
sense  of  destitution.  Two  years  later  Rev.  J.  C.  Schoenberg 
was  sent  as  pastor  for  the  place,  remained  two  years,  and 
was  succeeded  by  Rev.  Daniel  Scherer,  in  1831,  who  in 
addition  to  his  work  in  Union  county,  organized  congre- 
gations at  Hillsboro  in  1831,  Mount  Carmel,  Vandalia, 
1844,  and  at  other  points. 

Rev.  Daniel  Scherer  may  justly  be  regarded  as  the 
patriarch  of  the  Lutheran  church  in  Illinois.  He  was  for 
a  number  of  years  the  only  Lutheran  pastor  in  the  state. 
He  was  pastor  at  .Jonesboro,  Mt.  Carmel,  Hillsboro,  and 
Vandalia,  besides  doing  much  missionary  work  in  various 
sections.  He  was  an  untiring  worker,  frequently  travel- 
ing 150  miles  on  horseback  in  order  to  minister  to  the 
scattered  people  of  his  field,  who  were  not  included  in  his 
immediate  charge.  He  labored  faithfully  until  his  death 
on  April  4,  1852. 


Bernheim,  401. 


—    27    — 

The  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania  demonstrated  its 
interest  in  this  western  field  bj'  sending  earnest  men  to 
explore  the  field  and  minister  to  the  scattered  children  of 
the  church.  The  first  man  thus  sent  out  was  T\ev.  Prof. 
Haverstick,  of  Philadelphia.  He  set  out  from  Winchester, 
Virginia,  at  the  close  of  September  1835,  and  spent  nine 
months  in  Illinois  and  adjacent  states.  He  visited  Louis- 
ville, Jefifersontown,  and  other  places  in  Kentuck3\  He 
crossed  the  Ohio  river  at  Shawneetown,  visited  the  Luth- 
erans at  Jonesboro,  assisted  Rev.  Daniel  Scherer  twice  at 
confirmation  and  twice  at  communion  services.  He  had 
planned  to  enter  Missouri  and  visit  Whitner's  Mills  and 
Apple  Creek  churches,  but  found  the  Mississippi  river 
impassable.  He  therefore  went  120  miles  farther  north 
into  St.  Clair  county,  and  visited  a  German  settlement  20 
miles  southeast  of  Belleville.  Here  there  ^ras  a  congrega- 
tion consisting  of  about  20  families.  Here  he  met  Rev. 
Jacob  Reissom,  from  Basle.  He  next  visited  a  settlement 
at  Turkey  Hill,  of  about  35  families.  They  had  a  school- 
master who  usually  read  a  sermon  and  baptized  and  con- 
firmed their  children.  He  visited  several  other  settlements 
in  this  county,  but  found  them  either  polished  rationalists 
or  indifferent  to  his  offers  to  conduct  religious  services. 
He  regarded  St.  Clair  county  as  a  very  unpromising  field. 

From  Belleville  he  went  northward  about  35  miles  to 
New  Switzerland,  in  Madison  county.  Then  he  returned 
southward  and  crossed  the  Mississippi  at  St.  Louis,  the 
chief  landing  place  for  German  immigrants  to  Illinois 
and  Missouri.  Here  he  found  a  small  German  congrega- 
tion served  by  a  German  named  Koernderfer.  He  was 
brought  out  by  a  Rev.  Mr.  Bueffner,  who  was  sent  out  as 
a  missionary  by  the  (xerman  Reformed  Synod  at  New 
Lisbon,  Ohio,  May  IS,  1835.    He  next  visited  St.  Charles, 


-    28     - 

where  he  found  many  Romanists,  who  had  endeavored  to 
proselyte  the  Lutheran  people,  but  with  little  success. 
He  found  a  small  Lutheran  congregation  here,  by  whom 
he  was  favorably  received.  He  remained  several  weeks, 
confirmed  four,  baptized  several  children  and  administered 
the  communion.  Thence  he  went  to  Marthasville,  about 
40  miles  beyond  St.  Charles,  where  there  were  about  100 
German  families,  served  by  a  Rev.  Mr.  Garlichs  who  also 
preached  at  St.  Charles.  The  next  point  visited  was 
Pinkney,  about  20  miles  distant  from  Marthasville,  where 
he  found  eighteen  families,  to  whom  he  preached  and  ad- 
ministered the  communion.  On  his  return  he  visited 
Beardstown,  on  the  Illinois  river,  where  he  was  delayed 
three  weeks  on  account  of  the  ice,  which  made  fording 
impossible.  Bj'  going  around  30  miles  he  was  enabled 
to  cross.  He -then  visited  Edwardsville  and  Hillsboro, 
the  residence  of  Rev.  Daniel  Scherer,  thence  to  Vandalia, 
the  capital  of  the  state,  where  he  preached  a  few  times. 
From  Vandalia  he  proceeded  to  Wabash  county.  He 
found  the  country  covered  with  water  and  ice,  often  sank 
so  that  the  water  and  mud  came  to  the  horse's  breast.  This 
in  fair  weather  was  a  three  days'  journey,  but  it  required 
eight  days  for  Prof.  Haverstick  to  cover  it.  He  reached 
Wabash  county  the  second  week  in  March,  a  few  weeks 
after  the  visit  of  Rev.  C.  F.  Heyer,  who  had  prepared  the 
people  for  his  coming.  He  found  the  country  so  attractive, 
and  the  people  so  cordial,  that  he  cheerfully  would  have 
entered  upon  pastoral  relations  had  not  arrangements  al- 
ready been  made  with  a  Rev.  Mr.  Kroh,  a  Reformed  min- 
ister, to  settle  among  them,  and  who  was  expected  to 
arrive  among  them  in  the  following  May.  There  prevailed 
among  them  a  churchly  spirit,  and  they  were  ready  to 
buy  80  acres  of  land   for  a  church   and  school,    and  to 


—     29     - 

undertake  the  erection  of  a  church.  The  building  of  the 
church  was  begun  before  Prof.  Haverstick  left.  He  as- 
sisted in  the  laying  of  the  corner  stone.  This  was  the 
first  brick  cHurch  in  the  state.  These  people  were  from 
Lehigh  and  Northampton  counties,  Pennsylvania.  With 
few  exceptions  these  were  Lutherans,  but  being  visited  by 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Kroh  at  a  time  when  they  did  not  know 
whether  they  should  ever  be  able  to  secure  a  Lutheran 
pastor,  they  embraced  the  opportunity  and  accepted  this 
man  as  their  pastor.  Prof.  Haverstick  remained  here  for 
six  weeks,  preaching  and  instructing  the  young.  On  Sat- 
urday, April  23,  Rev.  C.  F.  Heyer  returned  and  assisted 
in  confirming  15  young  persons,  and  administered  the 
communion  to  69  persons.  On  Monday,  April  25,  they 
laid  the  corner  stone  of  the  new  brick  church,  which  was 
the  fourth  Lutheran  church  building  in  the  state.  It  was 
built  upon  a  plot,  a  part  of  80  acres  of  land  purchased  as 
a  church  property.  Two  other  points  in  Wabash  county 
were  promising  places  for  Lutheran  congregations.  Mount 
Carmel,  the  county  seat,  and  Centerville.  From  Wabash 
county  Prof.  Haverstick  went  to  Vincennes,  Indiana, 
thence  to  Louisville,  Kentucky,  and  thence  returned  to 
Pennsylvania.  During  this  missionary  tour,  he  traveled 
3,200  miles,  preached  very  often,  administered  conmiun- 
ion  to  230  persons,  confirmed  47,  baptized  8  children, 
and  collected  $30.25  for  missionary  purposes. 

We  have  been  unable  to  determine  with  any  degree 
of  certainty  who  was  the  first  Lutheran  pastor  to  set  foot 
upon  what  is  now  Indiana  soil.  There  is  a  tradition  that 
Rev.  George  Forster,  who  resided  in  Fairfield  county, 
Ohio,  in  1805,  and  who  regarded  the  whole  northwest  as 
his  mission  field,  and  who  was  imbued  with  a  deep  mis- 
sionary zeal,  visited  Harrison  county,  and  ministered  to 


-    30     - 

the  scattered  Lutherans  there.  We  have  been  unable, 
however,  to  verify  this  tradition. 

Among  the  pioneer  pastors  who  labored  in  western 
Ohio  was  the  Rev.  John  Samuel  Man.  lie  came  into 
this  section  at  a  very  early  period,  possibly  in  1807.  He 
had  been  a  soldier  in  the  war  of  the  Revolution,  and  was 
somewhat  eccentric  in  character.  Several  times  he 
changed  his  church  relation,  but  confessed  himself  a 
Lutheran  before  his  death.  He  supported  himself  by 
teaching  school.  He  is  said  to  have  been  the  first  school 
teacher  in  the  Twin-valley.  His  education  was  limited, 
and  his  preaching  abilities  were  very  deficient.  His 
home  was  near  Germantown.  He  organized  the  Salem 
Lutheran  church  at  Lewisburg,  Ohio,  in  the  spring  of 
1808.  He  also  served  congregations  in  Indiana,  one  of 
which  was  St.  John's.  This  congregation  probably  was 
in  Fayette  county.  In  1813  he  was  granted  a  license  by 
the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania,  to  serve  such  congrega- 
tions in  Kentucky  as  may  be  designated  by  the  ministers 
residing  in  Ohio.  He  continued  his  pastoral  labors  in 
Montgomery  county,  Ohio,  as  late  as  November  19,  1818. 
As  he  was  not  a  settled  pastor,  his  work  was  almost  ex- 
clusively of  a  missionary  character,  and  we  are  satisfied 
that  his  field  of  operations  extended  into  Indiana. 
Whether  he  was  ever  ordained  we  do  not  know.  He  was 
present  at  the  meeting  of  the  Ohio  Synod  in  1818,  and 
recognized  as  a  Lutheran  minister.  He  lived  to  a  good 
old  age,  and  died  in  1830." 

Another  one  of  the  pioneers  in  this  section  was  the 
Rev.  Andrew  Simon.     He  labored  in  German  and  Miama 


9  Based    on    Hentz's    Lutheran    Church    in    Germantown, 
Ohio,  and  other  sources. 


-    3J    - 

townships,  Montgomery  county,  Ohio,  for  a  number  of 
years,  from  1810  to  1818  at  least.'"  He  was  not  a  fluent 
speaker,  scarcely  able  to  express  his  thoughts  intelli- 
gently, and  consequently  not  very  popular  as  a  preacher 
nor  successful  as  a  pastor.  It  is  said  that  he  abandoned 
the  ministry  and  turned  his  attention  to  the  practice  of 
medicine.  He  removed  to  Indiana,  where  he  closed  his 
earthly  career.  Whether  he  continued  to  preach  after  his 
removal  to  that  state  we  do  not  know.  He  was  present 
at  the  meeting  of  the  Ohio  Synod  in  1818,  and  evidently 
was  then  still  in  the  active  ministry.  He  was  a  mis- 
sionary rather  than  a  settled  pastor. 

In  1815  the  Rev.  John  Caspar  Dill  was  called  as  the 
pastor  of  the  Lutheran  church  in  Germantown,  Ohio,  and 
remained  in  the  office  until  his  death  in  1824.  His  field 
of  labor  was  very  extensive,  embracing  several  counties. 
In  his  removal  to  the  west  he  was  commissioned  by  the 
Ministerium  of  Pennsj'lvania  to  act  as  a  traveling  mis- 
sionary and  supply  for  other  congregations  in  this  section 
of  the  country.  It  is  quite  probable  that  in  his  mission- 
ary labors  he  entered  the  bounds  of  Indiana. 

Rev.  Wm.  Carpenter,  who  came  to  Boone  county, 
Kentucky,  in  1813,  where  he  labored  for  twenty  years, 
was  interested  in  the  Lutherans  in  Indiana,  and  familiar 
with  their  conditions.  He  advised  Rev.  Mr.  Schnee  in 
1821  to  go  to  Indiana  instead  of  Kentucky,  which  would 
indicate  that  he  knew  something  of  the  field  from  per- 
sonal observation.  It  is  probable  that  he  did  pioneer 
work  within  the  bounds  of  the  Hoosier  state. 

Rev.  C.  F.  Heyer  was  commissioned  in  1819  by  the 
Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania  to  visit  some  districts  in 

10  Pates  of  earliest  and  latest  marriages  recorded  as  solem- 
nized by  him  in  Montgomery  county.     Probate  Court  Records. 


32 


Kentucky  and  Indiana,  and  provide  the  brethren  there 
with  the  Word  and  Sacraments.  He  spent  three  months 
in  this  work.  It  was  during  this  year  that  he  organized  a 
congregation  or  more  in  Harrison  county,  and  ministered 
to  it  for  a  time.  Whether  this  was  the  Mount  Solomon 
church  or  some  other  we  have  not  the  data  to  determine,  as 
there  were  several  congregations  in  that  county  at  an 
early  day.  He  also  visited  Floyd  and  Jefferson  counties 
and  preached  to  the  Lutherans  he  found  there. 

As  the  reports  of  these  missionaries,  describing  the 
spiritual  destitution  of  the  brethren  in  the  faith,  located 
in  these  western  regions,  came  to  the  Synod  its  interest  in 
them  increased.  In  1821  it  commissioned  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Schnee  as  its  missionary  in  these  western  regions,  em- 
bracing Indiana,  Kentucky  and  Tennessee.  Schnee  evi- 
dently had  had  considerable  experience  in  pioneer  and 
frontier  work.  He  entered  upon  his  labors  July  30,  1821. 
He  traveled  westward,  preaching  wherever  opportunity 
offered.  He  spent  some  time  in  Ohio  visiting  the  Luth- 
eran pastors,  and  conferring  with  them  about  the  work. 
Among  these  pastors  he  found  much  opposition  to  the  Gen- 
eral Synod,  which  had  been  recently  organized,  and  which 
seemed  to  be  the  paramount  question  among  the  Luth- 
erans at  that  time.  Rev.  Charles  Henkel  he  found  most 
pronounced  and  bitter  in  his  opposition  to  that  body. 
At  Carlisle,  Ohio  or  Kentucky,  we  cannot  say  which,  he 
was  joined  by  Rev.  L.  H.  Meyers,  and  together  they  visited 
Rev.  Wm.  Carpenter,  in  Boone  county,  Kentucky.  Here 
the  plans  of  the  missionaries  were  discussed.  Schnee's 
destination  was  Kentucky,  but  Rev.  H.  A.  Kurtz,  who 
had  been  sent  to  that  state  a  year  or  two  before  by  the 
same  Synod,  and  whose  reports  represented  the  condition 
of  the   people  as   pitiable  and  distressing,  had  proposed 


-    33    - 

the  organization  of  a  Kentucky  Synod,  which  Carpenter 
warmly  opposed.  He  regarded  the  project  as  a  wild  and 
foolish  idea,  and  urged  the  missionaries  not  to  remain  in 
Kentucky,  but  to  go  to  Indiana.  This  advice  the  mis- 
sionaries took,  and  set  out  upon  their  journey.  They 
traveled  together  until  they  reached  Paoli,  in  Orange 
county.  Here  they  separated,  Schnee  going  westward  as 
far  as  the  Wabash,  where  he  found  a  settlement  of  Ger- 
mans. Here  he  turned  back,  passing  through  Madison. 
His  tour  lasted  three  and  one-half  months.  He  traveled 
1,052  miles,  organized  one  congregation  baptized  34 
children,  and  administered  the  communion  to  36  persons. 

From  Paoli  Rev.  L.  H.  Meyers  went  southward.  He 
visited  Salem,  in  Washington  county,  and  Corydon,  in 
Harrison  county.  After  tarrying  here  for  a  short  time  he 
returned  to  his  scattered  congregation  in  Cincinnati.  In 
1822  Rev.  L.  H.  Meyers  was  reappointed  as  missionary  to 
Indiana  and  Kentucky  for  a  period  of  two  months.  These 
duties  he  discharged,  reporting  that  he  had  traveled  767 
miles,  baptized  37  children,  and  preached  49  times.  No 
congregations  were  organized. 

The  Tennessee  Sj-nod  was  also  deeply  concerned  for 
the  spiritual  interests  of  the  Lutherans  in  Indiana  and 
adjacent  parts.  Its  opposition  to  the  General  Synod,  and 
its  intense  zeal  for  the  pure  faith  which  it  professed, 
spurred  its  pastors  to  almost  superhuman  efforts  to  plant 
the  Lutheran  church  in  this  new  country.  It  was  a  true 
missionary  Synod.  It  had  no  mission  treasury,  nor  funds 
for  the  support  of  missionaries,  yet  it  did  a  vast  amount 
of  true  missionary  work.  Almost  every  pastor  in  that 
body  was  a  zealous  missionary,  making  extended  tours 
into  different  sections    of  the  country,   and  trusting  to 


34 


Providence  for  his  support,  and  this  trust  was  never  mis- 
phiced.  In  addition  to  these  individual  efforts  the  Synod 
instructed  certain  of  its  pastors  to  visit  the  frontier  settle- 
ments and  minister  to  the  destitute  brethren.  These 
instructions  were  always  carried  out,  unless  some  provi- 
dential interposition  prevented. 

The  Rev.  Jacob  Zink,  of  Washington  county,  Vir- 
ginia, was  probably  the  first  missionary  of  the  Tennessee 
Synod  to  labor  in  Indiana.  His  zeal  was  like  his  field, 
boundless.  The  whole  region  east  of  the  Mississippi  river 
was  his  parish.  He  journeyed  almost  constantly.  In 
1821  his  missionary  tour  embraced  portions  of  Louisiana, 
Tennessee,  Kentucky  and  Indiana.  Wherever  he  went  he 
preached,  catechised,  and  administered  the  sacraments 
as  opportunity  offered  or  the  necessities  required.  In 
1823  he  located  permanently  in  Indiana,  but  at  what 
point  we  do  not  know.  This  year  he  attended  the  con- 
vention of  the  Ohio  Synod  at  Chillicothe.  He  labored 
in  the  state  until  his  death  in  1827.  The  place  of  his 
residence  is  not  known,  but  probably  it  was  near  Martins- 
ville, Morgan  county.  Rev.  Mr.  Zink  was  a  zealous  and 
devoted  Lutheran,  and  a  man  of  strong  convictions.  He 
loved  his  church,  and  preached  her  doctrines  from  a  con- 
viction of  their  scripturalness.  He  was  a  pronounced 
opponent  to  the  General  Synod  and  a  loyal  son  of  the 
Tennessee  Synod.  He  did  much  to  develop  a  deep 
Lutheran  consciousness  in  the  congregations  he  served, 
all  of  which  were  in  harmony  with  his  own  pronounced 
views. 

It  is  certain  that  the  renowned  Rev.  Paul  Henkel 
was  instrumental  in  planting  the  Lutheran  church  in  In- 
diana, although  the  places  visited  and  the  congregations 


—    35    — 

organized  by  him  are  not  known  to  the  writer."  The 
work  accomplished  by  the  zealous,  consecrated  and  godly 
man,  and  the  intense  missionary  spirit  and  zeal  which 
his  teaching  and  example  provoked  among  his  own  sons, 
and  those  who  were  his  pupils,  entitle  him  to  more  than 
a  passing  notice  in  this  connection.  Of  his  five  sons  who 
entered  the  ministry  of  the  Lutheran  church,  three, 
and  one  grandson,  were  instrumental  in  establishing 
the  Lutheran  church  in  this  state,  and  another  grand- 
son, the  Rev.  J.  L.  Stirewalt,  in  later  years,  both  as  a 
pastor  and  as  the  General  Council's  western  missionary, 
did  much  to  build  up  the  Lutheran  Zion  in  the  common- 
wealth. 

Paul  Henkel  was  born  on  the  Yadkin  river,  in  North 
Carolina,  December  15,  1754.  He  died  at  New  Market, 
Virginia,  November  17,  1.S25.  The  family  trace  their 
descent  through  Count  Henkel  of  Poeltzig,  from  .Johann 
Henkel,  D.  D.,  LLD.,  born  in  Hungary,  who  was  father 
confessor  to  Queen  Maria.  The  head  of  the  American 
branch  of  the  family  was  Rev.  Gerhard  Henkel,  who  came 
to  America  about  the  year  1700.  In  the  Fatherland  Rev. 
Gerhard  Henkel  was  for  a  time  court  chaplain  to  Duke 
Moritz  of  Saxony,  who  becoming  a  Roman  Catholic, 
exiled  him.  He  was  the  first  Lutheran  minister  in  Vir- 
ginia, and  afterwards  pastor  at  Germantown,  Pa.  He 
died  about  the  year  1742.  From  him  descended  a  numer- 
ous family,  many  of  whose  members  are  prominent  in  the 
Lutheran  church  and  in  the  learned  professions.  One  of 
the  sons  of  Rev.  Gerhard  Henkel  was  Justus,  who  was  the 
father  of  Jacob,  who  was  the  father  of  Paul,  Isaac,  Moses 
and  John.     Moses  entered  the  ministry  of  the  Methodist 


n  Hist.  Tenn.  Synod,  p.  (38. 


36 


church,  but  Paul,  Isaac  and  John  were  true  to  the  faith 
of  their  father  and  entered  the  ministry  of  the  Lutheran 
cliurch.'' 

Jacob  Henkel  had  settled  in  North  Carolina,  on  the 
banks  of  the  Yadkin.     About  1760  the  Indians  became  so 


12  We    append    an    abbreviated   genealogical  table   of   the 
Henkel  family. 

Johann  Henkel,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  born  in  Pleutschau,  Hungary. 
Count  Henkel,  of  Poeltzig. 
Gerhard  Henkel.   Lutheran  pastor.   Emigrated  to  America  1700 — 

1718,  died  cir.  1742. 

11  Justus  Henkel. 

12  Jacob  Henkel. 

13  Moses  Henkel.     M.  E.  minister. 
23    Isaac  Henkel.     Lutheran  pastor. 

3  3    John  Henkel.     Lutheran  pastor. 

4  3    Paul  Henkel.     Lutheran  pastor.     Born  December  15,  1754, 

died  November  25,  1825. 
1-4    Solomon  Henkel,  M.  D.     Publisher. 
15    Samuel  G.  Henkel,  M.  D.     Born    February  12,    1807,    died 

March  8,  1864. 
25    Heleah.     Married  Rev.  D.  M.  Henkel,  D.D. 
2i    Philip  Henkel.     Lutheran  pastor.     Born  September  23,  1779, 

died  October  9,  1833. 
15    Eusebius  S.  Henkel.     Lutheran  pastor.     Born  July  26,  1811, 

died  December  17,  1874. 
2  5    Irenaeus  Henkel.     Lutheran  pastor. 
34    Ambrose  Henkel.     Lutheran  pastor.     Born    July   11,    1786, 

died  January  6,  1873. 
15    Elnora.     Married  Socrates  Henkel,  D.D. 
44    Andrew  Henkel.     Lutheran  pastor.     Born  October  21,  1790, 

died  April  23,  1870. 
15    George  Henkel,  M.D. 

25    Vandalona  Henkel.     Married  Rev.  J.  L.  Stirewalt. 
54    David  Henkel.     Lutheran  pastor.     Born  May  5,  1795,    died 

June  15,  1831. 
15    Polycarp  C.  Henkel,  D.D.     Lutheran  pastor.     Born  August 

20,  1820,  died  September  26,  1889. 


-    37    - 

threatening  that  he  removed  with  his  family  to  western 
Virginia.  Here  young  Paul  grew  up  under  the  inHuence 
of  frontier  life,  and  became  an  expert  hunter,  and  familiar 
with  Indian  warfare.  Of  his  early  religious  training  we 
know  nothing.  There  is  a  tradition  that  when  he  was 
about  twenty-two  years  old,  he  heard  some  eminent 
preacher  and  resolved  to  prepare  himself  for  the  ministry. 
He  placed  himself  under  the  care  of  Rev.  Mr.  Krug,  of 
Frederick,  Maryland,  from  whom  he  acquired  a  fair 
knowledge  of  German,  Latin,  Greek  and  other  branches 
necessary  for  the  office.  He  was  licensed  by  the  Minist- 
erium  of  Pennsylvania,  and  accepted  a  call  from  congre- 
gations in  the  Shenandoah  valley,  at  and  near  New  Market. 
But  his  labors  extended  far  beyond  his  immediate  field. 
On  the  6th  of  June,  1792,  he  was  ordained  by  Rev.  John 
Fred.  Schmidt,  in  Philadelphia.  After  serving  congre- 
gations in  Staunton,  Va.,  and  Rowan  county,  North  Car- 
olina, he  located  again  in  New  Market,  and  labored  as  an 
independent  missionary  the  rest  of  his  days.  Not  depend- 
ing for  a  support  on  any  special  missionary  fund  but  upon 
the  promises  of  his  Master,  he  entered  upon  one  of  the 


23    Socrates  Henkel,  D.D.     Lutheran  pastor. 

tH    Charles  Ilenkel.     Lutheran  pastor.     Born    March  IS,  179S, 

died  1841. 
15    D.  M.  Henkel,  D.D.     Lutheran  pastor. 

1<;    Wife  of  Rev.  A.  L.  Yount,  D.D. 

1 "    John  Yount.     Lutheran  pastor. 

7i    Hannah.     Wife  of  Rev.  John  Stirewalt. 

15    Paul  Stirewalt.     Lutheran  pastor. 

25    Julius  L.  Stirewalt.     Lutheran  pastor. 

35    Quintius  Spener  Stirewalt.     Student  of  Theology. 

Rev.  Jacob  Stirewalt,  married  Henrietta  Henkel,    daughter    of 

Elias  Henkel. 

1  Rev.  J.  N.  Stirewalt. 

2  Rev.  Jerome  P.  Stirewalt. 


-    38    - 

most  remarkable  careers  of  missionary  effort  known  in  the 
annals  of  the  Church  of  America.  Animated  by  a  truly 
apostolic  zeal,  he  threw  himself  into  the  work  with  all  the 
ardor  of  youth.  His  labors  are  characterized  by  a  zeal 
and  self-denial,  and  perseverance  and  indomitable  courage 
equalled  by  but  few  men  since  the  days  of  the  apostles. 
Amidst  dangers  and  the  severest  hardships,  he  made 
repeated  tours  penetrating  into  the  wildernesses  of  the 
south  and  west,  to  the  farthest  limits  of  civilization, 
hunting  up  the  scattered  members  of  the  household  of 
faith,  baptizing,  instructing  and  confirming  their  children, 
preaching  the  Word,  organizing  congregations  and  schools, 
and  supplying  the  people  with  books  of  devotion,  a 
supply  of  which  he  generally  carried  with  him.  He 
exhorted  the  people  to  be  loyal  to  their  Church  and  faith- 
ful to  God.  In  1810  he  made  a  tour  into  Ohio,  entering 
the  state  opposite  the  mouth  of  the  Great  Kanawha. 
From  thence  he  went  to  Chillicothe,  thence  to  Springfield, 
then  to  Mad  Rivers,  the  present  site  of  Dayton,  where  he 
came  near  losing  his  life  by  drowning,  being  accidently 
thrown  into  the  river.  This  was  then  the  limit  of  white 
settlements.  He  proceeded  to  an  Indian  town  some 
twenty  miles  farther  north,  probably  Piqua.  After  a  stay 
of  eight  days  he  traveled  down  the  Great  Miami  River,  to 
a  congregation  where  he  spent  two  weeks  instructing  the 
young  and  preaching  the  ■  Word.  This  probably  was 
Germantown,  as  he  was  at  this  place  in  this  year.  From 
this  place  he  returned  home  to  New  Market,  and  prepared 
for  a  tour  into  North  Carolina.  During  this  tour  into 
Ohio,  he  preached  almost  daily,  sometimes  in  German 
and  sometimes  in  English,  sometimes  both  in  one  day, 
and,  as  it  appears  from  the  data  at  hand,  he  organized 
one    congregation    and    one    school,    confirmed    59    and 


—     39     - 

administered  the  Lord's  Supper  to  95.  He  labored  very 
hard,  and  was  much  distressed  because  of  the  bad  inHu- 
ence  of  the  fanatical  sects,  and  complained  that  the 
schools  were  English  while  the  people,  old  and  young, 
spoke  the  German. 

No  more  active,  indefatigable  and  self-denying  mis- 
sionary than  Paul  Henkel  ever  labored  in  this  country.  It 
is  strange  that  no  extended  accounts  of  this  man's  life  and 
labors  are  published.  In  other  communions,  men  of  less 
zeal  and  ability,  whose  work  is  less  fruitful  than  is  his, 
have  been  honored  with  published  biographies,  while  this 
man's  work  is  in  danger  of  being  forgotten.  The  church 
should  know  about  his  life,  his  deeds,  his  zeal  and  devo- 
tion for  her  and  her  faith.  The  whole  unexplored  west 
was  his  parish.  Without  any  authorization  from  Mission 
Boards,  or  assurance  of  support  save  the  Master's  command 
"Go  preach  the  Gospel,"  and  the  promise  "Lo  I  am  with 
you  alway,"  he  went  forth  in  obedience  to  that  command, 
and  in  firm  reliance  upon  that  promise,  and  entered  upon 
his  labors  unmoved  and  undismaj-ed  by  the  darkest 
prospects.  Tennessee,  Virginia,  North  and  South  Carol- 
ina, Kentucky,  Indiana,  Ohio  and  West  Virginia,  were  the 
fields  of  his  operations. 

In  some  of  these  tours  he  was  accompanied  by  his 
noble  and  heroic  wife,  who  was  animated  by  a  like 
missionary  spirit.  In  a  two- wheeled  wagon  they  traveled. 
Their  journeys  were  not  without  dangers.  In  peril  of 
waters,  crossing  swollen  streams,  in  perils  of  land,  often 
compelled-  to  spend  the  night  in  the  forests,  abounding 
with  panther,  bear  and  wolves,  they  passed  their  time  that 
tlie  Gospel  might  be  preached  unto  the  destitute.  From 
a  small  farm  he  derived  his  subsistence.  His  sons  owned 
a  printing  press,  from  which  a  small  income  was  derived, 


—    40    - 

and  the  devotional  books  which  they  issued,  he  helped  to 
distribute  in  his  tours.  He  would  accept  no  compensa- 
tion for  his  services. 

In  his  journeyings  he  often  came  upon  gatherings  of 
people,  such  as  "log-rollings,"  house-  or  barn-"raisings," 
"corn-huskings"  and  the  like.  On  such  occasions  he 
would  announce  his  office,  and  offer  to  preach.  The  offer 
as  a  rule  was  gladly  accepted.  The  people  would  seat 
themselves  upon  logs,  stumps,  or  on  the  ground,  while  a 
stump  or  short  "log  cut"  set  on  end  served  as  a  pulpit. 
Under  these  conditions  and  in  these  improvised  sanctuaries 
he  would  deliver  his  sermon,  in  the  language  preferred, 
German  or  English,  or  possibly  a  sermon  in  each.  If 
time  permitted  he  would  tarry  for  a  few  days,  visit  from 
house  to  house,  baptize  the  children  and  comfort  the  sick 
and  sorrowing.  His  kindly  acts,  and  genuine  Christian 
sympathy  won  the  hearts  of  all,  and  the  partings  were 
often  amid  sobs  and  tears.  Thus  the  settlements  were 
visited,  and  the  desolate  made  to  rejoice  in  the  treasures 
of  grace.  Thus  the  Word  and  Sacrament  were  ministered 
unto  our  forefathers  in  this  region. 

In  this  manner  a  whole  summer  was  spent  in  the 
field.  As  the  winter  approached,  he  would  turn  his  face 
toward  his  home,  and  then  prepare  for  a  trip  into  the 
sunny  southland,  or  prepare  during  the  winter  months  for 
another  trip  throughout  the  north.  With  such  zeal, 
fidelity  and  devotion  on  the  part  of  her  sons,  even  in  a 
darkening  hour,  the  Lutheran  Church  could  not  fail  to 
live.  By  such  sons  her  precious  truths  were  kept  fresh 
and  uncorrupted  among  the  people  on  the  frontiers. 

Paul  Henkel  was  a  man  of  fine  physique.  He  was 
well  proportioned,  large,  erect,  standing  about  six  feet, 
with  well  developed  physical  organs,  full  of  energy  and 


MT.  ZION  LUTHERAN  CHURCH 
Knox  County,  Ind. 


I. 4.  Rev.  Paul  Roth 

2.  Rev.  Hiram  Peters,  D.  D.        5.  Rev.  W.  J.  Finck 

3.  Rev.  M.  E.  Haberland  6.   Rev.  A.  C.  Anda 

7.  Rev.  J.  R.  E.  Hunt 


» 

k.' -"H^^Bllll 

^^k 

..                   .._,,. 

ZION'S  CHURCH 
Mulberry,  Ind. 


ML 

w 

4^E^^^«I^^"^^ 

^BI^P^^-^ll 

|SiBBH|^H^fc.y:j--jl^^B 

ll^^^ii^^^Jwfj 

^^■^^ 

FAIRHAVEN  LUTHERAN  CHURCH 
Near  Mulberry,  Ind. 


—    4J     — 

perseverance.  Without  these  he  would  have  been  unequal 
to  the  task  before  him.  His  mind  was  well  balanced. 
His  attaiiiments  were  liberal.  In  disposition  he  was  kind, 
afifectionate  and  forbearing.  He  was  universally  honored, 
loved  and  esteemed. 

As  a  preacher  he  had  few  superiors  among  his 
contemporaries.  He  was  fervent,  animated  and  at  times 
eloquent.  He  preached  the  doctrines  of  the  Lutheran 
church  from  conviction  of  their  scripturalness.  His  soul 
was  in  his  Master's  cause.  Few  ministers  performed  more 
arduous,  faithful,  and  ellicient  labor  than  he  did.  In  all 
the  relations  of  life  he  was  true,  faithful,  pious,  reliable 
and  upright. 

Rev.  David  Henkel,  moved  by  the  same  spirit  that 
animated  his  father,  was  very  active  in  propagating  the 
faith,  and  in  opposing  not  only  the  General  Synod  but 
also  the  Methodists,  Unitarians  and  Baptists.  He  heartily 
received  the  doctrines  taught  and  confessed  bj^  the  Luth- 
eran church  as  set  forth  in  the  Symbolical  Books,"  and 
defended  them  with  all  the  power  at  his  command.  He 
was  among  the  few  who  saw  that  many  who  bore  the 
Lutheran  name,  had  departed  from  the  Lutheran  faith 
and  practice.  He  exerted  himself  to  induce  the  church 
in  America  to  return  to  the  old  standards.  "He  was  the 
best  educated  and  most  energetic  of  the  family,  although 
all  ranked  high  in  both  for  that  day.  Not  so  learned  as 
some  of  his  opponents  but  possessing  great  natural  talent, 
and  indefatigably  industrious,  he  was  more  than  their 
equal.  It  was  he  who  by  his  writings  and  preaching 
became  the  leader  in  what  was  for  years  popularly  and 
reproachfully  called  Henkelism,  but  which  distinguished 
itself  only  by  a  more  rigid  adherence  to  the  old  Lutheran 

13  S.  S.  Schmucker,  Luth.  Ch.  in  Amer.,  p.  215. 


—    42     — 

theologj',  and  by  a  want  of  sympathy  and  co-operation 
with  what  was  called  the  Evangelical  section  of  the 
church.  David  Henkel  was  a  strong  man  anoiong  the 
men  with  whom  he  was  associated,  and  exercised  an 
unlimited  control  over  their  ideas  and  actions."'*  With 
voice  and  pen  he  pressed  his  work.  He  challenged  the 
Lutheranism  of  all  the  existing  synods,  and  the  sub- 
sequent history  of  the  church  has  practically  vindi- 
cated his  position,  although  he  was  treated  by  his  oppo- 
nents with  almost  contemptuous  silence.  In  the  south  he 
was  belittled  by  those  who  could  not  understand  him,  but 
held  in  reverence  by  those  whom  he  had  brought  to  a 
clearer  apprehension  and  deeper  appreciation  of  the  Luth- 
eran faith.  He  was  an  earnest  student  of  the  Scriptures 
and  of  the  Book  of  Concord,  and  knew  what  were  the 
doctrines  of  the  church. 

He  had  no  sympathy  with  the  new  measures  and 
innovations  introduced  into  so  many  of  the  churches. 
For  Methodism  he  had  no  love,  neither  for  its  extravagant 
methods  and  revivals,  nor  for  its  subjectiveness  in  its 
doctrines.  With  these  people  he  came  into  sharp  contro- 
versy. Henkel  had  published  a  pamphlet  entitled  "Bap- 
tism, or  Heavenly  Flood  of  Regeneration."  One  Joseph 
Moore  published  some  strictures  on  this  pamphlet,  which 
fell  into  Henkel's  hands.  Moore  was  neither  logical  nor 
consistent,  nor  fair  in  his  criticisms.  Henkel  then  pub- 
lished his  treatise  "Answer  to  Joseph  Moore,  the  Meth- 
odist," in  which  he  handled  his  antagonist  without  gloves, 
and  vindicated  his  own  position.  He  also  published  a 
treatise  entitled  "Against  the  Unitarians,"  in  which  he 
ably  defends  the  Lutheran  view  of  the  Person  and  Incar- 
nation of  Jesus  Christ.     This  was  written  because  of  the 


14  Morris,  Fifty  Years  in  Luth.  Min.,  p.  44. 


43 


doctrines  that  were  advocated  in  both  pulpit  and  print. 
This  work  was  published  by  order  of  the  Tennessee  Synod. 
These  works  were  widely  scattered,  even  in  Indiana  many 
copies  were  sold.' '  Besides  these  controversies  through  the 
press,  he  had  frequent  public  disputations  with  prominent 
men,  both  within  and  without  the  Lutheran  church."  He 
was  in  1S26  requested  to  visit  Pennsylvania  and  preach  and 
vindicate  the  distinctive  doctrines  of  the  Lutheran  church. 
To  this  he  agreed.'" 

As  early  as  1S24  he  visited  the  churches  in  Indiana, 
and  encouraged  them  to  be  true  to  the  faith  of  the  fathers. 
Everywhere  he  was  received  with  joy  and  liberally  remun- 
erated for  his  services.  How  long  he  remained  in  the 
state,  and  what  congregations  he  visited,  we  have  not 
been  able  to  ascertain.  The  next  year  he  was  at  Jeffer- 
sontown,  Kentucky,  and  it  is  quite  probable  that  a  portion 
of  the  year  was  spent  in  ministering  to  the  churches  in 
Indiana.  His  visit  to  these  churches  did  much  to  estab- 
lish them  in  their  opposition  to  the  General  Synod.  He 
spent  several  weeks  in  Greene  county,  Indiana,  but  in 
what  year  we  know  not.  His  career  was  cut  short  by  an 
untimely  death  in  1831.  The  churches  in  the  south 
lamented  his  death  for  many  j^ears.  His  opposition  to  a 
literary  institution  was  his  chief  fault  and  the  mistake  of 
his  life.'' 

Rev.  Philip  Henkel,  an  older  l)rother  of  David,  labored 
extensively  in  Indiana.     It    appears  that   he  spent   the 


1-^  The  writer  found  several  copies  among  the  older  families. 

i'"  Henkel,  Hist.  Tenn.  Synod,  p.  71. 

1'  Some  idea  of  the  labors  of  these  missionaries  can  be 
obtained  from  their  ministerial  acts.  David  Henkel  in  a  min- 
istry of  about  IS  years  preached  3200  times,  baptized  'J997  infants, 
240  adults,  and  confirmed  1105. 


—    44    — 

greater  part  of  the  year  1831  missionating  in  the  state, 
during  which  time  he  organized  five  congregations  in  four 
different  counties,  namely  St.  John's  in  Clear  Creek  town- 
ship, and  Zions(?)  in  Beanblossom  township,  Monroe 
county,  Salem  in  White  River  township,  Morgan  county, 
Philadelphia  in  Parke  county,  and  St.  John's,  Bluff  Creek, 
Johnson  county.  His  son.  Rev.  Eusebius  S.  Henkel, 
came  to  the  state  in  1833,  as  a  missionary  adventurer, 
and  labored  almost  exclusively  within  its  bounds  until 
his  death. 

Very  early  in  the  century  the  Rev.  John  Lewis  Markert 
labored  in  the  state,  but  only  in  the  capacity  of  a  mission- 
ary. He  had  served  congregations  in  North  Carolina  from 
1805  to  1816.  During  this  period  he  visited  Ohio,  about 
1813,  and  supplied  several  congregations,  among  which 
was  the  one  at  Germantown.  In  1816  he  moved  to  In- 
diana, locating,  according  to  the  best  information,  in 
Fayette  county.  He  may  justly  be  regarded  as  the  patri- 
arch of  the  Lutheran  church  in  the  state.  In  1817  he 
reported  by  letter  to  the  North  Carolina  Synod,  and  de- 
scribed the  deplorable  conditions  of  the  church  in  that 
state.  He  told  of  many  scattered  congregations  that  he  was 
then  serving,  and  that  he  was  the  only  Lutheran  pastor  in 
the  state."  In  1819  he  was  entreated  by  the  North  Caro- 
lina Synod  to  visit  the  brethren  in  Union  county,  Illinois, 
in  response  to  their  "heart-affecting  memorial  and  prayer 
for  spiritual  ministration."  He  is  spoken  of  as  then  re- 
siding in  Ohio,  but  as  his  home  was  not  far  from  the 
Ohio  line,  and  serving  congregations  in  that  state,  the 
brethren  in  the  south  were  probably  misled  as  to  his 
place  of  residence.  He  visited  the  Lutherans  in  Union 
county,  Illinois,  in  1820,  in  compliance  with  the  request 


18  Hist.  N.  C.  Synod,  p.  88.     Min.  N.  C.  Synod,  1817. 


—    45    — 

of  the  North  Carolina  Synod,  made  two  years  before.  He 
labored  in  Montgomery  county,  Ohio,  from  April  18, 
1820,  to  September  29,  1823,'"  at  least ;  but  what  congre- 
gations he  served  we  have  been  unable  to  ascertain.  In 
1823  he  had  charge  of  three  schools,  which  he  taught  in 
connection  with  his  pastoral  work.""  He  did  not  co-oper- 
ate with  the  Ohio  pastors  in  the  organization  of  the  Ohio 
Synod  in  1818,  nor  did  he  connect  himself  with  that 
body.  But  it  is  quite  probable  that  he  and  Pastors  Mann, 
Simon  and  Dill,  and  possibly  also  Heinecke,  who  came 
into  this  region  as  early  as  1822,  co-operated  in  their  ef- 
forts to  supply  the  spiritual  needs  of  the  large  Lutheran 
population  that  had  llowed  into  this  region.  Markert  re- 
mained in  connection  with  the  North  Carolina  Synod 
until  1829,  when  he  united  with  the  Tennessee  Synod. 
During  this  year  he  and  Rev.  Nehemiah  Bonham,  in 
compliance  with  that  Synod's  request,  visited  all  the 
congregations  in  connection  with  it,  a  heavy  task,  but 
cheerfully  and  faithfully  performed. 

For  several  years  at  least  Rev.  Mr.  Markert  re- 
sided in  Fayette  county,  Indiana,  where  he  served  St. 
John's  congregation  in  connection  with  his  other  fields  of 
labor.  He  received  such  meagre  support  that  he  was 
compelled  to  work  at  his  trade,  that  of  a  cooper,  for  a 
livelihood.  He  reported  that  no  minister  could  subsist 
there  without  some  support  from  a  plantation.     In  1831 


19  Earliest  and  latest  dates  of  record  of  marriages  solemn- 
ized by  him  in  Montgomery  county,  Ohio. 

■M  These  pioneer  pastors  were  away  from  their  homes  so 
much,  and  covered  so  large  a  territory  in  their  ministrations, 
that  it  is  dirticult  to  determine  the  place  of  their  residence.  The 
early  minutes  generally  gave  only  the  state,  sometimes  also  the 
counties,  in  which  they  resided. 


—    46    — 

he  located  in  Fountain  county,  Indiana,  where  he  resided 
until  his  death,  November  22,  1850. 

Rev.  Christian  Moritz  located  in  the  state  as  early  as 
1829.  Some  years  before  he  had  visited  Greene  county 
in  response  to  an  invitation  from  the  Lutherans  there, 
many  of  whom  had  been  his  parishioners  in  North  Caro- 
lina. He  was  so  well  pleased  with  the  people  and  with 
the  country  that  he  decided  to  make  his  home  among 
them.  His  first  visit  to  the  state,  so  far  as  we  can  ascer- 
tain, was  in  1823,  when  he  preached  for  the  churches  at 
Jeffersontown,  Kentucky,  and  at  Fourteen  Mile  Creek, 
Clarke  county,  Indiana.  During  the  interim  of  these 
dates  he  labored  chiefly  in  Cape  Girardeau  county, 
Missouri. 

Rev.  Abraham  Miller,  a  deacon  of  the  Tennessee 
Synod,  located  in  the  state  in  1828,  making  his  home 
near  Columbus,  in  Bartholomew  county.  He  began  to 
preach  at  the  age  of  18,  had  been  licensed,  and  served 
congregations  in  Virginia  and  Tennessee.  He  was  but 
23  years  of  age  when  he  came  to  the  state,  and  supple- 
mented his  support  by  teaching  school.  He  supplied  a 
number  of  congregations  in  the  southern  part  of  the  state. 
Subsequently  he  moved  to  Shelby  county,  and  finally  to 
Bluff  Creek,  Johnson  county,  where  he  resided  until  his 
death,  December  4,  1887.  He  continued  to  preach  regu- 
larly until  1864,  when  he  retired  from  the  active  work. 

Rev.  Jacob  Gruber,  residing  at  Euphemia,  now  Lewis- 
burg,  Ohio,  labored  as  a  missionary  in  the  state  for  a 
number  of  years.  He  organized  Zion's  Church,  East 
Germantown  in  1822,  and  St.  Jacob's  Church  several 
years  later.  Besides  supplying  these  congregations,  he 
served  congregations  in  Clinton,  and  Blackford  counties. 
He  followed  the  avocation  of  a  stone  cutter,   making  a 


—     47    — 

specialty  of  grave  stones.  During  his  missionary  tours, 
besides  preaching  and  catechising,  he  would  take  orders 
for  grave  stones,  which  he  would  Hll  upon  his  next  visit. 
He  travelled  in  a  wagon,  and  thus  delivered  his  goods. 
Like  Paul  the  apostle,  he  would  not  be  a  burden  upon  the 
church  but  labored  with  his  own  hands  for  his  support. 

Besides  the  pastors  above  mentioned,  Rev.  Andrew 
Henkel,  residing  at  Germantown,  Ohio,  Rev.  John  Wag- 
enhuls,  residing  at  Lancaster,  Ohio,  and  Rev.  Henry 
Heincke,  residing  at  Miamisburg,  Ohio,  did  pioneer  work 
in  the  state  at  intervals,  prior  to  1835.  It  is  evident,  that 
the  Lutheran  population  in  the  state  was  considerable, 
and  that  it  was  impossible  for  the  pastors  on  the  field  to 
care  for  it,  and  save  it  to  the  Lutheran  church.  They 
made  heroic  efforts,  and  to  them  the  church  owes  a  debt 
of  gratitude. 

In  1835,  the  Rev.  Ezra  Keller  Was  sent  out  by  the 
Missionary  .Society  of  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania, 
as  a  missionary  explorer.  His  field  embraced  portions 
of  Ohio,  Indiana  and  Illinois.  The  next  year  he  made 
his  report,  a  part  of  which,  pertaining  to  the  field  under 
consideration,  we  append  to  this  narrative.  It  is  as  fol- 
lows: "The  first  place  at  which  I  arrived  from  New 
Albany,  where  I  entered  the  state  of  Indiana,  was  Rockford 
in  Jackson  county,  where  I  found  a  settlement  of  Swiss, 
of  about  fourteen  families.  Most  of  them  have  been  living 
here  three  or  four  years,  and  more  are  expected  to  settle 
in  the  neighborhood.  They  are  generally  piously  disposed, 
but  have  no  one  to  break  unto  them  the  bread  of  life. 
They  are  exceedingly  desirous  to  have  a  minister,  who 
would  preach  steadily,  and  catechise  their  children.  I 
remained  with  them  several  days,  preached  once,  and 
visited  some  families  who  were  sick.     What  is  very  com- 


—    48    - 

mendable  in  these  people  is,  that  they  are  in  the  habit  of 
meeting  every  Sunday  for  divine  service,  when  a  few 
hymns  are  sung,  and  one  reads  the  church  service.  They 
requested  me  to  return  their  sincere  thanks  to  synod  for 
the  visit  and  service  of  your  missionary,  and  also  entreat 
you  to  consider  their  condition. 

From  this  place  I  proceeded  northward  into  Shelby 
Co.  where  I  was  told  were  some  destitute  congregations. 
But  before  I  reached  them  I  was  informed  that  they  were 
under  the  pastoral  care  of  Rev.  A.  Miller,  so  I  passed  on 
into  Marion  Co.  Here,  four  miles  north  of  Indianapolis, 
I  met  Eev.  A.  Reck,  a  venerable  father  in  our  Zion,  who, 
after  having  long  labored  to  build  up  our  church  in  the 
east,  emigrated  in  the  spring  of  1836,  into  this  state,  with 
the  view  of  doing  something  for  the  Master's  cause  in  this 
great  valley.  He  has  already  organized  a  congregation  in 
his  immediate  neighborhood,  of  about  fifty  members. 
They  have  put  up  a  comfortable  house  for  divine  worship 
in  sight  of  their  pastor's  dwelling.  Here  I  had  the  plea- 
sure of  being  with  him  at  his  first  communion.  Sixteen 
were  confirmed,  and  about  fifty  united  in  partaking  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.  At  this  place  I  preached  thrice,  and  bap- 
tized one.  It  was  a  season  of  great  interest  to  the  mem- 
bers, and  of  novelty  to  many  spectators,  it  being  the  first 
time  these  ordinances  were  administered  in  this  neighbor- 
hood. 

I  next  visited  a  settlement  of  European  Germans, 
twelve  miles  east  of  Indianapolis,  of  about  twenty  families. 
They  are  generally  in  good  circumstances,  and  some  of 
them  are  well  educated ;  but  as  to  religion  they  seem  to 
be  in  a  deplorable  condition.  I  felt  a  great  desire  to 
preach  for  them,  and  made  application. to  that  effect,  but 
they  seemed  reluctant  to  hear  me  except  on  Sabbath,  and 


—    49    — 

the  reason  they  gave  was  that  they  could  not  spare  the 
time ;  and  as  I  had  an  appointment  for  the  Sabbath  at 
another  place  I  was  compelled  to  leave  them,  after  having 
traveled  many  miles  through  rainy  weather,  over  bad 
roads  and  encountering  high  waters,  without  being  per- 
mitted to  preach  one  sermon.  This  was  painful  to  my 
mind  and  a  strong  evidence  that  they  need  some  one  to 
lead  them  in  the  path  of  duty.  Their  condition  is  indeed 
deplorable.  Their  children  are  growing  up  without  relig- 
ious instruction,  and  are  likely  to  become  as  wild  as  the 
country  in  wich  they  live. 

The  next  place  I  visited  was  sixteen  miles  north  of 
Indianapolis,  near  Germantown.  There  live  about  thirty 
members  of  our  church  from  different  states  of  the  Union. 
I  preached  for  these  people  in  a  private  house.  They  are 
visited  occasionally  by  Mr.  Keck,  who  will  perhaps  soon 
form  them  into  a  congregation. 

From  this  place  I  went  to  a  German  settlement  in 
Hamilton  Co.  five  miles  west  of  White  River,  In  this 
neighborhood  live  about  twelve  Lutheran  families,  origin- 
ally from  Pennsylvania,  and  many  who  are  of  German 
descent,  but  not  members  of  the  church.  This  settlement 
is  quite  new  ;  the  people  have  no  chairs,  not  even  benches. 
They  appear  however  to  be  hungry  for  the  bread  of  life 
and  receive  it  with  a  ready  mind.  I  preached  to  them 
with  great  satisfaction  in  a  little  cabin,  and  afterwards 
baptized  two  infants.  I  had  reason  to  believe  that  the 
truth  made  a  deep  impression  on  their  minds.  Many 
tears  flowed  and  they  appeared  to  be  very  anxious  to  ob- 
tain a  minister,  and  promised  to  put  up  a  house  for  wor- 
ship if  they  could  obtain  some  one  to  teach  them. 

From  this  settlement  I  returned  to  Indianapolis,  and 
on  my  way  preached  in  the  evening  at  Abbesville.     In 


—    50    — 

Indianapolis  I  preached  to  a  small  congregation,  which 
has  been  recently  organized  by  Rev.  Reck. 

Another  settlement  I  visited  in  Marion  Co.  is  on 
Little  Eagle  creek.  Here  are  about  twelve  families  of 
Lutherans,  all  of  whom  can  understand  the  English 
language.     To  these  people  I  pleached  in  a  private  house. 

From  here  I  went  to  Boone  Co.,  where  I  found  a  num- 
ber of  Lutherans  from  East  Tennessee,  settled  about  six 
miles  south-east  from  Lebanon.  These  people  have  been 
visited  occasionally  by  Rev.  E.  S.  Henkel  of  the  Indiana 
Synod,  who  speaks  of  taking  up  his  residence  among  them. 
I  preached  to  them  in  a  cabin.  In  the  afternoon  I  rode 
to  Lebanon  where  I  preached  in  the  evening  to  a  large 
and  attentive  audience  in  the  courthouse.  I  found  one 
member  of  our  church  here,  from  North  Carolina,  who  was 
much  pleased  to  hear  a  minister  of  his  own  faith.  The 
roads  in  this  part  of  the  country  I  found  so  exceeding  bad 
that  I  could  not  travel  more  than  ten  or  twelve  miles  per 
day. 

The  next  place  I  visited  was  La  Fayette,  a  flourishing 
town  on  the  Wabash.  Here  I  found  about  seven  mem- 
bers of  our  church,  who  despair  of  getting  a  minister,  and 
now  speak  of  uniting  with  other  churches.  May  God 
raise  up  laborers  for  our  people !  I  would  here  remark 
that  since  I  left  Indiana,  I  met  a  gentleman,  a  citizen  of 
Logansport,  Cass  Co.,  who  informed  me  that  in  that 
place  were  many  European  Germans  who  were  Protestants. 
These  should  be  visited. 

From  LaFayette  I  went  down  the  Wabash  to  a  little 
place  called  Attica,  which  I  reached  on  the  12th  of  No- 
vember. Here  I  found  it  necessary,  for  myself  and  my 
horse,  to  rest  for  a  short  time.  At  Attica  I  found  twelve 
members  of  the  Lutheran,  and  about  an  equal  number  of 


—    51     — 

the  Reformed  church,  chieily  from  Maryland.  During  my 
stay  here  I  preached  six  times,  visited  all  the  members 
at  their  homes  and  preached  once  in  the  neighborhood. 
At  Attica  a  minister  is  much  needed  and  desired.  The 
people  are  willing  to  receive  one  either  from  the  Lutheran 
or  Reformed  church.  They  are  hungry  for  the  bread  of 
life,  and  care  not  who  breaks  it  to  them. 

From  this  place  I  went  to  Perryville,  a  beautiful 
town  on  the  Wabash.  In  this  place  and  vicinity  I  found 
fifteen  members  of  the  Lutheran  and  a  few  families  of  the, 
German  Reformed  church.  I  remained  with  them  a 
week,  preached  four  times,  visited  most  of  them  in  their 
homes,  and  baptized  two  infants.  Most  of  these  people 
are  from  Ohio,  are  wealthy,  are  anxious  to  hear  a  minis- 
ter, and  would  contribute  liberally  to  his  support.  Perry- 
ville is  situated  in  one  of  the  finest  portions  of  the  state, 
is  growing  fast,  has  but  one  organized  church,  and  would 
be  a  fine  situation  for  a  Lutheran  minister.  No  German 
is  needed  here,  or  in  Attica.  While  at  this  place  I  heard 
of  a  settlement  of  Lutherans  in  Fountain  county,  but 
could  not  visit  them  in  consequence  of  bad  roads  and 
high  water."  ' 

From  Perryville  Rev.  Keller  entered  Illinois  and 
crossed  the  state  to  St.  Charles,  Missouri. 

Thus  far  we  have  spoken  only  of  those  pioneer  pas- 
tors whose  work  was  chiefly  English,  or  whose  congrega- 
tions became  English  in  due  time.  These  were  first  on 
the  field.  The  Germans  came  later,  during  that  period 
when  German  immigration  to  the  state  became  so  great. 
Among  the  earlier  German  pastors  of  whom  we  have  any 
record    were    J.,   and  .1.    F.   Isensee.    brothers    from    the 


-1  This  report  is  taken  from  The  Life  of  l",zra  Keller. 


—    52    — 

University  of  Halle.  Rev.  J.  J.  Meissner,  Rev.  F.  C.  D. 
W3'nekin,  and  Rev.  William  Sihler.  Besides  these,  there 
were  some  who  belonged  to  the  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio. 
The  Germans  were  more  successful  in  making  their  work 
permanent.  This  is  due  to  their  strict  adherence  to  all 
the  doctrines  and  principles  of  Lutheranism,  and  a  larger 
supply  of  pastors  for  their  specific  needs. 


^ 


CHAPTER  III 
Sxpertmentation  nnh  ©rganizatiau  of  iFurrea 


Chapter  III. 
iEx;iprtmrntattiin  nnh  ©rgamsatton  of  Wartts. 


X  order  to  understand  properly  the  history  of  the 
Lutheran  church  in  this  region,  and  estimate 
torrectly  the  difficulties  under  which  her  be- 
ginnings were  made,  it  is  necessary  that  we 
review  briefly  the  times  and  the  movements 
that  obtained  in  the  districts  from  whence  her  pioneer 
members  came.  The  types  of  Lutheranism  prevailing 
in  the  older  sections  of  the  church  found  their  counter- 
part here,  and  the  controversies  that  agitated  her  in 
the  east  and  the  south  found  an  echo  in  the  newly  set- 
tled portions  of  Indiana  and  adjacent  parts.  If  a  pas- 
tor visited  a  congregation  in  the  state  —  especially  one 
composed  of  Tennessee  Synod  Lutherans  —  he  was  at 
once  required  to  avow  his  adherence  to  the  Henkelites, 
or  else  his  services  were  not  desired.  The  Generalists 
were  not  so  strict,  yet  their  congregations  were,  as  a  rule, 
adverse  to  having  a  Henkelite  preach  for  them."  Two 
divergent  tendencies  were  early  perceptible,  and  each  de- 
veloped into  a  distinct  and  peculiar  polity  and  life. 

At  the  time  of  which  we  write  the  Lutheran  church 
in  America  was  powerfully  influenced  on  the  one  hand  by 


•-*•.!  These  terms,  Henkelites  and  Henkelism,  Generalists  and 
Generalism,  designating  the  opponents  and  advocates  of  the 
General  Synod,  were  in  very  conanion  usage  in  this  region  during 
this  period. 


—    56    - 

the  Unionism  of  Germany,  and  on  the  other  by  the  Re- 
vivalism introduced  into  America  a  generation  or  two  be- 
fore by  the  Methodists.  This  religious  awakening,  like  a 
tidal  wave,  swept  over  the  whole  country  during  the  first 
quarter  of  the  Nineteenth  Century,  and  affected  almost 
every  denomination  in  the  country.  It  swept  over  the 
Carolinas  in  1800-1801,  and  the  ablest  men  of  the  Luth- 
eran church  in  that  section,  Rev.  C.  A.  G.  Storch  and 
Paul  Henkel,  became  greatly  disturbed  and  perplexed 
over  the  phenomena  which  they  witnessed,  and  which  in 
some  measure  unsettled  their  people.  They  hesitated  to 
call  the  movement  fanatical,  or  to  denounce  it  as  unscrip- 
tural,  for  they  discovered  a  remarkable  change  in  persons 
who  had  previously  been  either  ungodly  in  their  lives  or 
avowedly  sceptical  in  their  views.  Rev.  Paul  Henkel, 
while  he  studied  the  movement,  disapproved  of  the 
measures.  The  extravagant  practices  and  arrogant  claims 
of  some  of  the  advocates  of  these  measures,  convinced 
him  that  the  movement  could  not  be  salutary  to  the 
church.  The  tendency  to  ignore  doctrine  and  substitute 
human  experience  as  an  evidence  of  divine  favor,  alien- 
ated the  conservative  pastors  from  the  movement,  and 
did  much  in  preparing  the  Lutheran  pastors  for  the  organ- 
ization of  the  North  Carolina  Synod. 

The  immediate  effect  of  this  Unionism  and  Revival- 
ism upon  the  Lutheran  church  in  the  south  was  deplora- 
ble. The  enthusiasm  it  engendered  was  almost  irresistible. 
The  Patriarchs  of  the  church,  Muhlenberg  and  his  com- 
peers, had  passed  to  their  reward,  and  their  successors 
were  men  of  a  different  spirit  and  aim  ;  men  who  did  not 
subscribe  to  the  confessions  of  the  church.  They  evinced 
an  anxiety  to  eliminate  from  the  catechisms,  liturgies 
and  hymns,  everything   that  distinguished   her  from  the 


—    57    — 

sects,  and  under  their  leadership  the  church  rapidly 
drifted  from  her  moorings.  They  introduced  doctrines 
and  practices  which  were  foreign  to  her  nature  and  sul)- 
versive  of  her  faith.  Their  plea  was  that  they  proposed 
to  Americanize  the  Lutheran  church. 

It  was  at  the  time  when  she  had  thus  drifted  away 
from  her  standards,  and  while  these  men  were  at  the 
helm,  that  the  General  Synod  was  organized.  That 
movement  was  not  unanimous.  There  was  a  strong  dis- 
sent in  certain  Synods,  and  determined  opposition  on  the 
part  of  many  pastors.  This  opposition  was  partly  due  to 
unfounded  prejudices,  but  chiefly  to  the  doctrinal  inde- 
terminateness  of  the  General  Synod  itself.  Probably  the 
most  determined  opposition  to  the  formation  of  the  Gen- 
eral Synod  was  found  in  the  North  Carolina  Synod.  For 
a  number  of  years  prior  to  1820,  when  the  General  Synod 
was  organized,  there  were  divergent  tendencies  in  the 
North  Carolina  Synod,  arising  from  personal  differences, 
questions  of  doctrine,  of  licensure  and  ordination,  and 
the  lax  practices  that  had  grown  out  of  the  prevailing 
Unionism  and  Revivalism.  Personal  differences  arose 
because  of  charges  that  were  made  against  David  Henkel, 
a  licentiate.  A  reaction  against  the  doctrinal  indetermi- 
nateness  of  the  Synod  was  inaugurated  by  the  Henkels, 
Paul,  Philip  and  David,  who  were  close  students  of  the 
Book  of  Concord.  The  doctrinal  questions  that  arose 
were  chiefly  "Original  Sin,"  "The  Person  of  Christ," 
"Baptism"  and  "The  Lord's  Supper."  The  formation  of 
the  General  Synod  also  was  involved.  There  was  also 
great  laxity  in  practice  in  the  Synod. 

Mr.  Robert  Johnson  Miller,  who  had  been  ordained 
in  1794,  before  a  Synod  was  organized,  for  the  Episco- 
palian  ministry,   became  a  member  of  the   Synod,   and 


—    58    — 

remained  in  connection  with  it  for  twenty-seven  years, 
during  which  time  he  served  Lutheran  congregations.  He 
never  confessed  himself  a  Lutheran,  and  when  ordained 
he  was  obHgated  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Episcopal  church. 
Gottlob  Schober,  who  had  been  a  member  of  the  Legisla- 
ture, a  lawyer  by  profession,  and  a  Moravian  in  religion, 
was  ordained  by  this  Synod  in  1810.  He  was  then  54 
years  of  age.  He  became  one  of  the  most  active  and  ag- 
gressive, but  not  representative  members.  He  did  not 
subscribe  to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  never  con- 
fessed himself  a  Lutheran.  He  was  chosen  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  North  Carolina  Synod  to  the  several  con- 
ventions that  were  held  preliminary  to  the  organization 
of  the  General  Synod.  He  was  present  at  the  conventions 
at  Baltimore,  1819,  preliminary,"  Hagerstown,"^  October, 
1820,  and  Fredericktown,''  1821. 

The  opposition  in  the  North  Carolina  Synod  to  the 
proposed  General  Synod  was  led  by  Rev.  Paul  Henkel, 
his  sons,  David  and  Philip,  and  a  few  others.  The 
Synod's  affiliation  with  Episcopalians  and  Moravians, 
and  its  tendency  to  minimize  the  distinctive  Lutheran 
doctrines,  filled  the  Henkels  with  alarm,  and  they  de- 
termined to  save  the  Lutheran  church  in  the  south  from 
casting  off  her  birthright.  The  controversy  between  the 
Henkelites  and  the  advocates  of  Unionism  and  new  meas- 
ures became  warm  and  decisive,  and  a  disruption  of  the 
body  was  inevitable.  The  occasion  soon  presented  itself. 
When  the  question  of  the  formation  of  the  General  Synod 
came  before  the  North  Carolina  Synod,  Miller,  Schober 
and  others,  whose  Lutheranism  was  questioned  by  the 


23  Bernheim,  439.     -i^  Luth.  Church  Review,  Vol.  XI.  :  68. 
Bernheim,  440. 


-    59    — . 

Henkels,  championed  the  movement,  and  succeeded  in 
having  the  Synod  meet  six  weeks  earlier  in  1819  than  the 
reguLarly  appointed  time,  in  order  to  elect  delegates  to 
the  proposed  convention.  The  Henkels  were  not  notified 
of  this  change  of  time,  and  did  not  attend. '"^  They  char- 
acterized the  session  as  the  "untimely  Synod,"  and  never 
recognized  it  as  valid  or  constitutional,  and  refused  to  be 
bound  by  its  action.  They  met  at  the  originally  ap- 
pointed time  and  place,  declared  the  acts  of  the  "untimely 
Synod"  null  and  void,  and  adjourned  to  meet  at  the  same 
time  and  place  selected  by  the  "untimely  Synod."  At 
the  convention  of  1820  efforts  to  effect  a  reconciliation 
were  made,  but  failed,  and  the  Henkels  withdrew  from 
the  North  Carolina  Synod  and  organized  the  Tennessee 
Synod.  It  published  a  "Short  Account  of  the  Business 
Transactions,"  in  which,  among  other  things,  are  found 
"Important  Objections  Against  the  Proposed  Constitution 
of  the  General  Synod."  The  German  of  the  book  is  not 
classical,  but  there  is  much  sound  reasoning  in  it.'' 

Those  who  followed  the  Henkels  in  their  opposition 
to  the  General  Synod,  and  to  all  practices  and  teachings 
which  they  regarded  as  innovations  in  the  church  and  de- 
partures from  her  faith,  whether  found  in  the  General 
Synod  or  elsewhere,  were  reproachfully  called  Henkelites, 
and  their  strict  adherence  to  the  symbols  of  the  church, 
Henkelism.  They  bore  the  stigma  patiently,  were  driven 
by  these  attacks  to  a  closer  study  of  the  Word  of  God  and 
of  the  Confessions  of  the  church,  and  into  closer  union 
with  one  another.  They  appealed  to  posterity  to  vindi- 
cate their  position.     These  doctrines  were  the  themes  of 

26  David  Ilenkel  was  present  and  tried  on  several  cliarges 
at  this  convention.     Min.  N.  C.  Synod,  1S19. 

■-"  Lutheranisni  in  .\nierica.     W.  .1.  Mann,  n.  93. 


—    60    — 

discussion  at  their  Synodical  conventions,  in  the  family 
and  in  the  shops.  However  they  may  have  erred  in 
their  methods  and  ill-advised,  as  some  of  their  attacks 
upon  the  General  Synod  were,  it  must  be  conceded  that 
they  were  honest  in  their  convictions  and  struggles  to 
establish  the  church  upon  her  true  foundation.  Their 
loyalty  to  the  truth  as  they  saw  and  understood  it,  cannot 
be  questioned.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  Henkelism 
was  the  salt  that  preserved  the  church  in  the  southern 
section  of  our  country  from  doctrinal  putrefaction.  Their 
boldness,  their  earnest  pleas  for  the  Augustana,  animated 
others  to  examine  anew  the  Confessions,  who  were  thereby 
brought  to  a  clearer  apprehension  of  the  rich  treasures  of 
truth  therein  contained. 

The  term  Henkelite  and  Henkelism  were  met. by  the 
rejoinder  Generalist  and  Generalism  on  the  part  of  the 
Henkels,  and  was  applied  by  them  to  all  advocates  of  the 
General  Synod.  These  terms  were  long  in  use  in  the 
churches  connected  with  the  Tennessee  Synod,  or  in 
doctrinal  accord  with  it. 

Each  party  was  zealous  in  the  defense  and  promul- 
gation of  its  views.  Representatives  of  each  traveled 
over  the  southern  states,  visiting  congregations  and  settle- 
ments, preaching  their  respective  views  and  challenging 
the  position  of  the  opponents.  Many  Lutherans  had 
emigrated  from  the  southern  states  into  Kentucky,  Indi- 
ana, Illinois  and  Missouri.  These  were  visited  by  the 
Henkelites  and  enlisted  in  their  cause.  Where  therfe  was 
sufficient  Lutheran  element,  congregations  were  organized 
and  pledged  to  the  defense  of  the  pure' doctrine.  Pam- 
phlets and  books  were  issued  by  the  Henkels  from  the 
printing  house  at  New  Market,  Va.,  and  assidiously  dis- 
tributed among  the  churches.     Special   agents   were  at 


—    6J     — 

times  sent  out  to  introduce  these  works.""  Many  of  these 
pamphlets  and  publications  found  their  way  into  the 
western  settlements.  They  were  diligently  read  and  the 
result  was  an  intelligent  laity.  Some  of  the  missionaries 
from  the  east  who  visited  these  Henkelite  congregations 
expressed  their  surprise  at  the  intelligence  of  the  mem- 
bers and  their  acquaintance  with  the  doctrines  of  the 
church.  The  publication  house  at  New  Market  was  the 
right  arm  in  the  Tennessee  Synod's  conflict.  It  has  the 
honor  of  issuing  the  first  truly  Lutheran  works  in  the 
English  language  in  North  America.  It  did  more  to 
arouse  the  Lutheran  church  in  America  to  a  Lutheran 
consciousness  than  any  other  factor  in  those  trying  times. 
In  order  that  the  churches  might  see  for  themselves  which 
party  occupied  the  true  position  the  Synod  ordered  that  a 
copy  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  be  deposited  in  every 
church. 

In  the  earlier  stages  of  the  controversy  the  opposing 
champions  were  Rev.  David  Henkel  and  Rev.  Gottlob 
Schober,  but  in  the  course  of  a  few  years  other  men  on 
either  side  were  drawn  into  the  arena.  Henkel  was  ag- 
gressive and  sweeping  in  his  charges  of  heterodoxy.  The 
Generalists  were  put  on  the  defensive  at  every  point. 
They  never  knew  from  what  quarter  they  would  be 
assailed.  All  the  existing  S^'nods,  together  with  the 
fleneral  Synod,  were  charged  with  having  departed  from 
the  old  landmarks.  The  Tennessee  Synod  alone,  they 
contended,  was  sound  in  its  teachings.  "The  Henkels 
confessedly  receive  everything  found  within  the  lids  of  the 
whole  Concordienbuch,"  was  the  testimony  of  their  chief 


28  In  1829  Mr.  S.  G.  Henkel  and  his  brother,  Solomon, 
made  a  tour  into  North  Carolina  and  Tennessee  with  a  one- 
horee  wagon-load  of  books  to  circulate  in  the  churches. 


—    62    — 

opponent,  and  the  strongest  champion  of  the  General 
Sj'nod,  Dr.  S.  S.  Schmucker.""  He  was  pastor  at  New 
Market,  Virginia,  from  1820-1825,  the  home  of  the  Hen- 
kels.  He  was  openly  and  repeatedly  charged  by  them 
with  teaching  doctrines  not  in  harmony  with  the  Augs- 
burg Confession.  These  charges  Dr.  Schmucker  did  not 
deny,  but  justified  his  course  on  the  ground  that  the  doc- 
trines he  rejected  were  Romish  errors,'^"  and  what  he  re- 
ceived were  fundamental  to  the  Christian  faith.  The 
Henkels  regarded  all  others  bearing  the  Lutheran  name 
as  errorists.  In  1823,  when  a  Mr.  Sechrist  left  the  North 
Carolina  Synod,  and  applied  for  admission  into  the  Ten- 
nessee Synod,  that  body  examined  him  and  required  him 
to  renounce  the  errors  of  the  former  body  and  avow  his 
belief  in  the  doctrines  of  the  latter.^'  On  the  other  hand, 
the  General  Synod  pastors  regarded  the  Henkels  as  not 
in  the  Lutheran  ministry,  but  as  having  separated  them- 
selves from  the  communion  of  the  Lutheran  church.'^' 

While  the  Tennessee  Synod  was  diligently  promul- 
gating the  views  held  by  it  throughout  the  south  and 


29  Luth.  Church  in  America,  p.  215. 

30  Id.,  219. 

31  Minutes  of  the  Tenn.  Synod,  1823,  pp.  8,  9. 

32  Some  years  ago  several  individuals  residing  in  North 
Carolina,  who  had  previously  been  members  of  our  church,  on 
account  of  some  dissatisfaction,  separated  themselves  from  our 
communion.  They  chose  as  their  leader  an  individual  named 
David  Henkel,  a  weak,  illiterate  man,  whose  ground  of  dissent, 
as  far  as  can  be  gathered  from  the  crude,  visionary  and  inflam- 
matory publications,  which  have  from  time  to  time  appeared 
either  under  his  name  or  that  of  his  sect,  was  that  the  Evan- 
gelical church  had  departed  from  the  true  doctrines  of  the  Refor- 
mation, which  he  and  his  church  had  attempted  to  restore. — Ex- 
tract from  sermon  by  the  Rev.  John  Bachman,  D.  D.,  Luth. 
Church  in  America,  p.  216. 


-ra- 
west, the  Pennsylvania  Sj'nod  also  was  active  in  mission- 
ating  in  the  same  regions,  especially  Kentucky,  Indiana 
and  Illinois.  These  missionaries  as  a  rule  were  in  sym- 
pathy with  the  General  Synod.  It  was  not  long  until  the 
controversies  which  harassed  the  church  in  the  east  and 
south  also  found  an  echo  in  the  west.  The  lines  were 
sharpl}'  drawn,  and  there  was  scarcely  any  fellowship  be- 
tween the  churches  of  the  different  parties.  Whatever 
may  have  been  the  aim  of  the  Generalists,  it  is  quite 
plain  that  it  was  the  purpose  of  the  Henkelites  to  win 
the  churches  in  these  regions  to  their  views,  and  hold  the 
key  for  the  future. 

At  first  the  advantage  lay  with  the  Henkelites.  The 
missionaries  from  the  east  could  not  overcome  the  oppo- 
sition offered.  Revs.  David,  Charles  and  Paul  Henkel 
were  strong  controversialists,  and  their  influence  was 
powerful  and  far-reaching.  They  were  incessantly  active. 
They  visited  the  congregations  throughout  the  country 
and  set  forth  the  Lutheran  doctrines,  quoting  the  confes- 
sions of  the  church  as  proof  for  their  statements,  and 
showing  their  harmony  with  the  Word  of  God.  Their 
opposition  was  not  solelj'  against  the  Generalists,  but  also 
against  Unitarians,  Methodists  and  Baptists.  While  these 
men  lived  and  labored  the  Generalists  were  practically 
powerless  to  advance  their  work  in  the  west. 

To  secure  the  advantages  gained,  and  in  order  to 
carry  on  their  work  more  efiiciently,  the  organization  of  a 
synod  for  Kentucky,  in  harmony  with  the  Tennessee 
Synod,  was  soon  agitated.  Rev.  Henry  A.  Kurtz  had 
been  sent  by  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  as  a  missionary  to 
Kentucky  in  1818.  He  was  a  Generalist.  but  coming 
face  to  face  with  the  teachings  of  the  Henkels,  he  became 
a  convert  to  that  typo  of  Lutheranism.  and  was  active  in 


—    64    - 

disseminating  these  views.  By  this  course  he  incurred 
the  displeasure  of  some  of  the  General  Synod  pastors  in 
the  state,  and  resigned  his  commission  as  missionary. 
In  1821  he  addressed  a  letter  to  the  Tennessee  Synod, 
asking  aid  in  forming  a  synod  for  Kentucky,  in  harmony 
with  the  doctrinal  basis  of  that  body,  and  also  deploring 
the  innovations  that  prevailed  in  some  synods.  In  this 
project  he  met  with  hearty  encouragement  on  the  part  of 
the  Tennessee  brethren.  After  much  planning  and  cor- 
respondence, a  call  was  issued  for  a  convention  to  be  held 
September  28,  1822,  in  Harrison  church.  Nelson  county, 
Kentucky,  to  take  such  steps  as  may  be  necessary  for  the 
organization  of  a  synod  to  embrace  Kentucky  and  Indi- 
ana. This  was  the  first  convention  of  Lutherans  held  so 
far  west.  There  were  present  at  this  convention  one 
minister  and  fourteen  lay  delegates,  representing  as  many 
congregations  in  Kentucky  and  Indiana.  A  report  of  the 
proceedings  of  this  convention  was  made  to  the  Tennessee 
Synod,  and  upon  hearing  the  same,  it  authorized  the 
holding  of  another  convention  the  next  year.  The  con- 
vention of  1823  was  held  in  the  same  place,  on  the  third 
Sunday  in  June.  Revs.  Paul  and  David  Henkel  and 
Captain  John  Bible  were  appointed  to  represent  the 
Tennessee  Synod.  The  minutes  of  this  convention  were 
published,  and  all  the  actions  of  the  convention  approved 
by  the  Tennessee  Synod,  and  its  aid  and  co-operation 
promised  in  the  movement. 

The  immediate  effect  of  this  convention  was  gratify- 
ing to  its  friends.  The  congregations  that  were  repre- 
sented in  it  became  warmly  attached  to  the  position  of 
the  Henkels.  Most  of  these  were  favorable  to  them  be- 
fore the  convention  was  held,  but  now  they  became  en- 
thusiastic.    Rev.  Jacob  Zink  had  visited  all  the  congre- 


-    65    - 

gations  in  the  region  embraced  in  the  contemplated 
synod,  in  1821,  and  found  them  in  harmony  with  the 
position  of  the  Tennessee  Synod.  The  next  year  Rev. 
Christian  Moritz  was  instructed  by  synod  to  visit  the  con- 
gregation at  Jeffersontown,  Kentucky,  and  preach  for 
them.  This  he  did,  and  the  result  was  that  the  year  fol- 
lowing they  petitioned  the  synod  for  a  pastor,  and  espe- 
cially for  David  Henkel.  In  1825  Rev.  David  Henkel 
visited  them,  and  remained  for  a  portion  of  the  year. 
While  here  he  wrote  the  larger  part  of  his  "Answer  to 
Joseph  Moore,  the  Methodist."  The  preceding  year  a 
congregation  in  Harrison  county,  Indiana,  petitioned 
synod  for  a  pastor.  While  it  appears  that  about  all  the 
congregations  in  the  bounds  of  the  contemplated  synod 
were  in  accord  with  the  views  of  the  Henkels  the  time 
had  not  yet  come,  in  the  judgment  of  those  having  inilu- 
ence.  for  the  organization  of  a  Kentucky  Synod. 

The  work  so  auspiciously  begun  in  the  interests  of 
the  conservative  Lutherans  ended,  however,  in  a  failure 
to  realize  their  fondest  hopes.  It  is  not  certain  that 
another  convention  was  held  in  Kentucky.  A  number  of 
causes  interposed  to  defeat  the  movement.  The  Henkels 
had  a  determined  opponent  in  Rev.  Wm.  Carpenter,  who 
served  congregations  in  Boone  county,  Kentucky,  and 
had  considerable  influence  in  other  sections  of  the  state. 
He  foresaw  the  plans  of  the  Henkels  and  Kurtz,  and  ex- 
erted his  influence  for  their  defeat.  When  missionaries 
from  the  east  came  to  Kentucky,  he  advised  them  to  go 
to  Indiana,  so  as  not  to  come  under  the  teachings  and 
influence  of  the  Henkelites.  Further  opposition  was  also 
encountered  in  the  Rev.  Mr.  Zaesline,  who  labored  at 
Bardstown,  Kentucky.  It  was  impossible  to  unite  all  the 
congregations  in  the  state  in  the  project,  and  this  fact  im- 


—    66    — 

peded  the  movement  until  the  opportune  time  was  past. 

Other  causes  also  interposed.  Rev.  Jacob  Zink,  an 
ardent  Henkelite,  moved  into  the  interior  of  Indiana,  in 
1823,  and  died  there  four  years  later.  Rev.  Henry  Kurtz 
went  to  Pittsburg  July,  1823.''  In  1825  Rev.  Paul  Hen- 
kel  was  called  to  his  reward,  after  a  life  full  of  labors, 
and  six  years  later  his  gifted  son,  David,  succumbed  to  a 
malignant  disease.  With  these  strong  men  removed  from 
the  sphere  of  action,  and  no  one  able  to  take  up  the  work 
with  the  zeal,  ability  and  energy  they  displayed,  the 
cause  of  the  Henkelites  in  Kentucky  gradually  waned. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Generalists  became  more  and 
more  aggressive.  The  Henkelites  had  lost  strength  in 
North  Carolina,  and  the  whole  Lutheran  church  in  Amer- 
ica made  them  the  target  for  attack.  "The  Lutheran 
Intelligencer"  published  letters  and  articles  against  them. 
The  editor,  Rev.  Dr.  D.  F.  Schaeffer,  in  1827,  says  of 
them:  "From  these  (several  recent  letters  from  North 
Carolina)  we  learn  that  those  who  represented  themselves 
as  Lutherans,  the  Henkelites,  are  sinking  in  the  estima- 
tion of  all  who  know  by  experience  and  from  the  sacred 
scriptures  that  to  be  born  again  and  made  meet  unto  sal- 
vation is  more  than  to  be  baptized.  Nay,  others  are  in- 
duced to  inquire  into  those  matters  and  acknowledge  that 
the  doctrines  taught  by  our  regularly  authorized  ministers 
are    scriptural,   and  that  those  who  have    arrogated    to 


33  Kurtz  is  described  by  his  critics  as  a  small,  insignificant 
man,  with  a  long  beard,  a  strong  voice,  a  disagreeable,  dissatis- 
fied man.  Despite  this  description,  it  is  evident  that  he  was 
a  man  of  courage,  of  great  resources,  of  unfailing  devotion  to 
the  Evangelical  Lutheran  faith.  He  swerved  not  in  the  stress  of 
severe  persecution.  With  him  the  right  thing  was  the  chief 
thing.  Among  the  martyrs  for  truth  Henry  Kurtz  is  named 
as  a  faithful  witness  in  the  midst  of  a  perverse  generation. 


-    67     - 

themselves  the  authority  to  teach  without  submitting  to 
an  examination  or  ordination  by  one  or  other  synod 
have  departed  from  the  true  faith."  '*  These  charges  had 
their  effects.  The  seminary  at  Gettysburg,  under  the 
leadership  of  Dr.  S.  S.  Schmucker,  the  uncompromising 
opponent  of  the  Henkelites,  was  training  young  men  for 
the  ministry,  a  number  of  whom  sought  fields  of  labor  in 
the  west.  The  Henkelites,  having  no  institution  of  any 
kind  for  the  training  of  ministers,  could  not  recruit  the 
ministerial  ranks  so  as  to  hold  the  advantageous  points 
secured.  In  1824  Rev.  Wm.  Jenkins,  an  ardent  advocate 
of  the  General  Sjmod,  and  of  New  Measures,  located  in 
Bedford  county,  Tennessee,  and  took  charge  of  ten  con- 
gregations. He  could  electrify  any  audience,  and  wielded 
a  powerful  influence.  In  1833  Rev.  Wm.  Carpenter  died 
and  was  succeeded  by  the  Rev.  Jacob  Crigler,  a  man  of 
considerable  influence,  and  of  decidedly  revivalistic  ten- 
dencies. Rev.  George  Gerhart  located  at  Corydon,  Indi- 
ana, about  the  same  time,  and  Rev.  George  Yeager  at 
Jefifersontown,  Kentucky.  These  men  were  warm  adher- 
ents of  the  General  Synod,  and  disciples  of  Dr.  S.  S. 
Schmucker.  They  were  uncompromising  opponents  of 
the  Henkelites  and  all  conservative  tendencies.  Willi 
the  leaders  in  the  Henkcl  party  removed  by  death  and  no 
one  to  resist  their  movements,  they  entered  wherever  there 
was  prospect  of  winning  adherents.  Their  methods  were 
those  so  popular  in  that  day.  Emotional  religion  was 
the  order.  The  catechetical  methods  of  the  Henkcls  were 
criticised  and  found  fewer  and  fewer  adherents.  In  the 
course  of  ten  years  the  Generalists  had  secured  control  of 
almost  every  congregation  in  Kentucky  and  Indiana  that 


34  Luth.  Church  in  America,  p.  218. 


-    68     - 

had  been  served  by  the  Henkelites,  that  is,  those  congre- 
gations which  survived  the  crucible  of  the  transition. 
More  congregations  perished  than  survived.  Several  con- 
gregations in  the  interior  of  Indiana,  and  a  few  in  south- 
eastern Missouri,  were  all  that  remained  to  the  Henkel 
party.  Those  in  Illinois  passed  into  the  hands  of  the 
Generalists. 

The  Henkelites  were  unable  to  hold  the  grounds  se- 
cured through  the  energetic  and  self-denying  labors  of 
their  missionary  pastors,  chiefly  because  they  had  no 
seminary  to  prepare  candidates  for  the  ministry.  The 
Tennessee  Synod  had  a  constitutional  provision  that 
synod  shall  not  have  an  incorporated  theological  seminary. 
They  believed  and  insisted  on  having  educated  minis- 
ters, and  that  they  receive  adequate  theological  instruc- 
tion, but  contended  that  the  various  schools  throughout 
the  country  furnished  the  opportunities  for  the  first  quali- 
fication, and  that  the  other  could  be  secured  by  studying 
under  some  competent  divine.  The  time  required  for 
a  candidate  to  fit  himself  for  the  office  under  these  regu- 
lations was  so  long,  and  the  study  so  desultory,  that  but 
comparatively  few  of  those  who  began  ever  completed 
the  course  of  study.  The  recruits  were  scarcely  sufficient 
to  fill  the  ranks  as  they  were  depleted  by  death  and 
disability. 

Another  defect  in  their  system  was  the  lack  of  a  set- 
tled pastorate,  and  of  the  organization  of  a  specific  field  as 
a  parish.  The  pastors  served  all  the  congregations  as  their 
time  permitted.  They  were  all  itinerants.  Systematic 
personal  and  pastoral  work  was  thus  out  of  the  question. 
While  these  men  were  imbued  with  a  fervent  missionary 
spirit,  traveling,  preaching,  and  organizing  congregations 
as  their  time  and  strength  permitted,  and  that  too  without 


-    69    - 

any  remuneration  scurcelj',  they  opposed  any  organized 
and  systematic  missionary  effort,  supported  from  a  spe- 
cific mission  fund.  A  congregation  once  organized  had 
to  petition  synod  annually  for  pastoral  services,  and  in 
answer  to  its  prayer,  synod  would  instruct  and  direct  one 
or  more  of  its  pastors  to  visit  it  and  minister  to  its  spir- 
itual needs.  So  long  as  the  petitions  came  to  synod,  so 
long  the  congregations  were  supplied  and  regarded  as 
belonging  to  the  synod.  When  the  petitions  ceased,  the 
service  also  ceased,  and  the  congregation  naturally  fell 
into  decay.  Had  the  Tennessee  Synod,  in  its  early  history, 
set  permanent  pastors  over  certain  congregations  as  their 
specific  parishes,  in  Kentucky  and  Indiana,  as  those  con- 
gregations were  organized,  the  subsequent  history  of  the 
church  in  these  states  would  have  been  very  different. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  General  Synod  was  able  to 
go  in  and  cultivate  what  the  Tennessee  Synod  had  sown. 
In  1826  the  seminary  at  Gettysburg  was  opened,  and  in  a 
few  years  the  graduates  of  that  institution  were  found 
penetrating  these  regions,  and  zealously  building  up  con- 
gregations. By  the  year  1835  the  Tennessee  Synod  had 
lost  almost  all  it  had  in  Kentucky. 

But  the  intention  to  form  another  synod  in  harmony 
with  the  Tennessee  Synod  was  not  abandoned  with  the 
failure  of  the  movement  in  Kentucky.  The  efforts  were 
now  confined  to  Indiana,  in  which  many  members  from 
churches  in  Tennessee  and  North  Carolina  had  settled, 
and  many  were  still  coming.  Rev.  John  L.  Markert,  who 
had  labored  for  some  years  in  Ohio,  located  in  the  state, 
first  in  Fayette,  then  in  Fountain  county.  Rev.  Christian 
Moritz,  after  Uiboring  in  North  Carolina,  Kentucky  and 
Missouri,  located  in  Greene  county,  1829.  Rev.  Eusebius 
S.  Henkel,  son  of  Rev.  Philip  Henkol,  came  to  the  state 


-     70    — 

as  a  missionary  adventurer  in  1833,  and  made  his  home 
in  Boone  county.  Rev.  Abraham  Miller,  a  deacon  of  the 
Tennessee  Synod,  located  in  the  state  in  1828,  and  sub- 
sequently made  his  home  at  Bluff  Creek,  Johnson  county. 
Rev.  Jacob  Zink  had  labored  in  different  parts  of  the 
state  for  four  j^ears  prior  to  his  death  in  1827.  Besides 
these  pastors,  there  were  two  men  in  Missouri  who  pro- 
posed to  unite  in  the  movement.  Deacons  Conrad  !F. 
Picker  and  Ephraim  R.  Conrad.  These  were  all  men  of 
fair  attainments.  Conrad  had  been  under  the  care  of  the 
Tennessee  Synod  as  a  candidate  for  the  ministry  since 
1833,  and  labored  in  Wayne  county,  Missouri.  Mr. 
Picker  was  a  scholarly  man,  who  had  studied  at  Halle, 
and  was  of  a  retiring  disposition.  He  had  been  or- 
dained deacon  by  some  synod,  and  had  labored  quite 
acceptably  and  successfully  for  some  years  among  the 
scattered  Lutherans  in  Cape  Girardeau  county.  He  was 
met  in  1836  by  Rev.  C.  F.  Heyer,  who  says:  "Why  this 
young,  well  educated  theologian  had,  as  it  were,  concealed 
himself  in  such  a  remote  district  was  strange  and  puzzling 
to  me."^^  What  became  of  him  we  do  not  know.  He 
labored  for  some  years  in  the  state,  and  then  is  lost  sight 
of.  The  other  men  were,  with  the  exception  of  Abraham 
Miller,  quite  well  educated.  They  knew  the  doctrines  of 
the  Lutheran  church,  and  their  fidelity  to  them  was  un- 
questioned. They  had  no  sympathy  with  the  new  meas- 
ures that  were  growing  so  much  in  favor  among  the  Gen- 
eral Synod  congregations.  They  opposed  all  revivalistic 
tendencies.  Feeling  their  isolation  in  being  so  far  re- 
moved from  their  brethren  in  the  south,  they  desired  a 
(•loser  union  with  one  another,  so  that  more. united  efforts 


Life  of  Heyer,  64. 


—    71     — 

might  be  made  for  upbuilding  the  suffering  church,  and 
resisting  tlie  onslaughts  of  the  sectarians.  Several  confer- 
ences were  held  when  the  subject  of  forming  a  new  synod 
was  discussed.  The  experience  and  fate  of  the  Kentucky 
movement  made  them  hesitate.  But  they  felt  that  some- 
thing must  be  done  to  relieve  the  suffering  condition  of 
the  church.  Convinced  that  united  action  was  the  proper 
course,  a  call  was  issued  for  a  convention,  to  be  held  in 
St.  John's  church,*''  Johnson  county,  Indiana,  August  15, 
1835.  At  this  convention  the  prospects  and  needs  of  the 
church  in  Indiana  were  again  taken  into  prayerful  con- 
sideration, and  the  decision  was  unanimously  reached 
that  the  time  was  at  hand  for  the  organization  of  an 
Evangelical  Lutheran  Synod  for  Indiana.  The  outcome 
of  the  convention  was,  that  the  Evangelical  Lutheran 
Synod  of  Indiana  was  formally  organized  August  15, 
1835.  This  was  the  first  Lutheran  Synod  organized  west 
of  Ohio. 

The  persons  present  at  the  convention,  and  who  en- 
tered into  the  organization  formed,  were  Rev.  John  L. 
Markert,  Rev.  Christian  Moritz  and  Rev.  Eusebius  S. 
Henkel,  Deacons  Abraham  Miller,  Conrad  F.  Picker  and 
Ephraim  R.  Conrad.  The  laymen,  representing  some  ten 
congregations,  were  Jacob  Keesling,  Henry  Stine,  Daniel 
Sechrist,  Frederick  Slinkard,  Moses  Hovis,  Matthias 
Sappenfield,  and  Henry  Good.  Deacons  Miller,  Conrad 
and  Picker  were  examined  and  ordained  to  the  pastoral 
ollice.  Revs.  John  L.  Markert  and  Christian  Moritz  per- 
forming the  act.  This  was  the  first  Lutheran  ordination 
service  held  in  the  state. 

This  synod  adopted  the  constitution  of  the  Tennessee 


30  This  was  a  small  lop  chnrcli,  built  a  few  years  before. 


—    72    — 

Synod,  with  its  accompanying  remarks ''  as  its  basis  and 
guide.  Its  doctrinal  position  was  clearly  defined.  It 
received  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  a  true  declaration  of 
the  principal  doctrines  of  faith  and  of  church  discipline. 
It  expressed  its  conviction  that  the  Confession  contained 
nothing  contrary  to  the  Scriptures.  It  allowed  no  minis- 
ter in  its  communion  to  teach  anything  repugnant  to  any 
article  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  Luther's  Small  Cat- 
echism was  also  received,  because  it  contains  a  compend- 
ium of  scriptural  doctrines,  and  is  of  great  utility  in  the 
catechization  of  the  youth.  The  Tennessee  Synod  and 
its  daughter,  the  Synod  of  Indiana,  were  the  first  Luth- 
eran synods  in  America  that  unqualifiedly  received  the 
Augsburg  Confession. 

The  movement  resulting  in  the  organization  of  the 
Synod  of  Indiana  was  hastened  by  a  similar  movement 
among  the  General  Synod  pastors  residing  in  the  west. 
In  the  year  1834  several  Lutheran  clergymen,  residing  in 
the  states  of  Tennessee,  Ohio,  Kentucky,  Indiana  and 
Illinois,  decided  to  call  a  convention  for  the  purpose  of 
considering  the  propriety  of  organizing  an  Evangelical 
Lutheran  synod  in  the  west.  The  movement  was  sanc- 
tioned by  prominent  men  of  the  church  in  the  east,  and 
approved  by  those  eastern  synods  to  which  the  pastors 
respectively  belonged.  Synodical  organization  and  pow- 
ers were  desired  by  these  pastors,  for  they  felt  very  keenly 
the  need  of  a  closer  union  and  the  concentration  of  their 
forces.  The  call  was  issued  and  the  convention  assem- 
bled in  Christ's  Church,  Jeffersontown,  Kentucky,  Octo- 
ber, 1834.     Revs.  Jacob  Crigler,  George  Yeager  and  Wm. 


37  This  constitution,  with  its  remarks,  was  adopted  by  the 
Tennessee  Synod  in  1828.  The  remarks  were  written  by  Rev. 
David  Henkel. 


-    73    - 

Jenkins,  and  Messrs.  David  Mattheis,  Ephraim  Tanner, 
and  John  Shofner  were  the  pastors  and  hiymen  composing 
the  convention.  The  eleventh  and  twelfth  of  October 
were  spent  in  devotional  exercises.  On  Monday,  the  13th, 
the  convention  organized,  and  Revs.  J.  Crigler  and  Win. 
Jenkins  were  elected  president  and  secretary  respectively. 
Committees  were  appointed  to  report  on  "The  Situation 
of  the  Church  in  the  West,"  "Communications,"  and  on 
"A  Synopsis  of  the  Doctrines  of  the  Church,  which  are 
either  Misrepresented  or  Misunderstood  in  this  Western 
Country."  This  synopsis  covered  the  following  points: 
The  Doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  the  Influence  and  Opera- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  Regeneration,  Baptism,  the 
Lord's  Supper,  Free  Communion,  Practical  Piety,  Relig- 
ious Feelings,  and  Women.  The  report  is  quite  lengthy, 
and  gives  a  clear  statement  of  the  views  held  by  these 
pioneer  pastors.  The  most  space  is  devoted  to  Baptism, 
laying  special  stress  upon  the  mode  and  the  subject. 
These  statements  of  their  views  were  deemed  necessary 
because  of  the  Calvinistic  Baptists,  who  were  numer- 
ous in  Kentucky,  and  who  held  to  a  limited  atonement ; 
of  the  Methodists  who  did  not  regard  the  Lutherans  as 
converted,  and  as  not  believing  in  sanctification,  and  be- 
cause of  the  rapid  strides  made  by  Campbellism,  which 
attacked  and  misrepresented  the  Lutheran  view  of  the 
nature,  mode  and  subject  of  baptism.  This  synopsis  was 
printed  in  the  minutes  and  widely  circulated,  and  did 
much  to  establish  the  laity  against  the  attacks  of  these 
rampant  sects.  After  a  three  days'  session,  the  conven- 
tion adjourned  to  meet  the  next  year  at  Louisville,  Ken- 
tucky. It  was  at  this  second  convention  that  the  Evan- 
gelical Lutheran  Synod  of  the  West  was  organized.  Rev. 
Jacob  Crigler  was  its  first  president,  and  Rev.  \\'.  Jenkins, 


—    74    — 

secretary.  The  date  of  the  organization  was  October  5, 
1835.  The  following  pastors  and  laymen  composed  the 
synod:  Revs.  Jacob  Crigler,  William  Jenkins,  George 
Yeager,  Peter  Rizer,  John  J.  Lehmanowsky,  and  Messrs. 
Ephraim  Tanner,  John  Scivally,  Philip  Berice,  Matthias 
Link. 

The  Synod  of  the  West  entered  aggressively  upon  the 
cultivation  of  the  field  open  to  it.  Arrangements  were 
made  for  the  supply  of  vacant  congregations,  and  a  com- 
mittee was  appointed  to  survey  the  territory  for  the  pur- 
pose of  establishing  new  congregations  where  there  were 
Lutherans. 

The  aim  of  this  synod  was  also  to  unite  the  Lutheran 
element  in  these  regions  into  one  body,  and  further,  it 
hoped  to  attract  to  itself  ministers  of  other  denominations, 
resulting  in  the  realization  of  that  dream  of  some  of  the 
leaders  in  the  east,  the  formation  of  an  American  Lutheran 
Church  which  should  embrace  all  protestants  in  America. 
In  order  to  reach  this  result,  the  synod  made  its  doctrinal 
basis  very  indefinite.  There  is  nothing  in  its  constitution 
defining  its  doctrines,  only  the  word  Lutheran.  In  its 
form  of  license  and  ordination  it  required  of  its  candi- 
dates an  acknowledgement  that  "the  fundamental  doc- 
trines of  the  Word  of  God  are  taught  in  the  doctrinal 
articles  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  in  a  manner  substan- 
tially correct."  This  allowed  great  latitude  of  opinion, 
and  there  were  not  a  few  who  took  advantage  thereof. 
Everyone  could  decide  in  his  own  mind  what  were  the 
fundamental  doctrines,  and  to  what  degree  they  were 
correctly  set  forth  in  the  Confession.  Upon  this  platform 
almost  any  Protestant  could  stand ;  to  this  declaration 
almost  every  Protestant,  except  a  true  Lutheran,  could 
subscribe.     The  aim  of  the  Synod  of  the  West  was  to 


—    75    - 

make  its  doctrinal  basis  so  broad  and  liberal  that  it 
would  unite  not  only  all  the  Lutherans  in  tlie  west,  but 
would  also  attract  the  pastors  and  congregations  of  other 
denominations,  and  thus  realize  a  union  of  Protestants  in 
this  region.  This  hope  it  did  realize  to  a  certain  degree. 
Pastors  from  the  German  Reformed  and  from  the  United 
Brethren  churches  were  received  as  members  of  this  body, 
and  without  any  renunciation  of  their  peculiar  views. 
Even  a  Roman  Catholic  priest  applied  for  membership. 
He  was  required  however,  to  renounce  his  papistical 
views. 

In  order  to  realize  its  purpose  to  unify  the  Lutheran 
element  in  these  regions  the  synod  made  overtures  to  the 
Synod  of  Indiana  for  a  union.  This  step  was  first 
ofhcially  suggested  by  President  Jacob  Crigler  in  his  re- 
port .to  sj'nod  in  1836.  A  committee  was  appointed  to 
address  the  Synod  of  Indiana  upon  this  matter.  The 
latter  body  responded  by  the  appointment  of  a  similar 
committee  to  confer  with  them.  But  the  results  were 
disappointing  to  the  Synod  of  the  West.  It  mistook  the 
temper  of  the  Indiana  pastors,  and  underestimated  their 
convictions.  The  committee  reported  that  "the  Provi- 
dence of  God  had  not  yet  indicated  the  way  and  means 
for  the  consummation  of  the  desired  object."  In  1837 
the  Sj^nod  of  Indiana  held  a  special  session  for  the  pur- 
pose of  taking  the  necessary  steps  for  effecting  a  union 
with  the  Synod  of  the  West.  To  this  special  session  the 
members  of  the  Synod  of  the  West  were  invited.  We 
have  not  the  minutes  of  this  special  convention,  but  it 
appears  that  none  of  the  invited  pastors  attended.  The 
conditions  upon  which  the  Sj-nod  of  Indiana  agreed  to 
unite  with  the  Synod  of  the  West  were  the  following: 
1.    That  the  Synod  of  the  West  rescind  its  action  which 


—    76     - 

attaches  it  to  the  General  Synod.  2.  That  we  oppose  the 
falsely  so-called  benevolent  societies  of  today,  such  as 
Tract,  Temperance,  Missionary,  Bible,  and  a  host  of 
other  such  fantastical  societies.'^'*  But  the  Synod  of  Indi- 
ana also  misjudged  the  spirit  and  temper  of  the  pastors 
of  the  Synod  of  the  West,  if  it  believed  that  these  terms 
would  be  acceptable.  A  union  was  absolutely  impossible. 
The  Synod  of  the  West  replied  that  they  regretted  that 
these  brethren,  otherwise  so  actively  engaged,  should 
labor  under  such  unfounded  prejudices  and  misappre- 
hensions. Each  party  now  understood  the  other  more 
fully,  and  all  further  attempts  at  union  along  this  line 
were  abandoned. 

The  immediate  effect  of  this  effort  was  to  widen  the 
breach  between  the  two  bodies.  The  questions  involved 
were  discussed  through  the  press  and  from  the  pulpit. 
The  Tennessee  Synod  was  again  made  the  target  of 
attack  on  the  part  of  the  adherents  of  the  General  Synod, 
and  in  its  defense  the  Synod  of  Indiana  joined.  In 
his  sermon  before  the  South  Carolina  Synod  in  1838 
Dr.  John  Bachman  arraigned  the  Tennessee  Synod, 
against  which  it  solemnly  protested,  claiming  that  "the 
allegations  were  without  the  least  shadow  of  foundation, 
or  slightest  approximation  to  the  truth."  The  Virginia 
Synod  also,  by  resolution,  did  "not  recognize  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Tennessee   Synod  as  Evangelical    Lutheran 


38  This  attitude  toward  such  societies  was  common  to  al- 
most all  the  denominations  in  these  regions  at  that  time.  It  is 
possible  that  the  Indiana  pastors  were  influenced  by  Alex. 
Campbell's  denunciation  and  arraignments  of  all  such  societies, 
and  those  who  fostered  them.  In  the  south,  from  which  these 
pastors  came,  opposition  to  "missionary  efforts"  was  very  de- 
cided on  the  part  of  all  denominations.  See  American  Church 
History  Series,  Vol.  II.  pp.  490,  491. 


—    77    — 

ministers.''^"  In  these  attacks  upon  the  mother  the 
daughter  synod  considered  itself  also  attacked  and  ar- 
raigned. The  controversy  became  so  violent  that  the 
Synod  of  the  West  appealed  for  its  subsidence,  as  it 
wrought  great  injury  to  the  interests  of  the  church  in  the 
west. 

We  have  not  the  minutes  of  the  Synod  of  Indiana 
for  1838,  1839  and  1840,  but  from  the  subjects  demand- 
ing its  attention  in  1841,  and  the  instructions  it  gave  to 
certain  of  its  pastors,  these  men  were  defending  them- 
selves and  their  views  with  vigor  against  the  attacks  and 
charges  of  their  opponents.  This  aroused  a  decided  op- 
position in  the  congregations  of  the  Sj'nod  of  Indiana  to 
the  General  Synod.  Petitions  came  from  them  to  the 
synod  praying  that  the  "methods,  innovations  and  impo- 
sitions of  the  Generalists  here  in  the  west  be  exposed." 
In  repl}^  to  this  request  a  committee  was  appointed  whose 
duty  it  was  to  prepare  an  exposition  of  these  methods 
and  impositions,  and  publish  the  same  in  the  minutes  of 
the  synod.  It  appeared  in  1842,  and  produced  a  deep 
impression.  Within  two  years  after  its  appearance  seven 
congregations,  which  had  been  affiliated  with  the  Synod 
of  the  west,  or  other  General  Synod  bodies,  applied  for 
reception  into  the  Synod  of  Indiana  and  petitioned  for 
pastoral  services,  and  promised  steadfastness  in  the  de- 
fense of  truth. ^" 


39  Henkel,  Hist.  Tenn.  Synod,  pp.  94,  95. 

40  The  methods  of  the  Indiana  pastors  were  not  always 
above  criticism.  They  would  enter  wherever  there  was  hope  of 
persuading  the  congregation  to  cast  its  lot  with  them.  Once  ad- 
mitted to  the  pulpit,  the  pastor  would  appeal  to  the  Confessions, 
and  generally  won  the  congregation  to  his  side. 


CHAPTER  IV 
dlttfitipUty  m\h  3lsms 


Ch.\pter  IV. 
dlnftiielttQ  aitln  KantH. 


HE  region  in  which  we  are  tracing  the  history  of 
the  Lutheran  church,  was,  during  the  first  four 
decades  of  the  nineteenth  century,  alternately 
swept  by  waves  of  unblushing  and  vaunting 
infidelity,  and  intense  religious  enthusiasm, 
which  affected  all  denominations  to  a  greater  or  less 
degree.  Prior  to  1800  infidelity  and  unbelief  were  ram- 
pant in  the  sparsely  settled  districts.  In  the  initial  year 
of  the  century  a  religious  reaction  against  the  prevail- 
ing scepticism  began  in  the  southern  states,  especially 
in  Tennessee  and  North  Carolina,  and  gradually  swept 
northward  through  Kentucky  and  into  Indiana,  spreading 
over  the  whole  southern  portion  of  the  state. ^'  It  put  a 
check,  for  a  time,  upon  the  prevailing  infidelity,  but 
whether  in  the  end  it  proved  salutary  to  the  cause  of 
Christianity,  is  a  question.  Out  of  this  revival  grew  the 
movements  which  culminated  in  the  formation  of  several 
new  sects,  namely  the  New  Lights,  Shakers,  Cumberland 
Presbyterians,  and  Campbellites  or  Disciples.*" 

In  addition  to  these  schismatic  movements  tiiere  were 
such  extravagant  practices  engaged  in  by  the  revivalists, 
preacher  and  convert,  and  such  arrogant  claims  put  forth 

41  American  Church  History,  Vol.  V.  p.  298,  Vol.  XII.  p.  17. 

42  Id.  Vol.  V.  p.  327. 


-    82     - 

that  did  much  to  injure  the  cause  of  true  religion  and 
piety.  Phenomena,  such  as  "trances,"  "the  jerks"  and 
various  cataleptic  conditions  were  very  common,  and  were 
regarded  as  evidences  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  special  presence 
and  proofs  of  his  saving  power.  These  phenomena  became 
epidemic,  and  affected  all  classes  of  persons.  The  master 
and  the  slave,  the  unbeliever  and  christian,  the  indifferent 
and  the  scoffer  were  indiscriminately  and  without  warning, 
stricken  down  and  lay  in  trance-like  state,  sometimes  for 
hours.  When  they  recovered,  they  told  of  visions  and 
experiences  that  seemed  supernatural.  The  effect  of  this 
upon  the  public  was  indescribable.  The  excitement  pro- 
duced was  intense.  The  preachers  took  advantage  of  these 
strange  phenomena  and  wrought  up  their  audiences  to  the 
highest  pitch  of  religious  enthusiasm,  while  the  impenitent 
and  ungodly  were  in  almost  abject  fear.  Although  these 
phenomena  were  the  natural  consequence  of  intense  pas- 
sionate and  emotional  effort,  in  harmony  wuth  psychplog- 
ical  laws,  and  on  these  grounds  all  explainable,  and 
not  in  any  sense  an  evidence  of  the  Holy  Ghost's  presence 
and  power,  yet  the  majority  of  those  people  sincerely  be- 
lieved them  to  be  manifestations  of  divine  power.  There 
were  men  however  who  while  unable  to  explain  these 
phenomena,  did  not  concede  the  claims  of  the  advocates 
of  the  revival  methods,  nor  regard  them  as  evidences  of 
divine  favor. 

So  confident  were  the  ardent  advocates  of  this  move- 
ment that  these  things  were  evidences  and  proofs  of  the 
divine  favor  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  special  presence, 
that  they  felt  themselves  warranted  to  attack  and  denounce 
all  who  disapproved  and  opposed  their  methods.  The 
members  of  conservative  churches  were  regarded  by  them 
as  legitimate  prey,  and  the  clergy  as  deserving  of  attack 


—    83    — 

for  their  unspirituality.  The  old  methods  of  preaching, 
the  faithful  use  of  the  Means  of  Grace,  and  especially  the 
catechization  of  the  j^outh,  were  denounced  as  spiritless 
formalism.  Under  these  persistent  attacks  and  efforts  to 
proselyte,  the  conservative  churches  suffered  much,  both 
by  defection  and  by  schism. 

This  tide  of  revivalism  in  a  few  years  began  to  ebb, 
and  was  followed  by  another  and  far  different  movement, 
namely  Universalism.  It  proved  a  withering,  blasting  foe, 
and  wormed  itself  into  the  churches  like  a  deadly  serpent. 
It  was  first  preached  in  Indiana  in  1825,  and  the  senti- 
ments were  readily  accepted.  To  the  masses  it  was  more 
acceptable  than  infidelity.  It  promised  to  man,  even  to 
the  most  profligate  and  ungodly,  as  well  as  to  the  pious 
and  faithful,  an  eternity  of  bliss,  while  unbelief  promised 
nothing  beyond  the  grave.  For  years  this  doctrine  was 
zealously  preached  and  became  quite  popular.  Not  many 
Universalist  congregations  were  organized,  but  Univers- 
alist  sentiment  obtained  in  the  minds  of  many,  even  those 
who  were  members  of  orthodox  churches.  It  was  looked 
upon  as  the  ideal  faith.  It  acted  as  an  insidious  spiritual 
poison,  as  a  blighting  force  upon  the  spiritual  powers, 
rather  than  a  vitalizing  energy.  Its  advocates,  while  in 
many  cases  unable  to  convince  their  hearers  of  the  correct- 
ness of  its  tenets,  succeeded  at  least  in  planting  the  seeds 
of  doubt  in  their  hearts,  and  left  them  to  grow  and  bring 
forth  bitter  and  disappointing  fruits.  A  paper  entitled 
"The  Star  of  the  West,"  devoted  to  the  dissemination  of 
Universalist  doctrines,  and  pul)lished  in  the  interests  of 
the  Universalist  church,  was  issued  from  Cincinnati,  and 
assidiously  circulated  among  all  classes.  It  was  widely 
read  and  by  its  specious  arguments  appealed  forcibly  to 
the  average  reader.     The  wish  in  the  unregenerate  heart 


—    84    — 

became  father  to  this  faith,  and  the  arguments  appeared 
to  it  unanswerable. 

This  periodical  came  into  the  hands  of  many  Lutheran 
laymen  through  the  instrumentality  of  Rev.  E.  S.  Henkel, 
and  it  wrought  havoc  with  their  Lutheranism.  Henkel 
encouraged  them  to  read  it,  and  study  its  arguments,  and 
its  insidious  poison  destroyed  their  living  faith.  A  num- 
ber of  laymen,  prominent  in  the  local  congregations,  and 
well  known  in  the  Lutheran  church  throughout  Indiana, 
in  their  days,  openly  accepted  Universalism  and  defended 
its  doctrines.  St.  John's  Church,  Floyd  County,  Indiana, 
one  of  the  oldest  and  numerically  the  strongest  Lutheran 
congregation  in  the  state  at  that  time,  and  the  one  at 
Salem,  Washington  County,  the  only  city  congregation  in 
the  synod,  were  destroyed  by  the  blasting  influence  of 
this  heresy.  But  saddest  of  all  some  of  the  Lutheran 
pastors  aided  and  abetted  in  this  work.  Rev.  E.  S. 
Henkel  was  openly  charged  with  Universalism,  and  he 
confessed  that  it  was  his  private  belief.  He  did  not 
publicly  preach  it.  When  he  became  convinced  of  its 
correctness,  he  acted  consistently  and  demitted  the  min- 
istry, and  engaged  in  secular  business.  In  this  he  con- 
tinued about  two  years,  from  1849 — 51,  when  looking 
upon  a  severe  bodily  affliction  which  came  upon  him 
regularly,  as  a  visitation  of  Providence  for  his  apostacy, 
he  renounced  his  heresy  and  resumed  the  ministry. 

Rev.  E.  Rudisill  also  came  under  its  baneful  influence. 
We  have  no  evidence  that  he  ever  publicly  preached  this 
doctrine,  but  like  Henkel  he  also  demitted  the  ministry 
and  engaged  in  the  practice  of  medicine.  For  several 
years  he  stood  aloof  from  the  church,  and  grew  quite 
reckless.  But  returning  home  upon  one  occasion  he  an- 
nounced to  his  wife  that  he  would  resume  the  ministerial 


—    85    — 

office,  which  he  did.  But  the  eflfect  of  the  apostacy  of 
these  two  prominent  ministers  in  the  synod,  upon  tlie 
churches  was  disastrous.  Their  sincerity  in  their  return 
to  the  faith  was  always  doubted,  and  all  their  subsequent 
zeal  could  not  atone  for  the  evil  they  had  wrought. 

By  the  year  1850  Universalism  had  lost  its  charm  for 
the  Lutherans  in  Indiana,  and  the  churches  began  gradu- 
ally to  recover  from  its  baneful  influence.  While  the 
churches  of  the  Synod  of  the  west  suffered  from  revival- 
ism and  intense  emotionalism,  those  of  the  Synod  of 
Indiana  were  paralyzed  and  ravaged  by  Universalism. 

During  this  period  a  violent  controversy  arose  be- 
tween the  Baptist  sect  known  as  Disciples  of  Christ,  or 
Campbellites,  after  their  founder,  Alexander  Campbell, 
and  the  Pedo-Baptists,  on  the  question  of  Baptism,  its 
mode  and  subjects.  Alexander  Campbell  had  renounced 
Presbyterianism,  in  which  faith  he  had  been  brought  up, 
and  attached  himself  to  the  Baptists,  although  he  did  not 
accept  all  the  views  of  this  denomination.  Failing  to  in- 
duce the  Baptist  body  to  adopt  his  views,  he  withdrew 
from  it  and  became  the  leader  and  founder  of  the  sect 
above  mentioned.  He  was  a  man  of  wide  reading,  schol- 
arly attainments  and  unbridled  ambition.  He  was  a 
powerful  debater,  and  enjoyed  controversy.  He  was  un- 
sparing in  his  criticisms  and  condemnation  of  what  he 
regarded  unscriptural  in  other  denominations,  whether  in 
practice  or  in  doctrine.  Of  this  he  found,  in  his  judgment 
at  least,  an  abundance.  But  his  chief  issue  was  Baptism, 
the  mode  of  its  administration  and  the  proper  subjects 
for  its  reception,  and  the  steps  in  the  operation  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Campbell  made  many  converts  to  his  faith, 
recruiting  chiefly  from  other  denominations.  From  the 
Lutheran  ranks  he  won   Rev.   Samuel   K.  Hoshour  and 


—    86    — 

Rev.  W.  R.  McChesnej',  a  young  man,  and  a  member  of 
the  Synod  of  the  West.  He  attended  the  "Great  Debate" 
between  Campbell  and  Rice  at  Lexington,  Kentucky, 
1843,  and  became  a  convert  to  Campbellism.  There 
were  a  good  many  defections  also  among  the  laity. 
Everywhere  the  controversy  raged.  Public  debates  were 
common  and  attended  by  immense  crowds.  As  a  result 
the  partisan  spirit  became  very  pronounced. 

In  order  to  counteract  the  influence  of  Campbellism 
and  check  the  inroads  it  was  making  in  the  churches  the 
S^mod  of  Indiana  was  requested  by  a  number  of  its  con- 
gregations to  have  a  treatise  prepared  on  the  "Mode  of 
Baptism,"  and  published  as  an  appendix  to  the  minutes 
of  the  synod.  Rev.  Ephraim  Rudisill  was  selected  to 
prepare  the  essay,  and  it  appeared  in  1843.  The  essay  is 
a  plain,  logical  and  exhaustive  discussion  of  the  subject, 
and  a  clear  presentation  of  the  faith  and  practice  of  the 
Lutheran  church,  without  any  reference  to  the  views  and 
practices  of  other  denominations.  It  did  much  toward 
arresting  the  tide  that  had  set  in  toward  Campbellism. 
Two  years  later  Rev.  Mr.  Rudisill,  at  the  request  of  the 
synod,  published  a  treatise  on  "Infant  Baptism"  in  the 
minutes  of  that  body.  This  also  was  an  able  presenta- 
tion of  the  teachings  and  practices  of  the  Lutheran  church. 

These  productions  from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Rudisill,  be- 
cause of  the  scanty  literature  on  the  subjects  discussed, 
were  widely  circulated  and  diligently  studied.  They 
were  commented  on  by  the  laitj'  in  every  community 
where  they  were  circulated.  The  faint-hearted  Lutherans, 
who  were  yielding  under  the  plausible  arguments  and 
ridicule  of  the  Campbellites,  took  courage,  while  the  fol- 
lowers of  Campbell  grew  restive  under  the  arguments  of 
Rudisill.     There    went   up  a   general   request   that   this 


-    87    - 

Rndisill  be  silenced  and  his  arguments  be  refuted.  The 
tables  were  turned,  and  the  ranks  of  Canipl)ellism  were 
in  danger  of  defections.  Something  must  be  done.  The 
attention  of  a  certain  Elder  James  Mathes,  a  veritable 
Goliath  in  the  Campbellite  camp,  and  editor  and  pub- 
lisher of  the  Christian  Review,  a  periodical  devoted  to 
the  interests  of  the  Disciple  denomination,  was  called  to 
the  essays  of  Rudisill.  Mathes,  under  the  pressure  of  the 
general  demand  of  his  church,  undertook  to  review  the 
essay  and  refute  Rudisill's  arguments  through  the  columns 
of  the  Christian  Review. 

These  "reviews"  continued  from  the  July  number, 
1845,  to  the  August  number,  1846.  After  one  or  two  had 
appeared,  Rudisill's  attention  being  called  to  them,  he 
asked  permission  of  Mr.  Mathes  to  reply  to  them  in  the 
same  paper.  This  request  was  granted,  but  after  one  or 
two  "replies"  had  appeared  the  privilege  was  withdrawn, 
and  Rudisill  was  denied  any  further  hearing  in  the  Review. 
He  then  asked  that  his  essay  might  be  printed  in  the  Re- 
view, so  that  the  readers  might  see  the  arguments  pro 
and  con,  and  the  garbled  extracts  Mathes  had  published. 
This  also  was  refused.  This  so  wrought  up  the  fiery  Ru- 
disill that  he  proceeded  to  write  his  "Reply  to  Elder 
Mathes,"  and  publish  the  same  at  his  own  expense."  In 
his  discussion  he  handles  his  opponent  without  mercy. 
In  the  opening  pages  Rudisill  states  the  agreement  that 
had  been  made  between  Mathes  and  himself  as  to  the 
publication  of  the  strictures  and  the  replies  in  the  Chris- 
tian Review,  and  explains  why  that  agreement  was  broken 
by  Mathes,  namely,  that  he  feared  a  defection  from  the 


43  Rudisill    boasted    that    he    wrote   his   reply,  cleaned  hit 
wheat  and  went  to  mill  all  in  live  davs. 


Campbellite  ranks  if  Rudisill's  replies  were  published. 
Prof.  S.  K.  Hoshour  is  also  charged  with  duplicity  and 
cowardice  in  urging  Mathes  to  break  the  agreement.  Ru- 
disill's reply  is  a  masterpiece.  It  is  logical,  fair  and  con- 
clusive. It  was  widely  circulated  throughout  the  state, 
and  brought  its  author  into  great  prominence  as  a  contro- 
versialist. He  was  feared  by  the  Baptists  generally.  He 
was  ready  to  debate  publicly  the  question  of  Baptism,  in 
all  its  aspects  with  anyone,  not  even  excepting  Alexander 
Campbell.  It  is  claimed  by  some  of  Rudisill's  friends 
that  an  effort  was  made  to  induce  Campbell  to  meet  hirn 
in  public  debate,  but  that  he  declined. 

The  result  of  this  controversy  was  very  gratifying  to 
the  Lutherans,  but  rather  disheartening  to  their  oppon- 
ents. They  were  now  ready  to  keep  silent.  Their  Go- 
liath had  met  his  David.  There  was  none  to  be  found  in 
the  ranks  of  the  Baptists  who  was  willing  to  take  up  the 
gauntlet  laid  down  by  Rudisill.  Their  arrogance  and 
aggressiveness  subsided,  and  for  a  decade  or  more  the 
Lutheran  churches  had  rest,  and  were  strengthened  and 
edified  so  far  as  the  question  of  Baptism  was  concerned. 

In  the  fourth  decade  of  the  century  another  revival 
swept  over  Indiana  and  westward  to  the  Mississippi.  It 
was  attended  with  all  the  extravagancies  common  to  those 
movements  in  that  time.  The  congregations  of  the  Synod 
of  Indiana  were  slightly  affected  by  this  movement,  owing 
to  the  conservative  methods  and  the  insistence  upon  cate- 
chization  that  still  prevailed.  There  was,  however,  a 
tendency  to  yield  in  that  direction.  Protracted  meetings 
were  introduced  by  the  Rev.  E.  S.  Henkel,  as  a  means  of 
reaching  a  class  of  people  who  could  not  be  reached  by 
the  catechetical  method.  They  were  not  attended  by  any 
extravagancies  or  excitement,  such  as  usually  are  con- 


CHURCH  OF  OUR  SAVIOR 
Alexandria,  Ind. 


2:  > 

^      00 

^   n 


—    89    — 

nected  with  the  revival.  The  preaching  was  doctrinal 
and  expository,  and  no  attempt  made  to  plaj'  upon  the 
emotions.  Everything  was  orderly.  The  services  were 
held  daily  for  a  period  of  one  or  two  weeks.  After  the 
sermon  an  opportunity  was  offered  to  those  desiring  to 
unite  with  the  church  to  come  forward  during  the  singing 
of  a  hymn,  and  after  examination  by  the  pastor  as  to 
their  faith,  were  admitted  by  baptism  or  confirmation. 
This  custom,  called  "singing  in  members,"  was  the  result 
of  the  influence  of  Campbellism  upon  the  Lutheran 
churches.  It  prevailed  in  many  of  the  congregations  in 
the  state  for  over  half  a  century. 

The  General  Synod  churches,  however,  were  most 
powerfully  affected  by  this  revival,  and  were  under  its 
peculiar  spell  for  a  number  of  years.  During  a  long 
period  the  synodical  minutes  abound  with  allusions  to 
the  revival  spirit  and  with  reports  as  to  its  effects.  In 
1839  the  Sj'nod  of  the  West  convened  at  Hillsboro,  Illi- 
nois, and  from  the  view-point  of  the  revival,  was  perhaps 
the  most  remarkable  in  its  whole  history.  Among  the 
members  of  that  body  were  Rev.  Abraham  Keck,  Rev. 
Wm.  .Jenkins,  and  his  brother,  Rev.  Daniel  Jenkins,  Rev. 
John  Krack,  Rev.  Geo.  Yeager,  and  others  who  were  ar- 
dent advocates  of  the  revival  measures.  Abraham  Reck 
was  a  white-haired,  venerable  man  of  scholarly  attain- 
ments, refined  manners  and  extraordinar}'  pulpit  abilities. 
The  brothers  Jenkins  were  dark-complexioned  men  of 
great  excitable  and  emotional  qualities,  capable  of  elec- 
trifying almost  any  congregation.  Rev.  G.  Yeager  was 
of  small  stature,  well  educated  and  of  gentlemanly  bear- 
ing. The  conservative  men  were  Rev.  J.  J.  Lehmanowsky 
and  Rev.  Daniel  Scherer.  But  these  were  carried  for  a 
time  with  the  tide. 


-    90    - 

During  this  convention  revival  services  were  held 
every  day  and  evening.  "One  of  the  most  remarkable 
demonstrations  of  which  I  ever  heard,"  says  Rev.  S.  L. 
Harkey,  D.  D.,  who  was  present,  "occurred  at  this  synod- 
ical  convention.  One  evening  Rev.  A.  Reck  preached  to 
a  very  large  audience  on  the  parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son. 
It  made  a  deep  impression.  Rev.  Wm.  Jenkins  then  re- 
cited a  death-bed  scene  of  a  wicked  man,  and  also  of  a 
child  of  God,  making  a  very  impassioned  appeal  to  the 
people  to  repent.  Stopping  suddenly  he  exclaimed, 
'Ho^v  many  are  there  here  who  wish  to  turn  to  God  by 
repentance,  as  the  Prodigal  Son  did  to  his  father?'  In  an 
instant  every  soul  in  the  house  was  upon  their  knees,  and 
remained  there  weeping  and  praying  for  mercy.  The 
scene  beggars  description.  I  have  been  in  many  so-called 
revivals  since  that  day,  among  various  fanatical  people 
of  different  denominations,  and  have  heard  many  sensa- 
tional preachers,  but  I  never  saw  anything  before  nor 
since,  in  all  my  life,  like  that  scene  in  1839  at  this  synod- 
ical  convention.  When  at  a  late  hour  on  the  same  even- 
ing the  question  was  asked  by  one  of  the  ministers,  'How 
many  here  believe  and  trust  in  Jesus  Christ  for  salva- 
tion?' the  whole  assembly  rose  to  their  feet."  " 

This  revival  was  considered  of  sufficient  importance 
that  an  extended  account  of  it  was  published  in  the  min- 
utes of  the  convention,  from  which  we  quote  the  fol- 
lowing: "Silence  reigned  through  the  house  save  the 
speaker's  voice  only,  and  here  and  there  a  half-suppressed 
sigh  or  groan,  which  burst  involuntarily  forth  from  the 
breasts  of  deeply  convicted  sinners.  The  whole  congre- 
gation became  more  or  less  moved.     The  place  became 


44  Letter  to  Lutheran,  Sept.  2,  1897 


truly  awful  and  glorious,  and  it  seemed  that  the  time  had 
come  when  a  decided  effort  must  be  made  upon  the 
Kingdom  of  Darkness,  and  that  under  such  circum.stances 
to  shrink  from  the  task  and  through  fear  of  producing  a 
little  temporary  disorder,  to  refuse  to  go  heartily  into  the 
work  would  have  been  nothing  short  of  downright  spirit- 
ual murder.  This  surely  was  not  the  stopping  point. 
Accordingly  those  who  specially  felt  desirous  of  an  interest 
in  the  praj^ers  of  God's  people  were  directed  to  kneel  in 
their  seats,  when  probably  between  fifty  and  one  hundred 
persons  were  seen  at  once  prostrating  themselves  on  their 
knees  before  God,  and  thus  testifying  before  heaven  and 
earth  to  their  lost  condition,  in  which  they  found  them- 
selves. After  this  the  scene  became  still  more  interest- 
ing. For  the  sake  of  convenience  the  mourners  were  in- 
vited to  convenient  seats,  for  the  purpose  of  affording  the 
brethren  an  opportunity  of  conversing  freely  with  them 
upon  their  condition,  and  imparting  instruction.  The 
meeting  continued  in  singing,  exhortation  and  prayer  un- 
til a  late  hour,  when  it  was  thought  best  to  close.  But 
the  people,  though  invited  to  return  at  an  early  hour  in 
the  morning,  were  still  loth  to  leave  the  house,  so  holy 
and  blessed  had  the  place  become  to  them.  About 
eighteen  or  twenty  professions  of  religion  were  the  fruits 
of  this  evening's  meeting."  The  next  morning's  meeting 
is  described  as  follows:  "As  usual,  prayer  meeting  was 
held  this  morning.  A  much  larger  number  than  on 
former  occasions  attended ;  and  from  the  character  of  last 
evening's  meeting  it  might  well  be  expected  that  this 
would  be  a  solemn  season.  Such  it  truly  was.  That  it 
was  altogether  orderly,  some  who  are  particularly  "con- 
scientious' and  scrupulous  about  getting  a  little  'luke- 
warm,'  and   much   more  so   about   ^getting   'hot,'    might 


—    92    - 

doubt.  Be  their  views  as  they  may.  If  there  was  a 
flood  of  tears  shed,  of  sorrow  and  repentance  by  convicted 
sinners,  and  of  joy  and  gladness  by  converted  behevers, 
some  audible  weeping,  sighing  and  groaning,  some  mov- 
ing around  and  shaking  hands,  or  a  number  in  studying, 
exhorting  or  praying  at  once,  or  even  some  clapping  of 
hands  and  'shouts  of  glory,'  it  is  likely  yet  that  the  meet- 
ing had  an  'order'  peculiar  to  its  nature,  and  very  much 
similar  to  that  observed  at  Jerusalem  by  the  apostles  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost.  This  meeting  continued  until  it 
was  necessary  to  give  place  for  the  transaction  of  synod- 
ical  business.  But  the  tardy  movements  of  the  people, 
and  especially  of  the  distressed,  and  their  lingering  looks 
as  they  withdrew,  clearly  indicated  that  they  felt  them- 
selves still  unwilling  to  leave  the  house  of  the  Lord."  At 
another  time  during  this  convention  it  was  found  neces- 
sary to  invite  the  mourners  to  remove  to  the  pastor's 
home  in  order  to  afford  the  synod  an  opportunity  to  close 
its  business. 

That  these  revival  efforts  were  general,  frequent  and 
popular  in  the  churches  of  the  Synod  of  the  West  is  evi- 
dent, not  only  from  the  reports  made  by  the  pastors  to 
the  synod,  but  also  from  the  following  extract  of  a  letter 
of  Rev.  Abraham  Reck,  one  of  the  leading  spirits  in  the 
revival  movement: 

"One  Sunday  morning  I  went  to  preach  in.S.  As  I 
rode  along,  I  endeavored  to  think  of  a  text  from  which  to 
preach,  but  could  find  none  to  suit  me.  When  I  came  to 
the  church  I  had  not  yet  determined  on  any  particular  text, 
and  did  not  know  what  I  should  do.  .  .  .  Before  giving 
out  a  hymn,  I  turned  over  the  leaves  of  my  Bible,  but  all 
in  vain ;  nothing  would  suit,  and  in  this  dilemma  I  still 
remained  while   the 'hymn  was  sung.     What  was  to  be 


—    93    - 

done  I  knew  not,  but  I  thought  .1  would  ask  God  in 
prayer.  A  short  time  after  I  had  commenced  praj'ing, 
the  windows  of  heaven  were  opened,  and  more  than  one- 
half  of  the  audience  were  on  a  sudden  prostrated  to  the 
ground,  crying  out,  with  the  most  dreadful  shrieks: 
'What  must  I  do  to  be  saved?'  I  continued  on  praying 
with  great  fervency,  and  when  the  prayer  was  concluded 
I  was  lost  in  amazement  at  the  singular  sight  the  congre- 
gation presented.  As  I  could  not  find  a  subject  on  which 
to  preach,  I  changed  the  meeting  into  a  meeting  of 
prayer,  and  in  this  way  we  spent  the  usual  time  appointed 
for  public  worship.  ...  I  then  appointed  a  prayer 
meeting  for  early  candle  lighting  in  a  private  house  and 
particularly  invited  all  who  were  convinced  of  sin  to  be 
present.  We  locked  the  doors  and  windows  to  prevent 
interruption  from  without,  and  endeavored  to  seek  the 
Lord  by  diligent  and  earnest  prayer.  The  God  of  prayer 
was  truly  in  our  midst,  and  the  whole  assembly  were  at 
work  in  mighty  wrestling  with  Jehovah.  No  disposition 
was  manifest  to  give  over,  and  we  continued  until  eight 
o'clock  in  the  morning  in  this  awfully  solemn  and  de- 
lightful employment.  As  the  room  we  were  in  was  not 
large,  we  placed  all  those  in  the  next  room  who  had 
found  peace  in  believing,  and  as  soon  as  one  was  con- 
verted the  door  was  opened  and  he  would  be  welcomed 
in  by  those  who  were  already  there.  Never  did  I  see 
such  rejoicing,  such  exceeding  great  joy,  as  in  that  room. 
They  sang  praises  to  God  for  deliverance,  they  embraced 
each  other  and  strove  with  Jacob's  God  for  the  blessing 
on  those  who  were  yet  groaning  under  the  weight  of  sin. 
I  can  almost  hear  the  glad  sound  of  praise  again,  though 
twenty-five  years  have  sadly  dealt  with  my  recollection. 


—    94    — 

...  Oh !  the  memory  of  that  night  is  precious !  It  fills 
my  soul  with  gladness  even  at  this  distant  period." 

It  was  a  time  when  these  methods  were  popular  in 
all  the  churches,  and  supplanted  the  custom  of  catechiza- 
tion.  So  attached  to  this  one-sided  emotionalism,  called 
"English  Lutheranism,"  did  the  Synod  of  the  West  be- 
come, that  it  not  only  endorsed  the  revivals  in  1839,  but 
insisted  upon  them  in  1840.  It  advised  its  laity  not  to 
read  ''Die  Kirchenzeitung^^  because  it  manifested  an  im- 
proper spirit  relative  to  revivals,  and  opposed  the  efforts 
to  do  good.  The  Germans  would  not  recognize  it,  but 
exposed  it  as  dangerous  and  subversive  of  the  essence 
and  spirit  of  Lutheranism.  The  Synod  of  Indiana  also 
opposed  it,  and  in  1841  appointed  a  committee  to  write 
and  publish  an  "Expose  of  the  conduct  of  the  Generalists, 
and  show  their  attempts  at  subverting  and  destroying  the 
Lutheran  doctrines  and  discipline." 

The  high  water  mark  of  the  revival  measure  was 
reached  in  1842,  the  year  after  this  synod  united  with  the 
General  Synod.  By  the  following  year  a  strong  reaction 
had  set  in,  due  largely  to  the  influence  of  Rev.  F.  C.  D. 
Wynnekin,  who  located  at  Ft.  Wayne  in  1839.  Being 
compelled  to  return  to  Germany  on  account  of  throat 
trouble,  he  returned  to  Indiana  in  1843,  a  man  of  ripened 
powers  and  of  confirmed  Lutheran  convictions.  "He 
was  a  man  of  powerful  frame,  and  a  well  educated  mind, 
fiery  and  energetic,  filled  with  a  burning  zeal  to  carry  the 
Gospel  of  Christ  to  his  countrymen  in  the  western  soli- 
tudes, of  whose  wants  he  learned  through  missionary 
magazines  in  the  old  world."  No  sooner  did  he  become 
a  member  of  the  Sj'nod  of  the  West  than  he  raised  his 
voice  against  the  revivalism  he  found  there.  He  had 
published  a  portraiture  of  Methodism,  in  which  he  shows 


—    95    — 

clearly  his  opposition  to  such  subjectivism  and  emotion- 
alism. For  this  he  was  violently  assailed  by  both,  Luth- 
erans and  Methodists.  And  now  he  lifted  up  his  voice  in 
his  own  synod  for  the  pure  faith  and  churchly  order  and 
practice.  In  1843  the  subject  of  revivals  provoked  a 
spirited  and  prolonged  discussion  in  the  synod,  which 
seemed  to  take  precedence  for  a  time  over  all  other  busi- 
ness. After  that  year,  no  further  allusions  to  the  subject 
are  found  in  the  minutes.  In  1845  Wynnekin  was  sent 
as  the  representative  of  the  Synod  of  the  West  to  the 
General  Synod,  and  there  attracted  prominent  attention 
by  his  resolutions  which  he  offered  before  that  body. 
He  moved  "That  the  writings  of  Revs.  S.  S.  Schmucker 
and  Benjamin  Kurtz,  as  well  as  the  volumes  of  the  Luth- 
eran Observer,  and  other  books  and  papers  in  which  the 
doctrines  and  practices  of  the  General  Synod  are  set 
forth,  should  be  sent  to  Dr.  Rudelbach  and  Prof.  Harless 
and  others  for  examination,  so  that  the  orthodoxy  of  the 
General  Synod  might  be  demonstrated  to  the  Lutheran 
church  in  Germany."  This  proposition  was  indignantly 
laid  upon  the  table  by  the  body.  This  was  followed  by 
another,  namely,  "That  the  General  Synod  hereby  disa- 
vow and  reject  the  aforementioned  writings  of  Drs.  S.  S. 
Schmucker  and  B.  Kurtz,  as  well  as  the  Lutheran  Ob- 
server and  Hirtenstimme  as  heretical  and  departing  from 
the  saving  faith."  This  demand  was  considered  pre- 
sumptuous, and  not  entertained  for  a  moment.  Wynne- 
kin's  influence  was  powerfully  felt  in  the  churches  in 
these  regions,  and  did  much  toward  finally  disrupting  the 
Synod  of  the  West.  His  congregation  in  Ft.  Wayne, 
which  he  resigned  in  1845,  severed  its  connection  with 
the  Synod  of  the  West,  "because  of  the  heterodoxy  of 
that  body." 


-    96    - 

While  the  congregations  of  the  Synod  of  Indiana 
were  but  little  affected  in  their  policy  by  this  tide  of  re- 
vivalism which  swept  over  the  region,  yet  they  suffered 
many  losses  through  defection  of  members.  From  the 
earliest  settlement  until  the  present  tjme  Indiana  and 
portions  of  Illinois  were  the  foraging  grounds  for  the  sects. 
The  ecclesiastical  freebooter  was  in  the  land  going  hither 
and  thither,  recognizing  no  one  as  a  Christian  unless  he 
got  his  religion  in  his  prescribed  way.  Lutherans  espe- 
cially were  considered  as  lawful  prey.  They  were  not  as  a 
rule  much  given  to  making  a  display  of  their  piety,  nor 
to  demonstrations  in  their  worship,  but  their  piety  was 
none  the  less  deep,  fervent  and  heartfelt,  and  of  a  kind 
to  which  the  evangelist  was  a  stranger.  They  were  for 
this  reason  shining  marks  for  the  proselyting  evangelist. 
Every  conceivable  method  was  resorted  to  to  "convert" 
these  devout  people.  Pitiful  pleadings,  arrogant  claims, 
specious  arguments,  captious  criticisms  of  Lutheranism 
were  employed  as  weapons.  The  end  justified  the  means. 
If  only  these  Lutherans  would  come  to  the  anxious  bench 
and  get  religion  all  the  labors  of  the  evangelist  would  be 
fully  repaid.  Methodist  exhorters  labored  for  their  con- 
version, Campbellite  elders  for  their  immersion,  and  be- 
tween these  two  forces  many  a  congregation  was  in  danger 
of  subversion  by  the  desertion  of  its  members. 

The  congregations  of  the  Synod  of  Indiana  had  much 
to  endure,  and  the  wonder  is  that  any  of  them  survived 
the  successive  waves  of  Infidelity,  Universalism,  Revival- 
ism and  other  isms  which  beat  upon  them.  As  the  re- 
vival movement  just  traced  began  to  subside,  another 
movement  arose  which  wrought  havoc  in  them.  This 
was  Annihilationism,  or  Destructionism,  as  it  was  popu- 
larly called.     It  is  the  doctrine  of  the  utter  and  final 


-    97    - 

annihilation  of  the  wicked.  It  is  an  effort  to  mediate 
between  the  orthodox  view  and  that  of  Universalism. 
This  doctrine  had  by  some  means  been  imbibed  by  Rev. 
E.  Rudisill,  and  he  endeavored  to  foist  it  upon  the 
churches  composing  the  Synod  of  Indiana.  It  is  doubt- 
ful whether  Rev.  E.  Rudisill  ever  at  heart  believed  this 
doctrine.  He  was  intensely  ambitious  to  become  to  the 
Lutheran  church  what  Alexander  Campbell  was  to  the 
Presbyterian,  the  leader  of  a  movement  which  would 
place  him  at  the  head  of  a  new  denomination.  The  doc- 
trine of  Destructionism  he  hoped  would  be  to  his  cause 
what  Immersion  was  to  Campbell's.  But  be  the  question 
what  it  may,  one  thing  is  certain,  that  Rudisill  made  the 
effort  of  his  life  to  place  himself  at  the  head  of  this  move- 
ment, and  lead  a  following  out  of  the  Lutheran  church 
which  should  attain  to  a  separate  denominational  exist- 
ence. His  popularity  arising  from  his  controversy  with 
Elder  Mathes,  he  had  the  vanity  to  believe  would  gain 
him  a  following  that  could  not  be  resisted.  He  trusted 
to  his  skill  as  a  debater  and  controversialist  to  beat  down 
all  opposition  thatjnight  be  aroused. 

He  began  the  promulgation  of  this  heresy  as  early  as 
1845.  He  visited  most  of  the  congregations  and  sowed 
in  them  the  baneful  seeds.  He  had,  by  specious  argu- 
ments, flattery  and  threats,  enlisted  in  his  cause  the  Revs. 
Elias  Markert,  Samuel  Good  and  possibly  also  Rev.  J.  H. 
Vagan,  members  of  the  Synod  of  Indiana.  Tiirough  the 
system  of  the  itinerant  ministry  that  existed  in  the 
synod,  the  heresy  was  preached  in  almost  every  congrega- 
tion of  the  synod,  and  many  converts  made  to  the  new 
doctrine.  With  the  laity  Rudisill  had  almost  unlimited 
influence.  His  word  was  to  them  yea  and  amen. 
Through  the  congregations  he  and  his  followers  visited, 


98 


he  had  memorials  sent  up  to  the  synod  for  such  legisla- 
tion as  he  deemed  best  to  promote  his  ambitious  schemes. 
Secretly  and  gradually  their  plans  were  formulated,  and 
they  bided  the  time  for  their  execution.  Rudisill  was 
elected  president  and  secured  such  legislation  at  the  hand 
of  the  synod  as  to  clothe  him  with  almost  arbitrary 
power.  No  pastor  of  the  synod  could  enter  into  a  public 
debate  without  his  consent  and  approval.  No  candidate 
for  the  ministry  could  be  advanced  without  his  sanction. 
This  absolutism  he  was  not  slow  in  exercising.  Flushed 
with  what  seemed  so  easy  a  victory,  he  grew  bolder  and 
bolder.  He  challenged  the  Rev.  E.  Greenwald,  then  at  Co- 
lumbus, Ohio,  and  editor  of  the  Lutheran  Standard,  to  dis- 
cuss the  doctrine  through  the  columns  of  that  paper.  To 
this  Rev.  E.  Greenwald  could  not  consent.  In  1848,  at  the 
meeting  of  the  synod  in  Johnson  county,  Indiana,  Rud- 
isill believed  all  things  were  ready  for  his  coup  d'  etat, 'to 
foist  the  doctrine  upon  the  synod  as  an  article  of  faith. 
A  few  delegates  were  there  who  would  not  consent,  and 
an  effort  was  made  to  decoy  them  away  by  arranging  for 
a  service  at  a  neighboring  school  house.  But  the  dele- 
gates suspected  something  and  remained  at  the  church. 
Rev.  Samuel  Good,  a  young  man  of  excellent  qualities, 
and  a  fine  preacher,  was  put  forward  by  Rudisill  to  preach, 
and  set  forth  the  new  doctrine.  But  he  utterly  failed, 
and  broke  down,  so  that  Rev.  Mr.  Rudisill  had  to  come 
to  his  relief  and  finish  the  discourse.  The  next  day  three 
lay  delegates,  John  Downey,  of  Knox  county,  Daniel 
Myers,  of  Daviess  county,  and  Frederick  Slinkard,  of 
Greene  county,  filed  their  protest  against  the  innovation, 
withdrew  from  the  convention  and  went  home.  A  reac- 
tion set  in.  The  outcome  of  the  affair  was  that  the  synod 
was  disrupted,  many  of  the  congregations  became  divided, 


litigation  for  the  possession  of  the  property  followed,  and 
a  pall  settled  upon  the  whole  synod.  The  church  suffered 
severely.  In  1851,  Rev.  Samuel  Good  died,  after  having 
bitterly  repented  of  his  folly  and  renouncing  the  heresy. 
Markert  abandoned  the  ministry  and  Rudisill,  by  pre- 
tensions and  denials,  succeeded  in  persuading  the  synod 
to  believe  that  he  never  held  any  but  orthodox  views. 
By  this  movement  the  Synod  of  Indiana  lost  four  of  its 
pastors,  one  a  young  man  of  great  promise,  and  some 
eight  or  ten  congregations,  besides  its  reputation  for 
orthodoxy.  The  details  of  this  movement  are  fully  given 
in  the  chapter  on  the  Synod  of  Indiana. 

The  affairs  of  the  synod  assumed  a  deplorable  condi- 
tion as  a  result  of  the  acts  of  the  Rudisill  party,  and  the 
defection  of  Rev.  E.  S.  Henkel  to  Universalism.  Rudisill's 
prestige  and  influence  was  gone,  and  he  was  restive  under 
the  odium  of  defeat.  His  vanity  was  severely  wounded, 
and  he  smarted  under  the  criticism  poured  upon  him 
from  all  quarters  of  the  church.  His  defeat  in  the  courts 
was  a  stunning  blow  to  his  ambition.  But  notwithstand- 
ing all  this,  he  was  resolved  to  retrieve  his  losses,  and  to 
regain  his  former  influence.  In  IS.IO  he  with  Revs.  S, 
Good  and  E.  Markert  were  publicly  examined  before  the 
synod  as  to  the  heretical  doctrines  charged  against  them, 
and  their  defense  apparently  satisfied  that  Ijodj'.  Rut 
the  sincerity  of  their  repudiation  of  Destructionism  was 
doubted,  and  Rudisill  did  not  find  it  so  easy  to  resume  his 
former  position  and  influence.  In  1852  the  synod  reaf- 
flrmed  its  adherence  to  the  Augsburg  Confession  with  a 
unanimous  vote.*^     A  revised  constitution  was  also  sub- 


45  This  was  due  to  the  adverse  criticisms  made  by  other 
synods  and  ministers  upon  its  doctrinal  position.  I\udisill  was 
not  present  at  this  convention. 


—     100    — 

mitted  and  adopted  the  next  year.  The  synod  hoped  by 
this  plan  to  retrieve  its  reputation  for  orthodoxy. 

Rev.  E.  S.  Henkel  had  gone  off  into  Universialism, 
but  he  did  not  like  Rudisill's  endeavor  to  foist  it  upon 
the  synod  as  an  article  of  faith,  nor  to  draw  a  following 
after  him.  He  simply  relinquished  the  ministry  and 
moved  to  Memphis,  Tennessee,  where  he  engaged  in  sec- 
ular business.  In  about  two  years  he  returned  to  Indiana, 
went  before  the  synod,  confessed  his  sin,  renounced  his 
errors  and  re-entered  the  ministry.  His  zeal  thenceforth 
cannot  be  questioned.  The  churches  forgave  him  and 
received  his  messages  with  greater  joy,  for  his  return  to 
the  Lutheran  position  was  to  them  a  living  proof  of  the 
unsatisfying  character  of  Universalism.  He  remained  in 
the  ministry  until  his  death. 

Through  the  Rudisill  heresy  the  synod  lost  the  Revs. 
J.  F.  Lautenschlager,  David  and  Abraham  Miller,  Rev. 
S.  Good  (died  in  1851.)  Rev.  J.  L.  Markert's  gray  hairs 
were  brought  in  sorrow  to  the  grave  in  1852  because  of 
his  son's  defection  and  the  synod's  disruption.  Enfeebled 
by  old  age,  he  could  do  little  to  stem  the  tide  of  Destruc- 
tionism.  Rev.  Enoch  Goodwin  died  in  1851.  Rev.  Mr. 
Keester  left  the  synod,  and  Rev.  J.  H.  Vagan  disappears 
from  view.  The  convention  of  1852  somewhat  encour- 
aged the  disheartened  little  band.  Rev.  Wm.  H.  Deck 
was  that  year  added  to  the  ministerial  rank  by  ordination, 
and  proved  to  be  a  pillar  and  stay  in  that  body.  He  was 
without  doubt  the  most  brilliant,  able  and  lovable  man 
in  the  synod  during  its  whole  history.  Of  scholarly  at- 
tainments, keen  wit,  and  unreservedly  accepting  the 
Lutheran  faith,  he  was  more  than  a  match  for  either 
Rudisill  or  Henkel.  He  had  no  sympathies  with  the 
heresies  that   had  vexed   the  synod  for   years  and  had 


—     lOI     — 

distracted  and  disrupted  his  church.  He  was  earnest 
and  aggressive  in  his  work,  and  a  true  son  of  the  church, 
preaching  her  doctrines  faithfully'  and  eloquently.  He 
opened  an  academy  in  Newberry,  Indiana,  and  had  many 
pupils.  He  continued  this  institution  until  health  and 
strength  failed  him.  He  began  a  work  against  Unitarian- 
ism,  which  promised  to  be  an  able  production,  but  he 
did  not  live  to  complete  it. 

Besides  Rev.  W.  H.  Deck  another  worthy  accession 
to  the  synod  was  in  the  person  of  Rev.  D.  P.  Groundt. 
He  gave  promise  of  great  usefulness,  but  in  a  few  years 
with  Rev.  Eli  Myers,  moved  to  Texas.  These  men,  with 
the  Rev.  John  P.  Livengood,  were  the  hope  of  the  synod. 
The  secretary  expressed  the  sj-nod's  hope  ''that  these 
proceedings  may  tend  to  the  bringing  about  of  a  speedy, 
an  honorable  and  an  amicable  adjustment  of  all  existing 
dilliculties ;  that  the  dilapidated  walls  of  our  distracted 
Zion  may  be  speedily  rebuilt,  and  she  again  maintain  an 
honorable  position  among  her  sisters  of  other  states,  and 
thereby  promote  the  best  interests  of  the  church  at  large." 

But  the  troubles  that  vexed  the  churches  could  not 
be  removed  by  pious  resolutions.  Time  alone  could 
efface  the  effects  of  the  terrible  blow  they  received.  The 
dilapidated  walls  could  not  be  rebuilt  in  a  day,  nor  the 
scars  effaced  at  will.  The  demon  of  discord  and  jealousy 
still  rankled  in  the  bosoms  of  some,  and  on  every  favora- 
ble occasion  would  exhibit  its  ugliness. 

In  1858  the  synod  adopted  the  new  constitution,  and 
cherished  the  hope  that  it  could  thus  restore  itself  to  the 
confidence  of  the  church.  In  1S,"')4  Rudisill  expected  to 
remove  from  the  bounds  of  the  synod  and  asked  for  an 
honorable  dismissal,  which  was  granted,  but  which  the 
secretary.   Rev.  E.  S.  Henkel,  failed  to  note  in  the  pro- 


—     102    - 

ceedings.  He  changed  his  plans,  however,  and  remained 
in  the  state.  But  he  took  umbrage  at  the  secretary's 
oversight,  and  refused  to  attend  the  convention  of  1855. 
He  demanded  as  a  condition  of  returning  that  the  synod 
take  action  upon  certain  political  questions,  which  it  de- 
clined to  do.  He  therefore  remained  out  of  practical 
connection  with  the  synod  until  it  disbanded. 

Troubles  began  to  multiply.  Rev.  E.  Markert  de- 
mitted  the  ministry  on  account  of  throat  trouble,  but  most 
probably  on  account  of  Rudisill's  influence  over  him. 
Rev.  H,  Fairchild  became  discouraged  and  advocated  the 
dissolution  of  the  synod.  It  was  found  in  1857  that  the 
new  constitution  had  not  been  signed  and  therefore  inef- 
fective. The  synod  therefore  organized  under  the  old  in- 
strument, and  then  adopted  and  signed  the  new,  and 
formally  organized  under  the  new  constitution.  But  how 
this  synod  had  diminished !  Two  pastors,  three  students 
and  six  lay  delegates  were  all  that  were  present  at  the 
twenty-second  conveAtion.  But  these  few  were  dauntless. 
They  set  about  to  re-enlist  the  co-operation  of  the  disaf- 
fected and  discouraged  pastors,  and  to  induce  candidates 
to  offer  themselves  for  the  ministry.  Rev.  J.  P.  Liven- 
good  was  elected  president,  and  proved  himself  a  good, 
able  and  wise  leader.  His  popularity  was  growing  and 
he  deserved  it.  He  was  ably  seconded  by  Rev.  E.  S. 
Henkel  and  Rev.  W.  H.  Deck.  By  the  next  year  several 
more  pastors  were  added  to  the  synod,  but  when  the  time 
came  for  the  synod  to  convene  in  1859  there  was  conster- 
nation. Rev.  W.  H.  Deck  passed  to  his  reward  in  1858 
in  the  prime  of  life  and  usefulness.  He  was  followed  by 
the  synod's  beloved  secretary.  Rev.  J.  P.  Livengood. 
When  Rev.  E.  S.  Henkel  heard  of  his  death  he  wept 
aloud.     A  good  and  beloved  man  had  fallen.     There  was 


—     103    — 

sorrow  everywhere.  Rev.  E.  Rudisill  was  still  unap- 
peased.  Revs.  John  and  Christian  Good  had  removed  to 
Iowa,  and  Fairchild  was  discouraged  beyond  measure. 
It  seemed  that  fate  had  decreed  the  sj'nod's  destruction. 

When  the  tidings  of  Livengood's  death  reached 
Henkel,  who  was  president,  he  wrote  to  Rudisill  and  en- 
treated him  to  renew  his  relation  to  the  synod.  It  met 
in  Whitestown  in  November,  1859.  Henkel  was  unable 
to  be  present.  Four  pastors  and  three  candidates  were  in 
attendance.  Rudisill  was  there.  Organization  was  ef- 
fected by  the  election  of  Rev.  H.  Fairchild  as  president 
and  Rev.  Philip  A.  Peter  secretary.  A  motion  to  give 
Rudisill  a  seat  and  voice  in  the  synod  was  made,  and  al- 
though vigorously  opposed  by  one  delegate,  Mr.  Joseph 
Klingensmith,  of  8alem  church.  New  Augusta,  it  pre- 
vailed. Rudisill  accepted  the  offer,  and  the  delegate 
withdrew  from  the  synod.  It  was  the  opportunity  for 
which  Rudisill  waited  for  years,  and  he  was  not  slow  in 
embracing  it.  With  all  his  eloquence,  pathos  and  lilting 
sarcasm,  he  censured,  browbeat  and  maligned  the  synod 
until  it  was  ready  to  accede  to  his  demands,  namely  that 
that  body  dissolve  and  cease  its  very  existence. 

Meanwhile  the  congregations  composing  the  Synod 
of  the  West  also  had  their  dilliculties  and  contentions. 
The  revival  measures  were  distasteful  to  the  German  pas- 
tors, who,  after  1840,  began  to  arrive  in  these  regions 
from  the  Fatherland.  They  were  men  of  a  churchly  spirit 
and  of  conservative  tendencies.  They  were  largely  under 
the  influence  of  Wynnekin,  while  he  was  in  the  synod, 
and  to  which  body  the  most  of  these  German  pastors  at- 
tached themselves.  Besides  the  revival  question,  the 
doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  also  came  to  the  front,  as 
well  as  several  others.     The  synod  grew  rapidly  in  num- 


—     104    — 

bers.  Its  territory  was  extensive,  embracing  Indiana, 
Illinois,  Kentucky  and  Tennessee.  It  was  evident  that  a 
rupture  on  these  above-named  questions  was  inevitable. 
In  1846,  by  mutual  consent,  the  Synod  of  the  West  was 
divided,  not  on  doctrinal,  but  on  territorial  lines.  The 
Indiana  body  retained  the  name,  title  and  seal  of  the 
original  body,  and  its  historic  continuity.  The  other  two 
bodies  were  the  Synod  of  Illinois,  embracing  the  pastors 
and  congregations  in  that  state,  and  the  Synod  of  the 
Southwest,  embracing  those  in  Kentucky,  Tennessee  and 
Missouri.  But  this  division  did  not  evade  the  doctrinal 
differences.  The  congregation  at  Fort  Wayne  officially 
declared  that  this  division  was  only  for  the  purpose  of 
attaching  the  Synod  of  the  West  more  closely  to  the  Gen- 
eral Synod,  and  it  withdrew  from  that  body.  There  were 
in  this  body  men  of  the  most  opposite  views,  and  they 
could  not  Ubor  together  in  harmony.  It  became  evident 
that  that  body  would  be  short-lived.  Rev.  J,  J.  Leh- 
manowsky  did  all  he  could  to  perpetuate  its  existence, 
but  failed.  We  have  no  evidence  that  another  conven- 
tion of  this  body  was  held  after  1846,  though  there  might 
have  been.  Several  of  its  pastors,  Germans  drawn  to- 
gether by  elective  affinity  and  common  sympathies,  met 
in  Indianapolis  in  1846  and  1847  for  mutual  interests, 
enlightenment  and  encouragement,  and  in  1848  organized 
the  Synod  of  Indianapolis.  This  was  a  German  body, 
and  grew  rapidly.  But  in  a  few  years  it  came  in  contact 
with  the  Missourians,  who  absorbed  quite  a  respectable 
portion  of  its  pastors  and  churches.  The  remnant  con- 
tinued under  their  organization,  and  eventually  became 
merged  into  the  Southern  District  of  the  Joint  Synod  of 
Ohio. 

The  English  pastors  of  the  Synod  of  the  West,  after 


—    105    — 

the  dissolution  or  default  of  that  body,  were  absorbed  by 
the  Synod  of  Miami,  and  the  Olive  Branch  Synod  organ- 
ized in  1848.  In  the  breaking  up  of  the  synodical  organ- 
izations we  note  that  the  pastors  attached  themselves  to 
those  bodies  which  represented  their  respective  doctrinal 
positions. 

In  a  quarter  of  a  century  from  the  time  that  the 
Lutheran  churches  in  Indiana  were  formed  into  synodical 
organizations,  there  was  a  general  breaking  up  along 
the  lines  of  their  original  aims,  a  readjustment  of  forces 
and  a  reorganization  for  further  work.  The  causes  that 
led  to  these  were  chiefly  internal,  although  external  causes 
had  some  influence.  Among  the  German  congregations 
there  was  a  growth  from  the  earlier  rationalistic  to  a 
more  distinctive  Lutheran  position,  due  chiefly  to  the 
labors  of  the  pastors  who  came  from  Germany.  There 
were  two  tendencies  especially  discernible,  one  which 
landed  its  congregations  in  the  fold  of  the  Joint  Synod, 
the  other  in  the  bosom  of  Missouri.  Among  the  English 
congregations,  or  rather  the  native  American  congrega- 
tions, there  also  were  two  tendencies,  the  one  leading  to 
the  unionism  and  revivalism  of  the  General  Synod,  and 
the  other  to  the  conservatism  of  the  General  Council. 

Thus  far  we  have  endeavored  to  trace  the  beginnings, 
the  growth,  the  trial,  and  the  results  of  the  efforts  of  the 
Lutherans  in  the  region  under  review.  We  have  based 
our  statements  upon  such  material  as  has  been  available. 
The  field  is  virgin  soil,  and  we  are  conscious  of  the  fact  that 
we  may  have  been  mistaken  in  our  judgment  and  conclu- 
sions on  some  of  the  questions  discussed.  A  more  exten- 
sive investigation  and  more  thorough  research  may  bring 
to  light  other  material  which  would  enhance  the  historical 
value  of  this  work,  and  add  interest  to  the  narrative.    We 


—     J06    — 

now  propose  to  present  in  detail  the  history  of  those 
synods  whose  work  we  have  aimed  chiefly  to  trace.  In 
these  subsequent  chapters  there  will  be  repeated  much  of 
what  has  been  presented  before,  but  it  will  be  in  the  con- 
nection where  it  most  intimately  belongs. 

We  regard  the  Synod  of  Indiana,  the  Union  Synod  and 
the  Indiana-Chicago  Synod  as  historically  one  body.  The 
changes  were  those  of  names  rather  than  of  organizations. 
The  same  congregations,  and  the  same  pastors  which 
constituted  the  dissolving  body,  formed  the  new  organiza- 
tion. These  two,  the  Synod  of  Indiana  and  the  Union 
Synod,  are  the  historical  and  logical  antecedents  of  the 
Chicago  Sjmod. 


PART  II 
THE  SYNODICAL  HISTORY 


CHAPTER  V 
(311)0  iEuamjrliral  ICutI|eran  ^yitoiJ  of  31ittimita 


Chapter  V. 


T  may  very  properly  be  said  that  the  Synod  of  In- 
diana had  its  genesis  in  the  settlement  of  Luth- 
erans in  North  Carolina.  In  the  early  part  of  the 
Eighteenth  Century  there  was  a  large  Lutheran 
immigration  into  that  state,  but  it  was  for  the 
most  part  absorbed  by  the  Episcopal  church.  On  account 
of  Indian  troubles  many  were  constrained  to  remove  to 
other  colonies.  The  enterprising  Germans  of  Pennsyl- 
vania pressed  southward  toward  the  frontier  of  their  state 
and  then  into  Maryland,  far  down  the  Shenandoah  valley 
into  Virginia.  These  were  largely  families  springing 
from  those  who  had  settled  in  Montgomery,  Berks,  Lan- 
caster and  York  counties,  strengthened  by  immigrants 
direct  from  the  Fatherland.  This  stream  of  immigrants 
as  early  as  1750  reached  North  Carolina.  Among  them 
were  many  Lutherans  who  settled  in  Mecklenburg,  now 
Rowan,  and  Cabarrus  counties.  Their  first  pastors  were 
Rev.  Adolf  Nuessmann  and  Rev.  Gottfried  Arndt,  who 
came  to  America  in  response  to  the  petition  sent  by  two 
laymen,  one  from  Organ  church  in  Rowan  county  and 
the  other  from  St.  John's  church,  Cabarrus  county.  They 
went  first  to  Hanover,  where  the  interest  of  the  consistory 
was  gained  and  then  to  London.  The  result  was  that  the 
Lutheran  church  in  North  Carolina  was  placed  in  the 
hands   of   the    Lutheran    consistory   at   Hanover   under 


—     109    — 

George  III.  of  England.  The  constitution  of  St.  John's 
church  binds  its  pastors  "to  confess  with  the  heart  and 
mouth  the  symbolical  books  of  our  Evangelical  Lutheran 
Church,"  and  to  send  reports  to  Europe  every  six  weeks. 

During  the  Revolution  the  church  in  North  Carolina 
suffered  severely,  but  the  pastors.  Revs.  Mr.  Nuessmann 
and  Arndt,  labored  faithfully  during  and  after  the  war 
with  marked  success.  Appeals  were  sent  to  the  Helm- 
staedt  Mission  Society,  and  in  response  to  them  Rev. 
Charles  Augustus  Gottlieb  Storch  was  sent  over  in  1788. 
He  located  in  Salisbury,  and  entered  diligently  upon  his 
labors.  In  addition  to  his  original  field  he  extended  his 
labors  to  other  points.  He  organized  churches  in  Rowan, 
Lincoln  and  Cabarrus  counties,  and  made  missionary 
tours  into  South  Carolina,  Tennessee  and  Virginia. 

The  first  convention  of  Lutheran  pastors  in  the  state 
was  held  in  May,  1794,  in  St.  John's  church,  Cabarrus 
county.  It  was  called  for  the  purpose  of  ordaining  Rob- 
ert Johnson  Miller  to  the  Episcopal  ministry.  The  ordina- 
tion was  performed  in  response  to  a  petition  from  Mr. 
Miller's  people  in  Lincoln  county.  His  ordination  certifi- 
cate is  still  extant,  and  charges  him  to  "obey  the  rules, 
ordinances  and  customs  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
church." 

The  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania  never  exercised 
jurisdiction  over  the  churches  in  North  Carolina.  They 
were  under  the  care  of  a  European  missionary  society,  or 
else  independent  alike  of  the  care  or  fellowship  of  any 
ecclesiastical  body.  Two  causes  led  to  the  formation  of 
the  North  Carolina  Synod.  The  principal  impulse  lead- 
ing to  the  organization  seems  to  have  been  the  religious 
awakening  which  passed  over  the  country  in  the  first 
years  of  the  Nineteenth  Century.     The  ablest  minds  of 


—     JJO    — 

the  church  in  that  section,  Revs.  C.  A.  G.  Storch  and 
Paul  Henkel,  became  greatly  disturbed  and  perplexed 
over  the  phenomena  which  they  witnessed,  and  which  in 
some  measure  unsettled  their  own  people.  They  hesi- 
tated to  call  the  movement  fanatical,  or  to  denounce  it  as 
unscriptural,  for  they  discovered  a  remarkable  change  in 
persons  who  had  been  previously  either  ungodly  in  their 
lives  or  avowedly  sceptical  in  their  views.  The  German 
ministers  were  divided  in  their  sentiments,  and  instead 
of  alienating  them,  this  movement  drove  them  to  more 
intimate  communion  with  each  other,  and  to  investigate 
it  more  thoroughly. 

A  second  cause  was  the  cessation  of  help  from  the 
Helmstaedt  Mission  Society,  about  the  same  time.  The 
churches  were  therefore  thrown  upon  their  own  resources. 
Distracted  by  revivalistic  excitement,  and  deprived  of 
parental  guidance  and  the  material  support  of  their 
friends  in  the  Fatherland,  they  felt  the  need  of  united 
counsels  and  active  co-operation  for  their  own  defense 
and  prosperity,  and  "that  the  Gospel  may  be  brought  to 
many  thousands  of  souls  who  have  hitherto  been  neces- 
sarily deprived  of  the  same,"  they  met  in  Salisbury,  May 
2,  1803,  and  originated  the  Synod  of  North  Carolina. 
The  ministers  present  were  Gottfried  Arndt,  Carl  A.  G. 
Storch,  Paul  Henkel  and  Robert  J.  Miller.  There  were 
fourteen  lay  delegates  present  also. 

For  some  years  the  churches  of  this  synod  prospered. 
The  pastors  of  South  Carolina,  with  a  few  exceptions, 
united  with  it.  But  divergent  tendencies  soon  appeared, 
arising  chiefly  from  the  revival  of  the  study  of  the  confes- 
sions, by  which  a  Lutheran  consciousness  was  developed, 
and  which  highly  prized  its  heritage.  This  soon  gave 
rise  to  questions  that  violently  agitated  the  synod.     They 


—   in   — 

were  questions  both  of  practice  and  of  doctrine.  The 
licensure  system,  which  prevailed  very  generally  in  the 
church  at  that  time,  was  disliked  by  an  element  in  the 
sjTiod,  and  the  validity  of  ministerial  acts  performed  by 
licentiates  was  questioned.  An  amicable  controversy 
relative  to  this  question  was  carried  on  with  the  Minis- 
terium  of  Pennsylvania,  but  the  decision  reached  by  that 
body  was  adverse  to  the  views  of  the  conservative  ele- 
ment in  the  North  Carolina  Sjniod.  The  lax  practices 
that  prevailed  were  another  matter  upon  which  divergent 
tendencies  soon  became  pronounced.  The  synod's  afhli- 
ation  with  Moravians  and  Episcopalians  filled  the  con- 
servatives with  alarm,  and  the  formation  of  a  General 
Sj'nod  was  the  wedge  that  finally  sundered  the  bod}'. 

The  leaders  in  the  conservative  movement  were  the 
Henkels,  Paul  and  his  four  sons,  but  especially  David, 
the  youngest  son.  They  were  close  students  of  the  con- 
fessions of  the  church,  of  the  writings  of  Luther,  and  of 
the  Word.  They  had  a  Latin  copy  of  the  Concordia,  and 
from  this  they  would  make  translations  with  which  to 
sustain  their  positions.  The  correctness  of  these  transla- 
tions was  questioned  by  their  opponents,  until  David 
Henkel  came  into  possession  of  a  German  copy,  which 
settled  the  matter  of  the  translations.  The  Henkels  be- 
came convinced  that  the  Lutheran  church  in  America 
had  departed  from  her  confessional  basis,  and  they  were 
fearless  in  the  expression  of  their  convictions  in  the  mat- 
ter. They  were  determined  to  save  her  from  casting  off 
her  birthright. 

In  ISIO  the  North  Carolina  Synod  admitted  into  its 
ministerial  ranks,  by  ordination,  a  man  who  was  not  a 
Lutheran,  but  a  Moravian,  Gottlieb  Schober,  and  who 
remained  in  the  communion  of  the  Moravian  church  until 


—     U2    — 

his  death,  although  during  all  this  time  he  served  Luth- 
eran congregations  as  a  Lutheran  pastor.  At  the  time  of 
his  ordination  he  was  fifty-four  years  old,  a  lawyer  by  pro- 
fession and  owner  of  large  property  interests,  plantation, 
paper  mill,  and  slaves.  He  had  been  a  member  of  the 
North  Carolina  legislature,  and  wielded  a  wide  influence 
socially,  politically  and  religiously.  In  his  practices  he 
was  decidedly  unionistic,  and  upon  his  reception  into  the 
synod  at  once  became  a  recognized  leader,  and  the  cham- 
pion of  the  unionistic  tendencies. 

Besides  Rev.  G.  Schober,  there  was  another  pastor 
in  the  synod  who  was  not  of  the  Lutheran  faith,  but  an 
adherent  of  the  Episcopal  church.  This  was  Rev.  Robert 
Johnson  Miller.  True  he  had  been  ordained  by  the  Luth- 
eran pastors,  but  charged  to  teach  in  accordance  with  the 
doctrines  of  the  Episcopal  church.  Notwithstanding  this 
he  served  Lutheran  churches  for  twenty-seven  years.  He 
was  prominent  in  the  work  and  councils  of  the  synod, 
served  as  the  synod's  travelling  missionary,  and  mani- 
fested deep  zeal  for  the  church.  Besides  these  there  was 
a  unionistic  spirit  pervading  the  whole  synod  which  filled 
the  conservative  brethren  with  alarm,  and  they  were  re- 
solved that  matters  should  go  no  farther  without  a  protest. 
Many  of  their  efforts  to  stem  the  tide  were  ill-advised,  but 
none  can  question  their  sincerity,  and  time  has  vindicated 
the  correctness  of  their  judgment  on  not  a  few  points 
upon  which  they  were  met  with  opposition  and  ridicule. 
It  became  evident,  as  early  as  1816,  even  to  the  warmest 
friends  of  the  synod,  that  a  rupture  was  inevitable,  and 
that  only  an  occasion  was  needed  to  effect  it. 

The  doctrinal  questions  that  arose,  and  which  were 
the  source  of  different  views  and  practices,  were  Original 
Sin,  the  Person  of  Christ,  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Sup- 


-   n3   - 

per.  On  all  these  the  synod's  position  was  challenged  by 
the  conservatives,  and  with  much  reason,  for  the  North 
Carolina  Synod  did  not  receive  the  Augsburg  Confession 
in  its  entirety,^"  and  the  "Plan  for  a  General  Synod  of  the 
Lutheran  Church,"  so  warmly  espoused  by  the  unionistic 
element,  was  regarded  as  an  effort  to  repudiate  the  Augs- 
burg Confession. 

The  occasion  for  the  rupture  came  in  1819  when,  in 
order  to  send  a  delegate  to  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsyl- 
vania for  the  purpose  of  considering  the  project  of  a  Gen- 
eral Sj'nod,  the  North  Carolina  Synod  met  six  weeks  earlier 
than  the  appointed  time.  In  thus  changing  the  date  of 
meeting  thf-  advocates  of  the  General  Synod  movement 
overstepped  their  constitutional  'rights.  The  conserva- 
tives were  not  all  notified  of  the  change  of  date,  and  it 
appeared  to  them  that  this  was  a  scheme  to  circumvent 
their  opposition  to  that  movement.  Rev.  G.  Schober,  the 
leader  in  the  movement  in  the  synod,  and  the  pronoum-ed 
opponent  and  antagonist  of  David  Henkel  on  all  the  dis- 
puted questions,  was  elected  to  represent  the  synod  at 
the  meeting  at  Baltimore.  All  this  tended  to  intensify 
rather  than  mollify  the  personal  feelings  and  doctrinal 
differences  that  existed,  and  convinced  the  conservatives 
that  their  wishes  and  views  would  be  disregarded  by  the 
majority.  Rev.  Philip  Henkel  gave  notice  that  he  could 
not  recognize  the  irregular  meeting.  When  the  time  came 
for  the  meeting  of  the  synod.  Trinity  Sunday,  1819,  he, 
his  brother  David  Henkel,  a  catechist.  and  Rev.  Joseph 
Bell,  a  licentiate,  met  at  Organ  church.  Rowan  county, 
for  the  purpose  of  holding  the  synod  as  per  the  adjourn- 


46  Rev.   S.  S.  Schiiiucker,  Luth.  Cluirch  in   America,    pp. 
214-216. 


—     114    - 

ment  of  the  previous  regular  convention.  At  this  con- 
vention David  Henkel  and  Joseph  Bell  were  ordained  by 
Rev.  Philip  Henkel.  As  the  use  of  the  church  was  de- 
nied them  for  synodical  business,  the  ordination  took 
place  in  an  adjoining  grove.  The  proceedings  of  the  un- 
timely synod,  as  the  other  convention  was  termed,  were 
declared  null  and  void,  and  these  three  men  assumed  the 
name  and  title  of  the  Synod  of  North  Carolina.  Warm 
controversies  ensued,  which  developed  a  sharp  conflict  on 
doctrinal  points,  and  rendered  fruitless  all  efforts  at  recon- 
ciliation the  following  year,  when  both  bodies  assembled 
at  the  same  time  and  place  for  the  synodical  convention. 
After  an  earnest  discussion  of  their  differences,  the  ma- 
jority withdrew  to  another  building.  Those  who  remained 
soon  adjourned,  and  a  few  months  later  met  and  com- 
pleted the  organization  of  the  Tennessee  Synod,  (July  17, 
1820.)  This  was  the  first  rupture  that  occurred  in  the 
Lutheran  Church  in  America. 

The  Tennessee  Synod  was  the  only  Lutheran  Synod 
in  America  at  that  time  that  unreservedly  and  unqualifiedly 
received  the  Augsburg  Confession.  The  Henkels  con- 
fessedly received  everything  within  the  lids  of  the  Con- 
cordienbuch.  They  felt  it  their  special  duty  and  mission 
to  challenge  the  orthodoxy  of  all  other  synods,  and  to 
oppose  the  General  Synod,  which  they  denounced  as  a 
hierarchy  depriving  the  congregations  of  their  rights,  "a 
measure  replete  with  mischief,  threatening  imminent 
danger  to  the  liberties  of  the  American  people."  It  set 
itself  diligently  to  the  work  of  reviving  the  pure  doctrine 
of  the  church,  and  by  means  of  the  printing  press  at  New 
Market,  Virginia,  disseminated  its  views  far  and  wide. 
It  was  exceedingly  jealous  of  its  name  and  faith,  and  re- 
quired pastors  from  other  synods  desirous  of  uniting  with 


—     US    — 

it  to  submit  to  an  examination  as  to  their  faith.  The 
leader  and  ablest  exponent  of  the  synod,  until  his  death, 
was  the  Rev.  David  Henkel. 

The  work  done  by  the  pastors  of  the  Tennessee  Synod 
was  thorough  and  solid.  Catechization  was  faithfully 
practiced.  Doctrinal  preaching  was  prominent.  The 
people  were  encouraged  to  study  the  Word,  the  catechism, 
the  confessions,  and  the  writings  of  Luther.  This  they 
did,  and  the  result  was  an  intelligent  laity  who  could 
give  a  reason  for  their  faith.  The  synod  was  averse  to 
everything  that  savored  of  the  sects,  or  of  union  of  church 
and  state.  The  constitution  forbade  the  incorporation  of 
the  synod  and  a  treasury  for  missions  and  education. 
But  notwithstanding  their  mistaken  idea  about  thorough 
organization  for  missionary  operations,  and  for  replenish- 
ing the  ranks  of  the  ministry,  it  did  not  dampen  their 
ardor  nor  arrest  their  activity  in  prosecuting  vigorously 
this  work  in  their  peculiar  way.  They  were  diligent  in 
planting  and  watering,  and  trusted  to  the  Lord  for  the 
increase.  The  statistics  are  very  defective  and  not  at  all 
flattering  in  some  respects,  yet  those  pastors  were  all  true 
and  ardent  missionaries.  With  no  board  to  aid  and  di- 
rect their  labors,  with  no  treasury  to  support  them,  they 
made  long,  arduous  but  frequent  journeys  on  horseback, 
over  rough  roads,  through  wild  and  thinly  settled  dis- 
tricts, exposed  to  serious  dangers,  and  suffering  untold 
privations,  that  they  might  bring  the  Gospel  to  their 
scattered  brethren  in  the  faith.  Their  time  was  spent  in 
teaching,  preaching,  visitation,  and  the  administration  of 
the  sacraments.  The  whole  region  south  of  the  Ohio 
river  was  their  territory,  and  they  even  penetrated  the 
states  north  of  that  river,  Indiana.  Ohio  and  Illinois,  and 
beyond  the  Mississippi. 


—     JI6    - 

The  exact  date  that  pastors  of  the  Tennessee  Synod 
entered  the  state  of  Indiana  we  have  not  been  able  to 
determine.  But  as  early  as  1835  there  were  in  the  state 
at  least  four  pastors  belonging  to  that  body.  They  were 
Revs.  John  L.  Markert,  E.  S.  Henkel,  Christian  Moritz 
and  Deacon  Abraham  Miller.  Two  licentiates  or  candi- 
dates were  in  Missouri,  namely,  Ephraim  R.  Conrad,  and 
Conrad  F.  Picker.  Feeling  their  isolation,  and  the  in- 
convenience of  being  so  far  removed  from  their  synod, 
they  had  several  conferences,  at  which  the  propriety  of 
organizing  a  new  synod  was  thoroughly  discussed.  See- 
ing the  pressing  needs  of  the  church  and  the  necessity  of 
more  united  and  concerted  action  for  the  welfare  of  the 
same,  "a  portion  of  the  members  of  the  Lutheran  church 
in  the  west,  believing  it  expedient  that  all  ecclesiastical 
bodies  should  have  some  center  of  union,  so  that  by  their 
mutual  considerations  they  may  be  enabled  as  much  as 
possible  to  arrive  at  the  truth,  and  take  steps  and  devise 
means  for  the  promulgation  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ, 
saw  fit  to  invite  as  many  of  the  Lutheran  ministers  and 
churches  as  practicable  to  meet  in  St.  John's  church,*' 
Johnson  county,  Indiana,"  for  the  purpose  of  organizing, 
if  deemed  expedient,  an  Evangelical  Lutheran  Synod  for 
Indiana.  The  date  set  for  this  convention  was  August 
15,  1835.  On  that  date  three  pastors,  seven,  laymen,  rep- 
resenting as  many  congregations,  and  three  applicants  for 
ordination  as  pastors,  were  present,  to  take  part  in  the 
organization.  The  minutes  are  silent  as  to  who  was 
elected  president,  but  doubtless  the  Rev.  John  L.  Markert 
was  honored  with  the  office.  Rev.  Eusebius  S.  Henkel 
was  elected  secretary.     The  synod  had  no  treasurer  until 


47  This  was  a  log  building  erected  several  years  before. 


--     117     - 

1844.  After  a  prolonged  discussion  they  organized  them- 
selves into  a  synod,  and  adopted  the  constitution  of  the 
Synod  of  Tennesee,  adopted  by  that  body  in  1828,  with 
its  accompanying  remarks,  as  their  constitution,  and 
chose  the  name  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Synod  of  In- 
diana. They  addressed  a  letter  to  the  Tennessee  Synod, 
"entreating  their  former  brethren  not  to  consider  this 
course  as  an  intention  to  separate  from  them,  but  as  a 
means  of  strengthening  the  same  cause."  The  mother 
synod  heartily  approved  the  course  pursued  by  these 
brethren  in  Indiana.  The  most  cordial  relations  between 
these  bodies  were  maintained  for  many  years.  Both 
bodies  occupied  the  same  position  relative  to  the  General 
Synod,  and  other  Lutheran  synods.  Both  were  avowed 
champions  of  Henkelism,  over  against  General  Synodism, 
and  this  did  much  to  cement  their  union  and  friendship, 
until  the  Destructionism  heresy  made  its  appearance  in 
the  Synod  of  Indiana. 

The  doctrinal  position  of  this  synod,  being  the  same 
as  that  of  the  Tennessee  Synod,  was  considerably  in  ad- 
vance of  other  Lutheran  bodies  in  the  United  States.  "It 
was  a  time  when  all  the  tendencies  of  progress  were  in 
wrong  directions,  when  the  Lutherans  in  America  were 
few,  and  those  who  maintained  the  doctrines  of  the 
church  were  fewer."  These  two  bodies  were  then  the 
only  synods  that  formally  and  unqualifiedly  received  the 
Augsburg  Confession.  The  Tennessee  Synod  took  de- 
cided grounds  on  the  doctrines  of  Original  Sin,  the  Person 
of  Christ,  and  especially  on  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. It  condemned  all  other  synods  as  heretical  and  un- 
lutheran,  and  especially  the  General  Synod,  whose  posi- 
tion on  these  points  was  very  indefinite.  In  these  matters 
the  Synod  of  Indiana  concurred  when  it  was  organized 


-   ns   - 

fifteen  years  later.  It  represented  the  pronounced  type 
of  Lutheranism  in  Indiana.  It  placed  itself  unequivo- 
cally upon  the  Word  of  God  as  the  only  rule  of  faith, 
doctrine  and  church  discipline.  It  acknowledged  without 
qualification  the  Augsburg  Confession,  "because  it  is  a 
true  declaration  of  the  principal  doctrines  of  faith  and 
church  discipline.  Neither  does  it  contain  anything  con- 
trary to  the  Scriptures.  No  minister  shall  therefore  be 
allowed  to  teach  anything,  nor  shall  this  body  transact 
anything  that  may  be  repugnant  to  any  article  in  this 
confession."  Luther's  Smaller  Catechism  was  also  re- 
ceived and  acknowledged  "to  contain  a  compendium  of 
scripture  doctrines,  and  is  of  great  untility  in  the  cate- 
chising of  youth."  "Lutherans  acknowledge  the  Holy 
Scriptures  as  the  only  rule  of  doctrine  and  discipline ; 
nevertheless,  they  receive  the  Augsburg  Confession  be- 
cause it  exhibits  the  same  views  as  they  have  on  the 
Scriptures,  and  is  a  formal  declaration  of  what  they  be- 
lieve. But  if  it  were  possible  to  prove  that  the  views  on 
the  points  of  doctrine  contained  in  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion were  erroneous  it  would  be  the  duty  of  this  body  to 
renounce  it;  nevertheless,  in  that  case  they  could  by  no 
means  be  Lutherans,  as  they  would  have  rejected  the 
views  of  Lutherans."  The  synod  required  all  its  candi- 
dates to  "covenant  to  officiate  only  in  accordance  with 
the  Augsburg  Confession  of  faith."  Such  was  the  doc- 
trinal position,  officially  declared,  of  the  first  Lutheran 
synod  in  Indiana.  In  the  midst  of  the  latitudinarian 
Lutheranism  of  the  west,  and  the  sneers  and  cavils  of  the 
sects  in  this  new  state,  the  Synod  of  Indiana  stood  out 
boldly  as  a  precursor  of  better  things  for  Lutherans  in  a 
future  day.  It  would  be  a  source  of  great  satisfaction  to 
the  conservative  Lutheran   if   it  could    be    said   that   it 


—     119     — 

adhered  faithfully  to  this  position  in  its  practices  and  acts 
in  later  days.  But  it  cannot.  It  gradually  yielded  to 
the  unlutheran  tendencies,  which  led  to  the  adoption  of  a 
new  constitution  in  1853,  in  which  it  expressed  its  doc- 
trinal position  as  follows:  "This  synod  acknowledges 
and  receives  the  Holy  Scriptures,  namely,  the  inspired 
writings  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  scriptures,  as  the 
only  rule  of  faith  and  church  discipline ;  and  as  the  great 
bond  of  union  and  of  church  fellowship  among  us." 
"This  synod  declares  itself  a  Lutheran  synod,  because  we 
acknowledge  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  faith,  .... 
to  be  on  all  the  essential  doctrines  of  salvation  a  true 
declaration  of  scripture  principles,  and  upon  the  various 
doctrines  and  matters  upon  which  they  treat  generally 
correct."  This  last  clause  was  three  years  later,  upon 
motion  of  Rev.  W.  H.  Deck,  stricken  out,  thus  making 
its  doctrinal  statement  more  explicit. 

The  synod  and  its  individual  pastors  were  diligent  in 
their  efforts  to  spread  the  Lutheran  doctrine,  especially 
on  those  things  concerning  which  the  church's  position 
was  misunderstood  or  misrepresented.  Not  having  a 
periodical  of  their  own,  and  unable  to  support  one,  al- 
though several  attempts  were  made  to  establish  an  organ, 
they  made  their  minutes  the, means  through  which  to  dis- 
seminate the  distinctive  doctrines  which  they  held.  This 
was  done  by  authorizing  some  member  to  prepare  an 
essay  upon  a  certain  subject  and  have  it  printed  as  an 
appendix  to  the  minutes.  At  the  first  convention  the 
synod  requested  Rev.  C.  Moritz  to  prepare  a  treatise  on 
Infant  Baptism,  and  present  it  at  the  next  meeting  of  the 
synod.  This  he  failed  to  do,  so  far  as  the  minutes  show. 
In  addition  to  this  instruction  of  Rev.  Mr.  Moritz,  the 
83'nod  recommended  to  the  membership  of  the  churches 


-     J20     - 

as  sound  doctrinal  Lutheran  literature  and  appropriate 
reading,  the  hymn  book  used  by  the  Tennessee  Synod, 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  Luther's  Small  Catechism,  and 
the  Treatrise  on  the  Incarnation  and  Person  of  Jesus 
Christ,  by  David  Henkel.  Rev.  E.  S.  Henkel  was  author- 
ized to  procure  a  number  of  copies  of  each  of  these,  and 
distribute  them  among  the  congregations.  At  the  synod- 
ical  conventions  doctrinal  discourses  were  delivered  in 
order  to  fortify  both  pastors  and  people  against  the  heret- 
ical views  and  lax  practices  of  the  sects  and  pseudo-Luth- 
erans. In  1840  the  synod  instructed  Rev.  Mr.  Rudisili  to 
prepare  a  treatise  on  Infant  Baptism,  to  be  printed  as  an 
appendix  in  the  minutes  of  the  next  year.*^  In  1841,  at 
the  synodical  convention.  Rev.  E.  S.  Henkel  preached  a 
powerful  sermon  against  "Innovations,"  and  portrayed 
the  evil  consequences  that  would  follow  a  departure  from 
their  established  customs.  This  year's  convention  was 
replete  with  efforts  to  establish  and  promote  sound  doc- 
trine and  churchly  practice.  It  was  resolved  that  at  each 
session  of  the  synod  a  discourse  be  preached  upon  one  of 
the  following  subjects:  Justification,  Baptism,  the  Lord's 
Supper,  or  the  Reformation,  the  preacher  to  be  appointed 
a  year  in  advance  so  as  to  have  ample  time  for  prepara- 
tion. Rev.  E.  S.  Henkel  was  instructed  to  prepare  a 
"form  of  ceremonies  for  the  administration  of  the  ordi- 
nances of  the  church,"  and  submit  the  same  at  the  next 
convention  for  examination  and  adoption.  "During  this 
convention  Rev.  E.  Rudisili  preached  a  strong  sermon  in 
defense  of  Infant  Baptism."  In  1842  Rudisili  was  re- 
quested by  the  synod  to  prepare  a  treatise  on  the  mode  of 


i^  This,  owing  to  sickness,  he  was  unable  to  do.     In  1844 
the  request  was  repeated. 


—     121     — 

baptism,  to  be  printed  as  an  appendix  in  the  minutes  of 
1843.  This  he  did.  The  essaj^  is  an  able,  forceful  and 
logical  presentation  of  the  arguments  in  favor  of  sprink- 
ling as  a  scriptural  mode  of  baptism.  As  a  controversial 
treatise  it  has  merit,  and  its  wide  circulation  among  the 
churches  had  a  salutary  effect.  It  was  diligently  read 
and  widely  commented  upon  in  the  churches.  It  gave 
Rev.  Mr.  Rudisill  a  commanding  position  in  the  synod, 
and  throughout  the  state  a  reputation  for  erudition  and 
ability. 

The  synod  granted  the  right  to  every  congregation  in 
its  connection  to  have  one  delegate  to  its  conventions. 
Each  delegate  had  equal  right  and  vote  in  the  sessions  of 
the  synod  with  the  minister.  Indeed,  no  business  could 
be  transacted  exclusively  by  either  ministers  or  delegates. 
A  layman  on  several  occasions  was  elected  secretary,  and 
during  one  of  the  conventions  of  the  Miller  faction  a  lay- 
man was  honored  with  the  presidency. 

In  regard  to  the  ministry  this  sjTiod  taught  that 
there  are  two  grades,  deacons  and  pastors.  It  provided 
that  as  a  prerequisite  to  ordination  to  either  of  these 
offices  the  individuals  must  be  called  to  the  office  by  one 
or  more  congregations.  Ordination  to  the  diaconate  was 
a  prerequisite  to  ordination  to  the  pastorate.  The  licen- 
sure system  was  introduced  about  the  year  1843,  and  was 
in  vogue  until  the  synod  disbanded. 

In  its  anxiety  to  avoid  the  recurrence  of  the  evils 
that  had  arisen  in  the  church  in  earlier  ages,  and  believ- 
ing the  incorporation  of  ecclesiastical  bodies  to  be  an  ap- 
proach to  the  union  of  church  and  state,  this  synod  made 
a  constitutional  provision  forliidding  the  incorporation  of 
the  synod  by  any  legislature  or  civil  power.  It  also  pro- 
vided that  it  shall  not  have  any  incorporated  theological 


—     122    — 

seminary  under  its  care,  nor  any  particular  treasury  for 
the  purpose  of  supporting  missionaries  and  theological 
seminaries.  Their  idea  was  that  the  candidate  for  the 
ministry  could  obtain  his  classical  training  at  the  acad- 
emies and  colleges  then  in  existence,  and  his  theological 
training  under  some  competent  divine.  Time  proved 
this  provision  to  be  very  unwise.  It  prevented  the  synod 
from  carrying  into  effect,  in  a  business-like  manner,  the 
very  things  for  which  it  was  organized.  Gradually  the 
consciousness  of  this  mistake  dawned  upon  the  minds  of 
its  members,  but  they  hesitated  to  make  a  change.  In 
1844  a  treasury  was  created  "in  order  that  the  synod  may 
have  the  necessary  funds  in  readiness  to  meet  any  of  its 
pecuniary  wants."  By-laws  were  drawn  up  to  regulate 
and  govern  said  treasury.  These  by-laws  provided  that 
"this  treasury  be  for  the  exclusive  purpose  of  defraying 
the  expenses  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Sj^nod  of  In- 
diana." The  original  idea  of  no  funds  for  missions  and 
education  still  prevailed.  In  1849  the  synod  laid  before 
its  congregations,  for  approval  or  rejection,  an  amend- 
ment to  the  constitution  providing  for  a  "treasury  for  the 
purpose  of  supporting  missionaries  and  students  at  theo- 
logical seminaries  under  the  selection  of  the  synod."  It 
also  expressed  itself  "that  it  is  its  opinion  that  it  would 
seem  just  and  right  for  the  benevolence  of  christians  to 
exercise  itself  in  the  assistance  of  such  applicants  for  the 
ministry  as  are  destitute  of  the  means  to  educate  them- 
selves." The  synod  was  convinced  of  the  necessity  of  a 
change  in  its  policy  in  this  department  of  its  work  by  the 
great  defect  existing  in  their  system.  Its  applicants  for 
the  ministry  during  this  period  pursued  a  desultory  course 
of  study  under  some  one  of  the  pastors.  They  thus  failed 
in  being  brought  face  to  face  with  the  standard  authors 


—     J23    — 

of  the  church.  They  had  to  relj'  upon  the  exposition 
and  the  testimony  of  their  teacher  as  to  what  was  and 
what  was  not  Lutheran  doctrine.  In  view  of  the  unset- 
tled condition  of  the  church,  and  the  vagaries  held  by 
some  of  the  pastors,  such  men  were  not  likely  to  become 
living  exponents  of  the  pure  doctrines.  In  order  to  create 
an  interest  in  this  cause  the  synod  organized  an  education 
society,  whose  object  it  was  to  bring  the  united  action  of 
the  whole  synod  to  bear  upon  this  work  of  benevolence. 
Thus,  after  fifteen  years,  the  synod  had  the  courage  to 
admit  that  its  original  position  on  these  questions  was 
untenable  and  impracticable. 

Notwithstanding  its  position  relative  to  educational 
and  missionary'  work,  its  zeal  for  spreading  the  truth  was 
not  curbed,  nor  was  there  any  limit  to  its  missionary  ac- 
tivity in  spreading  the  gospel.  Every  pastor  in  the  synod 
was  a  travelling  evangelist.  There  were  no  definite  pas- 
toral charges  within  its  bounds.  It  had  no  settled  or 
permanent  pastorate.  The  congregations  annually  peti- 
tioned the  synod  for  the  ministration  of  the  Word,  and 
that  body  would  instruct  certain  of  its  pastors  or  deacons 
to  visit  the  congregation  during  the  ensuing  year.  Efforts 
were  made  repeatedly  to  have  all  the  pastors  of  the  synod 
visit  at  least  once  a  year  ever}'  congregation  in  connection 
with  it.  This  arrangement  compelled  the  pastors  to  be 
almost  constantly  on  their  journeys,  making  their  labors 
exceedingly  heavy.  They  were  at  times  separated  for 
weeks  and  months  from  their  families.  Besides  these 
pastoral  visits  to  the  established  congregation,  they  would 
seek  out  new  settlements,  preach  to  the  settlers,  and  or- 
ganize new  congregations  where,  in  their  judgment,  suf- 
ficient material  was  found  to  warrant  it.  For  their 
services  these  pastors  received  such  remuneration  as  the 


—     124    — 

congregation  visited  might  bestow.  This  was  always 
small  enough.  No  stated  salary  was  pledged.  The 
whole  synod  was,  what  it  later  declared  itself  to  be,  a 
missionary  society  without  officers  or  financial  basis. 
Its  chief  work  was  missionating.  Its  pastors  labored 
hard,  trusting  in  the  Lord  for  their  support.  It  was  a 
work  of  love,  and  an  example  of  faith,  that  made  them 
heroes. 

Considering  the  condition  of  the  country,  the  bad 
roads,  the  frequently  swollen  streams,  the  sparsely  set- 
tled districts,  the  rude  character  of  many  of  the  inhabit- 
ants, the  exposures  to  the  inclemencies  of  the  weather, 
their  trials  and  hardships  were  not  of  a  light  character. 
Their  journeys  were  made  on  horseback.  A  few  books  were 
placed  in  the  saddle-bags,  and  the  trip  was  often  a  long 
and  fatiguing  one.  For  lodging  and  food  they  relied 
upon  the  hospitality  of  those  living  along  the  way.  Their 
sermons  were  composed  while  in  the  saddle.  The  long 
and  dreary  journey  was  often  spent  in  reading  or  in  med- 
itating upon  certain  portions  of  holy  writ  while  in  the 
saddle.  Across  their  paths  darted  the  agile  deer,  and  oft 
was  their  meditation  broken  by  the  fierce  barkings  of  the 
wolf.  In  some  settlements  the  preacher  was  hated  more 
than  the  wild  Indian,  and  these  it  was  wise  for  him  to 
avoid.  At  other  places  he  was  a  welcome  guest,  and 
family  vied  with  family  to  do  him  honor. 

The  services  were  held  in  the  cabins  of  the  settlers, 
in  school  houses,  or  under  temporary  sheds  erected  for 
that  purpose.  Preaching  day  in  a  settlement  was  usually 
a  red-letter  day.  Sometimes  sheds  were  erected  by 
planting  four  or  more  "crotches"  in  the  ground  and  lay- 
ing poles  from  one  to  another,  and  then  covering  the 
whole  with  boughs,  boards  or  straw.     In  these  structures 


—     125     - 

the  people  joyously  worshipped  when  the  weather  was  not 
too  severe.     At  other  places  the  groves  were  the  temples 

"When,  in  the  darkling  woods, 
Amid  the  cool  and  silence,  they  knelt  down 
And  offered  to  the  Mightiest  solemn  thanks 
And  supplication." 

To  these  services  great  crowds  of  people  came,  from 
far  and  near,  spending  the  day  in  social  converse  and  in 
public  worship.  The  pastor  felt  his  labor  well  repaid 
when  greeted  with  such  an  audience,  ready  to  hear  all 
things  whatsoever  was  commanded  him  of  God.  Two 
services  were  usually  conducted,  one  in  the  morning  and 
one  in  the  afternoon,  after  which  the  assembly  would 
gradually  disperse. 

The  Synod  of  Indiana  came  into  contact  and  contro- 
versy with  the  "Generalists,"  as  the  adherents  of  the 
General  Synod  were  called,  at  a  very  early  stage  of  its 
existence.  In  1836  Rev.  Jacob  Crigler,  president  of  the 
Evangelical  Lutheran  Synod  of  the  West,  suggested  that 
an  eflfort  be  made  to  unite  the  two  bodies.  A  committee 
was  appointed  to  confer  with  the  Synod  of  Indiana,  which 
reciprocated  the  feelings  of  the  former  body,  and  in  1837 
appointed  a  committee  on  conference.  After  some  cor- 
respondence, the  Synod  of  Indiana  held  a  called  session 
in  1839  for  the  purpose  of  "making  arrangements  for  ef- 
fecting a  union  with  the  Synod  of  the  West,"  and  for  this 
purpose  respectfully  invited  and  earnestly  solicited  all  the 
members  of  the  Synod  of  the  West  to  meet  with  it  at  its 
convention  in  1840.  Rev.  Abraham  Miller  addressed  a 
letter  to  the  corresponding  committee  of  the  Synod  of  the 
West,  dated  June  1840,  stating  the  terms  and  conditions 
upon  which  a  union  might  be  effected.  These  terms  and 
conditions  were  agreed-upon  at  the  c;illed  session.     They 


-     J26    - 

were:  "1.  That  the  Synod  of  the  West  rescind  its  resolu- 
tion attaching  it  to  the  General  Synod.  2.  That  we  op- 
pose the  so-called  benevolent  societies  of  to-day,  such  as 
Tract,  Temperance,  Missionary,  Bible  and  a  host  of  such 
like  fantastical  societies."^"  It  is  needless  to  add  that 
the  Synod  of  the  West  rejected  these  terms,  and  no  union 
between  the  two  synods  was  effected.  During  the  nego- 
tiations a  strong  opposition  against  the  Generalists  was 
exerted.  In  1837  the  congregations  in  Missouri  "prayed 
the  Synod  of  Indiana  to  be  steadfast  against  the  Gener- 
alists." The  feelings  against  the  General  Synod  grew 
more  and  more  intense.  There  may  have  been  some  rea- 
son for  this,  but  doubtless  it  was  more  from  ignorance 
and  unfounded  prejudice  than  from  any  real  facts.  At 
least  so  the  Synod  of  the  West  claimed.  But  be  that  as 
it  may,  a  spirit  of  deeper  and  more  pronounced  opposition 
was  aroused  among  the  pastors  and  congregations  against 
the  General  Synod  pastors  and  churches.  In  1841,  pos- 
sibly from  fear  that  a  union  would  yet  result,  possiblj' 
from  knowledge  of  some  of  the  innovations  practiced  by 
the  General  Synod  pastors,  petitions  came  from  Philadel- 
phia church,  Parke  county,  to  the  synod,  requesting  it  "to 


49  This  attitude  toward  such  societies  was  common  among 
all  denominations  in  these  regions  at  that  time.  It  is  possible 
that  the  pastors  of  the  Synod  of  Indiana  were  influenced  largely 
by  Alexander  Campbell's  denunciations  and  arraignment  of  all 
such  societies  and  those  who  foster  them.  See  Amer.  Church 
History,  Vol.  2,  pp.  490,  491.  Minutes  Synod  of  the  West,  1840, 
pp.  13,  14.  In  the  south,  whence  Rudisill,  Henkel,  Markert 
and  Miller  came,  there  was  decided  opposition  to  "missionary 
efforts"  among  other  denominations,  especially  among  Baptists. 
Vid.  D.  Parker  in  Hist,  of  Baptists  in  American  Church  Hist. 
Series.  The  Tennessee  Lutherans,  or  Henkelites,  were  not  alone 
in  this  view. 


—     J27    - 

expose  the  attempts  of  the  General  Synod  to  destroy  and 
subvert  the  true  Lutheran  doctrines;"  one  from  Union 
church,  Montgomery  county,  "thanking  the  synod  for  the 
knowledge  they  have  obtained  through  those  labors  (of 
its  pastors),  of  the  impositions  and  innovations  of  the 
General  Synod;"  one  from  St.  James'  church,  Montgom- 
ery county,  "asking  the  synod  to  annex  to  its  proceedings 
of  this  session  an  expose  of  Generalism,  so  that  all  who 
desire  to  be  Lutherans  may  see  their  impositions  and 
innovations,  and  come  out  from  among  them."  A  letter 
was  received  from  the  venerable  John  L.  Markert,  in 
which  "he  earnestly  admonished  synod  to  have  no  con- 
nection either  with  the  General  Synod,  or  with  the  Synod 
of  the  West." 

In  compliance  with  these  earnest  appeals  from  con- 
gregations and  pastors,  the  synod  resolved  to  publish  an 
"expose  of  the  conduct  of  the  Generalists,  and  show  their 
attempts  at  subverting  Hud  destroying  the  Lutheran  doc- 
trines and  discipline."  Revs.  E.  S.  Henkel  and  E.  Rudi- 
sill  were  appointed  to  prepare  said  "Expose"  and  have  it 
printed  as  an  appendix  to  the  minutes  of  1841.  It  ap- 
peared in  the  minutes  of  1841.  What  the  character  of 
this  "Expose"  is  we  have  no  means  of  determining,  as  no 
copy  of  the  minutes  of  that  j'ear  have  come  to  hand. 
Whether  the  charges  against  the  General  Synod  pastors 
therein  are  just,  or  warranted,  we  cannot  say.  But  it  had 
its  effect.  Within  two  years  Union  church.  Montgomery 
county,  Indiana,  West  Union,  Knox  county,  St.  George's, 
Shelby  county,  St.  Peter's,  Carrol  county,  St.  Paul's  and 
Philadelphia  churches,  in  Harrison  county,  and  the  con- 
gregation at  Jeffersontown,  Kentucky,  applied  for  admis- 
sion into  the  Synod  of  Indiana.  They  all  appear  to  have 
been  affiliated  with  the  General  Synod.     Some  of  these 


—     128    — 

expressed  their  determination  to  remain  steadfast  in  de- 
fense of  the  truth.'" 

During  this  time  Rev.  E.  Rudisill  also  came  into 
sharp  controversy  with  the  sect  known  as  Disciples  or 
Campbellites.  Campbellism  was  making  rapid  progress 
in  the  southern  and  western  regions  of  our  country.  One 
of  its  favorite  dogmas  then,  as  now,  was  the  mode  of 
baptism,  namely,  immersion.  Prof.  S.  K.  Hoshour,  a 
prominent  Lutheran  in  Virginia,  was  converted  to  the 
faith  of  Campbell  about  1840,  and  became  an  ardent  dis- 
ciple. Hoshour  came  to  Indiana,  and  took  at  once  a 
prominent  place  and  part  in  the  propaganda  of  that  sect. 
Another  convert  from  the  Lutheran  ranks  was  Rev.  W.  R. 
McChesney,  a  member  of  the  Synod  of  the  West.  This 
caused  much  rejoicing  in  their  ranks,  and  every  nerve  was 
strained  to  make  other  proselytes.  When  Dr.  Rudisill's 
essay  on  the  mode  of  baptism  appeared  in  the  minutes  of 
1843  a  certain  defender  of  Campbellism,  Elder  James 
Mathes,  undertook  to  confute  the  arguments  advanced  in 
the  essay  through  the  columns  of  "The  Christian  Review," 
a  paper  published  by  him  in  the  interests  of  his  sect,  and 
widely  read  in  the  church  of  that  name.  When  his 
strictures  appeared.  Dr.  Rudisill  asked  the  privilege  from 
Elder  Mathes  to  reply  to  each  article  through  the  same 
periodical,  so  that  every  reader  could  have  the  opportunity 


50  Whether  the  methods  employed  by  the  pastors  of  the 
Synod  of  Indiana  were  always  fair  and  honorable  is  a  question. 
They  would  enter  wherever  they  had  hopes  of  persuading  a  con- 
gregation to  leave  the  General  Synod  body  and  attach  itself  to 
theirs.  The  only  justification  and  extenuation  that  can  be  offered 
for  this  is,  that  they  were  so  opposed  to  the  methods  of  the  G. 
S.  pastors  that  they  felt  it  their  duty  to  wrest  the  churches  from 
their  hands  and  set  them  right. 


—     J29    — 

of  studying  both  sides  of  the  question.  This  was  pro- 
mised him,  and  the  controversy  soon  waxed  warm  and 
interesting.  But  after  the  appearance  of  a  few  replies  by 
Rudisill  space  was  no  longer  allowed  to  the  doctor  for  his 
articles.  Rudisill  then  published  an  exhaustive  reply  to 
Mathes'  confutation  in  pamphlet  form,  in  which  he 
handled  his  antagonist  without  gloves.  In  the  opening 
Dr.  Rudisill  states  the  agreement  that  had  been  made  by 
Mathes,  and  then  openly  and  fearlessly  charges  him  and 
his  chief  supporter,  Prof.  S.  K.  Hoshour,  with  cowardice, 
and  the  fear  of  losing  adherents  to  their  cause  if  his  re- 
plies were  published.  This  reply  to  Elder  Mathes  did 
much  to  establish  the  Lutherans  in  their  position  on  the 
subject.  The  effect  of  this  controversy  was  that  for  a 
decade  the  Campbellite  sect  was  more  reserved  and  care- 
ful in  its  attacks  upon  Lutherans.  It  brought  Rev.  E. 
Rudisill  to  the  front  as  one  of  the  ablest  controversialists 
in  the  state. 

About  this  time  he  also  got  into  a  controversy  with 
a  Rev.  Dr.  Dickson,  of  the  Associate  Presbyterian  church, 
concerning  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  It  culmi- 
nated in  a  public  debate,  held  in  the  Associate  Presbj'- 
terian  church  in  Parke  county,  Indiana.  The  discussion 
lasted  for  two  days,  and  was  attended  by  vast  crowds  of 
lieople.  In  the  discussion  Rudisill  acquitted  himself  with 
credit.  His  opponent  was  a  mild-mannered,  scholarly 
and  pious  man,  but  not  able  in  this  case  to  maintain  his 
position  against  Rudisill.  At  the  close  of  the  second 
day's  discussion  Rudisill  proposed  to  continue  it,  but  the 
Presbyterians  were  ready  to  let  it  rest.  The  effect  was 
salutary  so  far  as  the  Lutherans  were  concerned.  It 
strengthened  them  very  materially,  and  added  fame  to 
their  champion.     Rut  it  also  puffed  up   Rudisill,  and  fos- 


-     130    - 

tered  his  vanit3^  With  all  his  faults  and  erratic  move- 
ments Rudisill  was  strong  in  his  defense  of  the  Lutheran 
doctrine  over  against  the  erroneous  views  of  the  sects. 
He  knew  the  Lutheran  position,  and  when  assailed  was 
ready  to  fly  to  its  defense. 

Important  as  was  the  work  of  this  synod  and  abund- 
ant its  opportunities  for  establishing  the  church  in  the 
state  and  spreading  the  gospel  of  peace,  it  was  destined 
to  be  rent  into  factions  by  the  demon  of  discord  because 
of  the  unholy  ambition  of  some  of  its  most  prominent 
men.  The  effect  of  this  dissension  upon  the  churches 
was  disastrous.  The  bitter  fruit  thereof  has  not  yet  all 
disappeared.  Some  of  its  strongest  congregations  perished 
through  this  bitter  and  malignant  controversy. 

In  its  early  history,  doctrinally,  the  Synod  of  Indiana 
was  soundly  Lutheran  on  all  the  articles  of  faith.  Its 
ministers  were  pledged  to  teach  in  harmony  with  the 
Augsburg  Confession.  But  the  doctrinal  basis  of  the 
synod  did  not  remain  the  doctrinal  basis  of  its  pastors. 
Lutheranism  was  not  as  clearly  defined  in  these  regions 
as  it  should  have  been.  The  pastors  were  zealous  in  de- 
fense of  the  name,  but  permitted  the  thing  to  be  repu- 
diated. The  times  were  unsettled.  In  the  Lutheran 
church  dissensions,  divisions  and  estrangements  pre- 
vailed. Out  of  other  communions  sects  arose  under  the 
leadership  of  ambitious  men.  In  the  Synod  of  Indiana 
were  men  that  aspired  to  leadership  who  were  inordinately 
ambitious,  whose  convictions  of  the  truth  were  not  deep- 
rooted,  and  whose  actions  were  not  wholly  guided  by  di- 
vine grace.  Religious  movements  swept  like  tidal  waves 
across  the  country,  breaking  up  the  old  order  of  things, 
and  out  of  the  confusion  and  chaos  came  new  sects,  whose 
leaders  soon  gained  prominence  and  notoriety.    Universal- 


131 


ism  had  swept  across  the  state  during  the  first  third  of 
the  centur}',  and  many  a  congregation  went  down  before 
its  withering,  blasting  and  poisoning  curse.  It  was 
openly  insinuated  that  some  of  the  pastors  of  the  Synod 
of  Indiana  winked  at  its  progress,  and  privately  admitted 
that  at  heart  they  accepted  its  tenets.  A  reaction,  how- 
ever, set  in.  Universalism  was  too  blatant.  The  en- 
lightened judgment  was  repelled  by  it.  Absolute  Uni- 
versalism, therefore,  gave  way  to  the  more  acceptable 
doctrine  of  Destructionism.  This  was  a  new  doctrine  to 
the  people  of  the  Lutheran  church  in  the  state,  and  it  bid 
fair  of  being  widely  accepted.  It  promised  prominence 
and  popularity  to  those  who  would  champion  the  new 
heresy.  But  it  had  not  sufficient  merit  to  give  it  stand- 
ing. It  must  needs  be  leagued  with  other  doctrines  that 
possess  merit,  respectability  and  historic  association.  An 
effort  was  therefore  made  by  certain  pastors  of  the  Synod 
of  Indiana  to  incorporate  this  tenet  as  an  article  in  the 
synod's  doctrinal  basis.  These  pastors  were  Revs.  E. 
Rudisill,  M.  D.,  Elias  Markert,  Samuel  Good,  and  possi- 
bly also  John  H.  Vajan. 

As  early  as  1845,  if  not  earlier,  these  men  began  to 
preach  this  heresy  in  the  congregations  and  at  the  synod- 
ical  conventions.  They  conspired  to  foist  the  doctrine 
upon  the  synod,  and  elaborate  plans  were  laid  and  prepar- 
ations made  to  carry  out  successfully  their  project.  Rev. 
E.  Rudisill  was  the  leader,  and  he  was  faithfully  and  ar- 
dently supported  by  his  lieutenants,  Markert  and  Good. 
Whether  Rudisill  was  persuaded  b}'  some  one  to  adopt 
this  view,  or  whether  he  merely  pretended  to  believe  it, 
and  used  it  as  a  means  to  gratify  his  ambition  and  to 
place  himself  at  the  head  of  another  ecclesiastical  body, 
we  cannot  say.     That  he  aspired  to  be  the  head  of  ;.i  new 


-     132    - 

ecclesiastical  body  is  beyond  question.  That  he  knew 
this  doctrine  to  be  not  only  unlutheran  but  anti-lutheran, 
is  also  certain.  He  expressed  his  conviction  repeatedly 
that  it  is  a  scriptural  doctrine,  and  that  it  would  be  ac- 
cepted by  the  church.  He  therefore  made  strenuous  ef- 
forts to  have  the  synod  adopt  it  as  an  article  of  faith. 
He  was  well  fitted  for  this  task.  Eloquent  and  persuasive 
in  speech,  and  shrewd  in  debate,  he  hoped  to  bear  down 
all  opposition.  His  success  in  the  Baptist  controversy 
made  him  sanguine  of  victory  in  this  movement.  He 
feared  no  opposition  from  Henkel,'^'  and  he  considered 
himself  more  than  a  match  for  any  other  pastor  in  the 
synod.  His  vanity  led  him  to  believe  that  he  could  van- 
quish anyone  in  the  whole  Lutheran  church  who  might 
oppose  him.  Especially  did  he  desire  "to  lock  horns 
with  the  Generalists  on  this  question,"  as  he  expressed  it. 
His  plan  was  to  preach  the  doctrine  in  the  congregations 
and  win  them  to  his  support,  and  then  by  flattery,  argu- 
ment and  threats  win  the  pastors  to  his  side.  But  he 
reckoned  without  his  host. 

Rev.  Elias  Markert  was  nothing  more  than  a  willing 
tool  in  the  hands  of  Rudisill.  He  had  not  the  elements 
nor  the  ability  of  a  leader.  But  under  Rudisill's  manip- 
ulations he  aided  very  materially  in  spreading  the  heresy. 

Rev.  S.  Good  was  Rudisill's  chief  lieutenant,  and 
heartily  seconded  his  efforts.  His  confidence  in  Rudisill's 
judgment  and  learning  had  more  to  do  in  leading  him 
into  the  movement  than  his  own  convictions,  and  when 
the  cause  failed  so  ingloriously  the  wily  Rudisill  made 
him  the  scapegoat  for  the  sins  of  the  conspirators. 


51  Henkel  was  at  this  time  in  the  mazes  and  toils  of  Uni- 
versaUsm. 


—    133    - 

In  1844  a  young  German,  John  F.  Lautenschlager, 
was  commended  to  the  sj'nod  by  Rev.  C.  Moritz,  then  re- 
siding in  Iowa.  Mr.  Lautenschhvger  was  received  bj^  the 
synod  as  a  worthy  candidate,  and  phiced  under  the  care 
of  Revs.  E.  S.  Henkel  and  E.  Rudisill.  Under  their  di- 
rections he  pursued  his  studies.  He  was  a  man  of  fair 
attainments,  a  close  student  of  the  confessions  and  of  the 
M'ord,  and  of  great  courage  and  strong  convictions.  In 
1846  he  was  licensed  to  preach  and  was  assigned  as  as- 
sistant to  Rev.  S.  Good.  He  soon  discovered  the  heretical 
views  of  Good  and  could  no  longer  conscientiously 
serve  under  him.^'  He  then  went  to  Rev.  E.  Rudisill  for 
comfort,  and  to  his  astonishment,  found  him  holding  the 
same  views  as  did  Good.  Thereupon  he  began  publicly 
to  expose  and  oppose  the  destructionist  heresy,  and  thus 
becahie  a  thorn  in  the  flesh  of  the  conspirators.  Under 
this  opposition  they  became  restive  and  entered  aggres- 
sively and  defiantl}'  upon  their  course.  Plans  were  laid 
to  give  the  doctrine  official  and  synodical  sanction.  To 
forestall  the  opposition  that  was  arising,  at  the  instigation 
of  Rudisill,  who  was  president,  a  resolution,  drawn  by 
him,  was  railroaded  through  the  synod,  clothing  him  with 
arbitrary  and  almost  absolute  power  and  authority  over 
the  candidates,  licentiates,  deacons,  pastors  and  congre- 
gations of  the  synod."^     As  there  existed  an  emergency 


52  "When  he.  Good,  and  I  conversed  on  religious  subjects 
he  would  charge  the  Lutheran  church  with  superstition,  would 
deny  the  immortality  of  the  souls  of  the  wicked,  the  resurrection, 
a  day  of  judgment,  everlasting  punishment,  original  sin  and  the 
Holy  Ghost  in  toto.  He  declared  the  bible  a  heretical  book,  the 
work  of  man,  and  ordered  church  councils  to  burn  Luther's 
catechisms."    .1.  F.  Lautenschlager,  Minutes  Miller  faction,  1850. 

53  This  was  at  the  convention  in  1847. 


—     134    — 

it  was  made  immediately  effective,  contrary  to  the  rules 
and  regulations  of  the  synod.  It  was  to  remain  in  force 
one  year,  and  if  ratified  by  the  congregations,  should  be-, 
come,  after  the  next  convention,  a  part  of  the  rules  and 
regulations. 

The  resolution,  as  it  was  finally  adopted  in  1848,  and 
which  somewhat  curtailed  the  powers  vested  in  the  presi- 
dent by  the  resolution  of  1847,  was  as  follows  :  "Resolved, 
that  the  duties  of  the  president  of  this  synod  shall  be, 
not  only  to  preside  over  the  deliberations  of  the  synod  at 
its  sessions,  but  in  the  interim  to  call  sessions  of  the 
synod  when  petitioned  for  by  two  ministers  and  two  con- 
gregations ;  and  also  to  call  councils  of  preachers,  when 
the  same  is  demanded  by  a  minister  or  congregation. 
All  students  and  licentiates  shall  be  guided  by  his  advice, 
and  call  upon  him  for  counsel.  He  may  examine  and 
grant  license  to  preach,  catechise  and  to  baptize  during 
the  interim  of  the  synod.  And  when  any  minister  is 
about  to  enter  into  a  public  debate  he  should  seek  his 
counsel  as  to  its  necessity,  and  if  possible  have  his  pres- 
ence. And  when  complaint  or  complaints  are  made  to 
him  in  writing,  against  a  minister,  deacon  or  licentiate, 
by  a  minister  or  congregation,  he  shall  call  a  council  of 
two  ministers  and  delegates  from  three  congregations,  and 
if  the  complaint  is  sustained,  a  majority  of  the  council  so 
voting,  he  shall  suspend  said  minister,  deacon  or  licentiate 
until  the  next  meeting  of  the  synod.  He  shall  give  in 
writing  a  full  account  of  his  official  proceedings  to  the 
next  session  of  the  synod  for  its  examination  and  ap- 
proval;  that  this  resolution  be  an  amendment  to  Regula- 
tion No.  3  of  the  local  and  temporary  regulations  of  the 
constitution  of  this  synod."  This  resolution  was  carried 
through,  all  opposition,  being  borne  down  by  the  impetu- 


—     135    — 

osity  of  its  author.  Several  of  the  pastors  who  voted  for 
it  sulisequently  confessed  that  they  did  not  understand  its 
full  import,  else  they  would  have  opposed  it.  The  subse- 
quent course  of  Rudisill  clearly  showed  that  he  introduced 
it  for  designing  purposes. 

The  advocates  of  Destructionism,  however,  were  not  to 
go  on  unchallenged.  Among  both  clergy  and  laity  there 
were  men  who  knew  that  this  doctrine  is  not  a  part  of 
Lutheranism,  and  who  loved  their  church  and  her  doc- 
trines too  dearly  to  let  the  matter  go  on  without  a  protest. 
While  not  equal  to  Rudisill  in  learning,  eloquence  and 
forensic  skill,  the  clergymen  who  opposed  him  had  the 
consciousness  of  being  in  the  right,  and  the  courage  of 
their  convictions.  They  had  the  scriptures,  the  Lutheran 
confessions  and  theologians  on  their  side,  and  felt  thrice 
armed  because  on  the  side  of  right. 

The  first  official  notice  we  have  of  the  heresy  was  at 
the  convention  of  1847.  During  the  preceding  winter 
and  spring  Rudisill  was  in  the  south  endeavoring  to  se- 
cure funds  for  the  purchase  of  a  printing  press,  but  in 
which  effort  he  was  not  successful.  His  intentions  evi- 
dently were  to  promulgate  his  views  by  that  means.  He 
wished  to  discuss  the  doctrine  through  the  "Lutheran 
Standard,"  but  Rev.  E.  Greenwald,  the  editor,  could  not 
consent  to  any  such  thing.  At  the  convention  in  1847 
Rev.  Abraham  Miller  addressed  a  letter  to  the  synod  in 
which  he  stated  "that  some  of  the  ministering  brethren 
are  debating  against  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  that 
if  the  synod  wishes  to  be  Destructionist  he  would  not,  but 
desires  to  hold  to  all  the  articles  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion." In  this  protest  Rev.  A.  Miller  was  heartily  sec- 
onded by  Licentiate  John  F.  Lautenschlager.  But  the 
protest  was  treated  with  contempt.     The  synod  resolved 


—    136    - 

to  discountenance  it,  and  no  investigation  was  made. 
With  much  bhister  and  airs  of  injured  innocence  each 
suspected  pastor  present  declared  his  readiness  to  answer 
every  charge  of  heresy  against  him.  The  specific  charge 
was  evaded,  and  another  year's  time  secured  in  which  to 
strengthen  their  defenses,  and  to  spread  the  error. 

The  controversy  waxed  warm,  and  affected  ahnost 
every  congregation  in  the  synod.  The  introduction  and 
passage  of  the  resohition  above  given  was  Rudisill's  coup 
(V  etat,  and  he  cherished  the  hope  it  would  enable  him  to 
carry  his  point.  He  declared  repeatedly  that  "Destruc- 
tionism  is  the  doctrine  of  the  synod,  that  it  had  to  be 
established  as  such  within  three  years,  and  that  all  who 
would  not  come  to  it  would  have  to  go  it."  He  ruled 
with  a  high  hand.  He  wielded  the  resolution  over  the 
pastors,  and  they  dreaded  his  displeasure  and  feared  his 
wrath.  Rudisill,  Markert  and  Good  were  ready  to  debate 
the  question  publicly  with  anyone.  Rev.  Hugh  Wells,  a 
pastor  of  the  General  Synod,  accepted  a  challenge  from 
Good,  and  they  had  a  public  debate  in  Boone  county  on 
the  24th  and  25th  of  September,  1847.  In  this  debate 
Good  denied  the  resurrection  of  the  wicked  and  their 
everlasting  punishment,  the  day  of  judgment  and  future 
punishment.  In  the  course  of  the  debate  he  repudiated 
the  Augsburg  Confession  and  Luther's  Small  Catechism. 
Rudisill  also  openly  preached  the  doctrine.  Even  pastors 
of  other  denominations  openly  opposed  him,  and  charged 
him  with  departing  from  the  Lutheran  position.  Protests 
from  Lutheran  pastors  and  Lutheran  synods  were  sent  in, 
but  these  were  disregarded.''^ 

The    Destructionists    became    intoxicated    with    the 


w  Rev.  A.  H.  Meyers,  Henry  Fairchild,  E.  Goodwin.     The 
Synod  of  Indianapolis  and  the  Ohio  Synod. 


-     137    - 

notoriety  they  gained,  and  construed  it  as  evidence  of 
ultimate  success.    They  were  sanguine  as  to  the  outcome. 

Meanwhile,  Rev.  Mr,  Lautenschhiger  was  also  active. 
He  opposed  the  heresy  with  all  his  power,  appealing  to 
the  scriptures,  and  showing  from  the  confessions  that  it  is 
not  a  part  of  the  Lutheran  doctrine,  and  that  as  Lutherans 
they  should  repudiate  and  denounce  it.  The  unconstitu- 
tional procedures  of  the  synod,  and  the  arbitrary  acts  of 
its  president,  were  exposed  and  denounced.  Many  of  the 
congregations  perceived  that  they  had  been  hoodwinked 
by  Rudisill,  who,  with  all  his  faults,  was  almost  idolized 
by  the  laity.  In  this  work  Lautenschlager  was  heartily 
supported  by  Revs.  Abraham  and  David  Miller.  While 
neither  learned  nor  eloquent,  these  men  possessed  a  large 
degree  of  common  sense,  and  were  devout  servants  of  the 
church.  Their  earnestness,  humility  and  fidelity  to  the 
truth  compensated  for  their  lack  of  education. 

But  Rudisill  could  brook  no  opposition.  He  was 
determined  to  rid  himself  of  these  troublers  of  his  cause. 
In  1847,  there  were  three  petitions  from  as  many  con- 
gregations,"  praying  for  the  ordination  of  J.  F.  Lauten- 
schlager to  the  office  of  pastor.  These  petitions  were 
disregarded  by  the  synod,  through  Rudisill's  influence, 
and  he  was  ordained  to  the  office  of  deacon,  to  which  he 
was  not  called,  but  which  ordination  was,  according  to 
the  regulations  of  the  synod,  a  prerequisite  to  ordination 
as  pastor.  But  this  second  ordination  could  also  have  been 
performed  had  it  not  been  for  the  opposition  of  Rudisill,"" 


•''•'  St.  George'e,  Shelby  county,  Slipher's,  Clinton  CDunty, 
and  Zion's,  Tippecanoe  county. 

•^■'  "At  the  same  session  of  the  synod  there  were  also  three 
petitions  asking  for  my  ordination  as  pastor,  but  as  I  had  pre- 
viously exposed  the  heresy  of  Rudisill,  (iood  and  Markert,  and 


-     138    - 

who  took  advantage  of  a  technicality.'"  He  stood  a  fair 
examination,  and  according  to  the  rules  of  the  synod  was 
entitled  to  ordination  to  the  pastoral  office,  but  for  some 
cause  his  ordination  was  opposed  by  Rev.  E.  Rudisill, 
who  contended,  and  carried  his  point,  for  the  postpone- 
ment of  the  ordination  to  the  next  meeting  of  the  synod.^' 
After  the  adjournment  of  the  synod  Revs.  J.  F.  Lauten- 


as  the  two  former  were  officers  of  the  synod,  the  prayers  of  the 
churches  were  not  heard;  but  Rudisill,  when  three  delegates  and 
one  minister  arose  and  plead  for  my  ordination,  said:  'I  can't, 
I  won't,  my  conscience  won't  let  me.'"  — Rev.  J.  F.  Lauten- 
schlager. 

"J.  F.  Lautenschlager  would  have  been  ordained  pastor  at 
the  convention  of  1847,  as  he  was  found  qualified,  and  his  ordi- 
nation was  prayed  for  by  three  congregations.  But  the  reason 
he  was  not  ordained  was  that  Rudisill  wanted  to  keep  him  out 
of  the  way  of  his  pet  schemes."    — Rev.  Henry  Fairchild. 

It  is  also  evident  that  Rudisill's  opposition  was  due  to  the 
fact  that  if  Lautenschlager  were  ordained  pastor  he  could  not 
have  the  same  authority  over  him  as  while  licentiate  or  deacon, 
by  virtue  of  the  resolution  of  1847.  Lautenschlager,  as  pastor, 
would  also  have  mor^  authority,  influence  and  prestige  than  as 
deacon  or  licentiate. 

57  Lautenschlager's  ordination  was  refused  on  a  mere  tech- 
nicality^ The  constitution  provided  that  candidates  "must  be 
called  by  one  or  more  congregations,"  whereas  Lautenschlager's 
call  was  made  by  the  "Church  Councils."  The  synod  took  the 
position  that  church  councils  as  such  had  no  constitutional  right 
to  so  petition.  — Minutes  of  1849,  p.  9.  It  will  be  observed  that, 
this  was  a  plea  brought  in  as  an  afterthought  to  justify  its  course. 
If  the  plea  had  weight,  it  would  also  have  prevented  his  ordina- 
tion as  deacon,  which  the  synod  performed.  "Rudisill  affirmed, 
during  the  convention  of  1847,  that  he  altered  and  counterfeited 
the  petition  of  St.  George's  church,  after  it  was  signed  by  the 
members  of  the  church."  — Rev.  J.  F.  Lautenschlager  in  Expose 
of  Rudisill,  etc.,  minutes  of  Miller  faction,  13th  session,  1850. 

58  Maumee  (Rev.  J.  E,  Wesner)  in  Lutheran,  Sept.  3,  1896. 


-     139    - 

schlager  and  the  Millers  returned  hom^  in  company,  and 
on  the  evening  of  the  second  day's  journey  reached  Abra- 
ham Miller's  home  in  Johnson  county.  That  night  the 
Revs.  A.  and  D.  Miller  re-examined  Lautenschlager,'"  and 
ordained  him  to  the  pastoral  ofHce,  under  a  constitutional 
provision  that  any  two  ministers  .might,  during  the  in- 
terim of  the  synod,  in  case  of  necessity,  examine  an  ap- 
plicant for  ordination,  and  if  qualified,  ordain  him  to  the 
office  of  the  ministry. 

This  action  on  the  part  of  these  three  men,  when  it 
became  known  to  Rudisill,  roused  him  to  fury,  and  fur- 
nished a  pretext  for  him  to  exercise  the  authority  and 
power  vested  in  him  by  the  resolution.  He  accordingly 
issued  an  order  for  a  special  session  of  the  synod,  to  be 
held  in  Philadelphia  church,  Parke  county,  on  the  18th 
and  19th  days  of  February,  1848,  in  order  to  try  Revs. 
Abraham  Miller,  David  Miller  and  John  F.  Lautenschlager 
upon  the  charge  of  official  misconduct. 

This  called  session  was,  as  might  be  expected,  a 
stormy  one'.  Rudisill  ruled  arbitrarily  and  haughtily. 
He  declared  that  the  Slipher  church,  which  had  petitioned 
for  Lautenschlager's  ordination,  and  which  he  was  then 
serving,  "should  not  have  the  preacher  they  wanted." 
He  arrogated  to  himself  the  position  of  prosecutor,  judge 
and  jury.  He  threatened  with  dire  vengeance  all  those 
who  dared  to  oppose  him  in  his  plans,  and  thus  awed 
into  silence  any  who  sympathized  with  the  accused,  or 
were  disposed  to  come  to  their  defense. 

■i'J  It  appears  from  the  minutes  of  the  Miller  faction,  twelfth 
eeeeion,  1849,  that  the  church  councils  of  Slipher's  church  and 
of  Mt.  Pleasant  church,  Hamilton  county,  petitioned  individual 
pastors  of  the  "Old  School  Lutheran  Church"  for  the  ordination 
of  J.  F.  Lautenschlager,  which  ordination  was  performed  by 
Revs.  A.  and  D.  Miller. 


—    140    — 

The  accused  ^lead  to  have  the  trial  deferred  until 
the  next  regular  convention  of  the  synod,  claiming  that 
the  people  of  that  community  and  congregation  were 
prejudiced  against  them  through  Rudisill's  influence. 
This  was  true,  for  it  was  with  difficulty  that  the  accused 
could  secure  entertainment  during  the  convention.  This 
petition  was  overruled.  They  protested  against  Iludisill 
being  the  prosecutor,  judge  and  jury,  but  this  protest  was 
unheeded.  They  questioned  the  constitutionality  of  the 
meeting  and  of  the  proceedings,  as  neither  a  majority  of 
the  ministers  were  present  nor  were  a  majority  of  the  con- 
gregations represented.  This  question  was  also  ignored. 
There  was  nothing  else  for  the  accused  to  do  but  to  make 
their  defense  and  submit  to  the  despotic  procedure.*"" 

In  the  case  of  Rev.  David  Miller,  Iludisill  first  mis- 
represented his  statements  so  as  to  lay  him  under  tlie 
charge  of  falsehood.  He  then  informed  him  privately 
that  if  he  would  adopt  the  tenet  of  Destructionism  all 
charges  against  him  would  be  withdrawn,  but  if  not  he 
would  have  to  take  the  consequences.  Und6r  the  stress 
of  the  times  Miller  consented  to  this,  at  least  in  part,  but 
subsequently  repudiated  his  confession,  and  reaffirmed 
his  former  views,  and  justified  his  course.  In  the  case  of 
Rev.  Abraham  Miller,  Rudisill  did  not  find  so  pliable  a 
subject.  Miller,  a  godly  man,  and  who  had  assisted  in 
Rudisill's  ordination,  boldly  and  fearlessly  rebuked  him 
for  his  course,  for  his  heresy,  for  his  ambition,  and  for 
the  desolation  he  had  wrought  in  the  churches  by  his 
Destructionism,  and  in  turn   was  abused,  maligned  and 


60  "Rudisill  was  made  a  god,  and  could  and  did  do  what- 
ever he  pleased,  regardless  of  the  bible,  concordia,  constitution, 
or  any  rule  of  love  or  justice.  Whatever  he  said  was  law  and 
gospel."     —Key.  J.  F.  Lautenschlager,  Expose  of  Rudisill. 


-     141     - 

threatened  witli  dire  vengeance.  He  informed  Rev.  A. 
Miller  that  if  he  did  not  like  his  course  in  establishing 
the  doctrine  of  Destructionism  "he  would  pick  his  feathers 
too,  and .  let  him  go."  He  openly  charged  Miller  with 
falsehood,  and  when  the  latter  produced  a  certificate  of 
good  character,  signed  by  a  number  of  honorable  citizens 
of  Johnson  county,  he  declared  they  might  as  well  have 
signed  a  libel.  The  defense  made  by  the  Millers  for 
their  ordination  of  Lautenschlager  was  treated  with  con- 
tempt by"  Rudisill  and  his  minions  who  constituted  the 
called  convention. 

Ikit  the  brunt  of  the  attack  fell  upon  Lautenschlager. 
Five  charges  were  preferred  against  him,  one  of  which 
was  for  solemnizing  marriage  while  a  licentiate,  and 
another  for  being  clandestinely  ordained.  The  other 
three  we  have  been  unable  to  ascertain,  but  there  were 
no  charges  against  his  moral  character.  It  was  apparent 
that  he  was  the  man  most  feared  by  Rudisill,  and  the  one 
who  stood  in  the  way  of  the  success  of  Destructionism, 
Lautenschlager  appealed  to  the  constitution,  which  made 
it  the  duty  of  the  pastors  to  expose  false  and  erroneous 
doctrines,  as  a  justification  of  his  course  of  opposition  to 
Rudisill,  Markert  and  Good.  He  defended  his  ordination 
as  constitutional,  lawful  and  open.  But  all  of  no  avail. 
The  findings  of  this  session  were  that  all  the  charges 
were  sustained,  and  the  sentence  was  pronounced  accord- 
ingly/" 


•'1  There  were  several  accounts  of  this  called  session  and  of 
the  evidiMici'  then  adduced,  pubiislu'd,  both  by  the  deft-ndaiits 
and  by  Kudisill,  but  we  have  been  unable  to  secure  any  of  them 
except  Lautenschlager's  Expose.  The  facts  concerning  tlie  pro- 
ceedings of  this  called  session  we  obtained  chiefly  from  persons 
who  resided  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  church  and  were  eyewit- 
nesses of  tlie  proceedings. 


-     J42    - 

The  verdict  and  action  of  this  called  session  were 
the  confession  and  forgiveness  of  Rev.  David  Miller,  the 
suspension  of  Rev.  Abraham  Miller,  and  the  excommuni- 
cation of  Rev.  John  F.  Lautenschlager.  At  the  regular 
convention  of  the  synod  in  1848  the  acts  of  the  call  session 
were  confirmed  and  the  following  action  taken : 

"Resolved,  That,  whereas,  David  Miller  at  the  call 
session  of  the  synod,  was  arraigned  on  certain  charges  of 
official  misconduct,  made  the  proper  acknowledgements 
then,  and  was  forgiven;  but  has  since  wilfully  'denied  a 
part  of  those  acknowledgements,  and  has,  and  is  acting 
in  a  contemptuous  and  unchristian  manner  towards  this 
synod  in  absenting  himself  from  its  sessions,  and  associ- 
ating with,  fellowshipping  and  upholding  suspended  and 
excommunicated  individuals,  that  this  synod  solenmly 
declare  him  unworthy  of  their  confidence  and  fellowship, 
and  dismiss  him  from  their  connection." 

"Whereas,  Abraham  Miller  was  suspended  at  the 
call  session  for  official  misconduct,  and  for  being  guilty 
of  wilful  falsehood,  until  he  should  render  full  satis- 
faction to  the  synod,— which  he  promised  to  do  at  this 
session, — and,  whereas,  he  has  continued  obstinate,  and 
continued  to  exercise  the  office  of  the  ministry,  notwith- 
standing his  suspension,  and  has  failed  to  render  to  this 
synod  any  satisfaction  or  make  any  acknowledgements ; 
and  whereas,  in  such  state  of  suspension  he  is  trying  to 
raise  an  ecclesiastical  body,  and  will  not  meet  these 
charges,  it  is  Resolved,  by  this  synod,  that  his  suspension 
be  and  hereby  is  changed  into  excommunication,  and  that 
he  is  dismissed  from  this  body  as  unworthy  of  its  confi- 
dence or  fellowship." 

Lautenschlager  and  the  Millers  were  not,  however, 
silenced  by  this  arbitrary  procedure.     They  treated  their 


-    143    - 

excommunication  with  scorn  and  contempt.  They  in- 
sisted that  they  had  violated  no  law,  but  exercised  only 
rights  which  belonged  to  them.  In  this  the  civil  court 
sustained  them,  and  also  the  judgment  of  other  Lutheran 
bodies.  They  continued  their  course  of  exposing  the 
Destructionists,  fastening  the  responsibility  and  guilt  of 
the  disruption  of  the  churches  upon  them.  The  tyranny 
of  Rudisill  became  apparent  to  many  congregations,  and 
the  current  of  sympathy  turned  against  him.  In  some 
of  the  congregations  two  parties  were  formed,  and  litiga- 
tion resulted  with  reference  to  the  legal  ownership  of  the 
property.  In  every  case  brought  to  court,  the  claims  of 
the  adherents  to  the  "Miller  faction,"  as  it  was  called, 
were  confirmed. 

Meanwhile  Rudisill  prosecuted  his  plans  assiduously. 
With  the  Millers  and  Lautenschlager  out  of  the  way,  the 
road  to  success  seemed  clear.  An  attempt  was  therefore 
made  to  spring  the  new  doctrine  upon  the  synod  at  its 
convention  in  1848.  The  advocates  thereof,  knowing 
that  there  were  a  few  delegates  present  who  would  not 
adhere  to  it  at  all,  made  an  effort  to  decoy  them  away  by 
arranging  for  a  service  in  the  evening  at  a  school  house, 
but  the  plan  failed.  The  delegates  suspected  a  plot,  and 
against  all  persuasion  they  remained  and  attended  the 
regular  service  at  the  church.  Rev.  S.  Good  was  put 
forward  to  preach  the  new  doctrine,  taking  for  his  text 
John  3:  35-36.  But  he  failed  in  his  efforts,  and  l)roke 
down  completely,  so  that  Rudisill  had  to  come  to  the 
rescue  and  finish  the  discourse.  The  next  day  John 
Downey,""'  of  Knox  county,   Daniel  Meyers,   of  Daviess 


•■•■i  Downey  was  one  of  the  best  informed  Lutheran  laymen 
in  the  state  at  that  time. 


144 


county,  and  Frederick  Slinkard,  of  Greene  county,  filed 
their  protests  against  the  sentiments  uttered,  withdrew 
from  the  convention  and  returned  home.  Thus  were  the 
opponents  of  Destructionists  eliminated  from  that  con- 
vention. 

The  lines  -  of  battle  were  more  and  more  sharply 
drawn.  The  adherents  of  the  pure  doctrine  took  steps  to 
reorganize  the  synod  and  eliminate  from  its  official  history 
these  arbitrary  and  unconstitutional  proceedings.  On  the 
10th  of  October,  1848,  a  public  meeting  was  held  in  St. 
John's  church,  Johnson  county,  the  one  in  which  the 
synod  was  organized  thirteen  years  before,  for  the  purpose 
of  entering  a  ministerial  protest  against  the  negligence  of 
the  synod  in  reference  to  false  doctrines,  arbitrary  and 
unconstitutional  rulings,  and  the  neglect  of  catechisation. 
They  elected  a  corresponding  secretary,  J.  Sechrist,  Es- 
quire, who  subsequently  issued  a  call  for  a  synodical  meet- 
ing to  be  held  in  Klingensmith's  church,  Marion  county, 
Indiana,  May  28,  1849.  On  the  15th  of  October,  1848, 
the  St.  John's  congregation,  Johnson  county,  Indiana, 
entered  a  similar  protest.  On  May  26,  1849,  the  Klingen- 
smith's congregation  took  like  action.  This  was  followed 
by  St.  John's,  Monroe  county,  March  2,  1849,  Zion's, 
Tippecanoe  county,  February  14,  1849,  St.  George's, 
Shelby  county,  December  20,  1848,  Schlifer's,  Clinton 
county,  November  11,  1848,  Zion's,  Morgan  county.  May 
28,  1849.  On  May  28,  1849,  Revs.  J.  F.  Lautenschlager, 
Abraham  and  David  Miller,  and  delegates  from  seven 
congregations,  met  in  pursuance  to  the  above-mentioned 
call,  in  Klingensmith's  church,  and  reorganized  the  "true 
Synod  of  Indiana."  By  resolution  they  declared  them- 
selves to  be  the  Synod  of  Indiana  in  its  twelfth  conven- 
tion assembled,  repudiating  the  conventions  held  in  1847, 


—     145    — 

in  St.  John's  church,  Floyd  county,  Indiana,  and  in  St. 
John's  church,  Jolinson  county,  Indiana,  in  1H48.  They 
proceeded  to  the  transaction  of  such  business  as  came 
before  them.  The  ordination  of  Rev.  J.  F.  Lautenschlager 
by  Revs.  A.  and  D.  Miller  was  confirmed.  In  1850  this 
synod,  generally  designated  as  the  "Miller  faction,"  held 
its  second,  or  thirteenth,  convention  in  St.  John's  church, 
Johnson  county,  Indiana.  They  met  with  hearty  en- 
dorsement for  their  bold  action  from  Rev.  C.  Moritz,  one 
of  the  founders  of  the  Synod  of  Indiana,  and  Rev.  Casper 
Bringle,  a  member  of  the  old  synod,  who  attached  them- 
selves to  this  body  at  this  session.  Both  these  men  de- 
nounced the  Rudisill  party  as  unlutheran.  In  addition 
to  these,  a  letter  from  the  Rev.  Henry  Goodman,  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Tennessee  Synod,  was  received,  in  which  he 
rejoiced  "that  there  were  yet  some  who  endeavored  to 
stand  firm  in  the  truth."  Rev.  Henry  Heinecke,  presi- 
dent of  the  Ohio  Synod,  wrote  them  assuring  them  that 
their  party  was  Lutheran,  and  that  the  Rudisill  party  was 
unlutheran.  The  Synod  of  Indianapolis  took  official 
action  relative  to  the  difficulty,  and  "Resolved,  first,  that 
this  synod  holds  the  destruction  or  annihilation  of  the 
wicked,  and  the  denial  of  everlasting  punishment,  as 
taught  by  E.  Rudisill  and  adherents,  as  a  corrupting  and 
ruinous  heresy.  Second,  this  synod  does  not  hold  Rudisill 
and  adherents  as  orthodox  teachers.  Third,  this  synod 
does  not  hold  the  Synod  of  Indiana,  the  Rudisill  party, 
as  an  orthodox  synod,  for  taking  them  into  protection, 
and  justifying  all  their  actions  without  cause  or  reason." 
It  also  declared  that  Revs.  A.  and  D.  Miller  had  a  consti- 
tutional right  to  ordain  J.  F.  Lautenschlager,  and  that 
his  ordination  was  valid. 

At  its  convention  in  1S.50,  this  Miller  faction  made  re- 


—    146    — 

newed  overtures  to  the  Destructionist  party  to  have  the 
differences  between  them  honestly  and  fairly  investigated 
before  an  impartial  jury,  and  called  upon  Christians 
everywhere  to  force  upon  them  the  necessity  of  such  in- 
vestigation. It  called  upon  Rndisill  and  his  party  to  re- 
cant, deny  or  to  justify  their  action.  It  also  declared 
officially  "that  the  Rudisill  party  did  act  unconstitution- 
ally, unchristian  and  unjustly  with  our  ministers,  and 
that  Rudisill  and  adherents  are  guilty  of  heresy.  First, 
because  they  do  not  deny  said  anti-Lutheran  doctrines  ; 
secondly,  because  they  do  not  wish  to  have  the  difficulties 
between  us  impartially  investigated.  Therefore  we  call 
upon  them  publicly  to  recant,  deny  or  justify  their  course  ; 
and  further,  that  we  cannot,  therefore,  fellowship  with 
them  until  these  difficulties  are  adjusted."  In  the  min- 
utes of  this  convention  Rev.  J.  F.  Lautenschlager,  in  an 
appendix,  exposes  the  whole  proceedings  of  the  Rudisill 
party,  fastens  upon  them  the  guilt  of  preaching  heretical 
doctrines,  and  describes  the  arbitrary  method  of  Rudisill 
in  the  call  session  of  1848. 

The  Rudisill  party  were  not  disposed  to  let  the  mat- 
ter rest  with  their  act  of  excommunication.  They  would 
also  enforce  it,  so  far  as  there  was  any  authority.  Dr. 
Rudisill,  having  failed  in  silencing  his  opponents  by  the 
act  of  excommunication,  next  resorted  to  legal  measures. 
He  employed  an  attorney  and  had  Lautenschlager  in- 
dicted for  preaching  without  authority,  and  ordered  the 
churches  to  sue  for  trespass,  in  case  he  used  any  Lutheran 
church  edifice  for  the  purpose  of  public  worship.  This 
brought  the  whole  matter  before  the  civil  court  for  a 
decision. 

The  question  was  tried  before  the  Shelby  county 
court.      It  dealt  with  the   validity  of   Lautenschlager's 


—     147    — 

ordination,  and  with  the  legality  of  Lautenschlager's  and 
A.  Miller's  excommunication.  On  the  former  Rev.  J.  F. 
Isensee,  president  of  the  Synod  of  Indianapolis,  was  the 
chief  witness.  "After  considerable  testimony  had  been 
introduced  both  pro  and  con,"  said  he  to  the  writer, 
"Judge  Wick  asked  me,  'Do  you  think  that  Lauten- 
schlager  was  lawfully  ordained  according  to  Lutheran 
usage,  and  the  provisions  of  the  constitution  of  the  Synod 
of  Indiana?'  I  replied,  'yes.'  'So  do  I,'  said  the  Judge, 
and  decided  the  ordination  valid."  The  question  of  his 
and  the  Miller's  excommunication  was  also  tried,  and  the 
decision  rendered  that  it  was  null  and  void.  After  this 
decision,  the  suit  for  trespass  was  withdrawn  by  the  Rudi- 
sill  party."' 

The  question  of  property  rights  was  tried  in  both  the 
Shelby  county  and  in  the  Clinton  county  courts  and  the 
title  of  the  Miller  faction  was  allirmed.*^* 

The  thirteenth  convention  of  the  Miller  faction  was 
the  last  one  held.  The  costs  of  the  suits  and  attorneys' 
fees  had  to  be  borne  by  them,  and  they  were  unable  to 
support  their  claims  with  the  requisite  funds.  In  one  or 
two  cases  the  church  property  was  sold  to  defray  the 
court  expenses,  and  the  contest  was  abandoned.  Lauten- 
schlager  says  "our  body  died  a  natural  death."'" 

••3  "The  indictment  was  tried  and  I  was  yet  easier  cleared 
by  an  impartial  court  than  by  Kudisill,  Good,  and  Markert,  be- 
cause it  took  them  to  lie  from  9  a.  m.  to  4  p.  m.,  when  the  bull 
of  excommunication  was  passed;  whereas,  Judge  Wick  would 
not  hear  me  two  hours  before  I  was  cleared."— Kev.  J.  F.  L.  in 
Expose. 

w  We  have  not  had  opportunity  to  consult  the  court  records 
on  this  case,  but  have  stated  what  persons  cognizant  of  the  facts 
have  given  to  us. 

^^  After  their  excommunication  and  the  dissolution  of  the 
Miller  faction  synod,   which  the  courts   upheld  as  the   lawful 


-     148    - 

Gradually  a  reaction  set  in.  The  Rudisill  party 
would  not  recognize  the  decisions  of  the  courts,  except  in 
the  property  cases.  The  Millers  and  Lautenschlager  re- 
fused to  resume  their  former  position  among  the  ministers 
who  had  so  arbitrarily  and  unjustly  excommunicated 
them.  To  them  the  lawful  Synod  of  Indiana  had  no 
longer  any  existence.  The  Rudisill  party,  however,  con- 
tinued their  body  under  the  old  name  and  title.  But  the 
exposures  to  which  they  had  been  subjected,  and  the  de- 
feats they  had  sustained,  convinced  them  that  they  could 
not  accomplish  their  designs.  They  felt  it  necessary  to 
retreat  out  of  their  dilemma  as  best  they  could,  yet  in 
such  a  way  as  not  to  appear  defeated.  In  1851  Rev. 
Samuel  Good,  the  most  radical  advocate  of  the  Destruc- 
tion heresy,  died,  and  his  repudiation  of  the  heresy  before 
his  death,  was  a  heavier  blow  to  the  party  than  his 
demise.  This  left  Rev.  E.  Rudisill  and  Rev.  E.  Markert 
the  sole  champions.  Rev.  J.  H.  Vagan  was  no  longer  in 
synodical  connection.  We  do  not  know  what  became  of 
him.  A  decided  sentiment  against  Destructionism  stead- 
ily grew  both  among  the  pastors  and  in  the  congregations, 
so  that  its  advocates  deemed  it  the  part  of  wisdom  to  re- 
main silent  upon  the  matter.  In  1850,  at  the  convention 
held  in  Zion's  church  in  Morgan  county,  Indiana,  the 
Philadelphia  church,  Park  county,  petitioned  the   synod 


Synod  of  Indiana,  Rev.  J.  F.  Lautenschlager  united  with  the 
Joint  Synod  of  Ohio.  David  Miller  went  to  Iowa,  where  he 
ministered  until  his  death.  Rev.  Abraham  Miller  continued  to 
preach  in  St.  John's  church,  Johnson  county,  until  1864.  He 
was  elected  a  justice  of  the  peace,  in  which  capacity  he  served 
very  acceptably  for  quite  a  long  time,  and  with  credit.  Benjamin 
Harrison,  afterwards  president  of  the  United  States,  once  argued 
a  case  before  him.  He  died  at  a  ripe  old  age,  82  years,  9  months 
and  21  days,  highly  respected  by  all  who  knew  him. 


—     149    — 

to  "notice  the  correspondence  of  Revs.  Ileinecke,  of  tlie 
Ohio  Synod,  Goodman  of  the  Tennessee  Synod,  and  Morilz 
and  Bringle,  formerly  of  this  synod,  with  the  'Miller  fac- 
tion,' in  which  this  synod  was  unjustly  assailed,  but  that 
this  synod  pay  no  attention  to  the  'slang  of  the  said  Mil- 
ler faction'  in  their  last  minutes."  When  this  item  was 
read  before  the  synod  it  was  "moved  that  inquiry  be 
made  of  Revs.  Rudisill,  Good  and  Markert  to  know  what 
they  do  teach  in  regard  to  the  doctrines  they  are  accused 
of."  Rev.  E.  Goodwin  was  called  to  the  chair  and  the 
three  pastors  above  referred  to  were  put  under  examina- 
tion by  the  synod.  From  this  examination  "it  appeared 
that  all  three  of  them  believed  in  the  resurrection,  or 
bringing  forth  of  the  ungodly  to  judgment  and  punit^h- 
ment,  and  in  the  infliction  of  a  punishment  in  Hell  which 
is  everlasting,  but  deny  that  said  punishment  is  being 
endlessly  inflicted.  Finding,  therefore,  that  these  brethren 
are  sound  in  faith  as  it  respects  the  bringing  forth  of  the 
ungodly  to  judgment,  and  their  everlasting  punishment, 
this  synod  do  not  feel  that  they  have  anything  to  do  with 
their  views  or  doctrines,  or  opinions,  in  regard  to  the  end- 
less duration  of  punishment,  or  the  final  destruction  of 
the  wicked  (as  held  by  some  of  them),  until  they  shall 
make  it  a  point  of  faith  or  a  bar  of  fellowship,  and  hence 
are  bound  to  consider  them  as  Lutheran  in  faith,  and 
hence  consider  the  letters  of  the  'Miller  faction'  as  unjust 
toward  this  synod." — Min.  1850,  p.  7. 

The  minutes  of  1851  are  not  at  hand,  and  therefore 
we  know  not  whether  any  action  was  taken  at  that  con- 
vention. The  agitation  continued,  however.  The  action 
of  1850  evidently  did  not  please  the  loyal  element.  In 
1852  the  St.  James  and  Hopewell  churches  heartily 
prayed   "both   ministers   and   members   to   lay   aside  tlie 


-     150    - 

little  Mclierings  about  non-essentials,  and  mutually  unite 
in  the  great  cause  of  the  Redeemer."  The  synod  took 
tlie  following  action  relative  to  this  item,  it  being  in  com- 
mittee of  the  whole:  "Whereas,  a  difference  of  opinion 
has  existed  between  some  of  the  ministers  and  members 
of  this  synod  in  regard  to  the  mode  and  duration  of  future 
punishment,  and 

''Whereas,  said  difference  of  opinion  has  proved  det- 
rimental to  the  progress  of  the  best  interests  of  the  church, 
and  the  advancement  of  our  beloved  Zion :    Be  it  therefore 

''Resolved,  that  the  Synod  of  Indiana  will  henceforth 
recognize  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  Faith,  as  extant  in 
the  book  entitled  'Christian  Concordia,'  as  a  true  declara- 
tion of  scriptural  doctrines  upon  which  this  synod  was 
first  organized,  and  upon  which  it  yet  continues  firmly 
based;  and  all  contrary  doctrines  are  hereby  renounced, 
and  declared  not  to  be  the  doctrines  of  this  synod."  This 
preamble  and  resolution  was  unanimously  adopted. 

This  was  a  clear  official  declaration  as  to  the  synod's 
position.  But  it  evidently  did  not  affect  the  private 
views  of  the  ministers,  nor  did  it  restore  the  confidence 
of  others  in  the  synod's  sincerity.  Whether  the  heretical 
doctrines  were  still  advocated  is  not  clear,  but  in  1855 
President  E.  Markert,  in  his  report  to  the  synod,  uses  the 
following  language:  "Reports  are  in  circulation  abroad, 
to  the  discredit  and  injury  of  this  synod,  with  reference 
to  the  doctrines  of  the  final  destiny  of  the  wicked.  An 
emphatic  expression  of  the  doctrines  of  the  synod  on  this 
subject  is  evidently  very  necessary."  At  the  same  con- 
vention petitions  from  Newtown  church,  Boone  county, 
and  Hopewell  church,  Marion  county,  were  laid  before 
the  synod,  requesting  an  expression  of  the  synod  on  the 


—     151     — 

doctrine  in  regard  to  the  final  destiny  of  the  wicked,  stat- 
ing "that  these  were  objections  against  the  synod."  The 
synod  took  the  following  action  relative  to  these  matters : 

''Whereas,  there  are  reports  abroad,  injurious  and 
detrimental  to  the  principles  and  doctrines  of  this  synod, 
in  reference  to  the  final  destiny  of  the  wicked  and  ungodly, 
to  which  the  president  has  directed  our  attention,  and  to 
which  some  of  the  petitions  refer, 

''Resolved,  that  our  true  principles  and  position  as  a 
synod  are  expressed  in  the  symbolical  books  of  our 
church,  and  more  directly  declared  in  the  XVII  article  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession  ;  that  we  do  not  recognize  or  own 
any  other  doctrine  or  principle  as  the  doctrine  or  principle 
of  our  synod." 

With  this  action  this  heresy  of  Destructionism,  which 
had  wrought  so  disastrously  among  the  churches,  and  in 
the  synod,  sank  to  rest.  No  further  allusion  is  made  to 
it,  but  its  bitter  fruits  were  in  evidence  for  many  years 
thereafter. 

Evils  do  not  come  singly.  They  did  not  to  this 
synod  during  this  period.  The  apostasy  of  Rudisill  to 
Destructionism  was  attended  by  another,  that  of  Rev.  E. 
S.  Henkel  to  Universalism.  He  did  not,  however,  like 
Kudisill,  attempt  to  draw  after  him  a  following,  nor  put 
himself  forward  as  a  leader.  When  he  became  convinced 
in  his  own  mind  of  the  reasonableness  of  that  view,  he 
followed  a  logical  and  consistent  course.  He  reasoned 
that  if  all  would  be  saved,  what  need  is  there  of  preach- 
ing? Why  should  a  pastor  preach  repentance  and  faitli, 
when  heaven  is  the  goal  of  all,  even  of  those  who  obey 
not  the  command?  He  therefore  relinquished  the  pas- 
toral ofHce,  moved  to  Memphis,  Tennessee,  and  engaged 


152 


in  secular  business.  With  Henkel's  withdrawal,  Lau- 
tenschlager,  David  and  Abraham  Miller  excommunicated, 
and  Rudisill,  Good  and  E.  Markert  in  disrepute,  there 
was  little  left  of  the  ministry  in  the  synod.  Besides 
these  losses,  almost  every  congregation  in  the  synod  was 
divided  as  a  result  of  the  Rudisill  apostasy,  and  a  num- 
ber of  them  never  recovered  from  its  effect.  There  are 
still  a  number  of  dilapidated  churches  in  parts  of  Indiana 
abandoned  and  falling  to  decay,  the  silent  witnesses  to 
the  havoc  wrought  by  this  unbridled  spirit.  In  the  God's 
acre  hard  by  sleep  the  ones  who  once  worshipped  in  them, 
but  who  have  left  none  behind  to  perpetuate  the  faith  so 
dear  to  them.  The  heart  of  the  Lutheran  sinks  in  grief 
as  it  reflects  upon  these  sad  events. 

The  few  pastors  who  remained  made  an  earnest  effort 
to  retrieve  what  was  lost,  and  recover  its  reputation  for 
orthodoxy.  A  few  new  men  entered  its  ministerial  ranks, 
men  of  piety,  ability,  character,  and  in  whom  the  congre- 
gations had  confidence.  Among  these  were  two  that 
claim  special  mention,  Rev.  John  P.  Livengood  and  Rev. 
William  H.  Deck.  The  former  was  a  christian  gentleman 
of  high  order,  of  amiable  qualities,  fair  attainments,  and 
fine  pulpit  and  pastoral  qualities.  He  wielded  an  influ- 
ence for  good  that  was  widely  felt,  and  did  much  to  heal 
the  wounds  inflicted  by  the  apostates.     The  latter  was 


06  Henkel's  apostasy,  however,  bore  its  fruit.  While  he 
did  not  openly  preach  Universalism,  he  nevertheless  was  instru- 
mental in  circulating  Universalist  literature.  As  a  result,  the  St. 
John's  church,  Floyd  county,  Indiana,  fell  into  decay  and  ruin. 
Some  of  its  most  prominent  members,  men  of  influence  in  the 
community,  and  widely  known  in  the  synod,  became  converts 
to  this  faith.  The  only  city  congregation  in  the  synod,  the  one 
in  Salem,  Washington  county,  was  ruined  irretrievably  by  this 
heresy  through  Henkel's  instrumentality. 


WICKER  PARK  LUTHERAN  CHURCH 
North  Hoyne  Ave.  and  LeMoyne  St.,  Chicago,  ID. 


BAPTISMAL  FONT 
Wicker  Park  Lutheran  Church,  Chicago,  III. 


/ 

"^: 

-"U:                 il 

t^=:. 

f/fe«'ivl#C^^?^7^                                  ^'        ^-rf 

1 

M 

"'^^»«i 

=J  '"■^'■^•kif-x---  '■■^"  '■ 

•i^-       --^ 

HOLY  TRINITY  CHURCH 
Chapel  and  Division  St.,  Elgin,  III. 


—     J53    — 

without  question  the  brightest,  most  scholarl}'  and  ablest 
man  the  synod  ever  had.  His  classical  training  was  re- 
ceived at  the  Indiana  State  University,  while  his  theolog- 
ical studies  were  pursued  in  private.  He  was  a  close  and 
hard  student,  a  clear  thinker,  versatile  and  witty,  and  of 
winning  qualities.  His  influence  was  felt  as  soon  as  he 
entered  the  synod.  He  was  the  only  man  in  that  body 
able  and  ready  to  cope  with  the  heresies  of  Rudisill  and 
Henkel.  Under  his  influence  the  synod  gradually  recov- 
ered its  reputation  for  orthoxy,  but  his  career  was  cut 
short  by  death,  and  there  was  none  to  take  his  place. 

In  1853  the  synod  adopted  a  new  constitution,  which 
it  was  hoped  would  atone  for  its  past  mistakes  and  heal 
the  wounds  that  still  gaped  ugly  and  sore.  This  docu- 
ment was  more  liberal  in  its  provisions  than  the  other, 
and  provided  for  much  practical  work.  Doctrinally  it 
was  a  concession  to  the  lax  Lutheranism  of  the  times, 
but  after  three  years  it  was  amended  and  made  more  pro- 
nounced in  its  adherence  to  the  confessions.  This  docu- 
ment constituted  the  synod  into  an  education  and  mis- 
sionary society.  It  made  it  the  duty  of  every  pastor  to 
preach  at  least  one  discourse  a  year  upon  the  subject  of 
missions  and  education,  and  made  it  the  duty  of  each 
congregation  to  contribute  annually  to  these  causes.  It 
empowered  the  synod  to  establish  a  classical  and  theo- 
logical institute,  if  deemed  advisable,  and  to  have  the 
same  incorporated,  if  thought  best.  It  laid  great  stress 
upon  the  thorough  indoctrination  of  the  young,  and  in 
the  main  was  a  good  constitution.  It  was  quite  an  ad- 
vance over  the  old  instrument. 

In  1844  the  synod  resolved  to  publish  a  hymn-book 
for  the  use  of  its  congregations.  A  committee  was  ap- 
pointed, consisting  of  Revs.  Rudisill,  Henkel,  E.  Markert 


—     154    — 

and  S.  Good,  to  select  400  hymns,  200  of  which  were  to 
be  taken  from  the  church  hymn-book  then  in  general  use. 
Subscriptions  were  solicited,  and  sufficient  funds  were  se- 
cured to  warrant  its  publication.  The  work  of  compila- 
tion was  left  to  Rev.  E.  Rudisill.  The  book  appeared  in 
1846,  printed  by  Lenord  Green,  at  New  Albany,  Indiana. 
A  misunderstanding  arose  between  the  synod's  agent  and 
the  publisher,  and  the  hymn-book  matter  dragged  along 
from  year  to  year,  and  was  still  unsettled  when  the  synod 
disbanded  in  1859.  Only  four  hundred  copies  were 
bound,  the  remaining  sheets  were  left  on  the  primer's 
hands . 

The  book  was  of  convenient  size,  bound  in  leather, 
containing  402  hymns,  preface  and  index.  A  large  num- 
ber of  the  hymns  are  the  old  classics  usually  found  in  such 
collections,  while  many  are  of  no  particular  merit.  The 
typography  of  the  book  is  very  unsatisfactory.  The  book 
never  proved  very  popular. 

In  1841  the  synod  took  some  action  looking  toward 
the  publication  of  its  own  religious  periodical,  but  found 
insufficient  support  to  warrant  such  a  venture.  Five 
years  later  the  project  was  revived,  but  again  failed  for 
the  same  reason. 

In  the  early  history  of  the  synod  it  expressed  itself 
as  emphatically  opposed  to  temperance  societies,  and  any 
expression  of  opinion  relative  to  intemperance.  In  1855 
Rev.  E.  Rudisill,  who  had  withdrawn  from  the  synod  the 
preceding  year,  expecting  to  return  to  the  south,  ad- 
dressed a  letter  to  the  synod,  in  which  he  stated  that  he 
would  gladly  cast  his  lot  again  with  the  body  of  which  he 
was  so  long  a  member,  but  until  the  synod  placed  itself 
aright  in  regard  to  the  fanatical  notions  of  the  day, 
namely.  Abolitionism,  Maine-Lawism,  and  Catholic  Per- 


—     155    — 

secution  he  could  not  do  so.     In   reference  to  this  the 
synod  took  the  following  action  : 

^'Whereas,  in  the  communictition  received  from 
Brother  Rudisill  upon  the  subject  of  Abolitionism,  Maine- 
Lawism  and  Persecution  of  Catholics,  is  brought  before 
this  sj'nod ;  and 

"  ]Vhe7'eas,  we  consider  these  subjects  foreign  to  the 
business  of  this  synod,  considering  them  as  secular  and 
political  matters.     It  is  therefore 

''Resolved,  that  we  cannot  as  a  synod  prescribe  what 
a  man  shall  teach  or  hold  in  political  or  secular  matters, 
nor  to  bind  the  conscience  of  man  upon  these  matters. 

"Resolved,  that  we  cannot  let  these  matters  come 
into  our  synod,  nor  to  make  them  a  condition  of  fellow- 
ship among  us. 

''Resolved,  that  each  individual  in  our  connection 
shall  have  the  privilege  to  hold  any  political  principle 
he  may  choose,  or  attach  himself  to  any  secret  society, 
provided  they  do  not  militate  against  the  principles  of 
our  church  or  the  truth  of  God,— unless  he  may  endeavor 
to  introduce  or  impose  them  into  the  church. 

"Resolved,  that  we  disapprove  of  our  ministers 
meddling  with  these  matters  in  the  church,  or  taking 
them  into  the  pulpit.  We  wish  everyone  to  hold  and  be- 
lieve on  these  matters  whatever  he  may  be  convinced  to 
be  right,  and  enjoy  that  privilege  uninterruptedly." 

■  At  the  twenty-third  convention  a  committee  on  tem- 
perance was  appointed,  the  matter  having  been  brought 
to  the  synod's  notice  by  the  president.  He  stated  in  his 
report  that  "our  standpoint  on  this  subject  is  nowhere 
laid  down.  We  know  not  whether  we  favor  the  temper- 
ance movement  or  whether  we  are  opposed  to  it.  It  is 
the  duty  of  ecclesiastical  bodies  to  define  their  position 


156 


in  reference  to  all  reform  measures.  I  recommend  thut 
some  definite  action  be  taken  upon  this  subject." 

The  committee  appointed  to  consider  this  question 
and  recommend  action,  reported  as  follows: 

''Whereas,  we  believe  intemperance  to  be  a  great 
moral  evil,  hindering  the  progress  of  the  church  of  Christ 
on  earth,  and  believing  that  it  is  the  means  of  destroying 
moral  and  social  order  among  mankind,  it  behooves  us 
as  Christians  to  take  a  decided  stand  in  regard  to  this 
matter.     Be  it  therefore 

"Resolved,  that  we  consider  the  bible  to  contain  the 
whole  duty  of  man  in  relation  to  God  and  his  fellowman. 
We  pledge  ourselves  to  be  governed  in  our  walk  and  con- 
versation by  its  precepts,  and  hold  it  to  be  full  and  ex- 
plicit in  all  matters  pertaining  to  our  conduct  as  Christians. 

''Resolved,  that  we  will  not  aid  or  support  any  sys- 
tem but  such  as  is  strictly  in  accordance  with  divine  writ, 
and  calculated  to  preserve  peace  and  harmony  in  our  be- 
loved church. 

"Resolved,  that  we  will  not  recognize  or  fellowship 
any  church  member  who  is  in  the  habit  of  becoming  in- 
toxicated, or  who  will  hold  out  inducements  to  anyone  to 
be  intemperate. 

"Resolved,  that  these  resolutions  express  the  senti- 
ments of  our  synod  in  regard  to  this  subject." 

The  adoption  of  the  new  constitution  in  1853  did  not 
work  the  change  that  was  anticipated  by  its  friends.  It 
was  evident  that  the  pastors  had  lost  confidence  in  each 
other,  and  the  synod  learned  also  that  it  had  no  standing 
before  the  church  at  large.  The  apostasies  of  the  past 
could  not  be  buried  from  memory  by  mere  resolutions, 
nor  the  evil  undone  by  protestations  of  fidelity  to  the 
Augustana.     There  must  also  be  works  meet  for  repent- 


—     157    — 

ance.  Meanwhile,  death  and  removals  were  making  in- 
roads upon  the  ranks  of  the  pastors.  In  I80I  Rev. 
Samuel  Good  died,  after  bitterly  repenting  of  his  folly. 
The  next  year  Rev.  Enoch  Goodwin  and  the  venerable 
Rev.  John  L.  Markert  passed  to  their  reward.  In  1854 
Rev.  E.  C.  Kiester,  who  had  charge  of  a  congregation  in 
Terre  Haute,  was  dismissed  at  his  own  request.  The 
same  year  Rev.  E.  Rudisill  asked  for  a  dismissal,  expect- 
ing to  remove  to  the  south.  With  these  removals  there 
were  but  few  active  pastors  left  on  the  field.  Revs.  D.  P. 
Groundt  and  Eli  Myers  removed  to  Texas.  Revs.  John 
and  Christian  Good  were  in  Iowa  and  were  only  nominally 
in  connection  with  the  synod.  The  congregations  also 
had  dwindled  down  to  a  mere  shadow  of  what  the  synod 
once  possessed.  The  outlook  was  anything  but  encour- 
aging. In  1855  some  of  the  ministers  advocated  the  dis- 
solution of  the  synod,  but  the  older  pastors  were  loth  to 
consider  such  a  step.  The  name  was  dear  to  them,  even 
if  the  history  was  not  a  pleasant  memory  in  all  respects. 
They  admitted  that  its  reputation  was  soiled,  and  its 
earlier  heresies  and  vagaries  were  still  cast  into  their 
teeth.  They  repudiated  the  errors,  and  protested  against 
the  charge,  but  they  could  not  remove  the  stain,  nor  undo 
the  mischief  that  had  been  wrought  by  their  errors.  Too 
many  ruined  congregations  stood  as  monuments  to  the 
ambitious  follies  of  its  leading  spirits.  But  notwithstand- 
ing all  this,  they  would  make  an  effort  to  retrieve  their 
losses  and  prove  their  sincerity.  In  the  spring  of  1858 
Rev.  W.  H.  Deck  died.  While  the  convention  of  that 
year  was  overspread  with  gloom  because  of  this  loss,  the 
future  looked  more  promising,  and  the  deliberations  were 
characterized  by  earnestness,  peace  and  hope.  The  spirit 
of  this  convention  was  irenical,  and  iield  out  the  olive 


-     158    - 

branch  of  peace  to  the  offended  Rudisill  and  his  followers." 
When  the  synod  adjourned  that  year  it  was  with  the  feel- 
ing that  a  brighter  day  was  dawning.  These  feelings 
were  chiefly  the  result  of  the  efforts  of  Rev.  John  P.  Liv- 
engood,  who  exerted  his  influence  for  better  things.  His 
loving,  peaceful  and  sympathetic  disposition  won  the 
confidence  of  all.  Largely  through  his  influence,  and 
that  of  the  lamented  Rev.  W.  H.  Deck,  several  young 
men  offered  themselves  as  candidates  for  the  ministry, 
which  did  much  to  revive  the  languishing  spirit  of  the 
synod. 

But  the  fondest  hopes  were  soon  blasted.  Rev.  Mr. 
Livengood  died  in  the  summer  of  1859.  He  was  the  sec- 
retary of  the  synod.  When  Rev.  E.  S.  Henkel  heard  of 
his  death  he  wept  aloud.  In  his  stress  of  sorrow  he 
opened  correspondence  with  the  offended  Rudisill  and 
earnestly  solicited  him  to  renew  his  relations  with  the 
synod,  and  help  save  the  Lutheran  church  in  the  state 
from  total  ruin.  In  this  he  had  a  measure  of  success, 
but  it  was  inviting  the  synod's  bitterest  enemy  to  come 
into  its  midst  and  slay  it. 

When  the  synod  met  at  Newtown  church,  November 
2,  1859,  Rev.  E,  S.  Henkel,  for  some  reason,  was  absent. 
Those  present  were  Revs.  Henry  Fairchild,  D.  P.  Groundt, 
Jacob  Deck,  John  Good  and  Philip  A.  Peter,  and  students 
J.  Mutz,  Henry  S.  Slinkard  and  J.  E.  Wesner,  besides  a 
number  of  lay  delegates  representing  the  congregations. 
The  students  were  entitled  to  a  seat  and  voice  in  the  con- 
vention.    Rev.  E.  Rudisill  was  also  present. 


C7  Rudisill  did  not  remove  to  the  south,  as  he  had  expected. 
The  secretary  of  the  synod  failed  to  note  in  the  minutes  his  re- 
quest for  a  dismissal,  and  at  this  he  took  umbrage. 


—     159    — 

Organization  was  effected  by  the  election  of  Rev.  H. 
Fail-child  president,  and  Rev.  Philip  A.  Peter  secretary. 
When  ready  for  the  transaction  of  business  a  motion  was 
made  to  give  Rev.  Mr.  Rudisill  a  seat  and  voice  in  the 
synod.  This  was  the  occasion  for  a  bitter  contest.  A  pro- 
longed debate  of  much  warmth  followed.  The  leader  of 
the  opposition  was  Delegate  Joseph  Klingensmith,  of  the 
Salem  congregation,  New  Augusta.  Indiana.  This  con- 
gregation was  wrecked  by  Rudisill,  some  years  before, 
through  his  Destructionism  heresy,  and  the  fragments 
were  gathered  up  and  reunited  by  the  long,  patient  and 
devoted  labors  of  the  lamented  Livengood.  After  a  bitter 
debate,  the  motion  prevailed,  and  Delegate  Klingensmith 
withdrew  from  the  synod.  The  Salem  congregation  stood 
independent  of  synodical  connection  until  1871. 

Rudisill  accepted  the  invitation,  thanked  the  synod 
for  its  courtesy,  and  came  forward  to  deliver  his  address. 
He  executed  his  plan  with  great  skill  and  adroitness. 
He  first  read  a  letter,  which  he  had  received  from  the 
former  president  of  the  synod,  Rev.  E.  S.  Henkel,  in 
which  he  regretted  his  inability  to  be  present,  urged  Mr. 
Rudisill  to  enter  the  synod  again  and  take  iiold  of  the 
work,  and  assured  him  of  his  approval  of  whatever  he, 
Rudisill,  would  do.  This  was  the  opportunity  for  which 
the  wily  and  vindictive  Rudisill  had  waited  for  since  1<S54, 
and  he  was  not  slow  in  improving  it  to  his  own  advantage. 
He  marshalled  all  his  powers  of  vituperation,  raillery  and 
oratory,  and  hurled  them  upon  the  synod.  He  recounted 
the  trials  he  had  endured,  the  sacrifices  he  had  made  for 
the  cause  it  represented,  and  the  slights  and  injuries  he 
had  received  from  it  as  his  compensation ;  how  he  had 
demanded  satisfaction  at  its  hands,  but  received  none ; 
prayed  for  the  journal  to  be  amended  so  as  to  throw  no 


—     J60     — 

reflection  upon  him  or  his  acts,  but  was  refused.  He 
asserted  that  the  synod  in  chiiming  to  have  done  hinri  no 
injury',  and  therefore  no  reparation  was  necessary  on  its 
part,  simply  Hed,  and  that  he  could  not  unite  with  it 
with  that  lie  on  its  records.  He  expressed  it  as  his  de- 
liberate judgment  that  the  best  way  to  cover  up  that  lie 
would  be  to  dissolve  the  synod,  bury  its  record  and  or- 
ganize a  new  body ;  and  he  made  this  the  condition  upon 
which  he  would  again  co-operate  with  those  brethren  in  a 
sj'nodical  capacity.  It  was  from  his  view-point  a  master 
stroke.  He  knew  the  weakness  and  defenselessness  of 
the  body  under  fire,  and  he  pressed  the  fight  to  a  success- 
ful termination.  When  he  closed  his  long  and  impas- 
sioned address,  he  was  the  master  of  the  situation. 

No  one  present  was  able  to  cope  with  Rudisill. 
Fairchild,  the  president,  had  neither  force  nor  skill  in 
debate,  and  was  disposed  to  vacillate.  He  made  no  ven- 
ture to  reply  to  the  sweeping  charges.  The  students 
dared  not  incur  his  displeasure  in  doing  so.  Henkel,  the 
only  man  who  could  have  replied  to  him  with  any  degree 
of  success,  was  absent,  and  his  name  was  so  used  by 
Rudisill  as  to  favor  his  own  demands.  The  proposition 
carried,  and  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Synod  of  Indiana 
came  to  its  death  by  the  act  of  Rev.  Ephraim  Rudisill. 

The  proceedings  of  this  convention  were  not  pub- 
lished, doubtless  also  the  demand  of  Rudisill.  The  facts 
here  recounted  were  obtained  from  those  present  and  are 
well  authenticated.  It  is  probable  that  if  he  had  had  the 
power,  Rudisill  would  have  destroyed  every  copy  of  the 
proceedings  of  the  several  conventions  of  the  sjmod  in 
order  to  bury  in  oblivion  all  records  of  his  vacillating 
and   destructive  policy.     Thus   after  an   existence  of  24 


—     J6I     — 

years,  the  first  Lutheran  Synod  organized  west  of  Ohio, 
came  to  an  end  November  4,  1859. 

It  is  impossible  to  form  even  an  approximate  esti- 
mate of  the  numerical  strength  of  this  synod,  either  in 
the  number  of  congregations  or  the  communicant  mem- 
bers. It  was  rather  lax  in  its  reception  of  congregations, 
so  that  it  is  dillicult  to  determine  what  congregations 
were  regularly  and  formally  received,  and  thus  became 
an  integral  part  of  the  body.  In  many  cases  if  a  congre- 
gation sent  a  delegate  to  the  meeting  of  the  synod  the 
congregation  was  regarded  as  a  member  of  the  body.  So 
also,  if  a  congregation  received  a  minister  as  its  minister, 
it  was  considered  as  a  part  of  the  synod.  Only  when  a 
congregation  asked  to  be  received  into  connection  with 
the  synod  was  there  any  formal  action  taken. 

Besides  this  method  of  receiving  congregations,  ther6 
were  no  reports  of  their  parochial  labors  made  to  the  synod 
by  the  pastors.  In  fact  this  was  almost  an  impossibility, 
in  view  of  the  peculiar  pastoral  arrangements  that  existed. 
No  pastor  had  a  distinct  and  specific  field  of  labor.  The 
whole  sjmod  was  one  parish,  of  which  the  ministers  were 
joint  pastors.  This  condition  was  practically  maintained 
during  the  whole  history  of  the  synod.  It  is  difficult 
therefore  to  form  any  estimate  of  the  synod's  real  strength. 

Repeated  efforts  were  made  to  have  the  pastors  send 
in  their  parochial  reports,  but  the  requests  were  unheeded. 
In  1843  a  partial  report  was  made,  showing  188  infants 
and  17  adults  baptized.  98  persons  confirmed  during  the 
year,  and  1,084  communicants.  The  next  year  242  infant 
and  17  adult  baptisms,  107  confirmations  and  1,202  com- 
municants were  reported.  It  is  probable  at  the  time  of 
its  greatest  strength  the  synod  had  about  2,500  communi- 
cants. 


—     162    — 

Having  no  institution  of  learning,  either  classical  or 
theological,  to  which  the  candidates  for  the  ministry 
migiit  be  sent,  it  made  provision  f^r  their  instruction  pri- 
vately. After  securing  such  education  as  the  public 
schools  in  the  state  afforded,  and  few  of  the  candidates 
ever  obtained  more  than  a  high  school  training,  the  can- 
didate was  placed  under  the  charge  of  some  pastor,  who 
would  direct  his  studies  and  supplement  them  with  pri- 
vate lectures  and  instruction.  Each  year  he  was  required 
to  be  present  at  the  synod,  submit  to  an  examination,  and 
if  found  qualified,  advanced.  The  synod  thus  became 
also  a  preparatory  school  for  the  candidates  of  theology. 
The  work  done  by  these  was  necessarily  very  defective, 
yet  by  perseverance,  faithful  application  and  close  atten- 
tion, a  number  of  these  candidates  became  able  and  influ- 
ential pastors.  Among  them  were  several  who  had  marked 
natural  ability,  and  had  they  had  the  training  which  the 
schools  of  the  present  offer,  would  doubtless  have  risen  to 
eminence  in  the  church.  Among  these  we  might  name 
John  P.  Livengood,  D.  P.  Groundt,  and  Samuel  Good. 

The  following  persons  were  at  one  time  candidates 
under  the  synod's  care,  with  the  dates  of  their  reception. 
Some  of  these  completed  the  required  course  and  entered 
upon  the  pastoral  office;  some  became  discouraged  and 
abandoned  the  work,  and  some  were  removed  by  death, 
before  their  course  was  completed. 

E.  Rudisill  and  David  Miller  and  Henry  Fairchild 
were  received  as  candidates  in  the  early  history  of  the 
synod.''^  Paul  Stine  in  1841,  Enoch  Goodwin  in  1842, 
Jesse  Kepley,  Philip  P.  Fleshman,  John  P.  Livengood  and 


fiS  Several  numbers  of  the  minutes  are  lacking  and  dates  in- 
determinable. 


—     163    — 

Martin  Warner  in  1843,  J.  F.  Lautenschlager  in  1844, 
John  Good  in  1847,  Eli  Myers,  W.  H.  Deck  and  D.  P. 
Groundt  in  1851,  V.  A.  Myers  and  E.  Peter  in  1852, 
Nathan  Booher  in  1854,  Jacob  E.  Deck  in  1856,  Philip 
A.  Peter  and  Jacob  Wesner  in  1857,  and  Jacob  Mutz, 
Henry  S.  Slinkard  and  J.  E.  Wesner  in  1858. 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  fathers  of  this  synod 
were  brought  up  in  a  school  which  vigorously  opposed 
the  license  system,  it  was  introduced  in  the  year  1843,  if 
not  earlier.  The  synod  held  to  the  theory  of  two  grades 
in  the  ministry,  deacons  and  pastors.  But  as  the  candi- 
dates advanced  in  their  studies,  and  the  calls  for  minis- 
ters were  so  numerous  and  urgent,  the  synod,  in  order  to 
supply  the  needs,  granted  license  to  such  applicants  as  it 
considered  qualified  to  preach,  but  not  deemed  suffi- 
ciently advanced  to  be  vested  with  all  the  rights  and 
authority  of  a  deacon  or  pastor.  The  president  had 
power  to  issue  ad-interim  licenses,  which  were  returnable 
at  the  next  convention  of  the  synod.  It  exercised  careful 
oversight  over  the  work  of  its  licentiates,  so  that  there 
was  not  that  abuse  of  this  system  as  prevailed  in  many  of 
the  cases  that  came  before  the  Synod  of  the  West  and  in 
a  number  of  the  German  congregations  in  the  state. 

The  following  were  licentiates:  Henry  Fairchild  in 
1843,  John  Good,  John  F.  Lautenschlager  and  Enoch 
Goodwin  October  12,  1846,  John  P.  Livengood  October  13, 
1846,  Eli  Myers  and  D.  P.  Groundt,  1851,  C.  R.  Otto 
Miller,  1855,  J.  B.  Hine  January  26,  1857,  Jacob  E. 
Deck  August  28,  1857,  Philip  A.  Peter  June  6,  1858, 
Nathan  Booher  June  18,  1S5S. 

This  synod  held  that  there  are  two  grades  in  the  min- 
istry, deacons  and  pastors,  and  ordination  to  the  diacon- 


—     164    — 

ate  was  a  prerequisite  to  ordination  to  the  pastorate.^"  A 
call  from  one  or  more  congregations  was  necessary  to  a 
candidate's  ordination  to  either  the  diaconate  or  pastorate. 

The  following  persons  were  ordained  to  the  diaconate 
by  this  synod  :  Ephraim  Rudisill,  date  uncertain ;  Samuel 
Good,  David  Miller  and  Elias  Markert,  October  13,  1841 ; 
Jesse  Kepley,  October  2,  1844 ;  Henry  Fairchild,  1845 ; 
John  F.  Lautenschlager  and  Enoch  Goodwin,  1847  ;  Caspar 
Brengle,  1837-41  (?);  John  P.  Livengood  and  John  Good, 
October  10,  1849;  William  H.  Deck,  1851  (?);  Jacob 
E.  Deck,  October  4,  1857;  Jacob  Wesner  and  Nathan 
Booher,  October  23,  1858.  There  evidently  were  several 
others,  names  and  dates  not  at  hand,  owing  to  the  incom- 
pleteness of  the  fil^  of  the  minutes. 

The  following  were  ordained  to  the  office  of  pastor: 
Abraham  Miller,  Conrad  F.  Picker  and  Ephraim  R.  Con- 
rad, August  17,  1835;  Ephraim  Rudisill,  1839(?);  Elias 
Markert,  1842;  Samuel  Good,  October  11,  1843;  Henry 
Fairchild,  May  2,  1847;  Enoch  Goodwin,  October  10, 
1849;   John   F.    Lautenschlager,    1848;™  Wm.    H.    Deck, 

69  The  rule  that  candidates  for  the  ministry  must  first  be 
ordained  to  the  diaconate,  and  then  to  the  pastorate,  was  derived 
from  the  Tennessee  Synod.  But  it  was  not  confined  to  these 
two  bodies.  The  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania  also  held  to  this 
view  in  theory  and  in  practice.  In  1805  the  Lancaster  Confer- 
ence, through  Dr.  Muhlenberg,  proposed  thereafter  to  have 
three  grades,  catechists,  deacons  and  pastors.  This  proposition 
was  referred  to  the  Ministerium,  but  overlooked.  In  1812  it  was 
again  brought  forward  and  allowed  to  rest.  In  1816,  at  Fred- 
erick, Maryland,  the  synod  resolved  to  introduce  the  order  of 
deacons.  In  1828  this  act  was  repealed.  The  main  object  of 
this  step  seems  to  have  been  to  admit  to  ordination  those  who 
had  not  enjoyed  sufficient  educational  advantages. 

70  This  was  by  Revs.  A.  and  D.  Miller,  and  never  recognized 
as  valid  by  the  synod,  although  so  held  by  the  civil  courts,  and 
other  Lutheran  synods. 


165 


September  29,  1852 ;  C.  R.  O.  Miller,  October  28,  1855 ; 
Christian  Good,  June,  1857  ;  Davoult  P.  Groundt,  October 
4,  1857;  Jacob  E.  Deck  and  Philip  A.  Peter,  October  23, 
1858.  Revs.  C.  F.  Picker  and  E.  R.  Conrad  did  not  at- 
tend the  sessions  of  the  synod  after  the  first,  and  possiblj' 
the  fourth  convention,  and  finally  are  dropped  from  the 
clerical  roll.     What  became  of  them  we  do  not  know. 

The  following  pastors  and  deacons  were  at  some  time 
connected  with  the  synod : 

Rev.  John  L.  Markert,  1835— 1852. t 

Rev.  Christian  Moritz,  1835-1850. 

Rev.  Eusebius  S.  Henkel,  1835-1859. 

Rev.  Ephraim  R.  Conrad,  1835-. 

Rev.  Conrad  F.  Picker,  1835—. 

Rev.  Abraham  Miller,  1835—1849. 

Rev.  John  H.  Yajaii,  1841  (?)— . 

Rev.  Ephraim  Kudisill,  1839  (?)— 1&54. 

Rev.  Elias  Markert,  1841—1859. 

Rev.  Samuel  Good,  1841-1851.1 

Rev.  David  Miller,  1841—1849. 

Rev.  Caspar  Brengle,  1841  (?)— 1850. 

Rev.  Henry  Fairchild,  1843—1859. 

Rev.  Jesse  Kepley,  1844—1845.1 

Rev.  J.  F.  Lautenschlager,  1847—1849. 

Rev.  Enoch  Goodwin,  1847-1852.1 

Rev.  John  P.  Livengood,  1849-1859. t 

Rev.  John  Good,  1849— 1S59. 

Rev.  Eli  Myers,  1851—1859. 

Rev.  W.  H.  Deck,  1851—1858.1 

Rev.  E.  Keester,  1852—1853. 

Rev.  C.  R.  Otto  Miller,  1855—1859. 

Rev.  Jacob  E.  Deck,  1857—1859. 

Rev.  Nathan  Booher,  1857—1859. 

Rev.  Christian  Good,  1857—1859. 

Rev.  Philip  A.  Peter,  1857—18.59. 

Rev.  Jacob  Wesner,  1858—1859. 

The  following  congregations  were  at  some  time  in 
connection  with  the  synod  during  its  history.     The  dates 


—    J66    — 

are  the  years  in  which  mention  is  first  made  of  them  in 
the  minutes : 

1.  Apple  Creek  church,  Cape  Girardeau  county,  Missouri, 
1835. 

2.  Church  at  Whitner's  Mill,   Madison  county,  Missouri, 
1835. 

3.  White  Water  church.  Cape  Girardeau  count}',  Missouri, 
1835. 

4.  Ehode's  school  house,  Madison  county,  Missouri,  1837. 

5.  Myers'  Settlement,  Madison  county,  Missouri,  1837. 

6.  St.  John's  church,  Johnson  county,  Indiana,  1835. 

7.  St.  John's  church,  Monroe  county,  Indiana,  1835. 

8.  Union  church,  Daviess  county,  Indiana,  1835. 

9.  Phanuel  church.  Fountain  county,  Indiana,  1835. 

10.  Philadelphia  church,  Parke  county,  Indiana,  1835. 

11.  Salem  church,  Morgan  county,  Indiana,  1835. 

12.  Zion's  church,  Morgan  county,  Indiana,  1837. 

13.  St.  John's  church,  Floyd  county,  Indiana,  1835. 

14.  Union  church,  Boone  county,  Indiana,  1835. 

15.  Beaver's  church  (?),  Fall  Creek,  Madison  county  (?), 
ladiana,  1835. 

16.  St.  James'  church,  Montgomery  county,  Indiana,  1837. 

17.  Union  church,  Montgomery  county,  Indiana,  1841. 

18.  Zion's  church,  Washington  county,  Indiana,  1837. 

19.  St.  John's  church.  Union  county,  Indiana,  1837. 

20.  Newberne  church,  Bartholomew  county,  Indiana,  1841. 

21.  Klingensmith's  church,  Marion  county,  Indiana,  1841. 

22.  Salem  church,  Washington  county,  Indiana,  1841. 

23.  West  Union  church,  Knox  county,  Indiana,  1843. 

24.  St.  George's  church,  Shelby  county,  Indiana,  1843. 

25.  Mt.  Solomon  church,  Harrison  county,  Indiana,  1843, 

26.  Philadelphia  church,  Harrison  county,  Indiana,  1844. 

27.  St.  Paul's  church,  Harrison  county,  Indiana,  1844. 

28.  Philadelphia  church,  Floyd  county,  Indiana,  1846. 

29.  Zion's  church,  Shelby  county,  Indiana,  1849. 

30.  St.  Peter's  church,  Carroll  county,  Indiana,  1843. 

31.  Slipher's  church,  Clinton  county,  Indiana,  1843. 

32.  St.  Paul's  church,  Tippecanoe  county,  Indiana,  1843. 

33.  Zion's  church,  Tippecanoe  county,  Indiana,  1843. 


—     167    — 

34.  Hopewell  church,  .Marion  county,  Indiana,  1846. 

35.  Mt.  Pleasant  church,  Hamilton  county,  Indiana,  184S. 

36.  A  German  church  in  Terre  Haute,  Indiana,  1852. 

37.  Mt.  Eden  church,  Monroe  county,  Indiana,  1858. 

38.  INIt.  Vernon  church,  Parke  county,  Indiana,  18'>0. 

39.  Tennessee  churcli,  Clinton  county,  Indiana,  1S52. 

40.  St.  Peter's  church,  Greene  county,  Indiana,  1852. 

41.  Newtown  church,  Boone  county,  Indiana,  1852. 

42.  St.  Luke's  church,  Monroe  county,  Indiana,  1852. 

43.  St.  Stephen's  church,  Clinton  county,  Indiana,  1852. 

44.  St.  ]\Iary's  church,  Knox  county,  Indiana,  1854. 

45.  Fairhaven  church,  Clinton  county,  Indiana,  1854. 

Besides  these  congregations  there  were  a  number  of 
preaching  points,  and  several  congregations  in  Iowa, 
served  by  the  Revs.  J.  and  C.  Good  and  Christian  Moritz. 
Rev.  C.  Brengle  served  congregations  in  Pike  county,  111., 
and  Revs.  Groundt  and  Myers  in  Texas.  The  congrega- 
tion at  Jeffersontown,  Kentucky,  also  belonged  to  this 
synod  for  a  while. 

It  can  hardly  be  said  that  the  Synod  of  Indiana  ac- 
complished the  work  to  which  it  appeared  to  be  called. 
There  was  a  vast  and  fruitful  field  before  it,  to  be  occu- 
pied and  cultivated.  For  half  a  score  of  years  it  pros- 
pered, and  the  prospects  for  future  success  were  bright. 
It  had  men  among  its  members  who,  in  learning  and 
ability,  were  equal  to  any  minister  laboring  in  the  state, 
men  who,  for  zeal,  devotion  and  labor,  were  unsurpassed 
in  those  regions  in  their  day.  There  were  congregations 
in  its  connection  that  were  strong  and  influential,  whose 
membership  was  loyal  and  devout.  These  responded 
nobly  to  the  calls  made  upon  them  by  the  church.  As 
congregations,  they  took  a  deep  interest  in  the  work  of 
the  synod.  Laymen  who  were  endowed  with  zeal,  intelli- 
gence and  influence,  represented  these  in  the  synodical 
conventions.     A  number  of  young  men  responded  to  the 


168 


call  of  the  church  to  devote  themselves  to  the  ministry, 
and  the  sacrifice  these  made,  and  the  obstacles  they  over- 
came, are  almost  incalculable  at  this  day.  The  efforts 
made  by  individual  pastors  to  prepare  these  young  men  for 
their  work  is  highl}^  commendable.  In  addition  to  all  this, 
Lutherans  were  flocking  to  the  state  by  hundreds,  material 
ready  to  be  gathered  in  and  amalgamated  with  the  organ- 
ized congregations.  But  the  synod,  it  appears,  was  un- 
able to  make  any  substantial  progress  in  the  work  before 
it.  After  a  quarter  of  a  century  of  effort,  struggles,  sac- 
rifices and  disappointments,  it  had  made  but  little  farther 
progress.  In  doctrine  its  official  position  was  clear,  and 
in  advance  of  most  of  the  Lutheran  Synods  then  existing. 
From  this  doctrinal  position  it  never  departed  as  a  body, 
except  for  a  very  brief  time.  This  is  not  true,  however, 
of  some  of  its  individual  members,  as  is  clear  from  the 
foregoing  sketch. 

The  following  may  be  regarded  as  the  chief  causes 
why  this  body  failed  in  establishing  itself  perman^ently, 
and  which  ultimately  led  to  its  dissolution : 

1.  Its  narrow  and  restricted  policy  relative  to  educa- 
tion and  missionary  work.  This  policy  was  the  result  of 
a  wrong  conception  of  the  nature  and  duty  of  the  church 
in  these  departments  of  church  work.  This  is  evident 
from  the  remarks  appended  to  the  article  in  the  constitu- 
tion bearing  on  this  subject.  They  believed  that  any  ef- 
forts to  aid  in  this  kind  of  work  would  tend  to  beget  a 
spirit  of  dependence  in  those  assisted.  Their  conception 
of  the  nature  of  a  theological  education  obtained  at  a 
seminary  was  a  very  erroneous  one.  The  same  is  also 
true  of  their  conception  of  an  incorporated  institution,  re- 
garding it  as  a  step  toward  the  union  of  church  and  state. 

This  position  and  policy  of  the  synod  had  an  injurious 


—     J69    — 

effect  upon  its  communicant  membership.  It  tended  to 
prejudice  them  against  the  great  commission  to  disciple 
the  nations.  They  inferred  that  it  is  wrong,  if  not  posi- 
tively sinful,  to  engage  in  missionary  etTorts.  They  felt 
no  obligation  to  render  any  assistance  to  the  weak  and 
scattered  people  of  the  same  faith.  This  synod  denounced 
such  organizations  as  Tract,  Temperance,  Missionary  and 
Bible  Societies  as  "fantastical  and  falsely  so-called  benev- 
olent societies."  Under  such  a  policy  it  is  clear  that  no 
systematic,  aggressive  work  could  be  accomplished. 

This  narrow  policy  also  tended  to  keep  pastors  who 
located  within  the  bounds  of  the  synod  from  identifying 
themselves  with  it.  Many  conservative  Lutheran  pastors 
located  in  the  territory  of  this  sj'nod,  but  they  cast  their 
lot  with  other  bodies.  It  also  led  to  many  misunder- 
standings, and  gave  rise  to  wrong  impressions.  The 
members  of  this  synod  were  characterized  as  "laboring 
under  the  most  unfounded  prejudices,"  and  this  being 
published  abroad,  and  the  almost  universal  opposition  to 
Henkelism,  of  which  this  synod  was  an  ardent  champion, 
did  much  to  array  other  synods  and  ministers  against 
them,  and  also  resulted  in  alienating  some  of  its  own 
congregations.  The  Sj'nod  of  Indiana  was  regarded  as 
very  bigotted  and  intolerant. 

2.  Soyne  of  the  leading  men  of  this  synod  were  con- 
trolled more  by  unholy  ambition  than  by  ardent  devotion 
to  the  principals  of  which  the  synod  was  the  representative. 
Instead  of  the  spirit  of  unity,  and  concerted  effort  for  the 
advancement  of  the  church,  wliich  they  professed  to  love 
80  dearly,  a  spirit  of  intense  rivalry  and  rankling  jealousy 
prevailed.  The  interests  of  the  church  were  permitted  to 
suffer,  so  that  personal  advancement  might  be  secured. 

Rev.   Ephraim    Rudisill    and  the   Kev.   Eusebius    S. 


—     170    — 

Henkel,  both  men  of  marked  ability,  and  fitted  for  lead- 
ership, were  lifelong  rivals.  Notwithstanding  their  abili- 
ties, their  great  labors  for  the  church,  and  their  power  and 
influence  in  the  pulpit,  their  personal  ambition  and  their 
aspirations  to  be  chief  among  their  brethren,  militated 
greatlj^  against  their  work,  paralyzing  all  efforts  to  ad- 
vance the  interests  of  the  church.  Rudisill  was  ambi- 
tious, impetuous,  eloquent  and  persistent  in  his  purposes. 
Through  all  the  opposition  against  him,  and  for  the  time 
defeated  in  his  schemes,  he  never  lost  sight  of  his  aims, 
and  labored  on  patiently  in  the  hope  of  gaining  his  pur- 
pose in  the  end.  At  times  he  bore  down  all  opposition 
by  his  impetuosity  and  vehemence.  With  tears  and 
threats  he  would  awe  his  inferiors  into  submission.  If  a 
scheme  of  his  was  too  strongly  opposed  he  would  startle 
the  synod  by  either  resigning  his  official  position  or  ask  a 
dismissal  from  the  body.  His  audacity  in  this  alarmed 
his  opponents,  and  they  feared  to  press  matters  farther. 
By  these  coups  iV  etat  he  gained  his  purposes  in  the  end. 
These  methods,  and  the  traits  of  character  they  betrayed, 
disgusted  self-respecting  men,  who  quietly  withdrew  from 
any  part  in  the  transactions  of  the  synod. 

Henkel,  perhaps,  was  equally  ambitious,  powerful  in 
argument,  but  vacillating.  He  was  visionary,  warm 
and  sympathetic,  imprudent  and  indiscreet  in  his  meas- 
ures, but  sincere.  He  aspired  to  influence  and  leader- 
ship. In  his  efforts  he  often  departed  from  the  landmarks, 
faith  and  practice  of  the  church,  but  no  more  than  did 
his  rival  and  opponent.  These  men  were  the  very  oppo- 
sites  in  temperament  and  character.  They  alternately 
influenced  the  doctrinal  and  practical  status  of  the  synod. 
Between  these  two  leaders  the  other  members  of  the 
synod  were  divided.     Rudisill  compelled  his  followers  to 


do  his  bidding  from  fear,  Henkel  won  them  hj'  his  warm 
and  sympathetic  nature. 

3.  The  lack  of  definite  pastorates  was  another  cause 
of  failure.  There  were,  strictly  speaking,  no  definite 
pastorates  in  the  synod.  All  the  congregations  of  the 
synod  constituted  one  vast  parish,  of  which  the  ministers 
were  co-pastors.  Congregations  annually  petitioned  the 
sj'nod  for  preaching,  and  arrangements  were  made  by 
which  they  were  statedly  supplied.''  Thus  at  almost 
every  successive  service  (which  were  conducted  no  oftener 
than  once  every  three  or  four  weeks)  a  different  pastor 
officiated.  There  could  be  no  systematic,  aggressive, 
solid  work  done  under  such  a  regime.  There  was  preach- 
ing, but  no  pastoral  oversight.  The  latent  strength  of 
the  congregation  could  not  be  developed.  Catechization 
was  neglected,  and  the  people  grew  indifferent  and  grad- 
ually neglected  the  church. 

4.  The  preaching  of  heretical  and  unlutheran  doc- 
trine did  more  to  destroy  the  synod  than  any  other  "cause. 
Rev.  Ephraim  Rudisill  determined  to  make  Destruction- 
ism  a  tenet  of  the  synod,  and  to  originate  a  new  sect. 
He  aspired  to  be  to  the  Lutheran  body  what  Alexander 
Campbell  was  to  the  Baptist  denomination,  the  founder 
of  a  Lutheran  sect,  a  species  of  Lutheranism  with  De- 
structionism  as  its  distinguishing  mark.  But  while  unable 
to  rally  the  whole  synod  to  this  standard,  as  he  predicted 
he  could  and  would  do,  by  force  or  fear,  he  nevertheless 
succeeded  in  gaining  a  large  following  among  the  congre- 


71  The  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania  during  the  first  almost 
fifty  years,  1748—1793,  hail  a  similar  custom.  The  congrega- 
tions continually  sent  their  applications  for  pastors  and  supplies 
to  the  synod.  Action  upon  these  matters  was  usually  taken  in 
open  synod. 


—    172    — 

gations.  While  we  have  no  exact  data,  yet  it  appears 
that  about  a  third  of  the  synod's  strength  was  at  one 
time  on  his  side.  The  opposition  from  the  Millers  and 
Lautenschlager,  which  Rudisill's  course  provoked,  saved 
the  Lutheran  element  in  Indiana,  represented  by  this 
synod,  from  being  swung  off  into  a  new  and  heretical 
sect.  While  this  led  to  the  dissolution  of  the  body,  it 
saved  the  churches  from  total  wreck.  The  Synod  of  In- 
diana never  recovered  from  the  effects  of  this  heretical 
movement,  and  the  responsibility  must  be  laid  to  the 
charge  of  Revs.  Ephraim  Rudisill,  Elias  Markert  and 
Samuel  Good. 

It  may  seem  strange  to  the  reader  that  this  heretical 
movement  was  not  rooted  out  before  it  gained  such  a 
foothold  in  the  synod.  Were  there  not  some  who  knew 
its  heretical  character?  Yes.  But  Destructionism  was 
not  the  only  heresy  fostered  by  members  of  this  synod. 
Rev.  E.  S.  Henkel,  who  was  perhaps  the  only  one  with 
the  ability  to  combat  successfully  the  arguments  of  the 
Destructionists,  was  at  this  period  deeply  in  the  mazes  of 
Universalism.  He  had  the  good  judgment  not  to  preach 
it  publicly,  for  he  knew  it  to  be  inconsistent  with  Luther- 
anism,  but  he  admitted  that  he  held  to  Universalism 
privately.  His  views  were  rather  Restorationism.  On 
one  occasion  when  asked  if  these  views-  could  be  proved 
false  he  replied:  "From  the  Bible  they  can,  from  reason 
they  cannot."  It  is  also  claimed  by  some  that  the  va- 
garies of  Swedenborg  found  advocates  and  champions 
among  the  members  of  this  synod.  Such  being  the  con- 
dition of  things,  it  was  hard  to  find  one  who  had  the 
courage  to  make  complaint  against  another. 

During  the  period  when  the  Destructionism  heresy 
was   to  the   front  there  was  a  large  influx  of  Lutherans 


-     J73    - 

into  the  state,  mostly  Germans.  A  number  of  Lutheran 
pastors,  some  from  Gossner's  Institute,  and  some  from 
Leipzig,  were  sent  to  labor  among  them.  Among  these 
were  the  Isensees,  J.  and  J.  F.,  directed  to  Indiana  by 
Rev.  W.  A.  Passavant,  J.  Kunz,  J.  J.  Meissner,  Oscar  C. 
A.  Hunger,  Ph.  D.,  and  others.  These  at  first  were  affil- 
iated with  the  Synod  of  the  West,  but  felt  ill  at  ease  in 
that  radical  body.  They  quietly  withdrew  and  organized 
the  Synod  of  Indianapolis,  which  grew  quite  rapidly.  If 
the  Synod  of  Indiana,  which  was  a  German-English  body, 
had  at  that  time  been  true  to  its  doctrinal  basis,  and  its 
great  work  had  not  been  overshadowed  by  personal  am- 
bition, it  is  quite  probable  that  it  could  and  would  have 
attracted  to  itself  these  pastors  and  their  congregations. 
But  it  could  not  attract  them  while  in  the  mazes  of  her- 
esy and  rankling  with  jealousies  and  discord.  It  could 
not  command  respect,  and  those  men  preferred  to  organ- 
ize a  distinct  body  than  cast  their  lot  with  the  Synod  of 
Indiana.  The  ambitious  leaders  in  the  synod  did  not 
much  desire  these  German  pastors,  lest  their  ambitious 
schemes  might  fail.  The  Synod  of  Indiana  failed  to  see 
its  opportunity  for  great  growth  and  good,  and  when  that 
passed  by  no  other  came. 

5.  The  abandonment  of  Lutheran  nistonis.  In  the 
early  history  of  this  synod  the  Lutheran  custom  of  thor- 
oughly catechising  the  youth  prior  to  their  confirmation 
was  strictly  adhered  to,  at  least  so  far  as  the  pastors  had 
the  time.  But  this  custom  l)ecame  unpopular  under  the 
infiuence  of  the  fanatical  measures  in  vogue  among  other 
denominations,  and  fell  into  disuse.  The  youth  grew  up 
with  no  clear  idea  of  the  doctrines,  policy  or  history  of 
the  church.  They  could  not  give  a  reason  for  the  faith 
that  was  in  them.     Instead  of  this  rational  educational 


—     174    — 

method  new  measures  and  revivalistic  efforts  were  resorted 
to.  It  was  less  laborious  to  the  pastor  and  more  popular 
with  the  people.  There  could  be  no  grounding  in  the 
faith  under  this  method,  and  the  result  was,  a  number  of 
the  congregations  of  this  synod  fell  before  the  tidal  wave 
of  error.  It  seems  strange  thnt  this  synod,  which  had  so 
vehemently  and  unremittingly  opposed  the  "Generalists" 
"in  their  unlutheran  practices  and  efforts  to  subvert  the 
Lutheran  faith"  should  become  an  advocate  of  some  of 
those  same  practices  even  while  crying  out  against  the 
General  Synod,  and  refusing  fellowship  with  it. 

The  unstable  policy  of  this  synod  arose  chiefly  from 
its  isolated  position.  With  representatives  of  the  General 
Synod  it  would  have  nothing  to  do.  While  it  held  to  the 
same  doctrinal  position  as  the  Tennessee  Synod,  yet  it 
had  no  connection  with  that  body,  not  even  exchanging 
delegates.  In  its  later  history  it  contemplated  union  with 
the  Ohio  Synod,  but  the  consummation  was  never  reached. 
In  this  isolated  position,  and  priding  itself  upon  its  inde- 
pendence, it  arrogated  to  itself  a  purer  Lutheranism  than 
that  held  by  any  other  Lutheran  body.  The  pastors  were 
thrown  largely  upon  their  own  resources,  and  their  indi- 
vidual" interpretations  of  the  symbolical  books  were  not 
always  consistent  nor  in  harmony  with  the  utterances 
of  the  leading  theologians  of  the  church.  It  may  be  lik- 
ened to  a  ship  at  sea  without  rudder  or  compass,  and 
every  member  of  the  crew  taking  his  turn  to  steer  the 
vessel  into  a  safe  harbor.  It  may  also  be  remarked  that 
the  times  in  which  it  existed,  and  the  religious  vagaries 
that  then  so  largely  abounded  in  this  region,  all  conspired 
to  turn  the  synod  out  of  its  true  historical  and  doctrinal 
course. 


CHAPTER  VI 

©I|p  llnton  i'yitoii  of  t\]t  lEuanijpliral 
ICutl|prati  (EI|urrJ| 


Chapter  VI. 


(Tlir  Imon  ^yttnli  of  ti^t  lEuauijpUral 
ICutl|pran  (III|urrI|. 


FIE  next  day  after  the  dissolution  of  the  Evangel- 
ical Lutheran  Sj'nod  of  Indiana,  being  the  5th 
da}'  of  November,  1859,  the  several  ministers 
who  had  constituted  the  clergy  of  that  body,  and 
the  lay  delegates  representing  the  congregations 
met  in  Newtown  church,  Boone  county,  Indiana,  and  af- 
ter reading  a  portion  of  God's  Word,  engaged  in  prayer 
for  God's  blessing  upon  their  assembling,  and  aid  in  ac- 
complishing the  good  work  for  which  they  were  convened. 
After  these  devotional  services,  upon  motion  of  Rev.  E. 
Rudisill,  the  Rev.  John  Good,  of  Iowa,  was  called  to  act 
as  chairman  and  the  Rev.  E.  Rudisill  was  elected  tem- 
porary secretary.  After  this  the  chairman  read  the  fol- 
lowing call  for  a  meeting  of  Lutheran  ministers  and  con- 
gregations in  convention  for  the  organization  of  a  synod, 
which  was  ordered  spread  upon  the  minutes: 

TllK    ("ALL. 

"  Whereas,  there  is  not  at  this  time  in  the  state  of 
Indiana  a  regular  organization  embracing  all  the  minis- 
ters and  congregations  of  the  Evangelic  Lutheran  faith  in 
the  state,  and 


-2  The  title  was  from  1859  to  1863  the  Union  Synod  of  the 
Evangelic  Lutheran  Church,  thenceforward  the  Union  Synod  of 
the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church. 


—     178    — 

"  ^Yhereas,  such  an  organization  is  on  many  accounts 
desirable,  and  if  rightly  managed  and  conducted  in  har- 
mony with  the  principles  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  of 
Faith  and  Luther's  Small  Catechism,  cannot  fail  to  be  of 
lasting  benefit  to  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  will  lay  a 
good  foundation  for  its  future  prosperity,  I,  as  a  minis- 
ter of  the  Evangelic  Lutheran  Church,  desiring  its  pros- 
perity, do  hereby  make  a  call  for  all  ministers  of  said 
church,  who  are  not  at  this  time  in  any  ecclesiastic  con- 
nection, and  who  are  anxious  for  the  well-being  of  our 
beloved  Zion,  with  all  Lutheran  congregations  that  may 
wish  for  such  an  organization,  to  meet  on  the  5th  day  of 
November,  1859,  in  Newtown  church,  Boone  county,  In- 
diana, for  the  purpose  of  exchanging  views  and  uniting 
together  in  such  organization  as  may  be  deemed  necessary 
for  the  present  wants  of  the  church  in  the  state  and  ad- 
joining states  ;  and  to  agree  upon  such  additional  arrange- 
ments as  shall  be  required  to  secure  a  convention  of  the 
ministry  and  congregations,  at  as  early  a  day  as  possible, 
to  form  a  constitution  and  such  regulations  as  shall  be 
considered  just  and  equal  for  the  government  of  the  min- 
istry and  congregations  in  such  organization.  And  that 
such  convention  shall,  in  the  foundation  of  such  constitu- 
tion, adopt  the  Bible  containing  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments as  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  church  discipline ;  the 
Apostle's  Creed  as  the  rule  and  bond  of  christian  fellow- 
ship ;  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  Faith  and  Luther's 
Small  Catechism  as  the  declaration  and  expression  of  the 
views  of  such  organization  on  all  the  Biblical  doctrines 
upon  which  they  treat." — John  GoodJ'^ 

'3  "This  call  purportB  to  have  been  issued  by  Rev.  John 
Good,  but  it  was  written  by  Eev.  E.  Kudisill,  who  prevailed 
upon  Good  to  sign  the  same  and  read  it  as  his  own.  This  infor- 
mation I  have  from  the  lips  of  Kev.  John  Good." 


-     179    - 

After  this  call  was  read  and  some  explanatory  re- 
marks pertaining  to  it  were  made  by  the  chairman,  the 
whole  question  was  freely  discussed,  and  those  pastors 
and  delegates  present  who  approved  the  organization  of  a 
new  synod  were  requested  to  hand  their  names  to  the 
secretary.  The  following  pastors,  students  and  delegates 
were  present,  and  favored  the  proposed  organization : 
Revs.  John  Good,  Ephraim  Rudisill,  Jacob  E.  Deck, 
Philip  A.  Peter,  Henry  Fairchild,  C.  R.  0.  Miller  and 
Nathan  Booher;  Students  H.  S.  Slinkard  and  J.  E.  Wes- 
ner.  The  following  congregations  were  represented  by 
their  respective  lay  delegates:  Newtown  church,  Whites- 
town,  Indiana,  W.  J.  Laughner;  St.  Peter's  church,  New- 
berry, Indiana,  H.  S.  Slinkard;  Union  church,  Daviess 
county,  Indiana,  H.  S.  Slinkard  ;  Mt.  Zion  church,  Mor- 
gan county,  Indiana,  H.  S.  Slinkard;  Fairhaven  churcli, 
Clinton  county,  Indiana,  Moses  Jacoby;  St.  James'  churrh, 
Clinton  county,  Indiana,  Charles  Koontz ;  Mt.  Solomon 
church,  Harrison  county,  J.  S.  Hammond ;  Union  church, 
Boone  county,  Indiana,  Philip  Lucas;  Phanuel  church. 
Fountain  county,  Indiana,  John  Fine ;  Philadelphia 
church,  Parke  county,  Indiana,  Alex.  Bowers;  St.  James' 
church,  Montgomery  county,  Indiana,  Reuben  Foust ;  St. 
Georg*!  church,  Shelby  county,  Indiana,  Daniel  Snepp. 
There  were  also  three  other  delegates  present,  namely,  Jacob 
Mutz,  A.  Treon  and  Edward  Kern,  Init  what  congregations 
they  represented  the  proceedings  do  not  indicate.  These 
pastors  and  representatives,  by  resolution,  formed  them- 
selves into  a  synodical  capacity,  elected  the  temporary 
officers  as  the  permanent  officers  for  the  ensuing  year,  and 
adopted  the  name  and  title  of  "The  Union  Synod  of  the 
Evangelic  Lutheran  churcii." 


In  this  capacity  it  adopted  the  following  declaration 
of  principles : 

''Resolved,  that  this  synod  adopts  the  Bible  as  their 
only  rule  of  faith,  union  and  church  discipline;  the  Apos- 
tle's Creed  as  a  summary  of  doctrines  necessary  to  be  be- 
lieved and  acted  upon  as  a  principle  of  union ;  and  the 
unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  of  Faith,  with  Luther's 
Smaller  Catechism  as  the  expression  and  declaration  of  the 
views  of  this  synod,  of  christian  doctrine.  And  that  this 
synod  hereby  binds  itself  to  these  principles,  and  lays 
them  down  as  the  principles  by  which,  and  in  harmony 
with  which,  the  convention  shall  form  a  constitution  for 
the  government  of  this  synod. 

''Resolved,  that  upon  all  matters  relating  to  the  tem- 
poral concerns  of  this  synod,  or  the  manner  in  which  bus- 
iness shall  be  transacted  in  the  synod,  a  majority  of  votes 
shall  govern.  Every  minister,  deacon,  student  and  dele- 
gate shall  be  entitled  to  a  single  vote ;  and  that  this  rule 
shall  continue  until  the  contemplated  convention  shall 
form  a  constitution,  pointing  out  the  various  duties  of 
officers  and  the  manner  of  conducting  the  business  of  the 
synod." 

It  was  also  resolved  to  call  a  convention  to  form  a 
constitution  in  the  near  future,  and  ordained  that  each 
congregation  in  connection  with  this  synod  elect  and  send 
a  delegate  to  that  convention ;  also  that  all  Lutheran  or 
union  congregations  which  approve  this  basis,  and  desire 
to  unite  with  this  synod,  send  a  delegate  to  the  conven- 
tion. Other  Lutheran  ministers  were  invited  to  attend. 
The  time  and  place  selected  for  this  convention  was  Feb- 
ruary 2,  1860,  in  St.  George's  church,  Shelby  county,  In- 
diana. 


-    181    - 

Pursuant  to  the  resolution,  the  synod  met  at  the 
above  mentioned  time  and  place.  There  were  twelve 
pastors,  two  students  and  eleven  delegates  representing 
fifteen  congregations,  present  to  take  part  in  the  delibera- 
tions. President  Good  being  absent.  Rev.  H.  Fairchild 
was  called  to  the  chair.  The  sj'nod  resolved  to  go  into  a 
convention  for  the  purpose  of  formulating  a  constitution, 
electing  Rev.  E.  S.  Henkel  chairman,  and  Rev.  E.  Rudi- 
sill  secretary.  Rev.  C.  Schadow,  president  of  the  South- 
ern District  Synod  of  the  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio,  and  Rev. 
Borchers,  of  the  same  synod,  were  present  and  given  a 
seat  and  voice  in  the  convention. 

The  document  used  as  the  basis  for  the  proposed 
constitution  was  the  constitution  adopted  by  the  Synod 
of  Indiana  in  1853.  To  the  consideration  of  this  instru- 
ment the  convention  confined  itself.  The  second  article 
provoked  a  lively  and  warm  debate.  A  motion  was  made 
to  acknowledge  the  symbolical  books  of  the  Lutheran 
church  as  a  correct  interpretation  of  the  Augsl)urg  Con- 
fession. But  this  motion  was  lost.  The  doctrinal  part 
of  Article  II  is  as  follows:  "This  synod  adopts  the  in- 
spired writings  of  the  Bible,  contained  in  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  as  their  only  rule  of  faith,  union  and 
church  discipline ;  the  Apostle's  Creed  as  the  summary 
of  christian  doctrines  necessary  to  be  believed  and  acted 
upon,  as  a  christian  union;  and  the  unaltered  Augsburg 
Confession  of  Faith  with  Luther's  Smaller  Catechism,  as 
they  are  generally  set  forth  and  defined  in  the  symbol- 
ical books  of  the  Lutheran  church,  as  an  expression 
and  declaration  of  doctrine  of  this  synod."  It  was  con- 
tended by  those  who  opposed  the  above-mentioned  res- 
olution that  in  this  article  the  symbolical  books  were 
acknowledged,  but  it  must  be  conceded  that  the  doctrinal 


—     J82    — 

basis  is  rather  indefinitely  stated.'*  The  effort  to  make 
the  doctrinal  basis  clear  and  unmistakable  was  due  to  the 
influence  of  the  Joint  Synod  pastors  who  were  present, 
but  Rudisill's  influence  outweighed  theirs.  He  was  the 
controlling  spirit  of  the  convention. 

Two  days  and  a  half  were  devoted  in  convention  to 
the  formation  of  the  constitution,  and  when  the  instru- 
ment was  completed  the  convention  adjourned,  and  the 
synod  resumed  its  sittings.  The  constitution  was  for- 
mally adopted  by  it,  and  permanent  organization  effected 
by  the  election  of  Rev.  E.  S.  Henkel  president.  Rev.  E. 
Rudisill  secretary  and  Noah  W.  Grimes  treasurer.  This 
newly  formed  ecclesiastical  body  was  now  ready  for  the 
work  which  it  felt  called  upon  to  do. 

Although  the  older  pastors  of  this  synod  were  brought 
up  under  very  erroneous  ideas  of  missionary  work  they 
now  seemed  to  have  divested  themselves  of  these  and  en- 
tered most  zealously  upon  the  work  that  lay  before  them. 
Measured  by  the  customs,  methods  and  conditions  of  that 
generation,  they  proved  themselves  true  and  efficient  mis- 
sionaries. They  traveled  miles  and  miles  through  the 
forests,  and  over  almost  impassable  roads,  crossing  swol- 
len streams  in  order  to  reach  the  appointed  place  where 
they  might  preach  the  everlasting  Gospel.  They  were  al- 
most constantly  in  the  saddle,  as  other  transportation  fa- 
cilities were  very  limited.  At  the  first  convention  it  was 
resolved  to  organize  both  a  Missionary  and  Education  So- 
ciety, and  a  committee  was  appointed  to  draft  a  constitu- 
tion and  by-laws  for  these  societies.    At  its  second  conven- 


"4  The  secretary  states  that  "it  was  finally  agreed,  as  set 
forth  in  the  second  article  that  the  symbolical  books  were  ac- 
knowledged as  generally  setting  forth  the  true  meaning  of  the 
confession." — Minutes,  p.  3. 


-     183    - 

tion  it  resolved,  "that  the  Union  Synod  in-  its  synodical 
capacity  be  a  Missionary  Society."  The  funds  for  th(*  pros- 
ecution of  its  work  were  to  be  the  personal  free-wHl  offer- 
ings of  the  members  of  the  churches,  who  were  earnestly 
requested  to  give  cheerfully  from  three  to  five  cents  per 
month  to  this  cause.  The  pastors  were  urged  to  lay  this 
matter  upon  the  conscience  of  the  people.  The  following 
year  this  action  was  reaffirmed,  and  the  synod  acknowl- 
edged the  great  duty  of  carrying  the  Gospel  to  the  scat- 
tered Lutherans  in  the  state.  It  took  steps  to  carry  out 
this  work  in  the  most  eflficient  manner.  In  1862  appeals 
were  made  to  the  churches  to  make  special  subscriptions 
for  the  mission  cause,  in  addition  to  their  contributions 
for  local  work,  and  made  the  delegates  the  agents  to  at- 
tend to  the  above  subscriptions.  The  president  of  the 
synod  was  authorized  to  employ  a  minister  able  to  offici- 
ate in  both  English  and  German,  to  visit  every  congrega- 
tion and  also  new  fields,  and  hold  services  for  a  week  in 
each,  and  also  to  catechise  the  youth  during  his  visits. 
The  interest  in  missions  grew  steadily.  In  1864  a  Mis- 
sionary Society  was  organized,  which  was  authorized  to 
collect  funds  and  to  take  such  steps  as  may  be  calcu- 
lated to  secure  a  system  of  missionary  labors  wherever 
they  were  needed.  The  plan  adopted  by  this  society  to 
raise  the  funds  needed  was  by  membership  fees.  It  also 
provided  for  the  organization  of  auxiliary  societies  in  the 
congregations.  The  society  held  its  meetings  during  the 
convention  of  the  synod.  In  the  same  year  a  constitution 
was  adopted  and  the  title  given  as  the  Parent  Missicniary 
Society  of  the  Union  Synod.  In  1866,  Rev.  John  Stine 
was  appointed  as  missionary,  to  be  supported  in  part  by 
the  society.  He  was  instructed  to  visit  the  destitute  con- 
gregations of  the  synod,  and  minister  to    Iheir  ."Spiritual 


-     184    - 

wants.  In  1.S70,  Rev.  E.  S.  Henkel  devoted  one-half  of 
his  time  to  missionarj^  labors,  and  was  supported  in  part 
from  the  funds  of  this  society.  In  1871  assistance  was 
voted  to  the  Gosport  charge  in  support  of  a  pastor  for 
that  field.  While  the  results  of  this  society's  efforts  were 
not  very  great  at  any  time,  yet  it  did  much  to  stimulate 
an  interest  in  the  cause  of  home  missions,  and  to  over- 
come the  opposition  thereto  engendered  under  the  early 
and  anti-mission  spirit  of  the  Synod  of  Indiana. 

From  its  inception,  this  synod  felt  the  need  of  an  ed- 
ucated ministry,  and  the  advantages  of  an  intelligent 
laity.  The  pastors  of  the  synod  were  almost  all  men  who 
never  had  the  advantages  of  a  thorough  training,  either 
literary  or  theological.  This  answered  quite  well  in  the 
pioneer  days.  But  the  times  were  changing.  Schools 
sprang  up,  and  the  people  became  more  and  more  in- 
formed. Intelligence,  and  men  with  classical  training 
were  entering  the  professions.  With  these  the  ministry 
must  keep  abreast.  The  preacher  of  the  Gospel  must  be 
so  equipped  that  he  can  meet  the  sceptic  on  his  own 
grounds.  The  position  of  the  Lutheran  church  was  as- 
sailed by  representatives  of  other  denominations,  and  the 
need  of  men  qualified  to  cope  successfully  with  these  was 
deeply  felt.  Young  men  were  offering  their  services  to 
the  church,  but  the  time  had  come  when  they  must  have 
a  course  of  training  and  instruction  under  competent 
teachers.  To  meet  these  wants  the  synod  in  1861  ap- 
pointed a  committee  of  three  ministers  and  three  laymen 
"to  collect  information  and  present  some  plan  for  the  estab- 
lishing of  an  institution  of  learning,  in  which  students  of 
the  synod  and  the  sons  of  the  church  may  obtain  a  liberal 
education."  The  next  year  this  committee  reported  that 
owing  to  certain  circumstances  they  had  not  been  able  to 


COLBURN  ACADEMY 
Mulberry,  Ind. 


C/3 


G 
^   X 

n 

^  o 
§   £ 

•  r 

Q  c<o 

5:  m 

2  S 

?  z 

«  > 


-     J85    - 

have  a  meeting  of  the  committee,  and  had  "arrived  at  no 
definite  conclusion  in  relation  to  the  location  of,  or  the 
best  means  for  raising  funds  for,  its  building.  They  have, 
however,  from  all  they  have  learned,  become  the  more 
deeply  impressed  with  the  importance  of  the  undertaking, 
and  are  fully  persuaded  that,  if  the  synod  shall  pursue 
the  proper  course,  and  use  the  proper  means,  that  such 
an  institution  can  be  reared  up  and  sustained  among  us  ; 
and,  from  the  information  gained  the  committee  is  fully 
impressed  with  the  conviction  that,  under  the  present  dis- 
turbed condition  of  the  country,  its  success  will  depend 
very  much  upon  not  urging  its  claims  too  much  at  the 
present  time,  but  await  patiently  for  the  proper  time  to 
arrive,  and  perfect  a  plan  for  its  upbuilding."  During 
the  following  year  this  committee  made  a  strenuous  effort 
•to  secure  sufficient  funds  to  begin  the  institution.  The 
effort  failed.  In  1864  the  committee  reported  that  it  had 
not  been  able  to  secure  the  maximum  amount  necessary. 
At  the  convention  of  1864  this  committee  was  discharged, 
and  the  whole  matter  was  transferred  to  the  Parent  Edu- 
cation Societj'  of  the  synod.  This  society  was  organized 
at  the  same  time  that  the  Missionary  Society  was  organ- 
ized, for  the  purpose  of  creating  an  interest  in  educational 
work,  ''to  collect  funds  and  procure  means  for  educational 
purposes ;  to  make  arrangements  by  and  with  the  consent 
of  the  .synod  to  educate  students  of  theology ;  to  adopt 
and  execute  any  plan  for  the  erection  of  an  institution  of 
learning  for  the  purpose  of  educating  students  that  meets 
the  sanction  of  the  synod.  The  funds  of  this  society  were 
raised  by  collections,  membership  fees,  and  subscriptions. 
The  president  of  the  Parent  Education  Society  was  in- 
structed to  "visit  all  the  congregations  of  the  .'^ynod,  to 
deliver  lectures   upon  the  education  cause,  and   urg<'   its 


—     J86    — 

claims  upon  the  churches."  This  met  with  a  hearty  re- 
sponse on  the  part  of  the  congregations,  most  of  which 
petitioned  the  synod,  at  the  next  convention,  to  make 
every  effort  in  its  power  to  establish  the  institution.  The 
president  reported  that  he  had  visited  as  many  congrega- 
tions as  he  could,  and  secured  $21 5.82.  In  1865,  the  synod 
adopted  a  constitution  for  the  embryo  college,  adopted 
a  definite  plan  for  the  erection  of  suitable  buildings,  and 
selected  Whitestown,  Boone  county,  Indiana,  as  the  loca- 
tion. The  report  of  the  committee  in  1866  bespeaks  a 
decline  in  the  interest  in  the  institution.  In  1868  an  ef- 
fort to  secure  a  meeting  of  the  board  of  trustees  failed, 
and  one  of  the  trustees  resigned.  At  this  time  the  union 
of  all  Lutherans  in  the  state  became  the  uppermost  ques- 
tion before  the  synod,  and  the  committee  recommended 
that  the  college  question  be  deferred  until  aftel"  an  effort. 
had  been  made  to  unite  all  Lutherans  in  the  state  into 
one  synod.  In  1869  a  proposition  was  made  to  the  synod 
to  transfer  to  it  Alimo  Academy,  located  at  Alimo,  Indi- 
ana. But  the  synod  declined  the  offer  on  the  grounds 
that  the  location  was  inconvenient  and  the  buildings  un- 
suitable. With  this  action  the  effort  of  the  Union  Synod 
to  establish  an  institution  of  learning  came  to  an  end. 
Other  matters  took  precedence  and  the  educational  ques- 
tion sank  to  rest  in  the  final  dissolution  of  the  sj^nod. 

It  is  reasonably  certain  that  the  chief  object  that 
Rudisill  had  in  mind  when  he  demanded  the  dissolution 
of  the  Synod  of  Indiana,  and  the  formation  of  a  new  syn- 
odical  body  as  the  conditions  upon  which  he  would  again 
co-operate  with  his  associates  in  the  ministry,  and  en- 
deavor to  save  that  part  of  the  Lutheran  church  in  Indiana 
from  total  destruction  or  absorption  by  other  ecclesiasti- 
cal bodies,  was  the  union  of  all  Lutherans  in  the  state  in 


—     187    - 

one  ecclesiastical  body,  of  which  lie  would  be  its  head 
and  guiding  spirit.  His  failure  in  founding  a  new  ecclesi- 
astical body  with  the  tenet  of  Destructionism  as  its  shib- 
boleth, did  not  allay  his  ambition,  nor  weaken  his  self- 
confidence.  He  was  the  same  ambitious,  aspiring  man 
as  before ;  he  simply  changed  his  plans.  He  would  unite 
those  Lutherans  who  would  subscribe  to  the  doctrinal 
basis  of  this  synod  into  the  Evangelic'''  Lutheran  church. 
He  was  for  this  reason  very  jealous  of  the  synod's  reputa- 
tion for  orthodoxy.  The  watchword  for  a  number  of  years 
was  "Union."  It  was  the  "Union  Synod,"  "Union  Col- 
lege," and  the  congregations  organized  during  this  period 
were  almost  all,  if  not  all,  named  Union  Lutheran 
churches.  Even  some  of  the  older  ones  were  renamed 
with  the  qualifying  terms  "Union"  and  "Evangelic." 
Any  strictures  upon  the  synod's  orthodoxy,  or  criticism 
of  the  practices  that  prevailed,  aroused  his  wrath  to  the 
highest  pitch. 

Occasions  for  this  arose  repeatedly.  The  constitu- 
tion gave  the  synod  full  liberty  and  right  to  enter  into 
correspondence  with  the  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio,  or  with  any 
other  synods  of  "Old  Lutherans"  in  the  United  States, 
and  of  electing  delegates  to  such  synods  for  the  pun^ose 
of  entering  into  ecclesiastical  connection  with  them  as 
shall  best  promote  the  interests  of  the  Union  Sj-nod. 
Among  its  first  acts  was  an  effort  to  effect  a  union  with 
some  synod  of  Old  Lutherans.  At  its  February  conven- 
tion, 1860,  it  decided  to  send  two  delegates  to  the  next 
convention  of  the  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio,  with  full  power  to 
unite  the  Union  Synod  with  that  body  as  a  district  synod, 

'•'■>  After  the  formation  of  the  Union  Synod  he  always  used 
this  term  instead  of  Evangelical.  When  hia  influence  began  to 
wane  the  term  was  dropped  and  Evangelical  substituted. 


—     188    — 

or  to  make  any  arrangements  with  that  body  as  would 
secure  a  proper  fraternal  relation  with  it.  Rev.  E.  Rudi- 
sill  and  Mr.  Noah  W.  Grimes  were  the  delegates.  It  also 
appointed  delegates  to  the  Southern  District  Synod  of  the 
Joint  Synod  and  instructed  them  to  present  to  that  body 
the  love  of  the  Union  Synod,  and  assurance  of  its  prayers 
for  their  continued  prosperity  in  the  work  of  Christ.  The 
Union  Synod  held  its  second  convention  about  four  weeks 
before  the  Joint  Synod  convened,  and  reiterated  its  former 
action  in  the  following  resolution : 

''Resolved,  that  we  appoint  Rev.  E.  Rudisill  as  our 
representative  to  the  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio  (which  is  to 
commence  its  session  on  the  25th  of  October,  1860,  in 
Gallon,  Ohio),  with  full  power  to  enter  into  correspond- 
ence with  said  synod,  and  present  our  request  to  unite 
with  them  as  a  District  Synod,  or  make  such  arrange- 
ments for  ecclesiastical  relations  as  he  may  think  proper 
and  deem  best  for  the  interests  of  this  synod."  ■ 

Rev.  Rudisill  submitted  the  following  report  of  his 
visit  and  its  results  as  delegate : 

"I  met  with  the  .Joint  Synod  at  Gallon,  Ohio,  on  the 
25th  of  October  last,  and  was  very  kindly  received,  and  a 
seat  and  voice  in  their  deliberations  was  promptly  voted 
me.  After  an  opportunity  had  been  afforded  me,  when 
in  a  brief  and  succinct  manner  I  had  unfolded  to  the 
synod  the  objects  of  my  mission,  the  synod  appointed  a 
committee  of  conference  to  meet  with  me,  to  more  fully 
hear  from  me  and  to  become  acquainted  with  our  doc- 
trinal views  and  practical  operations,  and  to  make  me 
acquainted  with  their  standpoints,  and  internal  and  ex- 
ternal relations.  I  had  several  meetings  with  the  com- 
mittee, in  which  I  stated  very  frankly  our  views  and 
church  practices,  being  persuaded  that  they  were  squarely 


—     189    — 

based  upon  the  truth,  and  had  therefore  no  cause  for  con- 
cealment. The  committee,  I  believe,  just  as  frankly  and 
brotherly  advised  me  in  relation  to  all  the  points  of  doc- 
trine and  church  regulations,  concerning  which  I  desired 
information.  And  after  we  were  mutually  satisfied,  the 
committee  made  the  following  report  to  their  synod : 

"  'Your  committee  would  respectfully  report  that  a 
conference  was  held  with  the  Rev.  E.  Rudisill,  representa- 
tive of  the  Union  Synod,  in  which  the  desire  of  his  synod 
was  clearly  explained ;  and  in  return  your  committee  ac- 
quainted the  representative  with  the  standpoints  of  our 
synod,  both  in  respect  to  its  internal  and  external  rela- 
tions. To  obtain  this  knowledge  and  thus  to  enter  into 
friendly  relations  with  our  synod,  which  in  the  future  may 
perhaps  lead  to  a  synodical  union  between  the  Union 
Synod  and  that  of  Ohio  and  adjacent  states,  was  the  ob- 
ject of  the  visit  of  the  Rev.  Rudisill.  Your  committee 
rejoices  in  the  confidence  which  the  Union  Synod  places 
in  us,  and  is  of  the  opinion  that  mutual  friendly  relations 
should  be  instituted,  and  believes  that  the  still  existing 
differences  in  relation  to  the  symbols,  but  especially  in 
relation  to  church  practice,  would  disappear.  To  accom- 
plish this  your  committee  moves  that  a  delegate  be 
chosen  by  our  synod  to  be  present  at  the  next  meeting  of 
the  Union  Synod.'  "  The  report  was  adopted  by  the 
Joint  Synod,  and  Rev.  Prof.  Worley  was  appointed  the 
delegate  of  that  synod  to  attend  the  next  session  of  the 
Union  Synod. 

"From  the  very  friendly  report  made  by  the  coinniit- 
tee,"  continues  Rev.  Rudi.'^ill.  "its  adoption  by  the  Joint 
Synod,  and  their  appointment  of  Prof.  Worley  as  delegate 
to  attend  the  sittings  of  our  synod,  you  see  that  that  large 
and    honorable    body    of   Lutheran    brethren    manifest    ;i 


—     190    - 

desire  to  be  on  friendly  terms,  and  take  our  small  band  of 
brethren  by  the  hand.  It  is  a  source  of  sincere  gratitude 
to  God  that  I  can  inform  you  that  there  is  very  little  of 
doctrinal  differences  between  them  and  us.  On  all  the 
fundamental  doctrines  of  the  church,  I  know  of  none ;  on 
some  of  the  minor,  or  doctrines  of  secondary  considera- 
tion, there  are  some  differences,  but  none  such  as  should 
prevent  mutual  friendly  relations  and  co-operation.  On 
church  practice  there  is  considerable  difference,  growing 
out  of  the  difference  of  circumstances  with  which  our  con- 
gregations and  the  synod  are  surrounded." 

The  action  of  Rev.  Rudisill  was  endorsed  by  the  Un- 
ion Synod,  and  Prof.  D.  Worley  appeared  at  its  conven- 
tion in  1861  as  the  delegate  from  the  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio. 
Expressions  of  friendly  relations  were  exchanged,  and  as- 
surances of  mutual  good- will  given.  Delegates  to  the 
next  convention  of  the  Joint  Synod  were  appointed.  The 
Joint  Synod  opened  the  doors  of  its  institutions  to  stu- 
dents from  the  Union  Synod,  and  its  leading  periodical, 
the  Lutheran  Standard,  found  a  home  in  many  families 
of  this  body.  The  prospects  for  the  union  were  favorable, 
but  in  1862  the  Union  Synod,  owing  to  the  distracted 
condition  of  the  country,  deemed  it  inadvisable  to  send  a 
delegate  to  the  Joint  Synod,  but  it  gave  assurance  of  the 
most  friendly  feelings  toward  it.  With  this  action  all 
official  relations  between  the  two  bodies  came  to  an  end. 

Its  efforts  to  cultivate  friendly  relations  with  the 
Southern  District  Synod  were  also  abortive.  The  dele- 
gates appointed  in  February,  1860,  were  unable  to  attend 
the  convention  of  that  synod,  for  which  the  Union  Synod 
expressed  its  regrets,  and  further  declared  that  only  the 
most  friendly  feelings  for  that  body  were  entertained,  and 
cherished  the   hope  that   in  the  near  future  it  would  be 


-    J9I    - 

able  to  reciprocate  the  kindness  of  that  body  as  shown  in 
the  presence  of  Revs.  C.  Schadow  and  Borchers  at  the  con- 
vention in  February  of  that  year.  To  give  tangible  evi- 
dence of  this  feeling  it  appointed  Rev.  E.  S.  Henkel  as 
its  delegate  to  the  next  convention  of  that  synod.  But  in 
the  meantime  circumstances  arose  which  made  fraterniza- 
tion between  the  two  bodies  impossible.  At  its  Rich- 
mond convention,  in  1860,  the  Southern  District  Synod 
took  it  upon  itself  to  pass  judgment  upon  the  Union 
Synod's  orthodoxy.  It  declared  the  Union  Synod  unluth- 
eran  in  doctrine  and  in  practice,  especially  as  denying  the 
importance  of  Baptism.  The  unlutheran  practices  con- 
sisted in  holding  protracted  meetings,  partaking  some- 
what of  a  revivalistic  nature,  and  confirming  applicants 
for  membership  without  catechization.  For  the.«;e  prac- 
tices the  Union  Synod  had  assigned  its  reasohs,  but  they 
were  regarded  as  insufficient  by  the  Southern  District 
Synod.  President  Henkel,  learning  of  this  action, 
deemed  it  unwise  to  attend  the  next  convention,  1S61,  of 
the  Southern  District  Synod,  but  addressed  them  oMicially 
denying  the  charges.  This  official  letter,  dated  April  24, 
1861,  was  misdirected,  and  was  returned  to  the  writer, 
who  re-mailed  it,  and  it  did  not  reach  the  president  of  the 
Southern  District  Synod  until  May  10,  1862.  In  the 
meantime,  the  Union  Synod  convened  in  Phanuel  church, 
Fountain  county,  Indiana,  October  16,  1861,  when  the 
action  of  the  Southern  District  Synod  in  1860,  was  laid 
before  it,  and  to  which  it  replied  as  follows:  "We  deny 
most  positively,  the  truth  of  the  accusations  made  in  said 
report;  and  that  until  they  shall  correct  as  publicly  as  the 
misrepresentation  has  been  made,  we  shall  consider  them 
opposed  to  us,  and  cannot  fraternize  with  them."  At  its 
convention  in  St.  John's  church.  Dearborn  county,  Indi- 


—     J92    — 

ana,  in  June,  1862,  the  Southern  District  Synod  replied 
at  length  to  the  official  letter  of  President  Henkel,  reaffirm- 
ing their  former  charges.  The  feeling  between  the  two 
synods  grew  quite  warm,  owing  to  the  charges  and  pro- 
tests. In  its  convention,  September,  1.S62,  the  Union 
Synod  adopted  the  following  report  as  its  reply  to  those 
charges  of  the  Southern  District  Synod  made  against  it. 
This  report  was  adopted  unanimously,  after  a  careful  dis- 
cussion of  every  single  item  : 

EEPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE 
On  the  Standpoints  in  the  Usages  and  Practices  of  our  Synod. 

1.  The  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  is  built  upon  the  foundation 
of  the  Apostles  and  Prophets,  Jesus  Christ  being  the  chief  corner- 
stone, Ephesians,  chap.  2d,  verses  19  to  22  inclusive.  Therefore, 
there  can  be  no  reception  into  this  Church,  Lutheran  or  churchly, 
that  has  not  a  "thus  saith  the  Lord." 

2.  Baptism  is  the  only  means  of  reception  in  the  Church  of 
Jesus  Christ.  Matt.  chap.  28,  verses  19-20;  and  Gal.  chap.  3, 
verses  26  to  29  inclusive. 

3.  The  adult  is  only  a  proper  subject  of  baptism  when  he 
believes  in  Christ.  Mark,  chap.  16,  verse  16;  Acts,  chap.  9, 
verse  37. 

4.  Faith  cometh  by  hearing,  and  hearing  by  the  Word  of 
God.  (According to  the  German  translation:  "Faith  cometh  by 
preaching,  and  preaching  by  the  Word  of  God.")  Romans,  chap. 
10,  verse  17. 

5.  So  far  as  catechising  is  the  preaching  of  the  Word  of 
God,  it  is  a  means  by  which  faith  is  developed. 

6.  Whenever  we  are  satisfied  that  a  person  has  faith  in 
Christ,  we  are  bound  to  receive  such  individual  into  the  Church 
by  baptism,  (see  Acts,  chap,  9,  verse  37,)  and  such  assurance 
we  can  only  have  by  the  confession  of  such  person. 

7.  Every  person  that  is  baptized  in  infancy  and  walks  by 
faith  is  a  member  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ.  Gal.  chap.  3, 
verses  26  to  29  inclusive. 

8.  We  therefore  hold  that  the  Church  has  the  right,  and 
that  it  is  her  duty,  as  well  as  it  is  proper  and  right,  for  her  to 


—     193    — 

acknowledge  such  individual  as  a  member  of  the  Church  by  con- 
tirmation. 

9.  We  do  not  admit  that  confirmation  is  a  means  by  which 
a  person  becomes  a  member  of  the  Church,  but  that  it  is  an  ac- 
knowledgement of  membership  by  the  congregation  ;  for  confir- 
mation is  an  acknowledgement  of  Church  membtTship  in  the 
church  universal,  and  also  of  membership  in  the  particular  con- 
gregation where  it  is  administered. 

10.  We  therefore  hold  that  there  is  no  other  process  in  the 
reception  of  members,  Scriptural,  Lutheran,  or  Churchly. 

11.  We  hold  that  in  the  administration  of  the  Sacraments 
of  the  Church,  they  are  only  properly  administered  when  the 
words  of  Christ  are  used  as  He  used  them  in  the  institution,  and 
we  further  hold  that  no  practice  can  be  Lutheran  or  Churchly 
that  does  not  conform  to  this  standpoint.  See  Matt.  chap.  28, 
verse  19,  and  I.  Cor.  chap.  11,  verses  23  to  25  inclusive. 

12.  We  hold  that  the  symbols  of  our  Church  are  to  be  ex- 
plained and  understood  as  explained  and  defined  by  the  Word 
of  God,  and  not  the  Word  of  God  by  the  symbols.  See  Formula 
of  Concord,  Epitome,  articles  on  the  compendious  Rule  and 
Standard,  according  to  which  all  doctrines  are  to  be  judged,  etc., 
paragraph  1.  Also  in  the  Full  Declaration  of  the  same,  in  Tart 
IL,  in  the  Preface;  article  treating  on  the  compendious  Form, 
Basis,  Standard  and  Rule  of  Doctrine,  paragraph  1. 

13.  We  hold,  therefore,  that  any  Church  to  be  Lutheran  or 
Churchly  should  adhere  to  the  above  standpoints. 

14.  We  hold  the  above  principles  to  be  essential ;  but  on 
all  matters  that  are  not  essential  to  salvation,  we  hold  that  no 
man's  conscience  should  be  fettered  or  his  privileges  restrained. 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted, 

K.  S.  Henkel,  Chairman. 

This  controversy,  however,  did  not  cease.  The 
Southern  District  Synod  in  1^68  again  expressed  itself  on 
the  questions  in  dispute.  But  the  Union  Synod,  believ- 
ing that  any  further  controversy  and  dispute  ahnut  the 
matter  would  do  no  good,  or  he  productive  of  any  bene- 
ficial results,  declared  that  it  still  entertained  its  christian 
regard   and   love   for   that   body,  and  earnestly  asked   of 


—     194    — 

them  to  extend  to  it  that  charity  that  beareth  long,  en- 
dureth  all  things  and  never  ceaseth.  Thus  ended  this 
unfortunate  controvers3\ 

The  failure  to  consummate  a  union  with  the  Joint 
Synod  of  Ohio,  and  fraternal  relations  with  the  Southern 
District  Sj'nod  of  the  Joint  Synod,  did  not  dampen  its 
ardor  nor  abate  its  zeal.  Its  leader  still  believed  that  this 
synod  could  attract  other  bodies  unto  itself,  and  thus  be- 
come the  instrument  for  uniting  into  one  body  the  sepa- 
rated portions  of  the  Lutheran  church  in  these  regions. 
It  came  into  existence  for  this  very  end,  and  along  this 
line  it  would  exert  its  influence  and  direct  its  energies. 
The  next  effort  was  made  in  1864.  That  year  it  expressed 
its  conviction  that  a  "speedy  effort  should  be  made  to  form 
a  union  with  some  truly  Lutheran  synod  in  the  west." 
This  time  it  decided  that  the  English  District  of  the  Joint 
Synod  was  the  proper  body  with  whom  to  confer.  Rev. 
E.  S.  Henkel  was  appointed  as  its  representative  and  sent 
to  the  English  District  Synod  "for  the  purpose  of  bringing 
about  a  union  with  that  body."  These  were  his  instruc- 
tions. He  therefore  opened  correspondence  with  the 
president  of  the  English  District  Synod  with  reference  to 
the  contemplated  union.  The  latter  body  called  a  special 
convention  for  the  purpose  of  considering  the  question.''' 
Pastor  Henkel  attended  this  convention  and  was  accorded 
a  seat  and  vote.  We  have  not  been  able  to  ascertain  the 
exact  propositions  which  were  made  by  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Henkel,  but  it  would  appear  from  the  action  of  the  Eng- 
lish District  Synod,  that  there  were  two,  namely  that  the 
Union  Synod  as  a  body  unite  with  the  English  District 
Synod,  or  if  that  should  be  found  to  be  impracticable,  that 


76  Held  in  CarroUton,  Ohio,  April  4,  1865. 


-     195    - 

the  pastors  and  congregations  unite  with  it.  In  the  former 
case  it  would  mean  either  the  formation  of  a  new  body,  or 
making  the  Union  Synod  a  district  of  the  English  District 
Synod ;  in  the  latter  it  would  mean  the  al)sorption  of  the 
pastors  and  congregations  of  the  Union  Synod,  and  the 
dissolution  of  that  body.  The  following  is  the  action  of 
the  English  District  Synod,  relative  to  this  proposition 
for  union:  "The  consideration  of  the  subject  of  union  on 
the  part  of  members  of  the  synod  represented  by  Pastor 
E.  S.  Henkel  with  our  district,  was  resumed,  and  Pastor 
Henkel  was  requested  to  give  a  free  and  full  statement  of 
the  matter  to  synod."  The  action  of  synod  on  this  propo- 
sition was  as  follows : 

"1.  That,  after  a  careful  examination  of  oflicial  docu- 
ments, and  consultation  with  the  delegate  from  the  Union 
Synod,  we  would  state  that  we  are  not  fully  clear  as  to, 
and  therefore,  not  satisfied  with  the  doctrinal  standpoints 
and  usages  of  said  synod:  and  even  if  otherwise,  that  a 
union  of  said  synod  or  any  other,  as  such,  with  ours,  is 
incompatible  with  our  rights  and  relations  as  a  district 
synod. 

"2.  That  we  shall  always  be  glad  to  receive  any  regu- 
larly ordained  ministers  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran 
church,  who  are  willing  to  subscribe  to  the  requirements 
laid  down  in  the  second  article  of  the  constitution  of  our 
synod,  'That  all  members  entitled  to  hold  a  seat  in  the 
synod  shall  adhere  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Word  of  God, 
as  set  forth  in  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  and 
Luther's  Smaller  Catechism,  and  in  the  sense  and  spirit 
of  the  other  Symbolical  Books,'  and  present  an  honorable 
dismissal  from  their  former  synod. 

"3.  That  we  shall  also  be  pleased  to  receive  any 
Evangelical  Lutheran  congregation,  desirous  of  coming  into 


-     196    - 

our  connection  or  discipline  for  their  government  and  regu- 
lation as  is  in  accordance  with  the  constitution  of  our 
synod;  provided,  that  it  has  obtained  an  honorable  dis- 
missal, from  the  synod  with  which  it  is  connected,  or  has, 
at  least,  applied  for  it  and  has  been  refused  upon  insuffi- 
cient grounds." 

This  action  shows  that  the  English  District  Synod 
could  not  receive  the  Union  Synod  as  a  body,  for  the 
following  reasons :  1.  That  it  was  not  satisfied  with  the 
doctrinal  position,  nor  with  the  usages  of  that  body. 
2.  That  it  was  incompatible  with  its  rights  and  relations 
as  a  district  synod  of  the  Joint  Synod,  to  receive  it  or  any 
other  synodical  body. 

That  the  pastors  of  the  Union  Synod  could  be  received, 
provided,  that  they  subscribe  to  the  doctrinal  basis  of  the 
English  District  Synod,  and  present  an  honorable  dismissal 
from  their  former  synod. 

That  the  congregations  could  be  received,  provided, 
they  conform  their  constitution  and  discipline  to  the  con- 
stitution of  synod,  and  be  regularly  dismissed  from  their 
former  synod,  or  had  at  least  applied  for  a  dismissal  and 
were  refused  upon  insufficient  grounds. 

This  action  of  the  English  District  Synod  was  perfectly 
fair,  consistent  and  honorable.  It  could  not  do  otherwise. 
It  had  no  authority  to  unite  with  the  Union  Synod  as  a 
synod,  and  was  frank  enough  to  inform  that  body. 

When  this  m.atter  came  before  the  Union  Synod  at  its 
next  convention,  it  aroused  the  fiery  Rudisill  to  a  high 
pitch.  That  the  Lutheranism  of  the  Union  Synod  should 
again  be  challenged,  and  that  by  a  body  which  it  had  re- 
garded as  composed  of  genuine  Old  Lutherans,  was  rasping 
to  his  vanity  and  self-confidence.  He  induced  synod  to 
take  the  following  action  : 


—     197    — 

"We,  your  committee,  would  beg  leave  to  report. 
We  have  had  the  action  of  the  English  District  Synod  of 
the  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio  with  regard  to  the  connection  or 
union  with  it,  proposed  by  the  Union  Synod  of  the  Evan- 
gelical Lutheran  church,  at  its  last  session,  under  careful 
consideration,  and  that  we  agree  with  the  said  Englisli 
Synod ;  that  a  union  with  it  is  impossible,  as  long  as  they 
make,  as  they  do  in  their  second  item  or  article,  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Word  of  God  explainable  'by  the  Augsburg 
Confession  of  Faith  and  Luther's  Smaller  Catechism  in 
the  sense  and  spirit  of  the  other  symbolical  books' — as 
such  a  course  makes  these  confessions  the  interpreters  of, 
and,  hence,  superior  to  the  scriptures,  and  reduces  the 
Lutheran  church  to  the  pitiable  condition  of  a  sect. 

"The  covert  invitation  to  our  ministers  and  congre- 
gations to  obtain  honorable  dismissions  from  our  synod, 
with  the  promise  of  finding  a  home  in  the  English  District 
Synod,  is  surely  very  much  out  of  place,  and  very  unbe- 
coming a  religious  body  making  any  pretensions  to  the 
spirit  of  Christ, —  and  while  we  hope  these  items  were  the  re- 
result  of  hasty  and  inconsiderate  action,  this  synod  cannot 
so  degrade  herself,  or  deny  the  claims  of  a  common 
Christianity,  as  to  return  such  an  invitation  to  the  minis- 
ters and  congregations  of  said  English  District  Synod." 
With  this  ceased  all  efforts  to  unite  with  synods  of  "Old 
Lutherans,"  such  as  the  Joint  Synod  and  its  several  dis- 
trict synods  were  regarded. 

It  is  evident  from  the  action  of  the  Union  Synod  that 
the  position  of  the  English  District  Synod  was  eitlier  not 
understood  by  the  Union  Synod,  or  designedly  miscon- 
strued and  misrepresented  for  efYect.  To  assume  the 
former  is  to  reflect  upon  the  intelligence  of  its  members, 
and  to  assume  the  latter  is  to  impeach  their  honesty.    To 


—     198    — 

have  its  Lutheranism  challenged,  and  its  practices  criti- 
cised by  these  "Old  Lutherans"  was  more  than  they  an- 
ticipated, and  naturally  was  very  irritating  to  their  feel- 
ings of  self-respect.  They  had  posed  as  sound  Lutherans, 
and  now  for  the  third  or  fourth  time  to  be  charged  with 
unlutheran  doctrines  and  practices,  was  galling,  especially 
to  Rudisill,  who  here  saw  an  opportunity  to  exhibit  his 
combativeness,  and  to  place  the  synod  in  the  position  of 
a  persecuted  bod3\  This  he  did  by  misconstruing  and 
misrepresenting  the  action  of  the  English  District  Synod. 
He  found  that  the  union  of  Lutherans  in  those  regions, 
and  under  existing  conditions,  was  not  the  easy  task  that 
he  had  assumed  it  to  be. 

These  charges  made  by  the  several  synods  against 
the  standpoints  and  usages  of  the  Union  Synod,  had  their 
effect.  It  drove  the  pastors  to  a  closer  study  of  the  con- 
fessions of  the  church,  and  to  inquire  after  Lutheran 
usage.  The  younger  pastors  no  longer  took  the  dicta  of 
Rudisill  and  Henkel  as  final,  but  provided  themselves 
with  such  Lutheran  literature  as  was  available,  and  in- 
vestigated for  themselves.  The  scepter  was  gradually 
slipping  out  of  Rudisill's  hands,  and  he  realized  it.  But 
before  yielding  to  the  inevitable,  he  would  make  another 
effort.  This  was  his  attempt  to  lead  the  synod  into  the 
General  Synod. 

But  as  mentioned  above,  a  conservative  spirit  was 
developing.  There  prevailed  great  laxity  in  the  admis- 
sion of  members  into  the  congregations.  Catechization 
had  practically  ceased,  while  candidates  were  received 
without  any  definite  knowledge  of  the  faith  of  the  church. 
Neither  did  there  exist  any  uniformity  in  the  mode  of  ad- 
mitting members.  President  Henkel  called  the  synod's 
attention  to  this  chaotic  condition,  but  it  was  unheeded 


—     199     — 

at  the  time.  But  gradually  a  conservative  spirit  revived 
and  prepared  the  way  for  more  uniform  and  churchly 
practices,  until  at  length  the  synod  insisted  upon  more 
frequent  and  thorough  catechization.  It  called  upon  the 
heads  of  families  to  catechize  their  children  in  those  pure 
and  saving  truths  of  the  Gospel.  The  pastors  were  urged 
to  conduct  catechetical  services  every  Saturday  afternoon 
prior  to  their  Sunday  ministration,  and  to  catechize  three 
days  before  communions.  Where  there  was  no  pastoral 
oversight,  the  president  of  the  S3'nod,  or  someone  author- 
ized by  him,  would  hold  "protracted  meetings"  for  at 
least  a  week.  During  this  period  the  young  were  cate- 
chized on  the  afternoons,  and  at  night  doctrinal  sermons 
were  to  be  preached.  Revival istic  efforts  were  to  be  dis- 
carded. There  should  be  plain,  earnest,  practical  preach- 
ing at  these  services.  Public  invitations  to  unite  with 
the  church  were  given  from  time  to  time,  and  those  who 
applied  for  membership  were  examined  as  to  their  mo- 
tives, and  as  to  their  knowledge  of  the  way  of  salvation. 
If  found  worthy  they  were  received  by  the  rite  of  confir- 
mation, or  by  baptism.  The  synod  laid  great  stress  upon 
the  preaching  of  the  Word  as  a  means  of  awakening  the 
sinner.  During  the  synodical  conventions,  there  was  in 
.variably  preaching  during  the  noon  intermission,  and  at 
"early  candle  lighting."  The  meetings  of  the  synod  were 
made  a  feast  of  good  things  and  "times  of  refreshing"  to 
the  people  in  whose  midst  the  conventions  were  held. 
These  services  did  much  to  establish  the  people  in  the 
faith,  and  were  a  means  of  sustaining  the  church  during 
those  times.  People  hungering  and  thirsting  for  the 
truth,  came  for  miles  to  attend  the  sj-nodical  conventions. 
So  large  was  the  attendance  at  times  that  overflow  meet- 
ings were  held  in  a  grove,  or  some  suitable  place  near  the 
church. 


—    200    — 

In  its  early  history  the  synod  made  provision  for  the 
establishing  of  Sunday  schools  in  the  congregations,  and 
urged  their  formation  wherever  practical.  It  recommended 
the  study  of  the  bible  and  a  diligent  use  of  the  catechism 
in  these  schools. 

The  Campbellite  sect  had  somewhat  recovered  from 
the  effect  of  the  Rudisill-Mathes  discussion  of  baptism, 
and  were  again  directing  their  polemics  against  the  Luth- 
erans in  a  number  of  places.  While  the  Philadelphia 
church  was  being  built  in  1866  they  annoyed  the  Luther- 
ans very  much  by  their  arguments,  and  their  opposition 
to  the  building  of  a  Lutheran  church  in  that  community. 
The  people  bore  with  it  patiently  for  awhile,  and  then  re- 
ported to  Rudisill.  He  promised  that  if  they  would  secure 
a  place  he  would  come  into  their  midst  and  preach  upon 
the  subject.  A  grove  was  secured  and  a  stand  erected, 
and  the  announcement  made.  At  the  appointed  time  a 
large  crowd  assembled,  all  anxious  to  hear  the  arguments. 
The  Campbellites  and  Baptists  were  well  represented. 
Rudisill  was  in  fine  condition.  For  two  hours  he  held 
his  audience  spell-bound.  He  took  up  their  arguments 
one  by  one  and  demolished  them.  He  quoted  scripture, 
giving  reference  for  each  passage,  and  completely  vindi- 
cated the  Lutheran  position.  The  outcome  was  that  the 
Lutherans  were  let  alone  in  their  work,  and  their  oppon- 
ents deemed  it  the  part  of  wisdom  to  hold  their  peace. 

While  the  doctrinal  position  of  this  synod  was  not  as 
clearly  expressed  as  might  be  desired,  and  considerable 
laxity  prevailed  in  its  practices,  it  was  very  guarded  in  its 
teachings  concerning  the  Lord's  Supper.  In  1861  Pres- 
ident Henkel  called  attention  to  the  unlutheran  teachings 
concerning  the  sacrament  in  the  Liturgy''  used  by  the 

77  We  have  been  unable  to  learn  what  Liturgy  was  in  gen- 
eral use. 


-    201     - 

ministers,  and  recommended  that  the  pastors  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  Lord's  .Supper  use  the  exact  hmguage 
of  Christ.  This  recommendation  the  synod  adopted,  as 
the  position  it  held  on  this  question.  He  also  called 
attention  to  other  matters  in  the  Liturgy  which  were  not 
strictly  Lutheran,  and  advised  that  in  all  these  things  the 
pastors  conform  strictly  to  the  Lutheran  position.  There 
was  at  least  a  desire  on  the  part  of  these  pastors,  to  be  in 
harmony  with  the  church's  teachings.  Their  errors  were 
more  of  the  head  than  of  the  heart." 

The  long  cherished  hope  of  this  synod  for  which  it 
had  labored,  promised  at  least  to  be  realized,  but  not  in 
the  manner  nor  to  the  degree,  that  it  had  originally  ex- 
pected. God  wrought  out  the  results  in  His  own  way. 
The  union  of  a  portion  of  the  Lutherans  in  the  state, 
became  at  last  an  assured  fact.  After  its  unsuccess- 
ful efforts  with  the  Ohio  bodies,  it  directed  its  energies  to 
the  union  of  the  Lutherans  in  Indiana.  Besides  the  con- 
gregations and  pastors  in  the  state  adhering  to  the  Ohio 
bodies,  there  were  two  General  Sj'nod  bodies,  the  Olive 
Branch  Synod,  and  the  Northern  Indiana  Synod.  In  1.S6-") 
the  president  of  the  Union  Synod  was  instructed  to  open 
correspondence  with  the  different  Lutheran  Synods  in  the 
state  "with  regard  to  the  common  interests  of  the  church 
in  the  state,  as  also  with  respect  to  the  difYerent  benevolent 
institutions  of  the  day,  and  if  upon  consultation  a  meeting 
of  the  members  of  the  different  synods  should  by  them  be 
tliought  beneficial  to  the  advancement  of  the  church,  that 


78  It  is  due  to  these  brethren  to  say,  that  owing  to  their  iso- 
lation, thoy  did  not  come  into  contact  with  the  ropresentativi' 
men  and  authors  of  the  Lutheran  church,  and  therefore  failed 
to  apprehend  as  clearly  as  otherwise  might  have  been  the  case, 
the  distinctive  doctrines  of  the  church. 


—    202    — 

they  make  such  appointment  sometime  during  the  coming 
year."  At  the  next  session  of  the  synod,  in  the  report  of 
the  president,  he  states  that  "he  did  not  open  such  cor- 
respondence, for  the  reason  that  he  did  not  know  who 
their  officials  were,  and  had  no  means  of  learning,  as 
neither  of  those  sjniods  favored  him  with  a  copy  of  their 
minutes ;  and  from  the  fact  that  he  was  informed  of  the 
action  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  with  reference  to  a 
convention,  he  was  satisfied  that  this  would  answer  every- 
thing contemplated  in  the  other."  He  also  officially  in- 
formed the  synod  of  the  rupture  in  the  General  Synod,  and 
that  a  portion  of  its  former  members  contemplated  calling 
a  convention  of  all  Lutherans  in  the  United  States  and 
Canada,  for  the  purpose  of  organizing  a  general  body 
upon  the  true  Lutheran  basis,  and  upon  the  old  landmarks 
of  the  church,  which,  if  carried  into  effect,  he  believed 
would  be  a  great  blessing  to  the  church.  He  recommended 
that  the  Union  Synod  make  such  arrangements  and  pro- 
visions as  will  enable  it  to  be  represented  in  said  proposed 
convention,  with  full  instructions  and  authority  to  enter 
at  once  into  the  compact.  This  recommendation  was 
favorably  received  by  the  synod,  and  it  appointed  one 
clerical  and  one  lay  delegate  to  attend  the  proposed  con- 
vention. They  were  Rev.  E.  Rudisill  and  Isaac  Skomp, 
with  Rev.  E.  S.  Henkel  and  N.  W.  Grimes  as  alternates. 
The  delegates  were  not  instructed  as  to  their  powers  and 
duties.  Neither  of  the  delegates,  however,  were  able  to 
attend  the  convention. 

In  1867  President  J.  E.  Wesner  called  the  attention 
of  the  synod  to  the  convention  held  in  Reading,  Pa.,  in 
December,  1866,  and  laid  before  it  the  proceedings  of 
that  convention,  recommending  appropriate  action.  The 
St.    Peter's   church,   Newberry,    Indiana,   also  petitioned 


-    203    — 

the  S3'nod  to  co-operate  with  other  Evangelical  Lutheran 
synods  (English)  to  unite  the  Lutheran  ministers  and 
congregations  into  one  bodj'.  In  answer  to  this  petition 
the  synod  declared  itself  ever  "ready  to  co-operate  with 
any  other  orthodox  Lutheran  Synod  in  the  state,  with  the 
view  to  unite  the  brethren  in  one  common  faith,  which 
heretofore  have  been  separated.  The  proceedings  of  the 
Reading  convention  were  placed  in  the  hands  of  a  com- 
mittee, who  subsequently  reported  as  follows,  upon  the 
points  in  which  the  synod  was  interested. 

The  committee  consisted  of  Revs.  E.  Rudisill,  R.  D. 
Emerson  and  Henry  Fairchild  : 

"In  connection  with  the  proceedings  of  said  General 
Council,  we  find  their  proposed  constitution,  which  pre- 
sents, generally,  a  correct  and  proper  exhibition  of  the 
relation  to  each  other  of  the  different  parts  of  an  ecclesi- 
astical body  and  of  their  duties  toward  each  other. 

"Upon  a  careful  examination  of  both  the  proceedings 
of  said  convention,  the  'fundamental  principles,'  and  the 
passed  constitution,  the  committee  would  suggest  to  the 
synod  a  candid  and  careful  examination  of  both,  as  the 
synod,  for  several  years,  has  been  seeking  a  connection  with 
some  other  body,  so  that  if  this  one  ))e  founded  upon  the 
unaltered  Word  of  God,  the  only  distinctive  position  of  the 
true  Lutheran  church,  that  in  that  case,  the  synod  take 
the  necessary  steps  to  become  connected  with  the  same." 
This  report  was  considered  at  length,  and  a  committee, 
consisting  of  Revs.  E.  Rudisill,  J.  E.  Wesner  and  Henry 
Fairchild,  was  appointed  "to  report  upon  the  principles 
and  theses  adopted  by  the  General  Council,  and  the  rela- 
tion of  the  Union  Synod  to  the  same."  Tiiis  committee 
discharged  its  duty  and  the  synod  adopted  the  following 
as  an  expression  of  its  views  and  opinions  concerning  the 
General  Council : 


—    204    — 

''Resolved,  that  this  synod  has  watched  with  much 
anxiety  the  various  steps  taken  in,  and  causes  leading  to, 
the  formation  of  the  General  Council,  and  its  present 
status  before  the  Lutheran  community  in  the  United 
States,  and  whilst  it  rejoices  in  the  stunning  blow  which 
fanaticism  has  by  its  formation  received  in  the  Lutheran 
church,  the  synod  is  nevertheless  not  quite  certain  that 
its  promoters  and  friends  have  not,  in  their  anxiety  to  be 
relieved  of  fanaticism  and  error,  bordered  on  the  other 
extreme  of  placing  man's  labors  and  opinions  upon  an 
equal  footing  with  the  unaltered  Word  of  God,  whose 
adoption  as  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  church  discipline 
is,  in  the  judgment  of  this  synod,  the  only  distinctive 
doctrine  and  position  of  the  true  Lutheran  church,  and 
therefore,  until  this  synod  is  satisfied  by  the  further  de- 
velopments of  said  General  Council's  acts,  that  they 
subordinate  all  confessions,  writings  or  orders  of  men  to 
the  Word  of  God, —  until  then,  this  synod  judges  it  best 
to  remain  by  her  own  published  declarations  and  stand- 
points, and  hope  and  pray,  that  those  brethren  influenced 
by  the  Word  of  God,  may  under  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  yet  reach  that  clear  and  holy  ground  upon  which 
all  Lutherans  may  with  joyous  hearts  stand,  the  unaltered 
Word  of  God,  standing  in  its  own  unapproachable  posi- 
tion ;  and  the  confessions  and  writings  of  all  the  defenders 
of  the  church  occupy  their  proper  place,  and  thus  occupy 
their  proper  relation  to  the  Word  of  God."  This  report 
was  adopted  as  the  expression  of  the  synod. 

Meanwhile  the  movement  to  unite  all  Lutherans  in 
the  state  continued  to  grow  in  strength.  Union  with  the 
General  Council,  and  the  formation  of  a  new  synod,  were 
the  absorbing  topics  at  its  conventions.  In  1868  Presi- 
dent Henkel  officially  informed  the  synod  that  "some  of 


-    205    - 

the  Lutheran  ministers  in  Indiana  contemplate  calling  a 
convention  of  the  members  and  churches  for  the  purpose 
of  organizing  a  synod  for  Indiana."  He  urged  the  sj'nod 
to  consider  carefully  this  movement  and  to  make  pro- 
visions for  its  representation  in  that  convention.  A  letter 
was  also  received  from  Rev.  Miles  J.  Stirewalt,  of  the 
English  District  Synod  of  Ohio,  recommending  the  calling 
of  a  convention  of  all  the  Lutheran  ministers  and  congre- 
gations in  Indiana,  and  assuring  it  of  his  willingness  to 
give  his  aid  in  so  great  an  enterprise.  He  named  St. 
Mark's  church,  Whitestown,  Boone  county,  Indiana,  as 
the  place  for  the  convention.  Rev.  D.  Smith,  of  the 
North  Indiana  Synod,  was  present  at  this  convention  of 
the  synod,  doubtless  to  urge  the  matter  of  union.  At  this 
convention  the  question  of  uniting  with  the  General 
Council  was  not  discussed,  the  other  question  having 
taken  precedence.  A  committee  was  appointed,  who 
subsequently  presented  a  report  which  the  synod  adopted. 
The  report  is  as  follows : 

"l.  The  union  of  all  christians  is  desirable  and 
sought  after  by  all  lovers  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  more  es- 
pecially should  all  those  bearing  the  same  denominational 
name  seek  to  be  perfectly  joined  together  in  the  same 
mind  and  in  the  same  judgment. —  1  Cor.  1:  10.  That 
their  talent,  grace  and  wealth  may  be  united  in  building 
up  the  church,  by  the  enlargement  of  her  borders,  the  de- 
velopment of  her  doctrines,  and  the  education  of  her  sons 
and  daughters,  and  bringing  up  of  the  rising  generation  in 
the  knowledge  of  God,  and  to  prepare  them  for  usefulness 
in  their  day  and  generation. 

"2.  Such  a  union  is  especially  desirable  in  the  state 
of  Indiana,  for,  unfortunately  for  the  Church  of  the  Refor- 
mation in  this  state,  she  is  divided  into  some  four  or  five 


-    206    - 

different  organizations  which  very  seldom  labor  for  such 
christian  unity,  but  are  too  often  found  opposing,  dis- 
tracting, breaking  down,  and  disorganizing  each  other, 
and  thus  effectually  preventing  the  prosperity  of  our  Zion 
within  this  state.  Brethren,  these  things  ought  not  so 
to  be. 

"3.  It  is  believed  that  the  difference  in  opinion  on 
faith  and  doctrine  is  more  in  words  than  in  fact,  from  the 
defining  of  the  same  word  differently ;  and  that,  if  brought 
face  to  face,  a  free  and  full  interchange  of  views  upon 
faith  and  practice,  the  most  of  the  difference  in  views 
would  disappear,  and  that  the  Lutheran  church  in  Indi- 
ana would  be  found  to  agree  upon  all  the  essential  doc- 
trines of  the  Bible  in  her  confessions,  and  that  such  divi- 
sions would  be  no  longer  tolerated,  but  that  we  would  be 
drawn  together  in  the  bonds  of  christian  unity. 

"4.  Another  reason  which  exercises  great  influence 
upon  the  committee  in  recommending  that  an  earnest 
effort  be  made  for  bringing  about  such  a  union,  that  owing 
to  such  a  division,  Lutherans  have  been,  and  are  still  un- 
able to  unite  their  means,  by  which  the  necessary  educa- 
tional facilities  may  be  afforded  to  our  sons  and  daughters 
to  be  educated  under  the  care  and  influence  of  our  be- 
loved church,  and  thus  be  preserved  to  the  church ; 
whereas,  by  the  wants  of  such  facilities  many  of  our 
bright  youth  and  promising  maidens  are  educated  under 
other  influences,  and  lost  to  the  church. 

"5.  In  view  of  these  and  many  other  reasons  which 
the  committee  might  present,  and  which  readily  present 
themselves  to  every  Christian  heart,  the  committee  agrees 
with  the  reports  in  the  great  necessity  and  utility  of  mak- 
ing an  effort,  a  prayerful,  united  effort,  in  bringing  about, 
within  this  state,  a  union  of  all  the  Evangelical  Lutheran 


—    207    — 

elements  into  one  synod,  based  upon  the  Word  of  God, 
contained  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  as  the  only 
infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  as  exhibited  and 
clearly  set  forth  in  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  of 
Faith. 

"6.  To  take  the  initiative  in  so  great  and  glorious  a 
work  the  committee  would  suggest  that  the  synod  ap- 
point a  committee  to  present  this  report  to  the  Western 
Conference  of  the  English  District  Synod  of  the  Joint  Synod 
of  Ohio,  to  meet  shortly  at  Colburn,  Indiana;  to  the 
presidents  of  the  Olive  Branch  and  Northern  Indiana 
Synods,  and  to  other  Lutheran  organizations  or  individual 
ministers  not  connected  with  any  organization  in  the 
state,  and  earnestly  beseech  them  to  consider  these  things, 
and,  if  approved  of,  that  they  appoint  a  committee  to 
confer  with  our  committee  ;  and  they  shall  agree  upon  some 
time  and  place  to  hold  a  convention  of  the  ministers  of  the 
Evangelical  Lutheran  church  in  Indiana,  that  a  free  and 
Christian  interchange  of  opinions  may  be  had ;  and,  after 
a  free  and  full  consultation,  if  the  prospects  be  favorable, 
said  convention  may  proceed  to  call  a  convention  of  the 
Evangelical  Lutheran  church,  both  ministerial  and  con- 
gregational, to  meet  at  such  time  and  place  as  the  con- 
vention may  select." '' 

Revs.  E.  S.  Henkel  and  J.  E.  Wesner  were  appointed 
the  committee  provided  for  in  this  report.  The  next  year 
the  meeting  of  the  synod  was  postponed  two  months,  and 
the  place  changed  from  Mt.  Solomon's  church,  Harrison 
county,  Indiana,  to  St.  George's  church,  Shelby  county, 
Indiana,  in  order  to  give  the  committee  more  time,  and 
to  afford  opportunity  for  their  conference  with  representa- 


"'-1  This  committee  consisted  of  Rev.  J.  E.  Wesner,  Rev.  N. 
Booher,  Samuel  Hampton,  Daniel  Slinkard. 


208 


lives  from  the  other  synods.  When  the  synod  convened 
there  were  present  from  other  synods,  Rev.  D.  Smith,  of 
the  Northern  Indiana  Synod,  Rev.  H.  W.  Roth  and  Rev.  S. 
Wagenhals,  of  the  Pittsburg  Synod,  Rev.  J.  L.  Stirewalt, 
of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  District  Synod  of  Ohio,  and 
Rev.  A.  Thompson,  of  the  Olive  Branch  Synod.  After 
the  synod  was  duly  opened  and  organized,  and  the  nec- 
essary committees  appointed,  the  synod  went  into  a  com- 
mittee of  the  whole  upon  the  state  of  the  Evangelical 
Lutheran  church  in  Indiana,  and  the  best  means  for  her 
advancement.  On  Thursday,  November  18,  the  synod 
"went  into  a  conference**"  with  the  brethren  of  other  sj^nods 
present,  upon  the  demands,  wants  and  necessities  of  the 
Evangelical  Lutheran  church  in  Indiana,  in  order  to  pro- 
mote the  best  interests  in  the  advancement  of  the  Re- 
deemer's Kingdom,  and  the  salvation  of  souls."  C,  W. 
Sappenfield,  Esq.,  was  chairman  of  this  free  conference. 
After  a  free  and  lengthy  discussion  of  the  leading  ques- 
tions concerning  the  synod  and  the  church  in  the  state, 
which  discussion  was  marked  by  charity  and  moderation 
throughout,  the  following  resolutions  were  adopted.^' 
They  were  offered  by  Rev.  D.  Smith,  and  were  subse- 
quently adopted  by  the  synod.  Rev.  J.  L.  Stirewalt  had 
offered  a  substitute,  which,  however,  was  lost: 

'^Resolved,  that  the  best  interests  of  the  Lutheran 
church  in  Indiana  imperatively  demand  the  union  of  all 
the  Lutheran  ministers  and  congregations. 

^'Resolved,  that  such  union  in  order  to  be  lasting  and 
effective  for  good  should  be  based  upon  the  Word  of  God, 
contained  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  as  the  only 
infallible  rule  of  Christian  faith  and  discipline. 


80  Minutes  Union  Synod,  p.  6. 

81  Four  votes  cast  in  the  negative. 


—    209    — 

Resolved,  that  such  union  should  adopt  the  unaltered 
Augsburg  Confession  of  Faith  as  a  correct  exhibition  of 
the  principal  doctrines  of  salvation,  and  Luther's  Small 
Catechism  as  a  correct  declaration  of  Bible  truths,  and 
very  necessary  for  giving  instruction  in  the  doctrines  of 
the  Christian  religion. 

''Resolved,  that  the  reformers  in  the  formation  of 
said  confession  intended  to  present  the  pure  teachings  of 
God's  Word ;  therefore,  it  is  subordinate  to  God's  Word 
and  is  only  justly  interpreted,  when  explained  by  the  in- 
fallible teachings  of  Christ  and  his  apostles." 

When  the  synod  resumed  its  sittings,  these  resolu- 
tions were  adopted,  and  the  following  action  taken: 

''Resolved,  that  the  Union  Synod  adopt  the  resolution 
and  articles  presented  to  the  synod  by  the  free  conference 
as  a  whole,  and  offer  said  articles  as  the  principles  and 
landmarks  upon  which  they  are  ready  to  unite  with  the 
Lutheran  synods  and  conferences  in  the  state  of  Indiana ; 
and  the  guides  by  which  they  are  willing  to  be  governed 
in  their  intercourse  with  them,  and  work  with  them  in 
the  upbuilding  of  the  great  cause  of  Lutheranism  in  the 
state," 

This  convention  of  the  Union  Synod  was  the  most 
important  in  its  whole  history,  for  it  was  at  this  time 
that  the  real  crisis  was  reached,  and  the  future  policy  of 
the  synod  inaugurated.  Both  the  General  Synod  and  the 
General  Council  were  courting  it,  and  the  synod  itself  was 
desirous  to  enter  some  one  of  the  general  bodies  of  the 
church.  The  sentiment  that  had  been  developing  both 
among  the  pastors  and  congregations  during  the  preced- 
ing two  years  was  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  General  Coun- 
cil, whose  literature  was  diligently  circulated  by  the  Rev. 


-    210    - 

J.  L.  Stirewalt,  the  western  missionary  of  the  Council.*^ 
The  onlj^  pastor  that  was  favorable  to  the  General  Synod 
was  the  Rev.  E.  Rudisill,  notwithstanding  his  bitterness 
against  it  in  former  years.  He  inducted  General  Synod 
pastors  into  several  of  the  vacant  parishes  prior  to  this 
convention,  and  professed  great  interest  in  the  movement 
toward  the  contemplated  union.  In  his  last  report  to  the 
synod  he  suggested  a  new  basis  for  such  union,  namely, 
"the  unaltered  Word  of  God  contained  in  the  Old  and 
New  Testament  as  the  only  infallible  rule  of  christian 
faith,  church  discipline  and  Christian  Union,"  and  "the 
unaltered  Augsburg  Confessiop  of  Faith  as  containing  a 
catalogue  of  Bible  facts,  and  a  Bible  exhibition  of  the 
principal  doctrines  of  the  Christian  Religion."'*  Although 
honored  with  a  re-election  to  the  presidency,  the  brethren 
were  becoming  weary  of  his  domineering  spirit,  and  were 
resolved  to  follow  their  own  judgment  and  sense  of  duty, 
and  leave  him  to  do  as  he  might  choose. 

The  crisis  came  on  Saturday  afternoon,  November  20. 
The  delegates  from  the  Pittsburg  Synod  had  returned 
home,  leaving  Rev.  D.  Smith  and  Rev.  J.  L.  Stirewalt 
as  the  representatives  of  the  two  general  bodies.  During 
the  noon  intermission  Rev.  D.  Smith  circulated  among  the 


82  "So  much  may  be  said  that  the  General  Council  and  her 
institutions  and  periodicals  stand  in  greater  favor  with  these 
brethren  than  those  of  any  other  general  body.  Though  they 
may  not  see  their  way  clear  to  cast  their  lot  with  us  at  this  time, 
they  are  nevertheless  inclined  to  cooperate  with  us  in  the  circu- 
lation of  our  literature."     Letter  of  Rev.  J.  L.  S.,  August  16, 1869. 

83  Minutes  of  1868:  4,  In  the  discussion  of  the  basis  of 
union  R.  insisted  on  the  adoption  of  this  basis.  One  of  the 
brethren  opposing  him  said  the  statement  is  not  tenable,  as  the 
Flood,  one  of  the  "Bible  facts,"  was  not  mentioned  in  the  Augs- 
burg Confession. 


—  2n   — 

delegates  and  those  pastors  whom  he  thought  he  could 
influence,  and  endeavored  to  pursuade  them  to  vote  for 
a  resolution  which  would  he  offered,  namely,  that  the 
sj'nod  should  unite  with  one  or  the  other  general  body."* 
This  passed  without  trouble.  He  next  introduced  a  reso- 
lution that  it  should  decide  at  once  with  which  body  it 
would  unite.  This  was  the  occasion  for  a  prolonged  debate. 
He  made  an  earnest  appeal  for  union  with  the  General 
Synod  and  made  a  deep  impression. 

But  Rev.  Mr.  Smith  had  not  estimated  correctly,  the 
power  of  the  western  missionary  in  debate.  He  replied 
to  the  arguments  of  the  former,  that  the  Union  Synod 
should  unite  with  some  general  body,  but  that  the  question 
to  which,  should  be  referred  to  the  congregations,  that  the 
constitutions  of  the  two  bodies.  General  Synod  and  General 
Council,  should  be  placed  before  the  congregations,  and 
should  be  fairly  examined  by  them ;  that  the  next  dele- 
gates should  be  instructed  by  them  how  to  vote  ;  that  the 
present  delegates  were  not  prepared  to  vote,  and  had  no 
right  to  decide  so  important  a  matter.  This  was  a  fair 
and  reasonable  view,  and  the  motion  was  lost.  The  matter 
was  then  referred  to  the  congregations  who  were  requested 
to  hold  an  election  on  the  25th  day  of  the  following 
December,  to  decide  with  which  general  body  they  desire 
to  unite.     This  threw  the  contest  back  to  the  congregations. 

84  "I  learned  that  while  at  dinner,  he,  Hev.  D.  Smith,  was 
busy  at  work  with  the  delegates  preparing  them  to  vote  against 
the  substitute.  He  told  them  that  we  were  symbolists  of  the 
worst  type,  on  the  way  to  Home,  and  were  stealing  all  the  con- 
gregations we  could  take  along;  that  Wagcnhais  had  plundered 
Fort  Wayne,  and  was  guilty  of  shameful  outrages  of  various 
kinds;  that  my  trade  was  to  supplant  every  man  I  could,  wh« 
was  not  a  symbolist,  etc.,  etc."  Letter  of  Kev.  J.  L.  Stirewalt 
to  Rev.  H.  W.  Roth,  November  22,  18(59. 


—    212    — 

During  this  debate  and  others  that  were  carried  on  at 
this  convention,  Rev.  E.  S.  Herfkel  acted  very  erratically. 
He  professed  to  be  a  General  Council  man,  but  his  actions 
and  arguments  indicated  the  opposite.  He  subsequently 
explained  his  course  in  a  letter  to  the  western  missionary. 
His  purpose  was  to  get  Rudisill  out  of  the  way."'^ 

When  the  synod  reconvened  Saturday  evening.  Rev. 
E.  Rudisill  resigned  the  presidency  and  asked  for  a  dis- 
missal from  the  synod.  This  was  a  repetition  of  his  former 
tactics,  and  too  well  understood  to  be  of  any  weight  with 
the  synod.  The  resignation  was  accepted.  Rev.  E.  S. 
Henkel  was  elected  president,  and  instructed  to  grant  the 
desired  letter  of  dismissal.  Thus  the  most  bitter  and  in- 
fluential opponent  of  the  General  Council  in  the  Union 
Synod,  was  eliminated  by  his  own  course  of  action.**^  But 
he  continued  his  opposition.  No  language  was  strong 
enough  to  express  his  hatred  for  the  Council.**' 

In  1870  the  synod  met  in  Newberry,  Ind.  The  chief 
question  before  it  was  the  union  of  the  Lutheran  element 
in  the  state  with  itself.  The  vote  of  the  congregations  on 
the  25th  of  December  was  almost  unanimous  in  favor  of 
the  General  Council.  This  prepared  the  way  for  the  synod 
to  adopt  the  Fundamental  Principles  of  Faith  and  Church 
Polity,  and  the  Constitution  of  the  General  Council.  It 
appointed  a  delegate  to  attend  the  next  convention  of  the 
Council  with  full  power  to  unite  the  synod  with  it.  This 
step  was  however  deferred  and  the  delegate  did  not  attend 
the  General  Council,  because  of  a  new  problem  that  was 


«^  Letter  of  J.  L.  S.     December  28,  1869. 
«6  He  never  thereafter  identified  himself  with  any  synod. 
87  Rev.  J.  L.  S.  had  proposed  the  republication  and  circu- 
lation of  Rudisill's  expose  of  the  G.  S.  in  order  to  silence  him. 


-    213    - 

now  laid  before  it,  and  of  which  the  Union  Synod  pastors 
had  been  kept  uninformed. 

While  these  movements  toward  the  General  Council 
were  in  progress,  another  was  inaugurated  by  the  execu- 
tive committee  of  Home  Missions  of  the  General  Council, 
which  will  be  traced  in  the  next  chapter.  This  was  now 
for  the  first  time  officially  brought  before  the  Union  Synod 
by  the  Rev.  J.  L.  Stirewalt,  who  was  present,  as  the  dele- 
gate from  the  English  District  Synod  of  Ohio,  and  also 
as  the  General  Council's  representative.  The  other  move- 
ment was  so  well  in  hand  by  this  time,  that  they  were 
confident  of  leading  the  Union  Synod  into  the  adoption 
of  their  plan  for  the  union  of  all  Lutherans  in  Indiana  in 
sympathy  with  the  General  Council  into  one  synod.  The 
reason  for  this  counter  movement  lay  in  the  fact  that  there 
was  a  strong  prejudice  existing  among  the  General  Council 
element,  against  the  Union  Synod,  and  deservedly  so,  but 
iis  evil  spirit  in  the  person  of  Dr.  Rudisill  had  now  with- 
drawn, and  there  was  therefore  some  hope  that  what 
remained  of  the  exorcised  body  might  be  led  by  the  good 
spirit  of  the  Lord  to  a  closer  union  with  the  Council  in  all 
'things  that  pertain  to  the  bonds  of  true  unity.'" 

The  Rev.  J.  L.  Stirewalt  met  the  Union  Synod,  August 
10,  1870,  and  "was  received  with  becoming  courtesy. 
He  found  the  synod  willing  to  pursue  whatever  course  that 
would  promote  to  the  greatest  degree  the  interests  of  the 
church.  They  were  ready  to  meet  in  a  fraternal  spirit 
those  who  belong  to  the  Council  and  live  in  the  state, 
with  a  view  of  unity  with  them  in  one  synod.'"'     But  it 


58  Letter  of  Hev.  J.  L.  S.  to  ex.  com.  of  11.  M.  of  Cieneral 
Council. 

59  Letter  of  Kev.  .1.   L.   S.   to  Lutheran  and  Missiotiary 
August  24,  1870. 


—    2J4    — 

required  much  argument  and  diplomacy  on  his  part  to 
bring  them  to  this  position.  He  asked  the  synod  to  re- 
consider the  election  of  a  delegate,  and  his  authority  to 
unite  the  synod  with  the  General  Council,  upon  the  follow- 
ing grounds:  That  the  English  District  Synod  had  passed 
a  resolution  authorizing  the  Indiana  Conference  to  extend 
an  invitation  to  all  pastors  in  the  state  in  sympathy  with 
the  Council,  to  meet  them  in  conference  for  the  purpose 
of  uniting  in  one  synod  the  General  Council  pastors  in  the 
state;  that  this  synod  sent  him  to  urge  them  not  to  apply 
until  such  a  union  could  be  effected ;  that  then  there 
would  be  a  synod  of  ten  or  twelve  pastors  instead  of  only 
four,  making  application.  He  urged  that  it  was  the  desire 
of  the  Council  to  have  only  one  sj^nod  in  the  state,  and 
knowing  that  the  Union  Synod  did  not  embrace  in  it  all 
the  true  Lutheran  element  in  the  state,  it  would  be  insisted 
upon  that  a  more  general  organization  must  be  effected  so 
as  to  unite  all  in  sympathy  with  the  Council.  Still  farther 
he  urged,  that  if  the  members  of  the  Union  Synod  could 
not  agree,  and  were  willing  to  unite  in  fair  terms  witli 
those  men  in  the  Council,  living  in  the  state,  that  they 
could  not  agree  with  them  afterwards,  and  so  would  be- 
come an  element  of  discord.  And  as  they  the  General 
Council  Synod  had  now  as  the  larger  body  extended  to  them 
an  invitation  to  meet  the  brethren  in  the  state  with  a  view 
of  organizing  a  synod  that  would  embrace  thetn  all,  their 
rejection  of  this  overture  would  be  a  barrier  in  the  way  of 
admission  into  the  Council.  Nor  would  this  be  the  only 
trouble  that  might  meet  them  ;  it  was  doubtful  whether 
as  the  Union  Synod  then  existed,  it  had  sufficient  mem- 
l)ership  to  entitle  it  to  representation,  and  lastly  if  they 
were  willing  to  meet  with  the  Council  element  and  unite 
with  it  they  should  postpone  the  election  of  a  delegate 


—    215    - 

until  the  meeting  of  the  convention,  so  if  a  union  could 
be  brought  about,  that  all  could  have  a  voice  in  the  choice 
of  the  delegate  to  represent  the  synod  at  the  meeting  of 
the  General  Council."" 

Besides  the  presence  and  efforts  of  Rev.  J.  L.  Stire- 
walt,  other  influence  was  brought  to  bear  upon  the  synod. 
Rev.  Dr.  G.  F.  Krotel,  president  of  the  General  Council, 
wrote  them  expressing  the  hope  that  the  General  Council 
element  in  Indiana  might  become  united ;  also  one  from 
Rev.  H.  W.  Roth,  secretary  of  the  General  Council,  of  the 
same  nature.  Another  letter  from  Rev,  M.  J.  Stirewalt, 
secretary  of  the  Indiana  Conference,  was  received,  in 
which  the  president  of  the  Union  Synod  was  invited  to 
attend  the  next  convention  of  that  body,  to  be  held  at 
East  Germantown,  Indiana,  May  10,  1870,  which  invita- 
tion was  accepted.  All  these  had  their  weight  with  the 
members  of  the  synod,  and  did  much  in  preparing  them 
for  their  subsequent  action.  All  opposition  to  the  project 
was  now  removed.  The  opposition  of  Rudisill  reached 
its  limit  when  he,  with  Rev.  D.  Smith,  succeeded  in  pre- 
vailing upon  the  St.  George  congregation,  Shelby  county, 
to  reverse  its  decision,  and  go  into  the  General  Synod. 
Thenceforward  his  influence  waned,  and  in  a  few  years 
death  ended  his  career."' 

The  synod  appointed  representatives  to  meet  the  rep- 
resentatives of  the  Indiana  conference,  to  consider  the 
matter  of  organizing  a  new  synod.  This  free  conference 
was  held  in  St.  Mark's  church,  Whitestown,  Indiana, 
J.une  20,  1871.  After  a  frank  and  full  review  of  the  situ- 
ation, and  of  the  interests  of  the  church  in   the  state,  it 


w  Report  of  Kov.  .1.   L.  S.  to  ex.  com.   of  II.    M.   of  the 
General  Council. 

'■•1  He  dii'd  Feb.  24,  1874,  aged  (V^  years  and  7  dayp. 


-    216    — 

decided  to  issue  a  call  for  a  convention  to  organize  a  new- 
synod  for  Indiana. 

At  its  thirteenth  and  last  convention,  the  Union 
Synod  decided  that  in  the  event  a  new  synod  is  formed, 
in  pursuance  to  the  call  issued  by  the  Indiana  Conference, 
it  now  be  disbanded,  and  its  pastors  and  congregations 
regarded  as  members  of  the  synod. 

The  congregations  of  this  synod  were  all  virtually 
one  large  parish,  of  which  the  ministers  were  joint  pastors. 
Gradually  a  desire  grew  to  have  separate  parishes  formed, 
each  with  its  own  pastor.  There  was  much  opposition  to 
this  movement,  but  it  finally  succeeded,  and  in  1870  the 
synod  was  divided  into  twelve  parishes,  namely,  the  New- 
berry charge,  consisting  of  four  congregations  and  two 
mission  points ;  the  Nashville  charge,  consisting  of  one 
congregation  and  two  mission  points;  the  Edinburg 
charge,  two  congregations  and  one  mission  point;  the 
Whitestown  charge,  consisting  of  five  congregations ;  the 
Mulberry  charge,  consisting  of  one  congregation  and 
three  mission  points ;  the  Alimo  charge,  consisting  of 
three  congregations ;  the  Gosport  charge,  consisting  of 
two  congregations  and  three  mission  points ;  the  Corydon 
charge,  consisting  of  one  congregation  and  two  mission 
points;  the  St.  Paul's  charge,  consisting  of  one  congrega- 
tion and  two  mission  points;  the  Woodberry,  111.,  charge, 
consisting  of  two  congregations  and  one  mission  point; 
the  Marshall,  111.,  charge,  consisting  of  one  congregation 
and  mission  points  around  Marshall ;  and  a  mission 
charge  embracing  Crawfordsville  and  Armantrout's  school- 
house.  According  to  this  there  were  some  twenty-two 
congregations  connected  with  the  synod  at  the  time  of  its 
ilissolution. 


HOLY  TRINITY  CHURCH 
Lindsey  St.  and  Sherman  Ave.,  South  Bend,  Ind. 


HOLY  TRINITY  CHURCH 
Ltndsey  St.  and  Sherman  Ave.,  South  Bend,  Ind. 


FIRST  ENGLISH  LUTHERAN  CHURCH 
Mishawaka,  Ind. 


217 


The  following  pastors  were  at  some  time  in  connec- 
tion with  this  synod : 

Rev.  John  Good,  1859—1871. 

Rev.  Ephraira  Rudisill,  1859—1869. 

Rev.  Jacob  Elias  Deck,  1859.     t  February  16,  1864,  aged  30 

years,  9  months,  24  days. 
Rev.  Philip  A,  Peter,  1859—1866. 
Rev.  Henry  Fairchild,  1859—1870. 
Rev.  C.  R.  O.  Miller,  1859-1860. 
Rev.  Nathan  Booher,  1859-1871. 
Rev.  Eusebius  S.  Henkel,  1860—1871. 
Rev.  Davoult  Philo  Groundt,  1860.     t  June  11,  1863,  aged 

31  years,  7  months,  11  days. 
Rev.  Elias  Markert,  1860-1868. 
Rev.  Jacob  Wesner,  1860-1871. 
Rev.  J.  Efrid  Wesner;  1862-1871. 
Rev.  Eli  Myers,  1864—1871. 
Rev.  R.  D.  Emerson,  1867—1869. 
The  following  were  ordained  to  the  ministry : 
Rev.  Jacob  Wesner,  October  21,  1861. 
Rev.  Nathan  Booher,  October  21,  1861. 
Rev.  J.  Efrid  Wesner,  October  25,  1863. 
The  following  were  licentiates: 
Rev.  J.  Efrid  Wesner,  June  7,  1862. 
Rev.  John  Stine,   August   31,   1863.     License  recalled   for 

cause,  February  1,  1867. 
Rev.  M.  M.  Groves,  1868.     Expired  October  28,  186S. 
Rev.  R.  E.  McDaniel,  1870.     Expired  August  10,  1870. 

Rev.  M.  M.  Groves  came  from  the  seminary  at  Phila- 
delphia. He  applied  for  ordination,  but  having  no  call, 
the  synod  declined  to  ordain  him.  He  thereupon  took 
his  departure  from  the  synod.  He  served  the  St.  James 
church,  Vandalia,  111.,  for  a  very  short  time,  and  upon 
request  of  the  congregation  vacated  the  field,  leaving  his 
hooks  and  other  effects  behind.  He  was  never  heard 
from,  and  what  became  of  him  none  of  the  people  at 
Vandalia  ever  knew. 


-    218    - 

Rev.  John  Stine  was  quite  active  in  the  ministry  for 
a  short  time,  serving  chiefly  as  a  missionary  of  the  synod. 
His  license  was  recalled  for  cause,  and  he  disappears 
from  synodical  notice. 

Rev.  E.  Markert  abandoned  the  active  work,  and  his 
name  was  dropped  from  the  roll. 

Henry  S.  Slinkard  and  J.  Efrid  Wesner  were  students 
of  theology  under  the  care  of  the  synod.  The  latter  was 
finally  ordained  to  the  pastoral  office.  The  former,  on  ac- 
count of  ill  health  and  physical  weakness,  abandoned  the 
purpose  and  entered  into  business.  He  acquired  consid- 
erable property,  and  was  always  a  devoted  friend  of  the 
church.  He  did  not  live  many  years.  After  the  death  of 
his  wife,  Mrs.  M.  E.  Slinkard,  his  property  passed  to  the 
Theological  Seminary  at  Chicago.  Though  dead,  he  yet 
preaches  through  others  whom  he  in  this  way  assists  to 
prepare  for  the  oftice  which  he  was  providentially  de- 
terred from  entering. 

Two  deaths  occurred  in  the  ministerial  ranks :  Rev. 
Davoult  Philo  Groundt,  June  11,  1863,  and  Rev.  .Jacob 
Elias  Deck,  February  16,  1864. 

Two  young  men  were  received  as  students  of  theology  : 
R.  E.  McDaniel  and  John  P.  Deck.  The  former  received 
aid  to  pursue  his  studies  at  the  seminary  in  Philadelphia, 
and  the  latter  was  placed  under  the  care  of  Rev.  Nathan 
Booher. 

The  following  congregations  were  in  connection  with 
the  synod  during  a  portion  or  all  of  its  history : 

Newtown,  afterwards  St.  Mark's,  Boone  county,  Indiana. 

Union  church,  Boone  county,  Indiana. 

St.  Luke's  church,  Boone  county,  Indiana. 

St.  .John's  church,  Boone  county,  Indiana. 

Mt.  Zion  church,  Daviess  county,  Indiana. 

Union  church,  Daviess  county,  Indiana. 


—    219    — 

Fairhaven  church,  Clinton  county,  Indiana. 

St.  James'  church,  Kossvilie,  CHnton  county,  Indiana. 

Phanuel  church.  Fountain  county,  Indiana. 

Emmanuel  church.  Fountain  county,  Indiana. 

Fulton  (?)  church,  Fulton  county,  Indiana. 

St.  Peter's  church,  Greene  county,  Indiana. 

Mt.  Solomon's  church,  Harrison  county,  Indiana. 

Mt.  Zion  church,  Knox  county,  Indiana. 

St.  John's  church,  Monroe  county,  Indiana. 

St.  Paul's  church,  Monroe  county,  Indiana. 

Waupakon  church,  Miami  county,  Indiana. 

St.  James'  church,  Montgomery  county,  Indiana. 

Mt.  Zion  church,  Morgan  county,  Indiana. 

West  Salem  church,  Morgan  county,  Indiana. 

Philadelphia  church,  Parke  county,  Indiana. 

St.  John's  church.  Hush  county,  Indiana. 

St.  George's  church,  Shelby  county,  Indiana. 

Smithland  church,  Shelby  county,  Indiana. 

Union  church,  Jasper  county,  Illinois. 

Liberty  church,  Clarke  county,  Illinois. 

St.  Luke's  church,  Richland  county,  Illinois. 

Besides  these  organized  congregation.s  there  were 
quite  a  hirge  number  of  preaching  iioints  where  consider- 
able Lutheran  material  was  found. 

The  numerical  strength  of  the  Union  Synod  is  not 
ascertainable.  There  were  no  parochial  reports  sent  in 
by  the  pastors.  The  strength  of  the  several  congregations 
cannot  be  determined.  At  a  conservative  estimate  the 
synod  numbered  at  the  time  of  its  dissolution  probably 
1200  or  1500  communicant  members.  The  congregations 
were  all  in  the  country  and  generally  in  localities  which 
were  settled  chiefly  by  Lutherans.  From  the  lack  of  pas- 
tors to  minister  to  the  spiritual  needs  of  the  churches, 
and  the  haphazard  method  of  supplying  them  with  the 
means  of  grace,  many  of  the  congregations  gradually  fell 
into  decay. 


CHAPTER  VII 


(HI)?  3fnbiatia  -  QHtragn  B^noh  of  tlje  1£oati0?liral 
|ju%rait  (EI|urrIy 


ClIAPTKK    VII. 

®I|e  HInbtana  -  (Elitraiio  B^iiah  of  tl)e  lEuaniiipUral 


HE  occasion  and  immediate  cause  for  the  or^ran- 
ization  of  the  Indiana  Synod  of  the  Evangelical 
Lutheran  church,  now  the  Chicago  Synod  of  the 
Evangelical  Lutheran  church,  was  the  formation 
of  the  General  Council.  The  more  remote  causes 
are  to  be  found  in  the  movements  which  led  to  and  grew 
out  of  the  rupture  of  the  North  Carolina  Synod  in  1S20. 
As  early  as  1823  the  conservative  type  of  Lutheranism, 
represented  by  the  Tennessee  Synod,  was  planted  in  In- 
diana by  the  missionaries  of  that  body.  Other  factors 
also  contributed  their  part  in  bringing  about  this  result. 
These  were  chiefly  the  eflPorts  of  the  General  Synod  pastors 
to  plant  in  the  state  the  lax  type  of  Lutheranism  then 
represented  by  that  body.  The  representatives  of  these 
two  tj'pes  of  Lutheranism  frequently  came  into  sharp 
conflict,  and  each  party  made  strenuous  efforts  to  push 
its  work  to  the  front.  Each  type  took  organic  form  in  a 
synodical  organization  in  1835,  the  conservative  in  the 
Synod  of  Indiana  and  the  lax  in  the  Synod  of  the  West. 
The  conservative  body  received  a  severe  blow  in  the 
Destructionism  movement  under  the  leadership  of  Hev. 
Ephraim  Rudisill,  and  in  the  apostasy  of  Hev.  Eusebius 
S.  Henkel  to  Universalism.     Hut  it  in  a  measure  recovered 


-    224    — 

from  these  effects,  partly  through  Rudisill's  change  of 
front,  and  Henkel's  repentance  and  confession  of  error,, 
but  chiefly  through  the  influence  of  two  godly  and  earnest 
men  who  entered  the  synod  at  this  period  of  its  history,, 
the  Rev.  John  P.  Livengood  and  the  scholarly  Rev.  Will- 
iam H.  Deck.  The  radical  body  also  received  a  crushing 
blow  in  the  doctrinal  reaction  which  arose  in  the  Synod 
of  the  West  under  the  leadership  of  the  Rev.  Conrad  F. 
D.  Wynnekin,  who  led  the  conservative  wing  of  that 
synod  into  the  Missouri  Synod,  from  the  effects  of  which 
the  Synod  of  the  West  never  recovered.  But  the  General 
Synod  type  soon  after  took  organic  form  in  the  state  in 
the  organization  of  the  Olive  Branch  Synod. 

As  stated  in  Chapter  V  the  Synod  of  Indiana  dis- 
solved November  4,  1859.  The  causes  for  this  are  nar- 
rated in  that  chapter.  This  dissolution  was  followed  by 
the  organization  of  the  Union  Synod,  which  was  to  all 
practical  purposes  but  a  continuation  of  the  Synod  of 
Indiana  under  a  new  name.  It  was  composed  of  the 
same  pastors  and  congregations,  and  had  substantially 
the  same  constitution.  The  change  was  made  in  order 
to  conciliate  the  offended  Rudisill. 

The  chief  objects  that  Rudisill  had  in  demanding  the 
organization  of  the  Union  Synod  were  to  unite  all  the 
Lutheran  elements  in  Indiana  with  this  body,  and  to  re- 
trieve his  reputation  as  a  leader,  a  controversialist  and  as 
a  preacher.  Of  his  ultimate  success  in  this  he  had  no 
doubt,  until  his  defeat  in  1869.  But  his  plans  miscarried. 
Disappointed  in  uniting  all  the  Lutheran  element  in  the 
state  with  this  body,  the  synod  through  his  leadership, 
next  endeavored  to  draw  into  it  the  conservative  Lutheran 
element  in  the  state,  and  these  efforts  were  partially  suc- 
cessful, and  may  be  regarded  as  the  first  steps  that  event- 


—    225    — 

ually  culminated  in  the  formation  of  the  Indiana  Synod. 
Finally  the  synod  consented  to  the  union  of  all  Lutherans 
in  Indiana  in  sympathy  with  the  General  Council  in  a 
new  synod,  and  when  the  time  came,  dissolved  that  that 
object  might  be  effected. 

Besides  the  movements  in  the  Union  Synod,  there 
were  two  others  more  or  less  independent  of  each  other, 
which  coalescing  with  those  in  the  synod,  resulted  in  the 
organization  of  the  Indiana  Synod. 

The  first  of  these  originated  among  the  ministers  of 
the  English  Evangelical  Lutheran  District  of  the  Joint 
Synod  of  Ohio,  resident  in  Indiana.  In  1866  this  synod 
organized  all  its  pastors  living  west  of  the  Springfield, 
Ohio,  meridian,  into  the  Western  Conference.'"  This 
Western  Conference  soon  agitated  the  formation  of  a  new 
synod,  based  upon  the  principles  of  the  General  Council. 
This  was  to  be  an  Indiana  Synod.  As  early  as  1.S6H  the 
propriety  of  organizing  such  a  synod  was  discussed  by  the 
conference,  and  it  contemplated  calling  a  convention  for 
that  purpose.  This  conference  proposed  the  absorption 
of  the  Union  Synod  in  this  new  body,  and  expressed  its 
judgment  that  the  call  for  such  a  convention  should  orig- 
inate with  the  Union  Synod."  The  Union  Synod  took 
action  upon  the  matter  at  its  convention  of  1868,"*  hut  it 
did  not  meet  the  expectation  of  the  Western  Conference. 
The  intention  of  the  Western  Conference  was  to  unite  in 
a  new  synod  all  Lutherans  in  Indiana  in  sympathy  with 
the  General  Council,  The  Union  Synod  either  did  not 
understand  this,  or  else  evaded  the  real  question  and 
framed  its  report  so  as  to  embrace  all  Lutherans  in  the 


92Min.  1866:    22. 

93  Letter  of  Rev.  M.  J.  Stirewalt  to  the  Union  Synod. 

'-»4  Minutes  U.  Synod,  1868:  11. 


—    226    - 

state,  irrespective  of  synodical  affiliation.  It  well  knew 
that  such  a  union  was  impracticable  and  impossible  at 
that  time.  But  Rev.  E.  Rudisill,  who  professed  to  be  in 
favor  of  the  General  Council,  and  dominated  the  synod, 
frustrated  the  design  of  the  Western  Conference  by  insist- 
ing upon  a  plan  and  terms  which  he  knew  it  would  not 
accept.**^  The  conference  then  proceeded  upon  its  own 
authority,  and  a  call  was  issued  through  the  Lutheran 
and  Missionary  for  a  convention  to  be  held  in  connection 
with  the  conference  at  its  spring  meeting  in  St.  Paul's 
church,  Fulton  county,  Indiana,  May  20,  1869.  The 
convention  was  organized  by  the  election  of  Rev.  G. 
Schmogrow  chairman,  and  Emmanuel  Reed  secretary. 
There  were  eight  pastors  and  three  lay  delegates  present.'"' 
Those  present  were  all  of  one  mind  as  to  the  necessity  of 
a  new  synod.  Letters  from  a  number  of  pastors  who 
could  not  be  present  were  received,  all  urging  the  organ- 
ization of  a  new  ecclesiastical  body,  but  there  was  a  di- 
versity of  opinion  as  to  the  time  when  the  organization 
should  be  effected.  Some  thought  the  time  not  yet  at 
hand,  and  the  movement  premature,  and  because  prema- 
ture, might  only  prevent  the  future  organization  of  a  more 
efficient  body.  The  final  decision  reached  was  that  the 
time  had  come  for  the  organization,  and  that  delay  would 
prove  injurious.  The  convention  appointed  a  committee  to 
lay  before  the  English  District  Synod  the  reasons  and  mo- 


os Rudisill's  vanity  and  jealousy  would  not  consent  to  a 
proposition  of  union  which  originated  outside  of  his  own  brain. 
His  actions  from  henceforward  proved  that  he  was  not  in  sym- 
pathy with  the  General  Council,  but  wished  to  lead  the  Union 
Synod  into  the  General  Synod. 

90  The  pastors  were  Rev.  M.  J.  Stirewalt,  Rev.  J.  L.  Stire- 
walt,  Rev.  Isaac  Hursh,  Rev.  A.  V.  House,  Rev.  T.  W.  Corbet, 
Rev.  G.  Schmogrow,  Rev.  H.  Fairchild  and  Rev.  Frederichson. 


-    227    - 

tives  influencing  members  in  Indiana  to  form  a  new  synod, 
and  take  counsel  from  the  synod  as  might  best  promote  the 
work.  The  convention  adjourned  to  meet  at  Lima,' Ohio, 
immediately  after  the  sessions  of  the  English  District 
.Synod  at  that  place  the  following  August,  for  the  purpose 
of  consummating  as  soon  as  possible  the  proposed  organ- 
ization.'" 

But  before  the  time  arrived  for  the  Lima  convention 
a  storm  was  gathering  that  threatened  to  destroy  the 
bright  prospects  of  the  proposed  new  synod.  To  under- 
stand the  situation  we  must  go  back  to  the  Reading  con- 
vention, December  12-14,  1<S66.  The  Joint  Synod  as  well 
as  its  English  District  were  represented  in  that  convention 
and  participated  in  its  deliberations,  but  when  the  Gen- 
eral Council  was  organized,  November  20,  1HG7,  the  Joint 
Synod  not  only  declined  to  go  into  immediate  union  with 
that  body,  but  it  also  opposed  the  union  of  its  English 
District  with  it.  At  its  special  session  in  1SG7,  the  Joint 
Synod  appointed  delegates  to  the  General  Council,'*  which 
should  convene  in  Fort  Wayne  the  following  November, 
which  indicates  that  it  intended  ta  consummate  its  union 
with  that  body.  In  August,  1867,  the  P^nglish  District 
Synod  convened,  and  while  its  president  expressed  regret 
that  the  Joint  Synod,  through  a  majority  at  its  special 
session,  declined  to  enter  into  immediate  union  with  the 
General  Council,  yet  it  proceeded  to  the  adoption  of  both 
the  fundamental  principles  of  faith  and  church  polity, 
and  the  constitution  of  the  General  Council,  and  appointed 
delegates  to  represent  it  at  the  Fort  Waj'ne  convention. 


^"  Letter  of  Rev.  J.  L.  S.  in  Lutheran  and  Missionary  May 
22,  1869. 

98  Min.  of  J.  Synod,  German,  of  June  13-19,  1867:  12.    Also 
Min.  Eng.  Diet.  Synod,  18t>7:  12. 


—    228    - 

When  this  question  came  up  before  the  English  District 
Synod  there  arose  a  difiference  of  opinion  as  to  the  pro- 
priety of  taking  action.  The  matter  was  referred  to  a  com- 
mittee who  presented  a  majority  and  a  minority  report. 
These  reports  approved  the  fundamental  principles  and  the 
constitution  of  the  General  Council,  but  the  minority  re- 
port took  the  grounds  that  the  synod  was  not  prepared  to 
adopt  the  documents  in  question,  for  two  reasons,  namely, 
respect  for  the  judgment  of  the  Joint  Synod  as  set  forth 
at  its  last  convention  on  this  subject,  as  also  their  desire 
for  her  peace  and  unity;  and,  that  by  appointing  dele- 
gates to  the  General  Council,  the  synod  would  have  dou- 
ble representation  at  the  next  meeting  of  that  body,  a 
thing  to  which  it  was  not  entitled."'^  The  majority  report 
was  taken  up  and  the  fundamental  principles  were 
adopted  without  a  dissenting  voice.  The  constitution  of 
the  General  Council  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  32  to  18. 
The  supporters  of  the  report  took  part  in  the  election  of 
the  delegates  to  the  General  Council,  without  a  protest.'"" 
It  thus  appears  that  the  minority  acquiesced  in  this  action 
and  participated  in  the  consummation  of  the  English 
District  Synod's  union  with  the  General  Council.  The 
synod  had  no  thought  then,  nor  the  following  year  of  sev- 
ering its  connection  with  the  Joint  Synod  by  this  action. 
To  this  action  the  Joint  Synod  took  exception,  not 
on  the  ground  of  double  representation,  but  that  union  with 
the  General  Council  was  separation  from  the  Joint  Synod. 
But  notwithstanding  this  position  of  the  Joint  Synod,  to 
which  the  English  District  demurred  and  solemnly  pro- 
tested its  regard,  love  and  devotion  to  the  Joint  Synod, 


«»  Minutes  of  E.  D.  S.,  1867:   12. 
100  Minutes  of  E.  D.  S.,  1869:  7. 


—    229     — 

it  recognized  the  English  District  Synod  as  :i  part  of  itself, 
admitted  its  representatives  without  any  question,  until 
after  the  Lima  convention  of  1869.  The  English  District 
claimed  that  it  exercised  its  rights,  granted  by  its  own 
and  by  the  Joint  Synod's  constitution,""  when  it  united 
with  the  General  Council.'""  Other  questions  became  in- 
volved in  the  dispute  and  the  controversy  became  quite 
bitter.  The  Joint  Synod  was  determined  that  the  English 
District  Synod  should  not  remain  in  the  General  Council, 
while  the  English  District  Synod  was  equally  determined 
to  maintain  its  union  with  that  body,  and  let  its  relation 
to  the  Joint  Synod  be  determined  later.  It  protested  its 
good  will,  love  and  support  for  that  body,  and  against 
the  latter's  misrepresentations  of  its  action.  It  desired 
peace  and  harmony,  and  did  not  apprehend  a  rupture 
until  after  its  convention  of  1868. 

The  Joint  Synod,  as  before  stated,  recognized  the 
English  District  Synod  as  an  integral  part  of  itself,  after 
its  union  with  the  General  Council,  received  its  members 
and  granted  them  all  rights  and  privileges.  It  evidently 
hoped  to  secure  a  reversal  of  its  action.  To  secure  this 
end  it  was  claimed  by  the  English  District  Synod  that 
members  of  other  districts  were  dismissed  to  it,""  and  that 
some  of  its  own  members  were  urged  to  inaugurate  revo- 
lutionary proceedings."'     To  protect  itself  against  such 

101  At  the  Reading  convention  the  Joint  Synod  was  counted, 
not  as  one  synod,  but  as  five  synods.  This  conceded  the  right  of 
each  district  synod  to  determine  its  own  relation  to  the  General 
Council,  irrespective  of  its  relation  to  the  Joint  Synod. 

102  Minutes  of  E.  D.  S.,  18()S:  10. 

103  There  were  four  pastors,  thus  dismlBBed,  present  to  be 
received  at  the  Lima  convention. 

104  There  was  a  determined  opposition  to  the  movement  for' 
a  new  synod  in  Indiana  on  the  part  of  the  leaders  of  the  Joint 


-    230    - 

contingencj'',  President  Worlej^  in  his  report  to  the  synod 
in  1869,  recommended  the  adoption  of  a  resolution  requir- 
ing all  applicants  for  membership  to  give  assurance  that 
they  are  in  full  accord  and  sympathy  with  the  synod's 
position.  This  resolution  was  offered,  and  immediately 
adopted,  by  a  small  majority,  before  organization  for  the 
ensuing  year  was  effected.'"^  This  provoked  a  bitter  and 
prolonged  debate.  The  president  of  the  Joint  Synod  was 
present  and  asked  to  be  heard,  but  was  refused.  There- 
upon a  vigorous  protest  was  entered,  signed  by  twelve 
pastors  and  five  lay  delegates."*^  These  withdrew  from 
the  synod,  and  retiring  to  the  court-house,  organized  a 
rival  synod  under  the  same  name  and  title,  which  body 
the  Joint  Synod  recognized  as  the  legitimate  English 
Evangelical  Lutheran  District  Synod  of  the  Joint  Synod. 
This  disruption  and  defection  wrought  such  havoc  in  the 
ranks  of  the  Western  Conference,  some  of  whom  were  in 
this  movement,""  that  the  proposed  convention,  after  the 
adjournment  of  the  synod,  was  either  forgotten  or  ren- 
dered impracticable.  For  a  time  the  project  of  a  new 
synod  was  deferred. 

But  the  purpose  was  not  relinquished  by  its  friends. 
The  English  District  Synod,  after  the  defection  and  before 
the  final  adjournment,  reorganized  the  Western  Conference 
under  the  title  the  Indiana  Conference.  It  held  its  first 
session  in  Trinity  church,   Webster,   Kosciusko  county. 

Synod.  They  persuaded  several  Indiana  pastors  to  hold  aloof, 
and  oppose  the  movement.  Their  plea  was,  "Wait  until  the 
I^nglish  District  Synod  has  passed  the  crisis."  Letter  of  Kev.  J. 
L.  S.  to  Dr.  Passavant,  May  31,  1869. 

105  Minutes  of  Withdrawing  Party,  p.  4. 

106  Minutes  of  E.  I).  Synod,  1869:  24. 

107  Revs.  G.  Weber,  G.  Schmogrow,  A.  Birch  and  W.  J. 
Shroyer. 


-    23J     - 

Indiana,  October  26,  1869.  At  its  second  convention,  held 
in  East  Germantown,  Indiana,  May  13,  1870,  the  Rev. 
E.  S.  Henkel,  of  the  Union  Synod,  was  present  and  re- 
ceived as  an  advisory  member.  "In  accepting  the  invi- 
tation he  stated  that  he  had  a  special  object  in  visiting 
this  conference,  namely  to  try  to  effect  a  union  between 
the  conference  and  the  Union  Synod."  In  its  action  on 
this  proposition  the  Indiana  Conference  decided  "to  make 
an  earnest  effort  to  effect  a  union  between  the  General 
Council  element  in  the  state,  which  union  shall  be  in  ef- 
fect a  synod  based  upon  the  principles  of  faith  and  churcii 
polity  of  the  General  Council,"  and  in  order  to  consum- 
mate the  work,  elected  a  delegate  to  the  next  convention 
of  the  Union  Synod.  It  instructed  this  delegate  that  if 
he  found  the  Union  Synod  unqualifiedly  accepting  the 
General  Council's  position,  and  a  willingness  to  give  the 
conference  a  share  in  regulating  the  local  arrangements 
of  said  synod,  steps  should  be  taken  by  the  conference 
that  its  members  unite  with  the  Union  Synod  as  soon  as 
practicable.  The  delegate,  however,  did  not  attend  the 
convention  of  the  Union  Synod,  because  in  the  meantime 
other  questions  arose  which  deferred  the  contemplated 
union. 

This  action  of  the  conference  was  referred  to  the 
English  District  Synod  at  its  convention  at  Goshen,  In- 
diana, August  4-9,  1S7().  It  was  approved  and  the  con- 
ference authorized  "cordially  to  invite  the  ministers  of 
that  state  in  sympathy  with  the  General  Council  to  meet 
with  it  for  the  purpose  of  conferring  with  reference  to  a 
union  in  the  formation  of  a  new  synod  in  Indiana." 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  English  District  Synod 
in  its  action  contemplated  the  formation  of  an  entirely 
new  synod,  while  the  Indiana  Conference  contemplated  a 


-    232    - 

union  with  the  Union  Synod,  provided  it  unreservedly  ac- 
cepted the  General  Council's  position.  The  District  Synod 
distrusted  the  sincerity  of  the  Union  Synod,  and  was 
therefore  unwilling  that  its  pastors  should  unite  with  it 
until  all  possibility  of  unlutheran  views  and  practices  was 
precluded.  On  the  other  hand  the  Union  Synod  disliked 
the  idea  of  its  own  dissolution  as  a  means  of  effecting  the 
desired  results.  Some  of  its  pastors,  however,  were  tired 
of  the  tyranny  and  vacillations  of  Rudisill,  and  were 
ready  to  unite  with  the  new  body  and  leave  the  Union 
Synod  to  its  fate.  Under  these  conditions  and  because 
of  personal  and  synodical  interests,  it  required  great  cau- 
tion, patience,  tact,  and  diplomacy  to  direct  the  move- 
ments so  as  to  secure  the  desired  object. 

The  second  movement  which  now  played  an  import- 
ant part  in  the  scheme  originated  with  the  executive  com- 
mittee of  home  missions  of  the  General  Council.  When 
it  became  evident  that  a  rupture  would  occur  in  the  En- 
glish District  Synod,  the  General  Council  determined  to 
occupy  Indiana  and  secure  the  advantages  presented  in 
that  state.  The  foresight  of  Dr.  Passavant'""*  enabled  him 
to  perceive  that  the  field,  if  occupied,  would  in  time  be- 
come of  great  advantage  to  the  Council. 

His  plan  was  to  preclude  as  far  as  possible  the  ab- 


108  The  Rev.  Dr.  Passavant  was  the  leading  spirit  in  the 
executive  committee  of  home  missions,  and  it  was  he  who  planned 
the  work.  Every  matter  that  might  arise  to  hinder  the  work  in 
Indiana  was  carefully  gone  over.  The  Tennessee  type  of  Luth- 
eranism,  the  secret  society  question,  the  General  Synod's  influ- 
ence in  the  state,  the  vacancies,  the  new  fields  that  were  open, 
and  the  man  best  fitted  for  the  field  missionary,  all  were  carefully 
weighed.  The  correspondence  between  the  executive  committee 
and  Kev.  J.  L.  Stirewalt  reveals  these  facts,  and  shows  that  the 
work  was  carefully  planned  and  skillfully  executed. 


-    233    - 

sorption  of  the  Union  Synod  by  the  General  Synod,  to 
which  Dr.  Rudisill,  notwithstanding  his  former  bitterness 
toward  that  body,  and  his  hard  sayings  against  it  in  his 
"Expose,"  was  now  not  only  ready,  but  determined  to 
lead  it.  As  seen  in  the  preceding  chapter,  the  General 
Synod  was  courting  the  Union  Synod,  and  making  over- 
tures to  it  to  come  that  way.  This  was  the  only  formida- 
ble obstacle  that  stood  in  the  way  of  the  success  of  the 
Council.  The  Joint  Synod  element  in  the  state  was  not 
acceptable  to  the  Union  Synod,  so  that  the  executive 
committee  had  little  or  nothing  to  fear  from  that  quarter. 
The  Indiana  members  of  the  English  District  Synod  who 
remained  true  to  the  Joint  Synod  were  so  small  a  minority, 
and  so  undecided,  that  it  required  all  the  tact  and  influ- 
ence of  the  Joint  Synod  to  hold  them  in  line.  The  real 
question,  therefore,  resolved  itself  to  this,  can  the  General 
Council  secure  for  itself  the  pastors  and  congregations  of 
the  Union  Synod?  The  proposition  was  a  delicate  one, 
and  the  most  skillful  diplomacy  was  necessary  to  solve  it 
to  its  own  advantage. 

Another  matter  was  also  to  be  kept  in  mind.  The 
English  District  Synod,  after  the  rupture  at  Lima,  could 
not  spare  its  Indiana  men  until  its  relation  to  the  Joint 
Synod  was  determined.  That  body  was  ready  as  early  as 
1868  to  authorize  its  pastors  and  congregations  in  Indiana 
to  form  a  new  synod,  but  after  the  Lima  convention  it 
dared  not  weaken  itself  by  dismissing  them  for  that  pur- 
pose until  the  crisis  had  been  passed.  The  first  intention 
was  to  organize  a  new  synod  in  Indiana,  and  leave  the 
Union  Synod  to  its  fate,  but  the  other  question  forced  it 
to  hold  the  matter  in  abeyance  for  a  year  or  more.  This 
explains  the  delay  on  the  part  of  the  Indiana  Conference, 
and   the  failure   of  its  delegate  to  the   Union   Synod  to 


234 


attend  its  convention  in  1870.  Meanwhile  the  sentiment 
in  the  Union  Synod  favorable  to  the  Council  was  develop- 
ing, and  the  executive  committee  was  quick  to  take  ad- 
vantage. 

In  order  to  carry  out  its  plans  most  effectually  the 
executive  committee  called  the  Rev.  Julius  L.  Stirewalt 
as  the  special  agent  of  the  General  Council  for  Indiana.'"' 
Among  other  duties  he  was  instructed  "to  do  all  in  his 
power  to  promote  the  organization  of  a  new  synod  in  In- 
diana in  harmony  with  the  General  Council,  and  to  organ- 
ize new  congregations,  and  supply  vacancies."  The  ex- 
ecutive committee  planned  the  work,  and  he  worked  the 
plan. 

The  selection  of  Rev.  J.  L.  Stirewalt  for  this  delicate 
position  was  a  wise,  fortunate  and  happy  choice.  He 
was  brought  up  under  the  Tennessee  type  of  Lutheranism, 
and  would  therefore  commend  himself  to  the  conservative 
men  of  the  Union  Synod.  He  was  a  member  of  the  En- 
glish District  Synod,  and  had  the  confidence  of  all  the 
General  Council  brethren  in  that  body.  He  had  never 
been  a  member  of  any  secret  society,  so  that  the  Joint 
Synod  men  could  not  cast  that  charge  in  the  way.  In 
disposition  he  was  most  affable,  and  courteous  in  deport- 
ment. As  a  preacher  he  was  persuasive,  and  as  a  debater 
there  were  few  who  cared  to  combat  him.  He  won  and 
held  the  friendship  and  confidence  of  many  wherever  he 
went,  and  he  was  oblivious  to  the  criticisms  and  attacks 
of  his  opponents. 

No  sooner  did  he  receive  his  commission  than  he  set 
about  the  work.  His  methods  were  honorable  and  above 
board.  He  met  the  objections  of  the  Joint  Synod  and  of 
the  General  Synod  to  the  Council's  position  frankly,  and 


109  The  call  is  dated  March  15,  1869. 


—    235    - 

replied  to  them  without  evasion.  He  placed  the  (»nicial 
documents  of  the  several  bodies  before  the  people  and 
the  pastors,  and  encouraged  them  to  examine  them  for 
themselves.  He  was  a  sound  Lutheran,  and  irenical  in 
spirit.  His  first  work  was  to  visit  the  vacant  parishes  in 
Indiana,  and  supply  them  with  preaching.  He  was  in- 
strumental in  having  General  Council  pastors  placed  in 
several  vacant  parishes.  Rev.  M.  J.  Stirewalt  was  called 
to  the  East  Germantown  charge.  He  had  served  8alem,"" 
Augusta,  St.  Marks,  Whitestown,  and  St.  James,  Mont- 
gomery county,  for  some  years  while  they  were  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Union  Synod  and  prepared  them  for  the  new 
synod.'"  These  he  continued  to  supply  until  a  General 
Council  pastor  could  be  placed  in  charge,  which  was  soon 
effected  by  the  calling  of  Rev.  J.  Wesner.  The  Mulberry 
parish  was  also  secured  to  the  General  Council.  The 
divided  sentiment  was  overcome  and  the  congregations 
prepared  for  the  new  step.  All  doubtful  points  were 
visited,  and  the  General  Council's  literature  diligently 
circulated.  The  efforts  of  Rudisill  and  his  followers, 
Revs.  D.  Smith  and  A.  Thompson,  were  successfully 
checkmated  in  almost  every  case.  On  May  21,  1871,  he 
met  a  number  of  the  Union  Synod  pastors  at  St.  James' 
church,  Montgomery  county,  and  had  a  conference  with 
them  relative  to  the  free  conference  soon  to  be  held  at 
Whitestown,  Indiana.  The  sentiment  expressed  by  them 
was  that  none  of  them  cared  to  hold  on  to  the  old  organiza- 
tion."" The  leaven  was  working  and  everything  promised 
well  for  the  future.     Rev.  J.  L.  Stirewalt  was  faithful  to 


no  Salem  was  independent. 

111  Min.  Union  Synod,  'G6:  9;  '(57:  .3. 

112  Those  pastors  were  E.  S.  Henkel,  Jacob  Wesner,  J.  E. 
Wesner,  N.  Booher,  H.  Fairchild. 


—    236    - 

his  trust.  Enfeebled  by  disease  and  frequently  unable  to 
preach,  he  continued  his  work  into  which  he  was  called, 
until  the  task  was  completed,  and  then  he  entered  into 
his  rest  in  Christ  and  in  peace. "^ 

On  the  territory  of  the  contemplated  synod  there  was 
also  a  man  to  whom  much  credit  is  due  for  the  final  suc- 
cess of  the  movement.  This  was  the  Rev.  M.  J.  Stirewalt. 
He  could  not  affiliate  with  the  Union  Synod,  because  of 
its  doctrinal  position  and  lax  practices,  although  for  sev- 
eral years  he  served  congregations  in  connection  with  that 
synod.  He  was  brought  up  under  the  Tennessee  Synod, 
and  this  gave  him  an  advantage  with  the  congregations 
that  had  suffered  from  the  Destructionism  heresy.  He 
was  a  member  of  the  English  District  Sj'nod,  and  heartily 
in  sympathy  with  the  General  Council.  He  was  to  a 
large  degree  the  mediator  between  the  Union  Synod  mem- 
bers and  the  English  District  Synod.  He  cooperated 
heartily  with  Rev.  J.  L.  Stirewalt,  aiding  him  in  the  vis- 
itation of  the  churches,  and  supplementing  his  work  with 
an  extensive  correspondence.  He  enlisted  the  sympathy 
and  cooperation  of  several  pastors  of  the  Union  Synod,  in 
the  proposed  new  synod  and  aided  in  turning  the  senti- 
ment of  the  congregations  Councilward. 

Within  eighteen  months  after  the  Rev.  J.  L.  Stire- 
walt entered  upon  this  delicate  task,  supported  by  the 
executive  committee  and  by  the  conservative  Lutherans 
upon  the  ground,  the  field  was  ready  for  a  forward  move- 
ment. The  Indiana  Conference  met  August  9,  1870,  in 
Goshen,  Indiana,  and  issued  a  call  for  a  convention  of 
all  the  General  Council  element  in  Indiana,  to  meet  in 
Whitestown,  Indiana,  June  20,  1871.     In  response  to  this 


113  He  died  June  16,  1872,  aged  40  yrs.,  2  mos.  and  4  days. 


—    237    — 

call  the  following  pastors  were  found  to  be  present :  Rev. 
Samuel  Wagenhals,  of  Fort  Wayne,  and  a  member  of  the 
Pittsburg  Synod;  Revs.  E.  S.  Henkel,  Jacob  Wesner,  J. 
Efrid  Wesner,  Nathan  Booher,  of  the  Union  Synod  ;  Revs. 
Isaac  Hursh,  J.  Weber,  Henry  Fairchild,  David  M.  Wise- 
man and  Miles  J.  Stirewalt,  of  the  English  Evangelical 
Lutheran  District  Sjnod ;  Rev.  C.  F.  Sandstrom,  of  La 
Faj^ette ;  Reuben  E.  McDaniel,  a  student  of  theology,  and 
Delegate  Joseph  Etter.  Organization  was  effected  by 
electing  Rev.  J.  Weber,  president,  and  Rev.  M.  J.  Stire- 
walt, secretary.  The  convention  entered  upon  the  work 
before  it.  Various  resolutions  were  offered  in  order  to 
bring  out  the  sense  of  the  conference,  in  reference  to  a 
union  in  the  formation  of  a  new  synod.  After  a  full  and 
free  discussion  of  the  various  plans  presented  upon  whicli 
a  union  in  a  new  synod  should  be  effected,  the  following 
preamble  and  resolutions  were  unanimously  adopted  : 

''Whereas,  in  the  judgment  of  this  conference,  the 
time  has  come  that  an  effort  should  be  made  to  consoli- 
date all  Lutherans  in  the  state  of  Indiana  who  confess 
the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession,  be  it  therefore 

''Resolved,  that  we,  the  members  of  this  convention, 
pledge  ourselves  to  use  every  proper  means  in  our  power 
to  bring  about  such  consolidation  at  as  early  a  day  as 
possible. 

"Resolved,  that  as  a  preliminary  step  to  such  organ- 
ization, we  adopt  the  fundamental  principles  of  faith  and 
church  polity  as  set  forth  in  the  constitution  of  the  Gen- 
eral Council  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  church  in  North 
America. 

"Resolved,  that  a  committee  of  four  ministers  be  ap- 
pointed to  prepare  a  constitution,  and  to  correspond  with 
all  Evangelical  Lutheran  ministers  in  Indiana  known  to 


—    238    - 

be  in  sympathy  with  the  General  Council,  inviting  them 
to  unite  with  us  in  a  convention  for  the  purpose  of  unit- 
ing the  Lutheran  element  in  the  state  in  sympthy  with 
the  General  Council  into  one  synod. 

''Resolved,  that  said  committee  be  empowered  to  de- 
termine the  time  and  place  of  holding  such  convention, 
and  to  issue  a  call  for  the  same,  if  possible,  within  the 
current  year." 

The  committee  was  elected  by  ballot,  and  consisted 
of  Revs.  Samuel  Wagenhals,  J.  Weber,  Jacob  Wesner,  and 
J.  Efrid  Wesner,  who  in  due  time  called  a  convention  to 
meet  in  Zion's  Evangelical  Lutheran  church.  East  Ger- 
mantown,  Indiana,  October  19,  1871.  (Manuscript  Min- 
utes of  the  Free  Conference.) 

The  convention  met  at  the  appointed  time  and  place. 
Three  clerical  representatives  from  the  Union  Synod, 
Revs.  J.  Wesner,  J.  E.  Wesner  and  Nathan  Booher,  and 
a  like  number  from  the  English  District  Synod,  Revs. 
Isaac  Hursh,  J.  Weber,  and  M.  J.  Stirewalt,  and  four  lay 
delegates  were  present.  The  object  of  the  convention 
was  stated  to  be  the  organization  of  "a  synod  in  which 
may  be  united,  if  possible,  all  Lutherans  in  the  state  of 
Indiana  who  confess  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession 
and  desire  cooperation  with  the  General  Council."  Or- 
ganization was  effected  by  the  election  of  Rev.  J.  E.  Wes- 
ner president,  and  Rev.  J.  Wesner  secretary.  After  three 
days'  deliberation  a  constitution  was  adopted,  and  by 
resolution  the  convention  organized  the  Indiana  Synod  of 
the  Evangelical  Lutheran  church.  The  officers  elected 
were  Rev.  J.  E.  Wesner,  president,  Rev.  J.  Wesner,  sec- 
retary, and  Rev.  M.  J.  Stirewalt,  treasurer.  The  date 
was  Monday,  the  23d  day  of  October,  A.  D.,  1871. 


—    239    — 

The  person  to  whom  the  credit  for  this  successful  and 
happy  consummation  is  chielly  due  is  the  General  Coun- 
cil's home  missionary  in  Indiana,  the  Rev.  J.  L.  Stire- 
walt.  It  was  through  his  personal  visits  to  the  Union 
Synod  at  St.  George's  church,  Shelby  county,  Indiana, 
in  1869,  and  at  Newberry,  Indiana,  in  1870,  that  that 
body  was  induced  to  accept  the  proposition  to  form  a  new 
synod  instead  of  attempting  to  absorb  the  General  Coun- 
cil element  in  the  state.  It  was  due  to  his  clear  and 
forcible  argument,  and  his  candid  explanation  of  the 
General  Council's  fundamental  principles  at  the  conven- 
tion of  1869,  that  led  the  Union  Synod  to  adopt  those 
principles.  At  this  convention  he  succeeded  in  staying 
the  efforts  made  by  the  representatives  of  the  General 
Synod  to  lead  the  Union  Synod  into  that  body.  It  was 
he,  when  the  wily  Rudisill  and  his  followers  planned  to 
reverse  a  former  action,  that  met  their  arguments  man- 
fully, and  saved  the  synod  to  the  General  Council.  It 
was  this  defeat  that  induced  Rudisill  to  withdraw  from 
the  synod  and  let  it  take  its  course.  When  the  Union 
Synod  finally  left  the  question  to  its  congregations  with 
which  of  the  two  general  bodies  it  should  unite  Rev.  J. 
L.  Stirewalt  was  diligent  in  visiting  them  and  explained 
to  them  the  position  and  principles  of  the  two  bodies. 
In  this  he  took  no  advantage  that  was  unfair.  His  pur- 
pose was  to  develop  among  the  churches  a  deeper  Luth- 
eran consciousness  and  a  more  churchly  practice.  So 
forcilile  were  his  arguments,  so  frank  his  manner,  and  so 
deferential  his  attitude  toward  his  opponents,  that  he  sel- 
dom failed  to  win  the  confidence,  love  and  esteem  of  all 
who  heard  him.  It  was  with  great  joy  therefore  that  he 
saw  the  successful  consummation  of  this  work,  and  he 
felt  amply  repaid  for  his  labors.     To  him,  perhaps  more 


—    240    — 

than  to  any  other  man,  does  the  Indiana  (Chicago)  Synod 
owe  its  existence.  The  executive  committee  planned 
wisely,  but  without  his  skillful  execution  the  plans  would 
have  failed.  "We  see  very  clearly,"  writes  Dr.  Passavant 
June  10,  1869,  "that  God  has  directed  us  in  the  choice  of 
our  missionary,  to  the  praise  of  His  Holy  Name.  It 
seems  really  providential  that  we  entered  the  Indiana 
field  first." 

The  doctrinal  basis  of  the  Indiana  Synod  was  dis- 
tinctively and  unequivocally  Lutheran.  In  view  of  the 
movements  that  led  to  its  formation,  no  other  position 
could  be  expected.  "It  confesses  that  the  canonical 
books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  the  Word  of 
God,  given  by  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  are  the 
clear,  only  and  sufficient  rule  of  faith;  that  the  three 
general  creeds,  the  Apostles',  the  Nicene,  and  the  Athan- 
asian,  exhibit  the  faith  of  the  church  universal,  in  accord- 
ance with  this  rule ;  that  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Con- 
fession is,  in  all  its  parts,  in  harmony  with  the  rule  of 
faith,  and  is  a  correct  exhibition  of  doctrine ;  and  that 
the  apology,  the  two  catechisms  of  Luther,  the  Smalcald 
articles,  and  the  formula  of  Concord,  are  a  faithful  devel- 
opment and  defense  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Word  of  God, 
and  of  the  Augsburg  Confession."  It  provided  that  all 
questions  concerning  the  faith  and  practice  of  the  church, 
and  the  administration  of  the  sacraments,  shall  be  decided 
in  accordance  with  this  rule,  and  with  these  confessions. 

The  synod  at  its  first  convention  devoted  itself  to  the 
home  mission  cause.  Its  territory  was  rich  in  Lutheran 
material  and  in  opportunities  for  establishing  new  congre- 
gations. This  legacy  left  to  it  by  the  Union  Synod,  while 
not  altogether  desirable,  was  nevertheless  entitled  to  solic- 
itude and  care.     There  were  some  twenty  or  more  con- 


—    241     — 

gregations  still  in  existence,  some  of  them  strong  and 
united,  some  weak  and  rent  in  factions,  which  required 
shepherding.  It  was  demonstrated  in  a  few  cases  that 
with  the  adverse  influence  of  Rudisill  removed,  the  dis- 
sentient elements  could  be  united  and  harmonized,  and 
churchly  practices  introduced. 

The  letters  of  Rev.  J.  L.  Stirewalt  show  that  the 
Lutheran  material  was  sufhcient  in  many  places  to  form 
respectable  congregations.  In  most  cases  it  was  only 
waiting  to  be  gathered  and  shepherded.  While  he  was 
charged  in  his  call  to  organize  new  congregations  the 
other  duties  of  promoting  the  organization  of  a  new  synod 
so  taxed  his  feeble  strength,  and  required  so  much  of  his 
time,  that  this  important  work  had  to  be  deferred  indefi- 
nitely, and  because  of  this  delay,  much  of  it  was  lost  to 
the  Lutheran  church. 

It  therefore  fell  to  the  lot  of  the  newly  organized 
synod  to  enter  the  field  and  look  after  the  material  which 
was  waiting  to  be  gathered  and  organized.  In  order  to 
secure  the  best  results  with  their  limitetl  means,  the 
synod  resolved  upon  the  following:  "1.  That  each  of 
our  congregations  be  recommended  to  organize  societies 
in  their  connection  for  the  purpose  of  raising  funds  for 
missionary  and  educational  purposes,  and  that  they  be 
requested  to  turn  over  such  funds  to  the  synodical  treas- 
ury, to  be  applied  to  such  mission  and  educational  wants 
as  maybe  presented  to  the  synod.  2.  That  the  president 
shall  assign  to  each  minister  of  this  synod  a  mission  field. 
3.  That  each  minister  shall  visit,  as  often  as  necessary, 
such  mission  field,  and  report  its  c-ondition  to  the  presi- 
dent. 4.  That  the  president  shall  use  his  efforts  to  secure 
pastors  for  such  mission  fields,  and  5.  That  such  mis- 
sion fields  be  requested  by  the  minister  visiting  them  to 


-    242    - 

pay  his  traveling  expenses."  In  his  annual  report  the 
next  year  the  president  called  the  synod's  attention  to 
the  missionary  work,  urging  that  it  should  make  itself  a 
missionary  synod,  that  occupying  missionary  grounds  as 
it  did,  the  only  hope  of  the  Lutheran  church  in  this  state 
for  a  glorious  future  lay  in  a  faithful  and  zealous  prosecu- 
tion of  her  missionary  work.  The  educational  cause  was 
urged  in  the  same  connection,  "for  we  can  no  more  sus- 
tain missions  without  men,"  says  the  president,  "than 
we  can  sustain  them  without  money."  In  order  to  pros- 
ecute this  work  intelligently  and  systematically  that  per- 
manent results  might  follow,  and  in  order  to  enter  more 
aggressively  upon  the  work,  the  synod  created  the  office 
of  superintendent  of  missions,  whose  duties  were  to  sup- 
ply vacant  congregations,  and  to  look  after  the  mission 
interests  of  the  synod.  The  synod  pledged  him  a  salary 
of  $500  per  year  and  his  traveling  expenses.  He  was 
authorized  to  receive  offerings  from  the  congregations  and 
missions  visited  by  him,  which  were  to  be  credited  to  the 
synod.  Rev.  M.  J.  Stirewalt  was  elected  as  the  first  in- 
cumbent of  this  office.  Pastor  Stirewalt  also  was  the 
home  missionary  for  Indiana  under  the  appointment  of 
the  executive  committee  of  the  General  Council.  He  en- 
tered zealously  upon  the  duties  of  his  office.  At  the  time 
of  his  election  there  were  eight  vacancies  in  the  sj^nod, 
and  followed  by  two  more  shortly  after.  Most  of  these 
he  supplied  at  intervals  during  the  year,  or  made  ar- 
rangements with  other  pastors  to  have  them  supplied.  He 
sought  with  a  good  degree  of  success  to  encourage  and 
preserve  existing  vacant  congregations  and  wherever 
practicable,  he  assisted  them  in  obtaining  pastors.  Four 
of  the  vacant  pastorates  were  thus  provided  for.  He  also 
sought,  as  opportunity  offered,  to  encourage  the  widely 


243 


scattered  members  of  our  household  of  faith  to  steadfast- 
ness, and  to  attempt  new  enterprises  in  the  interests  of 
our  beloved  Zion.  During  the  first  year  of  his  oHice  lie 
made  40  visits  to  congregations,  preached  117  times,  cate- 
chised 27  times,  baptized  23,  confirmed  2S,  and  held  five 
communions.  He  collected  from  points  visited  $541.65, 
and  his  traveling  expenses  were  $139.45.  At  its  conven- 
tion in  1873  the  Synod  adopted  the  "Plan  of  Action  for 
Missionary  Work"  recommended  by  the  General  Council. 
Pastor  Stirewalt  was  elected  missionary  president,  as  pro- 
vided for  by  said  plan,  and  also  as  superintendent  of 
missions. 

During  the  year  following  this  convention,  the  mis- 
sionary president  of  the  synod  labored  quite  zealously, 
and  the  work  prospered.  He  authorized  several  pastors 
to  make  missionary  tours,  in  order  to  supply  vacancies 
and  missions,  as  the  field  was  so  extensive  that  the  mis- 
sionary president  could  not  attend  to  all  the  calls  in  per- 
son. Several  vacancies  were  supplied  with  pastors 
through  his  efforts.  Many  of  the  vacant  congregations 
were  in  a  dying  condition,  some  of  them  entirely  disor- 
ganized, while  others,  feeling  themselves  neglected,  had 
lost  much  of  their  zeal  and  church  love.  Into  most  of 
these,  by  the  blessings  of  God,  the  labors  of  the  general 
missionary  and  others  infused  new  life,  fresh  love  and 
earnest  zeal.  During  the  year  he  preached  10(j  times, 
catechised  frequently,  baptized  16,  confirmed  2,  held  5 
communions,  organized  one  congregation,  and  assisted  at 
the  dedication  of  one  church.  During  the  year  he  col- 
lected $34.S.70,  and  his  traveling  expenses  were  $191.05. 
Then  followed,  an  interim  of  nearly  two  years  that  the 
synod  did  not  have  a  traveling  missionary,  but  left  the 
work  chiefly  to  the  missionary  president,  who  could  de- 


—    244    — 

vote  only  a  part  of  his  time  to  it.  Yet  under  these  con- 
ditions the  work  to  a  degree  prospered.  The  sj'nod's 
interest  in  the  mission  cause  did  not  diminish,  but  it  was 
unable  to  secure  a  suitable  person  who  would  accept  the 
call  to  the  place.  After  October  1875,  the  synod  did  not 
elect  a  general  missionary,  but  left  the  missionary  president 
to  discharge  the  duties  of  that  office.  In  March  1876,  Rev. 
J.  E.  Wesner  devoted  the  whole  of  his  time  to  this  work, 
until  the  next  meeting  of  the  synod.  He  visited  the  va- 
cancies, supplied  the  missions,  and  thus  kept  alive  the 
interest  in  the  work.  From  November  7,  1876,  Rev.  R. 
E.  McDaniel  labored  in  the  capacity  of  general  mission- 
ary until  May  7,  1877.  During  the  six  months  of  his 
office  he  held  66  services,  visited  81  families,  baptized  8, 
held  two  communions,  received  into  membership  28, 
officiated  at  three  funerals,  and  traveled  1,918  miles. 
Collected  $119.28,  expenses,  $62.87.  He  reported  the 
outlook  favorable.  In  1877  he  was  elected  missionary 
president,  and  gave  personal  attention  to  the  field.  He 
reported  great  desolation  in  the  bounds  of  the  synod, 
with  no  available  remedy  at  command.  The  children  of 
the  church  cried  for  bread,  and  went  elsewhere  to  find  it. 
From  1879,  onward,  the  missionary  president  was  usually 
so  situated  that  his  own  parish  required  all  his  time,  and 
he  could  not  give  any  time  to  personal  inspection  and 
oversight.  He  exercised  a  kind  of  superintendence  over 
the  missions,  and  presented  recommendations  to  the 
mission  committee  for  their  action. 

The  synod,  during  this  period,  did  excellent  mission- 
ary work.  Several  mission  charges  were  formed,  which 
subsequently  became  respectable  and  prosperous  parishes. 
In  some  places  where  funds  were  appropriated  no  fruits 
were  produced.     The  St.  Paul's  church,  Olney,  111.,  was 


—    245    - 

for  a  while  a  mission  of  the  synod,  hut  left  irregularly 
and  united  with  the  Central  Illinois  Synod.  Mt.  .Solo- 
mon's church,  Corydon,  Indiana,  received  assistance  for 
several  years  and  flourished.  The  First  English  P^van- 
gelical  Lutheran  church  of  Decatur,  Illinois,  was  organ- 
ized October  24,  1882,  and  the  next  year  was  received  by 
the  synod  and  placed  on  its  list  of  missions.  It  grew 
steadily  in  strength  and  influence,  and  was  subsequently 
transferred  to  the  Board  of  English  Home  Missions  of  the 
General  Council. 

In  1884  Rev.  Jesse  Dunn  began  work  at  Syracuse 
and  Nappanee,  Indiana,  in  connection  with  his  charge 
at  Benton.  The  outlook  was  auspicious,  and  aid  was  ex- 
tended for  several  years,  and  in  due  time  the  field  became 
a  self-supporting  parish.  In  1888  two  new  missions  were 
assumed  and  in  part  supported  by  the  synod  —  St.  Paul's, 
Frankfort,  and  Zion's,  Portland,  Indiana.  The  former 
had  existed  for  some  years  and  was  a  part  of  the  Mul- 
berry parish.  Its  interests  demanded  the  entire  time  of  a 
pastor,  and  it  was  therefore  detached  from  that  parish  and 
became  a  mission  of  the  synod.  It  called  the  Rev.  D.  L. 
Reese,  and  grew  steadily  in  strength  and  influence,  and 
in  the  course  of  several  years  became  self-sustaining. 

Zion's,  Portland,  Indiana,  was  organized  by  Rev.  M. 
J.  Stirewalt  in  1888.  It  was  received  into  synodioal  con- 
nection the  next  year,  and  aid  furnished  it.  It  made 
progress  in  the  face  of  many  obstacles,  and  with  the  mis- 
sions at  Frankfort  and  Decatur,  Illinois,  was  transferred 
to  the  Board  of  English  Home  Missions  of  the  (Jeneral 
Council,  December  1,  1892.  This  action  was  taken  upon 
the  recommendation  of  the  General  Council,  in  order  that 
all  missions  of  the  several  synods  might  l)e  under  the 
management  of  the  Board.     But  tin-  other  synods  of  the 


-    246    - 

Council  declined  to  transfer  their  missions,  and  the  In- 
diana Synod,  after  paying  over  to  the  board  all  its  mission 
funds,  for  several  years  resumed  sjmodical  missionary  ac- 
tivity. Its  field  was  rich  in  material  and  vast  in  oppor- 
tunities. Its  growth  as  a  synod  depended  upon  the  mis- 
sion work.  The  General  Council's  Board  did  not  feel 
prepared  to  prosecute  the  work  in  the  synod's  territory, 
as  its  importance  demanded,  and  the  synod  therefore  felt 
itself  called  to  prosecute  its  own  mission  work  to  the  full- 
est extent  of  its  ability.  It  expressed  itself  ready,  how- 
ever, to  turn  all  its  mission  interests  over  to  the  Board, 
whenever  the  other  synods  would  do  the  same. 

In  1893  Rev.  J.  F.  Booher,  on  his  own  responsibility, 
canvassed  Elwood,  Indiana,  and  organized  a  congrega- 
tion. It  asked  assistance  from  the  synod,  but  it  was  un- 
able to  grant  as  much  as  was  desired,  owing  to  its  relations 
to  the  Board  of  English  Home  Missions.  Rev.  Mr. 
Booher,  however,  continued  his  labors  with  success.  A 
lot  was  purchased  and  a  church  erected.  Money  for  this 
purpose  was  contributed  by  friends  of  the  cause.  In  1894 
the  mission  applied  for  membership  in  the  synod,  pro- 
vided an  appropriation  of  $200  was  made  for  its  support. 
This  proposition  the  synod  could  not  accept,  but  it  assured 
the  mission  that  all  would  be  done  for  it  that  lay  within 
its  power.  This  action  displeased  the  mission,  and  it 
sought  membership  and  assistance  from  the  Olive  Branch 
Synod,  which  received  it  into  synodical  connection,  and 
granted  the  desired  aid. 

In  1893  the  General  Council's  Board  of  Home  Mis- 
sions organized  a  congregation  in  Anderson,  Indiana,  and 
called  Rev.  W.  J.  Finck,  of  Allegheny,  Pennsylvania,  as 
the  missionary.  The  congregation  was  received  into  the 
synod  in  September  of  the  same  year.     About  tlie  same 


—    247    — 

time  work  was  also  begun  by  tlie  board  in  Englewood, 
Chicago,  which  resulted  in  tlie  organization  of  St.  John's 
English  Evangelical  Lutheran  church.  It  became  a  part 
of  the  synod  in  1895. 

The  synod  took  commendable  interest  in  the  edu- 
cational work  that  is  inseparably  connected  with  the 
church's  progress.  It  felt  the  need  of  a  thoroughly 
equipped  ministry,  and  the  advantages  of  an  intelligent 
laity.  In  order  to  secure  the  former  it  rendered  substantial 
aid  to  young  men  who  offered  themselves  as  candidates 
for  the  holy  oflice,  that  they  might  prepare  themselves  in 
approved  institutions.  The  practices  that  obtained  under 
the  Synod  of  Indiana,  and  the  Union  Sj'nod,  while  the 
best  the  conditions  then  prevailing  made  possible,  were 
however  very  unsatisfactory,  and  the  time  had  now  come 
when  such  training  was  inadequate  to  the  demands.  The 
Synod  therefore  wisely  required,  whenever  possible,  that 
its  candidates  secure  a  collegiate  and  seminary  training. 
Until  1891  it  had  but  few  candidates  who  could  take  such 
a  course,  but  after  that  year,  it  has  had  beneficiaries  on 
its  roll  continuously.  In  its  earlier  years  it  aided  young 
men,  who,  when  their  course  was  completed  remained  in 
the  east.  This  had  a  discouraging  effect,  as  these  men 
were  sorely  needed  in  its  own,  but  less  inviting  fields. 
In  order  to  retain  its  candidates,  it  permitted  a  number 
to  pursue  their  studies  privately  and  ordained  them  to  the 
office  of  the  ministry  as  soon  as  it  was  satisfied  with  their 
acquirements  and  (jualifications. 

The  needs  of  a  collegiate  and  theological  institution 
were  long  felt  l)y  the  churches  in  this  territory,  and  long 
before  the  civil  war,  steps  were  taken  by  the  congregations 
and  the  Synod  of  Indiana,  looking  towards  such  an  under- 
taking.     But  the  time  had  not  yet  come,  nor  were  the 


-    248    - 

churches  able  to  establish  such  an  institution.  But  the 
hope  never  was  abandoned.  When  the  project  of  estab- 
lishing a  theological  seminary  in  Chicago  by  the  General 
Council  was  made  public,  the  churches  in  Indiana  hailed 
it  with  joy.  The  synod  took  a  deep  interest  in  the  move- 
ment, as  it  promised  a  solution  of  the  perplexing  question 
that  confronted  it,  namely  the  planting  of  missions,  and 
manning  them.  It  also  promised  ministers  who  were 
trained  for  the  work,  workmen  that  need  not  be  ashamed, 
rightly  dividing  the  Word  of  truth.  As  early  as  1869  the 
General  Council  contemplated  the  opening  of  such  a 
seminary  in  Chicago,  and  took  action  relative  to  it  each 
succeeding  meeting. 

In  1872  the  General  Council  gave  tangible  form  to 
the  institution  by  electing  a  board  of  directors,  consisting 
of  twenty-four  members.  Of  these  the  Revs.  Samuel 
Wagenhals  and  John  H.  Hunton,  and  Messers.  H.  J. 
Rudisill,  Geo.  H.  Dieckmann  and  Andrew  Drischel  were 
of  the  Indiana  Synod.  Rev.  E.  Jacobs  was  elected  English 
professor  in  the  institution,  and  a  constitution  for  its 
government  was  adopted.  Everything  promised  favorably 
for  the  early  opening  of  the  seminary.  But  unforeseen 
obstacles  arose  which  compelled  the  council  to  defer  the 
opening  of  the  institution.  In  1876  the  delegation  of  the 
Indiana  Synod  to  the  General  Council  reported  on  this 
matter  as  follows :  "Nobody  in  connection  with  the  General 
Council  has  a  deeper  interest  in  the  ultimate  success  of 
such  an  institution  than  our  synod.  Occupying  as  we  do, 
the  most  westerly  position  of  the  English  synods  of  the 
council,  charged  with  the  cultivation  of  a  field  that  would 
tax  a  body  of  three  times  our  number,  dependent  entirely 
upon  removals  from  other  synods  to  supply  vacancies  in 
our  established  parishes,  and  utterly  at  a  loss  for  men  to 


FIRST  ENGLISH  LUTHERAN  CHURCH 
N.  Main  and  Williams  St.,  Decatur,  111. 


CHURCH  OF   THE   HOLY   TRINITY 
LaSalle  Ave.  and  Elm  St.,  Chicago,  III. 


—    249    — 

develop  our  extensive  mission  fields,  what  can  our  future 
be  but  one  of  failure  if  we  have  no  definite  and  constant 
source  from  which  to  draw  our  supplies  for  the  ministry? 
Some  of  us  have  long  doubted  the  wisdom  of  a  theo- 
logical seminary  at  Chicago,  unless  the  men  and  means 
could  be  had  to  establish,  at  the  very  outstart.  a  school  of 
high  order.  Experience  and  a  minuter  knowledge  of  the 
needs  of  our  church  in  the  west,  have  induced  us  to  recede 
from  this  opinion.  Great  is  the  harvest  to  which  the  cities 
of  our  territory  invite  us,  but  not  so  abundant  as  the  fruit 
which  faithful  labor  might  gather  in  our  towns,  villages 
and  country  districts,  where  little  bands  of  Lutherans  iiave 
cast  their  lot.  Another  generation,  and  they  nmst  be  lost 
to  our  church  if  not  cared  for.  From  this  fact  we  cannot 
turn  away.  For  the  work  of  gathering  these,  our  scattered 
brethren,  into  congregations  there  is  needed,  not  so  much 
the  man  of  great  abilities  or  of  polished  education,  as  the 
pious,  humble,  practical  man,  who,  with  average  talent, 
has  been  trained  to  expound  the  word  of  God  in  accord- 
ance with  sound  theology.  For  the  training  of  such  a 
ministry,  a  seminary  fully  equipped  and  endowed,  is  not 
requisite.  Rather  your  delegates  are  persuaded  that  the 
General  Council  has  now  at  its  disposal  all  that  is  needed 
for  the  beginning  of  such  a  school,  and  though  its  origin 
be  but  as  a  grain  of  mustard  seed,  such  is  the  soil  in  which 
its  roots  shall  fasten,  that  it  will  in  time  develop  into  one 
of  the  greatest  of  its  kind.  Your  delegates  would,  there- 
fore, respectfully  suggest  that  the  synod  duly  consider  this 
grave  question  upon  the  immediate  and  right  solution  of 
which  depends  in  great  measure  the  cultivation  of  our  vast 
mission  field.""*     In  regard  to  this  suggestion  the  synod 


114  In  the  light  of  subsequent  history,  this  was  ahnost  pro- 
phetic foresight. 


-    250    - 

resolved,  "That  in  its  opinion,  the  wants  of  our  church  in 
the  west  demand  the  early  establishing  of  a  theological 
seminary  in  Chicago,  Illinois,  as  contemplated  by  the 
General  Council,  and  that  this  synod  earnestly  recommend 
to  the  General  Council  the  immediate  opening  of  said 
seminary  for  the  preparation  of  young  men  for  the  mission 
work."  The  next  year  the  proposed  seminary  was  again 
earnestly  discussed  and  the  synod  "desired  again  to  bring 
before  the  General  Council  the  matter  of  the  Chicago 
Theological  Seminary,  hoping  that  something  will  be  done 
as  soon  as  possible."  In  1880  the  president  in  his  report 
to  the  synod  recommended  the.  reagitation  of  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  theological  seminary  in  the  west,  and  the 
synods  action  thereon  was  as  follows:  "Admitting  the 
necessity  of  a  theological  seminary  in  the  west,_.  yet  in 
consequence  of  our  inability  to  contribute  anything  worth 
while  towards  that  project,  and  the  unwillingness  of  the 
General  Council  to  favor  the  opening  of  such  an  institution 
at  this  time  in  Chicago,  we  deem  it  inadvisable  to  press 
the  matter."  In  the  spring  of  1891  it  was  announced 
that  the  Chicago  seminary  would  be  opened  on  October 
1st  of  that  year.  In  bringing  the  matter  to  the  attention 
of  the  synod,  president  C.  Koerner  says:  "We  should  as 
a  sj^nod,  not  only  hail  the  coming  event  with  gladness, 
and  earnestly  hope  that  this  new  school  of  the  prophets, 
Avill,  in  the  providence  of  God,  be  instrumental  in  supply- 
ing the  waste  places  of  the  west  with  suitable  men ;  but 
also  pray  and  labor  in  its  behalf,  so  that  not  a  few  of  the 
godly  young  men  in  our  churches  may  find  their  way 
within  its  walls."  This  language  the  synod  endorsed  as 
the  expression  of  its  sentiment,  and  when  the  institution 
was  opened,  Mr.  Joseph  Allen  Leas  of  Benton,  Indiana, 
was  one  of  the  students  present,  since  which    time  the 


-    251     -- 

synod  has  had  continuously  a  representative  in  that  insti- 
tution. In  1S94  Mr.  Merrill  E.  Boulton  of  Goshen,  Indi- 
ana, entered  the  institution.  The  same  year  Mr.  Leas  was 
ordained,  and  the  synod  hegan  to  reap  the  fruits  of  the 
seminary's  work. 

Besides  the  need  of  a  theological  seminary  for  the 
training  of  candidates,  the  synod  was  also  deeply  conscious 
of  the  need  of  a  literary  institution  in  which  the  youth  of 
the  church  might  receive  a  good  education  under  positive 
Christian  influence.  The  tendency  of  the  secular  schools 
has  been  to  lead  away  from  the  church  and  from  the  faith 
of  the  fathers.  Many  of  her  brightest  sons,  some  of  whom 
in  their  youth  had  the  ministry  in  view,  were  not  only 
lost  to  the  church,  but  alienated  from  the  faith  through 
the  materialistic  influence  of  the  secular  schools.  Some 
entered  institutions  of  other  denominations  and  were  in- 
duced to  cast  their  lot  with  them,  instead  of  entering  the 
service  of  the  Lutheran  church.  The  synod  always  felt 
that  the  only  way  in  which  to  avoid  this  materialistic 
spirit  and  unchurchly  tendency  lay  in  the  establishment 
of  an  institution,  liberal  in  its  offers,  broad  in  its  curri- 
culum, and  positively  Christian  in  its  spirit  and  atmos- 
phere, in  which  the  youth  of  the  church  and  all  others 
who  desire  to  avail  themselves  of  the  opportunities  might 
receive  instruction  and  training.  The  need  was  sorely 
felt,  but  the  necessary  means  for  its  realization  were  not 
at  hand.  As  in  the  question  of  the  theological  seminary, 
the  synod  had  to  wait  until  Providence  indicated  the 
time,  prepared  the  agent,  and  opened  the  way. 

In  order  to  be  ready  to  avail  itself  of  any  opportunity 
that  might  open  to  the  synod,  it  appointed  a  committee 
in  ISO?,  which  was  continued  for  several  years.  This 
committee  was   charged  to  receive  and   investigate  thor- 


-    252    - 

oughl}'  any  proposition  for  the  establishment  of  such  an 
institution.  Two  propositions  were  submitted  to  it.  The 
one  was  from  Mrs.  E.  L.  Dieckmann,  of  Vandalia,  Illi- 
nois, who  tendered  her  residence  property  in  that  city  for 
such  a  purpose.  The  offer  was  declined  for  various  rea- 
sons, the  chief  one  being  the  location,  not  being  central. 
The  other  was  a  proposition  from  the  Lima  Educational 
Association,  to  transfer  to  the  Chicago  Synod  and  the 
Evangelical  Lutheran  District  Synod  of  Ohio,  jointly, 
Lima  college.  This  proposition  was  carefully  considered, 
but  owing  to  the  heavy  liabilities  of  the  institution,  which 
the  synods  would  have  to  assume,  it  also  was  declined. 
No  further  propositions  were  received,  and  the  committee 
was  finally  discharged. 

But  the  educational  interests  were  not  lost  sight  of. 
In  1900  Rev.  P.  C.  Wike  became  the  pastor  of  the  Col- 
burn  parish.  He  at  once  agitated  the  matter  of  Christian 
education  among  his  people,  and  met  with  a  hearty  re- 
sponse. Under  his  leadership  and  direction  they  resolved 
to  open  and  maintain  a  parish  school.  A  building  was 
secured  and  a  teacher  employed,  and  the  work  was  begun 
in  an  humble  way.  The  thoroughness  of  the  instruction, 
and  the  positive  Christian  character  of  the  institution, 
commended  it  to  all,  even  those  who  were  not  members  of 
the  church,  and  won  for  it  patrons,  friends  and  supporters. 
The  school  prospered  in  its  humble  sphere,  and  promised 
greater  usefulness  if  its  sphere  could  be  enlarged  and  the 
support  increased.  In  1903  the  management  tendered 
the  school  to  the  synod.  A  board  of  trustees  was  elected, 
with  instructions  to  accept  the  institution,  operate  and 
maintain  it,  but  without  any  pecuniary  responsibility  to 
the  synod.  This  board  is  self-perpetuating,  and  has  be- 
come  incorporated.      Its    charter  privileges    are    liberal, 


-    253    - 

making  ample  provisions  for  the  future  enlargement  of  its 
scope  of  instruction.  Under  the  management  of  this 
board  the  school  has  grown  to  the  grade  of  an  academj'. 
In  1905  it  was  removed  to  Mulberry,  Indiana,  where  it 
now  owns  twenty  acres  of  ground.  A  landscape  architect 
has  surveyed  the  grounds,  designated  the  location  of 
buildings,  driveways,  walks,  shade  trees,  and  athletic 
grounds.  In  1906  a  four-story  building,  including  base- 
ment, was  erected  at  a  cost  of  $20,000,  and  dedicated  on 
Sunday,  February  10,  1907.  "The  aim  of  the  board  of 
directors  in  establishing  this  institution  is  to  make  it  a 
distinctively  Christian  school.  The  moral  and  spiritual 
training  of  its  students  is  given  equal  attention  with  the 
intellectual  training,  hence  the  Bible  holds  a  central  place 
in  the  course  of  study.  Christian  conduct  is'  urged  in  the 
life  of  its  students,  and  persistent  neglect  of  Bible  study, 
and  unchristian  conduct  will  not  be  tolerated."  The  doc- 
trinal basis  of  the  Academy  is  distinctively  Lutheran,  and 
true  to  the  church  it  represents,  yet  it  is  by  no  means 
narrow  nor  exclusive  to  students  of  other  denominations. 

The  catalogue  for  the  scholastic  year  190(5-7  shows  a 
faculty  of  five  instructors  and  forty-four  pupils.  From 
present  indications  a  bright  future  is  before  this  institu- 
tion, and  that  it  will  in  due  time  grow  into  a  full-Hedged 
college. 

The  synod  always  maintained  the  most  cordial  rela- 
tions with  the  other  synods  of  the  General  Council. 
When  it  was  organized  the  territory  designed  for  it  was 
the  state  of  Indiana.  In  1.S67  the  Synod  of  Illinois  and 
adjacent  states  was  organized,  and  became  a  part  of  the 
General  Coun(ul.  But  before  the  Indiana  Synod  was  or- 
ganized that  l)ody  withdrew  from  the  Council,  thus  having 
Illinois    as    open   territory   for  General    Council    Knglish 


—    254    — 

Lutheranism.  St.  James'  congregation,  Vandalia,  111., 
was  a  member  of  the  Illinois  Synod,  but  being  a  mission 
of  the  General  Council,  it  was  held  by  the  Council  when 
that  synod  went  into  Missouri,  and  became  a  part  of  the 
synod  in  1873.  St.  Mark's  congregation,  Nokomis,  Illi- 
nois, was  received  in  1872.  The  Gila  pastorate  in  1871, 
and  the  Claremont  pastorate,  consisting  of  St.  James' 
and  St.  Paul's  congregations,  were  received  in  1874.  By 
this  turn  of  affairs  the  whole  state  of  Illinois  became 
practically  a  part  of  the  synod's  terrritory.  Its  eastern 
boundary  was  fixed  as  the  Ohio-Indiana  state  line,  but  its 
western  boundary  was  left  undefined. 

At  the  time  of  its  organization  there  were  two  En- 
glish General  Council  congregations  in  Chicago  in  connec- 
tion with  an  eastern  synod,  and  subsequently  others  were 
organized.  And  as  the  object  in  organizing  the  synod 
was  to  unite  all  the  General  Council  element  in  these 
regions  in  one  new  synod,  this  synod  contended  that 
these  congregations  and  their  pastors  should  of  right  be- 
come affiliated  with  it.  Efforts  were  made  privately  to 
induce  these  congregations  to  come  into  the  synod,  and 
with  some  degree  of  success."^  It  bore  the  anomalous 
condition  patiently  until  1892,  when  President  Jesse  Dunn 
called  the  synod's  attention  to  the  matter.  The  commit- 
tee on  the  president's  report  took  a  positive  stand  in  the 
following  action  :  "  Whereas,  the  constitution  of  the  Gen- 
eral Council  gives  to  the  district  synods  the  right  to  de- 
fine their  respective  boundaries,  requesting  them  to  be  as 
nearly  geographical  as  possible,  and 

''Whereas,  it  has  always  been  regarded  by  common 
consent,  and  it  was  the  tacit  understanding  at  the  time 


115  Rev.  C.  Koerner  came  in  1885,  Rev.  F.  C.  C.  Kaehler, 
1886. 


255 


of  the  organization  of  the  Indiana  Synod,  that  its  territory 
shall  at  least  include  the  states  of  Indiana  and  Illinois, 
and 

"  Whereas,  the  English  Evangelical  Lutheran  churches 
and  their  pastors,  connected  with  the  General  Council,  in 
these  states  are  not  all  in  organic  union  with  the  Indiana 
Synod,  therefore 

''Resolved,  1.  That  it  is  the  sense  and  conviction  of 
this  synod  that  all  General  Council  English  congregations 
and  their  pastors  in  these  states,  connected  with  eastern 
synods,  are  in  the  bounds  of  the  Indiana  Synod,  and 
ought  to  be  in  connection  with  it. 

"2.  That  it  is  contrary  to  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the 
constitution  of  the  General  Council,  and  of  our  conception 
of  fraternal  cooperation,  for  pastors  and  congregations 
thereof,  located  in  these  states,  to  hold  their  niemhership 
in  eastern  synods. 

"3.  That  such  a  state  of  affairs,  and  synodical  rela- 
tion is  at  variance  with  the  best  interests  and  welfare  of 
our  Lutheran  Zion  in  these  states,  having  a  discouraging 
effect  upon  our  already  weak  body. 

"4.  That  we  earnestly  request  those  congregations 
and  pastors  within  the  bounds  of  this  synod,  connected 
with  the  General  Council,  to  unite  with  this  synod  at 
their  earliest  opportunity. 

"5.  That  if  this  unnatural  relation  and  injurious  at- 
titude is  continued  we  shall  enter  our  solemn  protest  be- 
fore their  synods  and  the  General  Council,  and  demand 
that  our  rights  and  claims  as  a  synod  be  no  longer  ig- 
nored." '"' 

This  action  secured  the  desired  results,  and  in  tiie 
course  of  a  few  years  every  congregation  and  pastor  re- 


no  Minutes  1892:  10. 


—    256    - 

ferred  to  united  with  the  synod.  Not  until  twenty-five 
years  after  the  inauguration  of  the  movement  which  re- 
sulted in  the  organization  of  the  synod,  was  its  real  object 
fully  attained. 

The  experience  of  the  synod  with  some  of  the  General 
Synod  bodies  was  not  always  as  pleasant  as  might  be 
desired.  Its  rights  and  claims  over  congregations,  which 
in  a  fit  of  ill-humor  or  under  the  influence  of  designing 
men,  irregularly  severed  their  relation  with  it,  were  en- 
tirely ignored  in  not  a  few  cases,  when  those  congrega- 
tions applied  for  reception  into  those  synods.  The  first 
congregation  to  withdraw  from  the  synod  was  St.  George's, 
Shelby  county,  Indiana,  in  1873.  It  pursued  a  disorderly 
course  toward  the  synod.  It  was  entreated  to  reconsider 
its  action  and  resume  its  former  relation,  and  admonished 
that  if  it  had  any  grievance  to  lay  it  before  the  synod. 
But  these  admonitions  were  disregarded  and  it  attached 
itself  to  the  Olive  Branch  Synod.  In  1876  the  St.  Paul's 
congregation,  Olney,  Illinois,  through  the  influence  of  a 
certain  man  who  united  with  it,  decided  to  withdraw  from 
the  synod  and  unite  with  the  Central  Illinois  Synod.  It 
notified  the  president  of  the  synod  of  its  action,  and  asked 
for  dismission.  The  president  had  no  authority  to  dis- 
miss a  congregation,  and  requested  it  to  wait  until  the 
next  convention,  when  the  matter  would  come  up  regu- 
larly before  that  body.  But  the  congregation  would  not 
wait,  and  sent  a  commission  to  the  Central  Illinois  Synod 
to  ask  connection  with  that  body.  It  was  received  with- 
out regard  to  the  claims  of  the  Indiana  Synod.  In  1877 
the  St.  Paul's  congregation,  Shelby  county,  Indiana,  was 
regularly  dismissed.  The  Trinity  congregation,  Lancas- 
ter, Wabash  county,  Illinois,  withdrew  in  1878  through 
the  influence  of  a  pastor  not  in  sympathy  with  the  Indiana 


-     257    - 

Synod.  In  1883  the  Trinity  Lutheran  church,  Goshen, 
Indiana,  called  a  Joint  .Synod  pastor,  and  severed  its 
connection  irregularly.  It  did  not  even  ask  for  a  dis- 
missal. It  1886  St,  Mark's  church,  Nokomis,  Illinois, 
called  a  General  Synod  pastor  and  severed  its  connection 
with  the  synod.  In  October,  1889,  the  First  English 
Lutheran  church  of  Goshen  decided  to  withdraw,  but 
through  prompt  action  on  the  part  of  the  president,  was 
induced  to  reconsider  its  action  and  remain.  Several 
other  congregations  made  ineffectual  efforts  to  withdraw, 
but  the  movements  were  arrested  before  the  object  was 
attained.  In  every  case  of  these  withdrawals  the  congre- 
gations had  called  pastors  not  in  sympathy  with  the  synod. 

The  twenty-fifth  anniversary  of  the  synod's  organi- 
zation was  appropriately  celebrated  on  Thursday  evening, 
September  24,  1S96,  in  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  church 
of  the  Holy  Trinity,  Chicago,  Illinois.  The  celebration 
was  opened  with  the  use  of  the  Vesper  service,  after 
which  appropriate  addresses  were  delivered  on  the  follow- 
ing subjects:  "The  Pioneer  Work  and  Pre-existing  Con- 
ditions," by  Rev.  M.  L.  Wagner;  "The  Organization  of 
the  Indiana  (Chicago)  Synod,"  by  Rev.  J.  Wesner;  "The 
Missionary  Operations  of  the  Synod,"  by  Rev.  M.  J. 
Stirewalt,  D.  D. ;  and  "The  Future  Outlook  of  the  Synod," 
by  Rev.  S.  Wagenhals,  D.  D.  The  addresses  were  listened 
to  with  rapt  interest  by  a  large  congregation. 

For  a  number  of  years  there  was  considerable  dissat- 
isfaction with  the  name  of  the  synod.  Its  operations  had 
extended  bejond  the  bounds  of  Indiana,  so  that  the  old 
name,  the  Indiana  Synod,  no  longer  properly  designated 
its  sphere  of  operations.  It  therefore,  at  its  twenty-tifth 
convention,  resolved  to  change  its  name  to  the  Chicago 
Synod  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  church. 


258 


The  reasons  for  the  change  of  name  from  the  Indiana 
Synod  to  the  Chicago  Synod  were  various  and  need  not 
be  enumerated  here.  They  were  regarded  on  the  part  of 
all  concerned  as  of  sufficient  weight  to  warrant  the 
change,  and  the  result  has  proven  the  wisdom  of  the  step. 
With  the  change  of  name  also  came  the  adoption  of  a 
new  constitution.  This  instrument  provides  for  all  the 
things  which  twenty-five  years  of  synodical  experience 
deemed  necessary.  The  opening  of  the  Chicago  Seminary 
in  1891  inspired  the  synod  with  a  larger  hope,  and  prom- 
ised a  solution  of  the  perplexing  problems  which  hereto- 
fore had  confronted  it.  It  therefore  took  a  broad  outlook 
for  the  future,  and  planned  its  work  accordingly,  and 
since  which  time  it  has  worked  the  plan  with  gratifying 
success.  It  prayed  the  Lord  of  the  harvest  to  send  labor- 
ers into  the  field,  and  it  wrought  as  it  praj'ed,  and  He 
made  it  the  agent  for  answering  the  prayer. 

In  the  same  year  that  the  name  of  the  synod  was 
changed  it  reorganized  its  mission  work.  During  twenty- 
five  years  of  experience  it  acquired  information  by  which 
it  proposed  to  profit.  It  enlarged  the  mission  committee 
to  consist  of  five  clerical  and  four  lay  members,  and  pro- 
vided that  it  should  meet  not  less  than  three  times  each 
year  and  thoroughly  canvass  the  mission  situation  and 
interests.  It  was  charged  to  prosecute  the  work  with 
vigor.  To  do  this  its  powers  were  enlarged  to  a  degree 
commensurate  with  its  duties.  It  reported  annually  to 
the  synod,  submitted  its  plans  for  the  future,  its  judgment 
as  to  the  best  methods  of  procedure,  and  its  recommen- 
dations as  to  the  appropriations  for  the  respective  missions. 
In  these  the  synod  generally  concurred  and  approved  the 
committee's  plans.  It  therefore  entered  heartily,  enthu- 
siastically and  aggressively  upon  its  work.    It  appealed  to 


-    259     - 

the  constituency  of  the  Bynod  for  support,  placed  before 
them  reports  of  the  gratifying  fruits  of  its  labors,  which 
aroused  their  interest  and  won  their  confidence.  Its  pol- 
icy was  that  each  mission  should  have  the  entire  tinie  of 
the  missionary;  that  if  a  student  was  placed  in  charge  of 
a  mission  it  was  with  the  view  of  it  becoming  his  future 
field  of  pastoral  activity.  Students  were  thus  encouraged 
to  create  for  themselves  fields  of  labor,  instead  of  waiting 
for  a  vacancy  to  occur  in  an  old  and  well  established  par- 
ish. This  was  the  policy,  and  faithfully  adhered  to,  so 
far  as  the  existing  conditions  would  permit.  The  semi- 
nary authorities  also  co-operated  with  the  mission  com- 
mittee, through  the  students'  help  fund  of  that  institution. 
By  this  means  points  within  supporting  distance  from 
Chicago  were  cared  for  during  eight  months  of  the  year, 
and  by  the  mission  committee  during  the  other  four  months. 
The  fruits  of  this  plan  and  effort  were  very  gratifying. 
In  1896  one  mission,  St.  Peter's,  Chicago,  was  organized, 
St.  Mark's  was  organized,  and  two  old  and  almost 
dead  congregations  were  resuscitated,  namely,  Union, 
Boone  county,  Indiana,  and  St.  John's,  of  Ovid,  Indiana. 
This  was  largely  due  to  the  aggressive  missionary  policy 
of  the  synod.  In  1897,  Hope  P^vangelical  Lutheran  con- 
gregation of  Chrisman,  Indiana,  was  received  into  the 
synod,  but  was  subsequently  transferred  to  another  synod, 
in  order  to  receive  more  regular  service.  The  same  year 
Wicker  Park,  and  St.  Mark's,  Chicago,  were  received, 
largely  due  to  the  infiuence  of  the  seminary  authorities 
and  the  mission  committee,  while  the  Hicksville  parish, 
consisting  of  two  congregations,  which  had  become  alien- 
ated from  the  District  Synod  of  Ohio,  some  years  before, 
was,  through  the  influence  of  Kev.  Luther  Hogshead,  a 
seminary  man,  induced  to  unite  with  the  synod. 


—     260     — 

The  year  1897  witnessed  the  organization  of  St. 
Matthew's,  Chicago,  and  the  erection  and  dedication  of 
its  house  of  worship.  Work  was  also  begun  in  Alexan- 
dria, Indiana,  under  the  direction  of  the  committee.  St. 
James',  Chicago,  was  also  organized  in  this  year  by  sem- 
inary students.  In  1899  Rev.  A.  J.  Reichart,  pastor  of 
the  Mulberry  parish,  began  work  in  Lafayette,  Indiana, 
which  was  approved  and  subsequently  supported  by  the 
committee.  Rev.  A.  C.  Anda,  pastor  at  Goshen,  Indiana, 
began  operations  at  South  Bend,  Indiana,  which  developed 
rapidly,  while  Zion's,  Walnut  Ridge,  Allen  county,  Indi- 
ana, was  resuscitated  by  the  pastor  of  the  Hicksville  par- 
ish, and  received  into  the  synod. 

The  closing  year  of  the  century  witnessed  the  organ- 
ization of  Zion's,  Lafayette,  Indiana,  January  6th;  Holy 
Trinity,  South  Bend,  Indiana,  January  9th ;  St.  Luke's, 
Chicago,  June  1st ;  and  the  Church  of  Our  Blessed  Savior, 
Alexandria,  Indiana,  June  3d.  In  1901  St.  John's, 
Nappanee,  and  the  First  English  Evangelical  Lutheran 
church  of  Mishawaka,  Indiana,  were  founded.  The  year 
1903  was  ushered  in  by  the  organization  of  Holy  Trinity, 
Elgin,  Illinois.  St.  Paul's,  Detroit,  Michigan,  organized 
some  time  before,  was  received  into  synodical  connection, 
and  the  Church  of  the  Atonement,  Chicago,  was  or- 
ganized (June.)  The  next  year  the  Church  of  the 
Epiphany  and  St.  Paul's,  Richland  county,  Illinois,  were 
received.  The  year  1905  witnessed  the  founding  of 
four  new  congregations,  the  Church  of  the  Redeemer, 
Aurora,  Illinois,  and  one  of  the  same  name  in  Austin,  a 
suburb  of  Chicago,  one  at  Wheeler,  Illinois,  and  Christ 
Church,  Detroit,  Michigan.  Work  was  also  begun  at 
Ely's  school  house,  near  Lafayette,  Indiana,  which  has  a 
promising  outlook.    In  1907  there  were  admitted  to  synod 


-    261     - 

two  congregations,  the  Church  of  the  Reformation,  Buck- 
ley, Ilhnois,  and  the  Church  of  the  Ascension,  Chicago 
Heights,  Illinois,  and  in  lOOS  Grace  Evangelical  Lutheran 
church  of  Woodstock,  Illinois,  was  admitted. 

In  addition  to  the  efforts  which  culminated  in  the 
above  tangible  results,  work  was  begun  at  a  number  of 
points  which  were  full  of  promise,  but  which,  after  a  fair 
trial,  were  relinquished  because  no  fruits  were  apparent. 
\\'hen  the  fruits  appeared  in  due  season,  the  work  wa.'< 
pushed  vigorously.  The  results  from  1.S96  to  15)06,  a 
period  of  ten  years,  were  twenty-two  congregations  organ- 
ized, three  resuscitated,  and  five  established  congregations 
received  into  synodical  connection.  The  present  (1906) 
statistical  summary  of  the  mission  committee's  report  is 
as  follows:  Number  of  souls  in  connection  with  the  mis- 
sions 1S73,  communicants,  729,  pupils  in  Sunday  schools, 
1,458,  These  missions  have  a  property  value  of  $.").^,600, 
had  an  income  during  the  year  of  $11,089.90,  and  con- 
tributed to  benevolent  objects,  $42."). 56.  The  amount 
appropriated  by  the  synod  for  their  support  for  the  synod- 
ical year  of  1906-1907  is  $2,400. 

The  synod  also  reorganized  its  sy.stem  of  beneticiary 
education.  Its  plan  is  to  conserve  its  funds  contributed 
for  this  purpose,  and  to  aid,  not  support,  the  candidates 
applying  for  assistance.  The  financial  assistance  rendered 
them  is  considered  a  loan,  without  interest,  not  a  gift, 
which  is  to  be  repaid  either  in  cash,  or  by  service  ren- 
dered in  the  capacity  of  a  missionary.  Since  1S96  eight 
young  men  have  been  assisted  in  preparing  for  the  min- 
istrj'. 

Recruits  for  the  ranks  of  the  ministry  during  the  first 
quarter  of  a  century  were  few,  only  ten  candidates  being 
ordained   during  that   period.     The  reason  for   this   was 


-    262    - 

chiefly  the  lack  of  an  institution  of  learning.  There  were 
gifted  young  men  in  the  synod  who  desired  to  enter  the 
ministry,  but  the  proper  educational  facilities  were  lack- 
ing. Some  entered  institutions  of  other  denominations, 
and  were  lost  to  the  Lutheran  church.  Some  became 
discouraged  and  abandoned  the  purpose.  Some  entered 
institutions  in  the  east,  and  when  their  course  was  com- 
pleted, remained  in  the  service  of  the  church  in  that  sec- 
tion. The  majority  of  the  candidates  that  were  ordained 
during  this  period  of  twenty-five  years,  pursued  their 
studies  privately  under  the  supervision  and  direction  of 
some  pastor.  While  they  felt  the  lack  of  classical  and 
theological  training,  they  however  became  zealous,  faith- 
ful and  efficient  pastors.  The  following  are  those  or- 
dained during  the  first  twenty-five  years : 

Rev.  Wm.  Rein,  June  19,  1874,  at  a  special  convention. 

Rev.  John  G.  M.  Hursh,  September  27,  1874. 

Rev.  John  M.  G.  Sappenfield,  September  27,  1874. 

Rev.  Jesse  Dunn,  June  8,  1884. 

Rev.  Martin  L.  Wagner,  June  8,  1884. 

Rev.  David  L.  Reese,  June  16,  1889. 

Rev.  J.  A.  Boord,  June  1,  1890. 

Rev.  Mosheim  S.  Waters,  June  1,  1890. 

Rev.  A.  L.  Boleik,  September  27,  1891. 

Rev.  J.  A.  Leas,  September  28,  1894. 

After  the  Chicago  Seminary  was  opened  the  candi- 
dates were  more  numerous.  After  1897  there  were  ordi- 
nations either  ad-interim,  or  at  the  synodical  conventions, 
each  year.     They  are  as  follows  : 

Rev.  Austin  D.  Crile,  April  29,  1897,  ad-interim. 

Rev.  Luther  Hogshead,  April  29,  1897,  ad-interim. 

Rev.  William  Hall,  April  29,  1897,  ad-interim. 

Rev.  George  P.  Kabele,  B.  D.,  April  28,  1898,  ad-interim. 

Rev.  Loran  0.  Pearch,  April  28,  1898,  ad-interim. 

Rev.  Zenan  M.  Corbe,  May  29,  1899. 

Rev.  Harry  B.  Reed,  May  29,  1899. 


-     263 

Rev.  Alonzo  H.  Arbaugh,  July  23,  l.s9<J,  ad-interiiu. 

Rev,  Paul  W.  H,  Frederick  January  7,  1900,  ad-interini. 

Rev.  George  F.  Dittmar,  June  2,  1901. 

Rev.  William  Eckert,  June  2,  1901. 

Rev.  M.  E.  Haberland,  June  2,  1901. 

Rev.  Henry  K.  Lantz,  June  2,  1901. 

Rev.  William  II.  Shepfer,  June  2,  1901. 

Rev.  Joel  R.  E.  Hunt,  June  2,  1901. 

Rev.  John  V.  Sappenlield,  June  8,  1!>02. 

Rev.  Solomon  D.  Myers,  June  8,  1902. 

Rev.  William  J.  Seiberling,  June  8,  1902. 

Rev.  Paul  W.  Roth,  June  14,  1903. 

Rev.  Paul  J.  Gerberding,.June  14,  1903. 

Rev.  L.  P.  Pence,  June  14,  1903. 

Rev.  Elmer  D.  S.  Boyer,  January  19,  1904,  ad-interim. 

Rev.  John  Knauer,  June  5,  1904. 

Rev.  Lloyd  W.  Steckel,  June  5,  1904. 

Rev.  L.  J.  Baker,  June  2.5,  1905. 

Rev.  Andrew  M.  Sappenlield,  June  17,  190G. 

Rev.  C.  A.  Dennig,  June  2,  1907. 

Rev.  Henry  M.  Thompson,  June  2,  1907. 

Rev,  F.  E.  Stough,  June  2,  1907. 

Rev.  Martin  L.  Stirewalt,  June  2,  1907. 

Rev.  H.  J.  Behrens,  June  21,  1908. 

During  the  first  twentj'-five  years  of  its  history  tin- 
synod  ordained  ten  candidates  to  the  ministry,  an  avera^t' 
of  one  candidate  every  two  and  one-half  years.  From 
1897  to  1907,  a  period  of  ten  years,  it  ordained  thirty-one 
candidates,  an  average  of  one  candidate  every  four 
months. 

The  following  ministers  were  members  of  this  synod 
during  the  time  indicated  : 

Rev.  Isaac  Hureh,  1871—1874;  1880-March  1,  1897.  177 
years,  11  months,  22  days. 

Rev.  J.  Weber,  1871-1872. 

Rev.  M.  J.  Stirewalt,  D.  D.,  1871-Februnry  22,  lOaS.  t  H7 
years,  9  months,  14  days. 

Rev.  J.  E.  Wesner,  1871-1879. 


264 


Rev.  Jacob  Wesner,  1871—1881 ;  1895—1902. 

Rev.   Nathan  Booher,  1871— April  23,  1880.     t  56  years,  2 

months,  24  days. 
Rev.  Eusebius  S.  Henkel,  1871— December  17,  1874.     t  63 

years,  4  months,  21  days. 
Rev.  Eli  Myers,  1871— February  29,  1876.     t  57  years. 
Rev.  JohnH.  Hunton,  1872—1874. 
Rev.  Samuel  Wagenhals,  D.  D.,  1872- 
Rev.   Henry  Fairchild,   1873-June  4,   1891.     t  72  years,   4 

months,  6  days. 
Rev.  J.  M.  Long,  1873—1876. 
Rev.  Andrew  V.  House,  1873— 
Rev.  G.  Schmogrow,  1873—1875. 
Rev.  J.  J.  Kuntz,  1873—1881. 
Rev.  James  M.  Harkey,  1874— October  11,  1875.    t  56  years, 

9  months,  8  days. 
Rev.  William  Rein,  1874—1876;  1886—1889. 
Rev.  .John  M.  G.   Sappenfield,  1874-January  24,    1904.     t 

65  years,  5  months,  2  days. 
Rev.  John  G.  M.  Hursh,  1874—1887. 
Rev.  N.  Aldrich,  1875—1879. 
Rev.  D.  M.  Henkel,  1876—1882. 
Rev.  George  Harter,  1876—1887. 
Rev.  W.  C.  L.  Lauer,  1876—1881. 
Rev.  Reuben  E.  McDaniel,  1877—1890. 
Rev.  Amon  E.   Gift,  1879— May  16,   1900.     t  50  years,  11 

months,  7  days. 
Rev.  L.  M.  C.  Weicksel,  1879-1887. 
Rev.  John  Good,  1882— June  25,  1902.     t  79  years. 
Rev.  James  C.  Barb,  1883—1895. 
Rev.  M.  L.  Wagner,  1884—1904. 
R&v.  Jesse  Dunn,  1884—1897;  1904—1905;  1909— 
Rev.  A.  W.  Walter,  1884-1885;  1893—1896. 
Rev.  Charles  Koerner,  1885—1902. 
Rev.  Franz  C.  C.  Kaehler,  1886— September  5,  1894.     t  48 

years,  7  months,  26  days. 
Rev.  John  D.  Roth,  1886—1889. 
Rev.  John  F.  Booher,  1889—1895. 
Rev.  David  L.  Reese,  1889— 
Rev.  J.  A.  Boord,  1890-1891. 


265 


Rev.  Mosheim  S.  Waters,  1890— 1.S93. 

Rev.  A.  L.  Boleik,  1891—1893;  1903—1906. 

Rev.  J.  N.  Stirewalt,  1892—1893. 

Rev.  William  J.  Finck,  1893— 190(i. 

Rev.  C.  K.  Druniheller,  1892-1893. 

Rev.  W.  R.  Swickard,  1893—1897. 

Rev.  W.  A.  Sadtler,  Ph.  D.,  1S93— 1901. 

Rev.  Joseph  Allen  Leas,  1894—189(5. 

Rev.  G.  D.  Gross,  1895—1899. 

Rev.  R.  L.  Bame,  1895-1896. 

Rev.  H.  L.  McMurray,  1896-1898. 

Rev.  R.  F.  Weidner,  D.  D.,  LL.  I).,  1896— 

Rev.  George  H.  Gerberding,  D.  D.,  1896— 

Rev.  Albert  T.  Clay,  Ph.  I).,  1896—1901. 

Rev.  Frank  C.  Oberly,  1896—1899. 

Rev.  Isaiah  Whitman,  1896— 

Rev.  William  Evans,  1897—1901. 

Rev.  Austin  D.  Crile,  1897. 

Rev.  Wm.  Hall,  1897—1898;  1908— 

Rev.  Luther  Hogshead,  1897—1906. 

Rev.  S.  P.  Fryberger,  1897— 1»KX). 

Rev.  Loran  O.  Pearch,  1898—1901. 

Rev.  George  P.  Kabele,  B.  D.,  1898-1904. 

Rev.  Herman  A.  W.  Yung,  1898—1900. 

Rev.  A.  C.  Anda,  1898. 

Rev.  Clement  L.  V.  Dozer,  1898—1904. 

Rev.  Albert  J.  Keichart,  1899—1901. 

Rev.  Harry  B.  Keed,  1899. 

Rev.Zenan  M.  Corbe,  1899. 

Rev.  Polycarp  C.  Wike,  1900—1908. 

Rev.  Alonzo  H.  Arbaugh,  1900. 

Rev.  Paul  W.  H.  Frederick,  1900-1903. 

Rev.  Hiram  Peters,  1).  D.,  1901. 

Rev.  George  F.  Dittmar,  1901  —  1908. 

Rev.  William  Eckert,  1901  —  1905. 

Rev.  M.  E.  llaberland.  1901. 

Rev.  Joel  H.  K.  Hunt,  1901. 

Rev.  Henry  K.  Lantz,  1901—1903. 

Rev.  William  H.  Shepfer,  1901—1902. 

Hev.  William  L.  Hunton,  Ph.  D.,  1902-1900. 


-    266    - 

Rev.  Solomon  D.  Myers,  1902. 

Rev.  William  J.  Seiberling,  1902. 

Rev.  John  V.  Sappenfield,  1902. 

Rev.  M.  E.  Boulton,  1903—1906. 

Rev.  J.  C.  Dietz,  1903—1906. 

Rev.  J.  A.  Miller,  1903—1908. 

Rev.  Paul  W.  Roth,  1903. 

Rev.  Paul  J.  Gerberding,  1903. 

Rev.  L.  P.  Pence,  1003—1906. 

Rev.  Herbert  M.  Martens,  1904—1906. 

Rev.  Theodore  Weiskotten,  1904. 

Rev.  Elmer  D.  S.  Boyer,  1904. 

Rev.  Lloyd  W.  Steckel,  1904—1909. 

Rev.  John  Knauer,  1904. 

Rev.  William  Brenner,  1905—1906. 

Rev.  H.  J.  Matthias,  1905. 

Rev.  WilUam  C.  Miller,  1905—1908. 

Rev.  L.  J.  Baker,  .1905— 1906. 

Rev.  Charles  R.  Dunlap,  1906—1907. 

Rev.  Edward  P.  Conrad,  1906. 

Rev.  Roger  C.  Kaufman,  1906. 

Rev.  Andrew  M.  Sappenfield,  1906—1908. 

Rev.  Curtis  G.  Stacy,  1906—1907. 

Rev.  John  H.  Wannemacher,  1906—1908. 

Rev.  V.  J.  Becker,  1907—1908. 

Rev.  N.  Mattheis,  1907—1908. 

Rev.  Chas.  L.  Warstler,  1907. 

Rev.  C.  A.  Dennig,  1907. 

Rev.  H.  N.  Thompson,  1907. 

Rev.  F.  E.  Stough,  1907. 

Rev.  M.  L.  Stirewalt,  1907. 

Rev.  Wm.  Hall,  1908. 

Rev.  Luther  J.  Smith,  1908. 

Rev.  F.  C.  Longaker,  1908. 

Rev.  E.  H.  Copenhaver,  1908. 

Rev.  H.  J.  Behrens,  1908. 

There  have  been  in  connection  with  the  synod  to  this 
date,  October,  1908,  108  ministers.  Of  these  eleven  died, 
namely,  Nathan  Booher,  E.  S.  Henkel,  Eli  Myers,  J.  M. 


267 


Harkey,  Henry  Fairchild,  Frank  C.  C.  Kaehler,  Isaac 
Hursh,  A.  E.  Gift,  John  Good,  M.  J,  Stirewalt  and  J.  M. 
G.  Sappenfield. 

The  following  congregations  aro,  or  have  been,  con- 
nected with  the  synod : 

St.  Mark's,  Whitestown,  Boone  county,  Indiana. 

St.  James',  Montgomery  county,  Indiana. 

Phanuel,  Fountain  county,  Indiana. 

Emmanuel,  Fountain  county,  Indiana. 

Philadelphia,  Parke  county,  Indiana. 

Fairhaven,  Clinton  county,  Indiana. 

t  St.  Paul's,  Shelby  county,  Indiana. 

t  St.  George's,  Shelby  county,  Indiana. 

*  St.  John's,  Rush  county,  Indiana. 
Union,  Boone  county,  Indiana. 

*  St.  Luke's,  Boone  county,  Indiana. 

*  St.  John's,  Monroe  county,   Indiana. 

*  St.  Paul's,  Monroe  county,  Indiana. 

St.  Peter's,  Newberry,  Greene  county,  Indiana. 

*  Zion's,  Daviess  county,  Indiana. 

*  Union,  Daviess  county,  Indiana. 
Mt.  Zion,  Knox  county,  Indiana. 

Mt.  Solomon,  Harrison  county,  Indiana. 

t  Trinity,  Goshen,  Elkhart  county,  Indiana. 

St.  Paul's,  Benton,  Elkhart  county,  Indiana. 

Zion's,  E.  Germantown,  Wayne  county,  Indiana. 

Salem,  New  .\ugu6ta,  Marion  county,  Indiana. 

Holy  Trinity,  Ft.  Wayne,  Allen  county,  Indiana. 

t  St.  Mark's,  Nokomis,  Montgomery  county,  Illinois. 

Zion's,  Colburn,  Tippecanoe  county,  Indiana. 

Mt.  Zion's  (St.  John's),  Ovid,  Madison  county,  Indiana. 

St.  Jacob's,  Millville,  Henry  county,  Indiana. 

Union,  Gila,  Jasper  county,  Illinois. 

St.  Paul's,  Tiosa,  Fulton  county,  Indiana. 

St.  John's,  Bruce  Lake,  Fulton  county,  Indiana. 

St.  James',  Vandalia,  Fayette  county,  Illinoin. 

St.  James',  Claremont,  Kichland  county,  Illinois. 

*  St.  Paul's,  Olney,  Kichland  county,  Illinois. 

*  Mt.  Zion's,  Martinsville,  Clarke  county,  Illinois. 


—    268    — 

*  St.  Peter's,  Osgood,  Ripley  county,  Indiana. 

*  St.  Stephens',  Ashland  township,  Morgan  county,  Indiana. 
t  Trinity,  Lancaster,  Wabash  county,  Illinois. 

*  Mt.  Zion's,  Morgan  county,  Indiana. 

First  English,  Goshen,  Elkhart  county,  Indiana. 

St.  John's,  Middletown,  Henry  county,  Indiana. 

First  English,  Decatur,  Macon  county,  Illinois. 

t  St.  John's,  Spring  Valley,  McPherson  county,  Kansas. 

*  St.  Mark's,  near  Muncie,  Delaware  county,  Indiana. 
St.  Paul's,  Syracuse,  Kosciusko  county,  Indiana. 

St.  Paul's,  Frankfort,  Clinton  county,  Indiana. 

t  Zion's,  Portland,  Jay  county,  Indiana. 

Emmanuel,  near  Nappanee,  Kosciusko  county,  Indiana. 

Bethel,  Petit,  Tippecanoe  county,  Indiana. 

St.  John's,  Chicago,  Cook  county,  Illinois. 

St.  John's,  Anderson,  Madison  county,  Indiana. 

*  St.  Paul's,  Eden,  Hancock  county,  Indiana. 

*  St.  John's,  Hagerstown,  Henry  county,  Indiana. 

*  North  Union,  Montgomery  county,  Indiana. 
St.  Peter's,  Chicago,  Cook  county,  Illinois. 
Wicker  Park,  Chicago,  Cook  county,  Illinois. 
St.  Mark's,  Chicago,  Cook  county,  Illinois. 
St.  Matthew's,  Chicago,  Cook  county,  Illinois. 
St.  James',  Chicago,  Cook  county,  Illinois. 
St.  Luke's,  Chicago,  Cook  county,  Illinois. 
Epiphany,  Chicago,  Cook  county,  Illinois. 
Atonement,  Chicago,  Cook  county,  Illinois. 
Redeemer,  Chicago  (Austin),  Cook  county,  Illinois. 
Holy  Trinity,  Elgin,  Kane  county,  Illinois. 
Redeemer,  Aurora,  Kane  county,  Illinois. 

Holy  Trinity  South  Bend,  St.  Joseph  county,  Indiana. 
First  English,  Mishawaka,  St.  Joseph  county,  Indiana. 
t  Hope,  Crisman,  Porter  county,  Indiana. 
Holy  Trinity,  La  Fayette,  Tippecanoe  county,  Indiana. 
St.  John's,  Nappanee,  Kosciusko  county,  Indiana. 
Our  Saviour,  Alexandria,  Madison  county,  Indiana. 
Zion's,  Walnut  Ridge,  Allen  county,  Indiana. 

Note.— Those  marked  *  have,  so  far  as  the  writer  has  been  able  to  learn, 
become  extinct.    Those  marked  t  left  the  synod. 


-     269    - 

St.  John's,  Hicksville,  Defiance  county,  Ohio. 

Lost  Creek,  near  Hicksville,  Defiance  county,  Ohio. 

St.  Paul's,  Detroit,  Michigan. 

Christ's,  Detroit,  Michigan. 

St.  Paul's,  West  Liberty,  Richland  county,  Illinois. 

Reformation,  Buckley,  Illinois. 

Ascension,  Chicago  Heights,  Illinois. 

Grace,  Woodstock,  Illinois. 

The  financial  showing  of  the  synod  is  commenda- 
ble. The  reports  upon  which  our  figures  are  based 
are  very  incomplete.  The  amounts  actually  contril)uted 
for  the  several  objects  enumerated  are  in  excess  of  the 
figures  here  given;  especially  is  this  true  of  the  general 
expense  credits,  and  of  the  contributions  of  the  Sunday 
schools.  The  expenditures  were  as  follows:  For  local 
congregational  expenses,  from  1871  to  1896,  inclusive, 
$235,999.19;  from  1897  to  1906,  inclusive,  $310,116.66, 
a  total  of  $546,1 15.8.5.  Contributions  by  the  Sunday 
schools  from  1871  to  1896,  inclusive,  $6,353.98;  from 
1897  to  1906,  inclusive,  $27,812.99,  total,  $34,116.S7. 
Contributed  for  home  missions  1871  to  1S96,  $2,414.32; 
from  1897  to  1906,  $14,454.96,  total,  $16,.S69.28.  For 
foreign  missions  1871  to  1896,  $870.98;  from  1897  to 
1906,  $2,503.70,  total,  $3,374.68.  For  all  other  objects, 
including  educational  institutions,  orphan  work,  church 
extension,  local  benevolence,  and  current  expenses,  from 
1871  to  1896,  $11,846.27;  from  1897  to  1906,  $37,167.23. 
total,  $43,013.50,  making  a  grand  total  of  $257.4S4.74 
from  1871  to  1896,  and  $336,872.93  from  1896  to  1906, 
and  a  grand  total  for  the  thirty-live  years  of  the  synod's 
history,  $643,490.18. 

The  numerical  growth  of  the  synod  is  indicated  by 
the  following  statistics:  In  1871  it  had  8  pastors,  23  con- 
gregations and  about  800  communicant  members,  and  I 


—    270    — 

Sunday  schools.  In  1896  it  had  23  pastors,  37  congrega- 
tions with  3,576  communicant  members,  31  Sunday 
schools,  with  343  teachers  and  2,871  pupils.  In  1872  the 
infant  baptisms  were  65,  and  accessions  36.  In  1896  the 
infant  baptisms  were  159,  and  accessions  349.  In  1906 
the  infant  baptisms  were  320  and  accessions  689,  and  the 
number  of  pastors  39,  congregations  57,  with  5,783  com- 
municant members,  48  Sunday  schools,  with  608  teach- 
ers, and  5,169  pupils.  The  total  number  of  infant  bap- 
tisms reported  is  5,687;  of  accessions  10,607. 


—    27J     — 

i'ummary  of  tl)C  JJarnrliial  iScpnrta. 


§ 

09 

1 

J  s 

1 

2 

1 

~  0) 

la 

U 

a 

c   0 

35 

3  a 

3  =  T. 

3^  X 

^ 

a 

3 

Ifl 

i  1 

'E 

11 

1 

lS| 

•■=5§ 
1*1 

m 

>1 

1 

0 

5S 

s5,  ^ 

5|^ 

<s 

5o<g 

8aS 

55i 

52i 

^1 

1871 

8 

21 

800 

1872 

9 

18 

892 

65 

36 

6 

290  00 

42  85 

1873 

14 

35 

1734 

140 

132 

13 

43 

408 

6708  00 

5  00 

1027  87 

1874,  llji38i  1921 

183  162' 16 

149 

12G5 

9852  44 

356  15 

1875  l(i4()2Ulli:i74  237  21 

164 

1370 

9787  70 

611  58 

lS7(iUr4u|  1973!  190  139191145 

1290 

13354  50 

336  00 

187711-)  39  2070 

118  170,13!  <n)|ii05 

7595  00 

161  00 

1878  15  45  2104 

13s  217  17' 135 

1180 

2608  48 

371  20 

1 879' l(i  2511711 

185!l6lil4!l22 

1100 

835  00 

16  80 

371  15 

issii  i:;-2(;  1954 

82 

158 

17129 

1155 

99  00 

214  00 

1!-M  14  2s  2106 

113 

117 

16  124 

1076 

4101  00 

331  85 

18S2  12  2.s,l!l01 

09 

71 

10  101 

807 

205  00 

85  55 

18S3  13  2t)2074 

135 

113 

15 

72 

741 

2845  00 

315  50 

18S4  l(i  31  2156 

139 

122 

15 

88 

947 

274  55 

337  95 

iss:,  k;  31  225*^  W;4'304 

18 

134 

1246 

4647  28 

65  00 

20  00 

424  33 

l^-<i  i:i;;'j-4i:)  l:;s308 

21 

155 

1507 

6766  73 

85  50 

30  00 

352  70 

iss;  11  ;;:;  J,-,!),;  i:;i)  379 

25 

176 

2012 

15853  77 

179  53 

55  00 

583  52 

l^>i^  16,32 

2T37il51i2'55i20 

150 

1811 

6075  00 

37  71 

22  00 

388  94 

18891 18 

32 

2811 

62  316  14 

137 

1595 

4637  00 

234  00 

50  00 

448  91 

1890|17 

31 

2939 

r23'279ll9!l02 

1780 

10134  59 

15  no 

14  00 

615  SO 

1891117 

30 

3107 

224348  19  174i2015 

903 

98j28261  30 

151  60 

53  25 

66S  60 

1892!  18 

30 

3129 

131,217  19  172,1880 

731 

54i  11775  02 

151  48 

75  56  j  626  48 

1893  19 

31 

3128!l5334024  177  2040 

800  40 1 13506  02 

89  40 

103  85 1  S50  00 

1894  18 

3413244  147  oCli  :;n -j-.-r, -54^ 

1166 

43  20857  00 

169  07 

86  60 

606  51 

1895  19 

33 

3428  14s  2111  -J'J  ■■■■\:   1524 

1620 

57,26869  72 

503  77 

157  40 

1081  89 

1896123 

37 

3576  159  :;r.i  :;i  -l-  JsTi 

ii:;i 

(10  179S0  07 

066  66 

186  52 

863  93 

1 897124 

41 

40331152  2;;- :;5  4  rj  :;.>:• 

1251; 

•J'.i  17459  s4 

493  S5 

100  01 

1719  79 

1898128 

43 

405l!l72  2!i-:>:;7s:;2^r 

Hiin 

:;•;  icfJOS  20 

563  51 

121  7511057  09 

189927 

44 

3879'119  274  44  41m;:Ms 

I'.t'j.'. 

111  1!»797  56 

703  07 

12s  27  1474  21 

1900  28 

48 

4002  200  37:i  39  464  ::5iil 

■j-j,;^ 

■.''J  :f2051  13 

920  20 

214  49  1047  18 

1901  32 

48 

40M3  161  433  31»  4:;9  3^1)1 

•jv.-.v 

1 J  25231  77 

1096  s!» 

2ti3  33  2092  28 

1902  33!4S'4237  2.I:;.-.17:;:;  112:;(;i4 

24  1 5 

li",  35137  97 

1273  Mi 

201  31  4077  91 

I903|3(i':.3  4t;<;:i2rj(iii  11  im  1259 

2917 

6(i401S4  6s 

156S  55 

212  11  2695  32 

1904;37  53.-.i;;n'j:ii  s(i-  1-j  :,t;-j  4r,ii4 

:!6!I0 

50  3HS33  14 

2070  17 

33s  s7  3406  3U 

19(l5;i^  57  5  1:;:,  :;  11  s:,;i  49  5S(;  4227 

H^s 

3S42331  63 

2643  ■:.-. 

;■:■:   ::;  3566  44 

1906  3!i  57  5>:;  :;-jii  (;S9  4M  6lis  516',) 

411(1 

S3  42416  74 

3121  i>:> 

l.M  ■:,;-s73  62 

1907  4(»  5>  5'.iNl  364  725  49  616  5366 

3sti3 

0.S46S34  S7 

2S23  t.il 

iu^   i-.,466»  09 

1908l37l59lU573l30ll80l|55l   16188 

3712  14199143  78 

2690  12 

349  90  5510  12 

PARSONAGE  OF  WICKER  PARK  CHURCH 
Chicago,  Illinois 


I  3  S 

^     n    a 


C/3      S    U     u 

U   -        ^ 


PARISH  HOUSE  ST.iLUKE'S  LUTHERAN.CHURCH 
Chicago,  Illinois 


PARSONAGE  ST.  LUKE'S  LUTHERAN  CHURCH 
Chicago,  Illinois 


REV.  J.  M.  SAPPENFIELD 


REV.  PAUL  HENKEL  AND  WIFE  ELIZABETH 
REV.  ANDREW  HENKEL,  REV.  M.  T.  STIREWALT,  D.  D. 


ST.  JAMES'  CHURCH 
Claremont,   Illinois 


ZION'S  LUTHERAN  CHURCH 
East  Germantown,  Indiana 


ST.  JACOB'S   CHURCH 

East  Germantown  Parish 

Indiana 


ST.  JOHN'S  LUTHERAN  CHURCH 
Chicago,  Illinois 


TRINITY  LUTHERAN  CHURCH 
LaFayette,  Indiana 


MT.  SOLOMON  LUTHERAN  CHURCH 
Corydon,  Indiana 


On  page  217,  lines  10  ami  11  from  bottom  should  read : 
Rev.  M.  M.  Groves,  1868.  License  expired  October  28,  1868. 
Rev.  R.  E.  McDaniel,  1870.     License  expired  August  10,  1870. 


mmmmm^^if,  ^d.<n 


w^^-^-^^^^^^Mmm 


MT.  SOLOMON  LUTHERAN  CHURCH 
Corydon,  Indiana 


/     'W3» 


'<- 


yr/: 


-<^:> 


^ 


<    ^ 


^>K   As  Ai 


V^l 


^\\