The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1876-02-03
Communicated
THAT HIGH-HANDED ECCLESI-
ASTICAL OUTRAGE" AND FACTS
THERETO PERTA LNING.

The author or authors of the article
which appeared in your columns of the
9th ult., under the above caption, must
not be so certain as to the slightest exag-
geration thereof-else why hide behind
a nom de plume and labor under so great
"aggravation" to create sensation and
elevate sell, when a Christian name
would at least have revealed more candor
and fairness?
As to theold Joint Synod of Ohio being
ultra-symbolical and most rigidly exclu-
sive and sectarian, we would simply ask:
When did our Lut eran Church ever be.
come a sect ?-and say to this slur, what
insect would call the Lutheran Church
sect?
We will now refer the reader to some
facts in the case, from which he may
judge whether the author of the article
in your paper stated nothing but the
truth, necessary to form correct judg-
ment concerning our actions:
The family as stated, was not visited
by us, yet il the author would have pos
sessed some desire to inform the public
rightly, he would have first asked why
was this not doneP Our connection with
the charge has continued but little over
year, and having such a large field, it
cannot be imputed as neglect of duty
if we have not visited this family, or
even this dangerously sick member, as
we had no knowledge of her condition or
request so to do. And having had no
proper opportunity of becoming ac-
quainted with the family, and therefore
could say nothing pro or con concerning
them, we cannot understand how the
unfortunate author of said article could
take it upon himself to declare that we
had expressed ourselves concerning the
family in such way as to ALLEVIATE them
from us or their church."
How much the family desired the said
X. to preach, may be known from the
fact that some other minister had been
asked first, who, for some reasons I'M
known to us, did not attend. That an
other minister was at all desired, sprang
not from the love or preference to him,
but from enmity and hatred cherished
by parties opposed to us, which enmity
and hatred any one who will read the
Bible will know how much o encourage.
The procession was met on the way by
us, which resulted not from the foul in
tent of waiting and watching" as your
author would impute to us, but because
we had missed the right road. That we
introduced ourself to K. is alsoa mistake,
as some one else can testify. Again it is
said we gave X. no attention. Our seats
being free to all, and believing person
in the house of God ought to
know that he is welcome to any pew.
Had we suspected the strait in which las
the author of said article implies) X.
stood, we would in all kindness have
helped him to seat, as we did to a hymn
book.
The references had to the sermon are
partly true and partly f,lse. We did
speak of the relation of the church mem.
Der to the pastor, and there showed the
duties which Gods Word enjoins, but
did not say that family had no right
under any circumstances whatever to in
vite another minister to come and take
part whatever in the service of such an
occasion, but that a family had no right
to interfere with his office. /. e., to set
him aside and choose another new pas
tor, no ore than to forbid him to preach
the Word of God, Nor is it true that we
expressed a confident belief that she was
for heaven solely upon the
ground "that she had been baptized when
a babe" but we did say that she was
through which baptism the
Holy Spirit in His way administered to
her spiritual wants according to the
measure of her abilities unto the end of
life. Other references picked out and
torn from their connection do not convey
the correct sense OF the discourse. The
bigotry, impudence and ungentlemanli-
ness of which we are accused, can be
looked over by us in that charity which
hopeth all things. After all was over we
offered no apology to K, nor did we de-
sire him to offer any to the family.
When he insisted on his going back to
the house, however, we tried to impress
this upon is mind: to show by his
words and acts that he came not to inter-
fere with the duties of our pastoral Office
Finally, the author is mistaken in re-
gard to the "forcible means" to prevent
his preaching, unless by such forcible
means he meant the public declaration
to the congregation, that if X. insisted
on preaching we, as pastor, would not be
responsible for what the gentleman said,
as he holds doctrine essentially differ
ent from that which we and our church
hold and teach, and therefore, according
to the Word of God, cam ssnever consent
to have ecclesiastical fellowship with
him. ]. HUMBERGER.