Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1880-06-04
A Gard.

UttIu Ii utC6SSdIy DIS uu0 W flyS0lI, rs
a member of the Lutheran Synod of Vir-
ginia and present AZ the late called meet
ing Of that body held at Staunton, to make
the following explanation in connection
with their descisions published in the
VALLEY Virginian last week, lest wrong
impression should be left upon the minds
of the public.
In doing this [ am violating no pledge of
secrecy, as this pledge ceased with the
| rendering of the decisions and publishing
them.
| It. might be inferred from these deci-
stems, that they went as far in their judg-
ment of the case as all desired, whereas l
| believe those decisions did not meet the
wishes of some members of Synod. L can
| say that they did not meet my wishes as
| will appear from the following statement:
| On the night before Synod adjourned
| whilst considering the report of the com
mittee, when we had reached that point
| where it is said: THAT such things as just
''cited an these specifications, Us established.
''call for expressions Of disapprobat5on and
sscensure from THIS body,'' | proposed that
this be added ''Hnd that he, Bee. Msller)
| be required to take back those harsh eGpfes-
sions Infamous Lar, 'UTn.itigated Liar
| and Unprincipled Man. and make On. &c
acknowledgement Of a0rong done brother
minister"
fused the following argument in con-
| nection with the motion offered, as a rea-
| son whyiit should be adopted, as will be
remembered by Synod:
| said Rev. H., was either guilty of the
charges involved in the harsh express
sions'' of Rev. Miller, Or he was not guilty.
If he was guilty, then he REV. FL. J was
| unfit to discharge te duties of the holy
Office of the ministry and Miller's lang
was true and we should require an ac-
acknowledgements and repentance on Rev.
| HIS part.
On the other hand, from the very nature
of the charges contained in M IS harsh ex-
presslons, if he (H.) was not guilty, then
the guilt of the very charges brought
against Rev. II rested upon him Rev. NJ. J
and this was the reason why the above
words should be added, requiring retiac
tion Of the harsh EXPRESSIONS" &c.
Moreover, could not see how Synod
could regard Rev. M. as innocent in the
matter. when they had just expressed dis
| appreciation and censure, as it is neither
| right nor customary to dssapprove Of and
censure an innocent person, and hence
there seemed to be no improperly in adj
| ding the penalty proposed.
The President OF Synod then remarked
| that my motion would come up as reso-
| luton at the close of the dt cision when
we reached the penalty, which he said
would be the sticking point"
On the next morning ] approached sew
eral members of Synod on the subject,
some of whom objected to my plan Of set
thing the matter. 1t was, therefore,
| dropped by me.
If my suggestion had been adopted, it
T ofrfxy ITO RI
! ent phase to the decisions of synod, as 1t
required nothing, of Rev. NJ, in view of
the ''harsh expressions he used, than
| what was manly, honorable and Christian
to make, and what was due Rev. II. and
just to the Church he serves. This. be-
lieve would have been satisfactory, on this
point, to the Council and Congregation of
the Staunton Lutheran Church.
Some Others thought as cid, but as to
what. they would have done if the commit
tee had brought in the resolution alluded
to the night before as penalty l could
not say.
I have nothing to say against those who
could not go as far as | could and would
| have gone had we not been in the minori-
| ty IN settling this most unpleasant matter
| that has ever occurred in the history Of
our Synod, / allow to others the same
privilege to think and act for themselves
which | want them to accord to me. ITO
err is human, to forgive, divine"
am the friend of both, the one having
been classmate at college, and the other
a pupil, and have endeavored to act i'm
partially, and according to the testimony
in the case.
[ deem this card as due to the Staunton
Lutheran Church, and as necessary to pre-
vent Others from taking a wrong view of
my course in this unpleasant matter, and
I vOluntarilg make this statement.
J. M. SCHRECKHISE.
P. SIN reference to the cor Guiding
sentence of the Synodical report-after
| long and tedious labor as stenographer for
Synod-the bearing of this clause being
understood by me, as not applicable to
any other than the Resolution placing the
two gentlemen under the, care OF the
| church council voted under that i'm
preston, and saw the mistake only after it
was too late to remedy it.
J. M. S.