David Henkel - Carolinian Herald of Liberty

Ken McGuire

In the report from the 1820 NC Synod, they had expelled David Henkel, but sent an invitation to his older brother Philip to rejoin them. And while this booklet is SAYS it is about the proposed General Synod, it becomes obvious to me at least that, while it does have some critiques about the proposed General Synod, the major issue here is the legitimacy of the ordination of David Henkel back in 1819. It includes an oration by David to show him as a capable speaker, a Report of their 1819 "Synod", a defense against the charges against David Henkel, and a defense for not joining in the 1820 Synod - namely that they had become hetrodox with regards to the sacraments.

The Oration does raise some important points about the "plan-proposal". But more than a few of the complaints are much less valid for the General Synod as actually implemented, since it was made advisory only. In my opinion, David Henkel overstates his case and does use a bit of inflammatory language. Much of this would be good for oral debate - and this officially an Oration. His best points are when he shows that the proposed rules need to be clarified on some points. But I have a hard time viewing this as anything more than an old historical debate.

As sympathetic as I am to the Henkel family recovering and proclaiming Lutheran views on the sacraments, I have a hard time not looking at the 1819 Synod as a publicity stunt. And as to the defense against the charges against David is not really that clear - largely because the exact charges are not clear in this work.

Where I indeed have sympathy for this work is as the last "Reasons" section goes on. It starts with legal arguments that aren't really that interesting to me. But on page 46, and for the rest of the work, there is a theological and exegetical study of the sacrament of the altar - a study that I can recognize as specifically Lutheran, unlike what I see in their opponents.

The main source of this PB is the scan at https://archive.org/details/carolinianherald01henk/ but a few places things were filled in from https://archive.org/details/carolinianherald00henk/. But these seem to be scans of the same print copy in the Duke library, and there is physical damage to the book. Some lacunae have been filled by looking at the bible verse quoted. And some are my best construction of the smear I see on the screen. I have not notated where I have made these readings in this text. There are two places where I gave up at finding any reading. First off, on the title page, where the subtitle is faded out such that I dare not guess. And second, in the address of the Conclusion.

The work ends with an Errata. I have corrected the text based upon this. But I have not modernized the spellings, nor done any editorial revision where the source seems clear.

Rodney Phillips

Thanks!