Robert W. Woodruff
Library
Special Collections
emory university
BOTH SIDES.
A
THE HEY. THOMAS STRINGFIELI).
containing
REMARKS ON HIS STATEMENTS RESPECTING A
CONTROVERSY HE HAD AT ROGERSVILLE IN
FEBRUARY, 1826.
BTT JAMBS GALLAHEE,
preceded bv
MR. MANSON'S AND MR. STRINGFIELD'S STATEMENTS,
"Lying lips are abomination to the Lord." Solomon.
tf KNOXVILLE REGISTER OFFICE.
PRINTED BY
& Hroton.
1827.
When the controversy noticed . in these pages took place,
it was not my design to trouble the public with book or pamphlet
on the subject. Indeed, I was not aware, that Mr. Stringfield
and I were such great men that the distant inhabitants of the
earth might well afford to give their time and attention to our
dispute. A disposition to overrate our own importance, is a
common frailty of human nature. A petty chief, in the wilds
of Africa, seated under a tree, having three or four savages,
armed with war-clubs around him, as a life guard, being visited by
some French travellers, asked, with an air of great dignity, "Do
they talk much about me in France?" A conceited young man
stepped into thethreatre in London at the same moment that the
King entered, and was overjoyed to see the whole assembly in¬
stantly rise, not doubting but the honor was all intended for Mm
Glendower was confident, that on his account
" The front of Heaven was full of fiery shapes;
" The frame and huge foundation of the earth
" Shaked like a coward."
I was not aware, let me repeat it, that Mr. S. and I, were
men of such consequence, that the human race at large, would
wish to know about our dispute; but as he has thought other¬
wise, and he and 1 differ on so many other subjects, I believe
'I will not dispute with him about this. Had his publication
circulated only where the facts are known, or where he is
known, no publication of mine would have appeared. His
statements have been read by the people here; he has even
taken up the subject in the pulpit and told a long story about what
was said and done on the day of the controversy with his usual
accuracy, and yet, before my congregation, I have never found
it necessary to contradict one of his assertions, or even to men¬
tion his name, for the people were present, and saw and heard
for themselves, and have as much confidence in their own
eyes and ears as they have in Mr. S's. If a falsehood came
out, they knew it at once, and could contradict it themselves.
4t a distance, however, where facts were not known, stories, with
"seven heads and ten horns," like the dragon which John saw,
have been circulated concerning the controversy. Mr. S's. pa¬
per also was circulated, breathing complaints to excite sympathy
in behalf of the unfortunate man. "Every advantage was ta-
6
was about an anonymous pamphlet, entitled '( A Useful
Discovery ," or u I never saw the like beforeMr.
Gallaher making this pamphlet his pretext, on the sab¬
bath after our quarterly meeting, preached one of the most
abusive sermons that had almost ever been heard, ancl
from report, I was led to believe that the pulpit bad not
been lately disgraced with such low scurrility, at least
within my acquaintance ; and I think the correctness of
this opinion will be admitted by all who will attend to
the following recital of facts.
1st. He compared the Methodist preachers to an incen¬
diary, who would, under the mask of friendship, set fire
to his neighbor's house, when absent, for the purpose of
burning it down- 2dly. He said the Methodist preachers
had always endeavored to make an impression on the
public mind that they received nothing for preaching;
he never knew better until three or four years ago, but
the secret had leaked out at last; that they had taxed all
their members, even down to the negroes. This secret,
he said,had gotout by aslave havingapplied to the fami¬
ly for money to pay her tax. He persisted in this abusive
strain for some 'time. As it related to the pamphlet,
my understanding was, that the'Rev. Thomas String-
field was charged with being the author. This I knew
was not correct, for I had seen it seven years before. At
this time I had never heard who was concerned in its
rc-publication, but was, by some means, impressed with a
belief, that it was the |lev. G. Atkin of Knoxville ; but
being that night at Dr. Garden's, and conversing about
the pamphlet, the particulars of the conversation, (see his
certificate below,) connected with some other circum¬
stances, entirely satisfied my mind that the Rev. James
G. H. Spear was the person who had it re-published ;
and I was so fully satisfied of this, that I thought it my
duty to inform the public, and that Mr. Stringfield was
unjustly censured. I therefore went the next day to Mr.
G's meeting in the court-house, though contrary to the
wish of the most of my friends with whom I conversed
on the subject, for it was strongly suspected that his
principal design was to excite prejudice, and to produce
a final separation between the members of the different
churches ; that he had laid hold on the pamphlet for that
purpose, and that any attempt I could make to give satis¬
faction would but exasperate him, and this I afterwards
found to be the case.
Ho\Vever, after he had nreachcd. ne stated to the
gregation, that, I wished to make some remarks, and,
giving me an opportunity to speak, 1 made in substance
the following observations : That I was authorized to say
that Mr. Stringfield was not the author of the pamphlet;
it being written in Kentucky twenty years ago or upwards,
in the time of a warm controversy : that it was an indivi¬
dual that wrote it, and that it was an anonymous publi¬
cation, and as such I would neither defend it or condemn
it, as the doctrine it exposed, was preached at the time of
its origin in a more open manner than it is at the present
time, and as it related to the re-publication, I think my
words were, that I was prepared to say that Mr. String-
field was not the man who had it re-printed. I then
gave an opinion that a controversy would be beneficial,
if conducted in a proper spirit, and concluded with
expressing a wish, that ridicule, and personal abuse, &c.
might be avoided, and that the controversy should be
carried on in a friendly and christian manner. Mr.
Gullaher then rose, and wished to know who it was, if
it was a Methodist preacher or preachers, that bad it
republished, and wished I would tell them whether they
would be censured by the church? To this I replied:
I thought not, for it was an anonymous publication, and
that it was too broad a ground to occupy, and moreover,
if the persons concerned are to be censured, by the same
rule, others would have to be censured too, for they had
a piece published in Knoxville about five years ago, that
was in every respect, as abusive as the pamphlet, if not
worse. As Mr. Gallaher knew that he was supposed to
be the author of that scurrilous piece, he pressed the
subject no farther.
The next evening Mr. Stringfield came to Rogersviile,
and hearing what, had transpired, he informed the Rev.
Mr. White, Dr. Rubel and others, that he was concerned
in the re-publication of the pamphlet in question. Of this
Mr. Gallaher was soon apprized, and used (as will be
seen presently) it as a pretence to destroy my character;
for when I saw him the next sabbath at Providence
Meeting-house, he charged me with having told a down¬
right, most glaring untruth, and saying many harsh things,
assuming a very supercilious air, as if he was lording it
over a dependant, with the demeanor of a bully among
the buffers, he observed, "be ashamed—be ashamed,"
and after repeatedly urging that I should acknowledge
that I had told an untruth, he then refused to let me
explain myself, or make any defence before the congre-
s
gation. Mr. Stringfield hearing as he passed through
town, that Mr. Gallaher had appointed a day to finish
his controversial sermon, in which he had made a violent
attack upon the doctrines and preachers of the M. E. C.,
left an appointment to preach in town the day before, and
also stated that he would reply the next day to Mr. Galla-
her*s arguments, either before the dismissal of the con¬
gregation, or in the evening, by this means Mr. Gallaher,
Mr. Stringfield and myself were present. Mr. Gallaher
preached, and then proceeded to a lengthy detail, the
true character of which was uncharitable, and highly
censorious : fixing the most strained construction on every
thing said by me, and when he had ended his invectives,
proceeded to other remarks, without giving me an oppor¬
tunity to say a word, having in his harrangue,for a purpose
of his own, substituted the word "concerned," for the
word man. By which my meaning was entirely misre¬
presented.
I had said, that I felt myself prepared to say " that Mr.
Stringfield was not the man that had the pamphlet repub¬
lished he stated that I said " Mr. Stringfield was no
ways concerned with il." When Mr. Gallaher was done
Mr. Stringfield rose and gave assurance of my inno¬
cence, and told the congregation I was prepared to make
it appear; and he expressed a wish, that I should be
allowed to defend myself, I rose to my feet to do so, at
which time Mr Galiaher interposed and the altercation
was kept up between him and Mr. Stringfield, by which
means I was prevented from speaking.
The subjoined is a copy of the certificate given by Dr.
Garden, which I held in my hand, and intended reading*
to the congregation if an opportunity had been given.
" This morning I was called on by the Rev. Wm, S. Manson
to make a statement of the conversation that took place con¬
cerning an anonymous pamphlet that is in circulation and has
produced so much excitement. Mr. Manson was all night at
tnv house on the 21st of January, 1826, and at that time- a
conversation took place relative to this pamphlet that appears
to be in dispute. Mr. Manson observed that such a pamphlet
he had seen several years ago, but he did not know who had it
re-published, but thought it was probable that it was Mr. Atkin.
I then told Mr. Manson that I had been informed that Mr.
Spear (who is the son-in-law of Mr. John O'Brien) was the
man that had the pamphlet re-published, and that he had of them
in the store at the Boat-Yard, for sale; and as 1 understood the
man that gave me the information, he told me that the said
9
O'Brien told him that Mr. Spear had the pamphiet republished,
and had them in the store for sale.
» JOSEPH CARDEN.
"Feb. 4th,'1826.",
The conversation alluded to in the above certificate,
brought to my recollection the fact that I had seen Mr.
Spear at Camp-meeting the fall before, with some of
these pamphlets for sale, and from these circumstances, I
felt authorized to state, as I did, on the next day, that
Mr. Stringfield was not the man who had bad the
pamphlet re-published; I afterwards found, however, that
Mr. Spear was not the only person concerned, but he
proposed its re-publication, and uniting with Mr. String-
field, the Rev. G. Horn and the Rev. J. R. Smith, paid
for the printing of it.
These are the facts, which Mr. Gallaher refused to
receive as a satisfactory solution of the whole matter and
manifesting apparently the most anxibus solicitude to fix
an indelible stigma on my character, at the same time
insinuating that there was an understanding between
Mr. Stringfield and myself in relation to this pamphlet
that Mr. Stringfield had sent me to make the
statement that I had made in his congregation. After
the congregation was dismissed on the last sabbath allud¬
ed to, he exhibited to the congregation a certificate, stating
that he held in his hand a certificate against Mr. Manson
in relation to the pamphlet, but as he did not wish to in jure
any man's character, he would not read it if we would
drop the subject. Mr. Stringfield, knowing that it was
his object to leave an unfavorable impression on the
minds of the people, asked him to read it; observing
that we had no desire to be excused from any such con¬
sideration. That I only wanted an opportunity to explain
the facts, in order to remove all difficulty from the minds
of every unprejudiced person.
Mi*. Gallaher then offered to give a copy of the certifi¬
cate to Mr. Stringfield, that he might investigate my cha¬
racter.
That the reader may see more clearly the fallacy of the
charge and the evidence upon which it was based, he is
here presented with a copy of the certificate :
" George Mountcastle stated to me that if Manson said Stiing-
field had no hand in the publication of that pamphlet, he was
mistaken and knew better. R. H. MITCHELL."
That a certificate of the above ridiculous description
10
should be presented by Mr. Gallaher to the congregation
With a view of injuring my character, proves incontesti-
bly the futility of the allegation. One man certifies that
another man said, Manson knew he was telling a false¬
hood ! It may be proper here to observe that Mr.
Mountcastle, says he was misunderstood by Mr. Mitch¬
ell; Mr. Mitchell substituting the past tense " knew
better," for the present " knows better." This removes
all appearance of difficulty between Mr. Mitchell and
Mr. Mountcastle, and fully exonerates me from the charge
of prevarication or a misstatement of facts ; for at the
time Mr.Mountcastle made this statement to Mr. Mitchell,
I knew better, having then heard that Mr. Stringfield
was concerned.
There are other particulars not noticed, but these are
the most important. And I now appeal to an enlightened
and impartial community to decide whether Mr. Gallaher
has had just ground to found the charge of falsehood
and how far justifiable in the course he has pursued
towards me ?
W. S. MANSON.
PROM THE WESTERN ARMIV1AN FOR APRIL, 1826.
A STATEMENT OF FACTS
Jn relation to a late controversy in Rogersville, Tennessee, between
the Rev, James Gallaher, Rev. Wm. S. Manson and myself.
Thomas Stringfield.
On the last Friday and Saturday in December, and
the 1st Sunday in January last; as stated by the Rev.
W. S. Manson in our March number, we had a quarter¬
ly meeting in Rogersville, at which the members of the
Presbyterian and Methodist Churches united, with cor¬
dial affection, to worship at the same altar, and celebrate
the supper of their common Lord and Saviour. All was
peace and christian harmony from first to last. I left,
Rogersville the Monday after quarterly meeting, and went
on to my regular appointments. On the 20th and 21st of
the same month, 1 had a quarterly meeting at Pactolus,
near Kingsport, on my way from which to Knoxville, I
called in Rogersville, Monday evening the 23d, and was
surprised to hear that Mr. Gallaher, a Hopkinsion min*
11
ister of that place, had come out against the preachers and
doctrines of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the most
violent manner. The pretext for this warm attack, was,
an anonymous pamphlet which had been re-printed
a few months before, three or four of which had been
left in Rogersville by the Rev. George Horn, a few days
after ourquarterly meeting in that place. This pamphlet
had for its motto,"A useful discovery"or, "I never saw the
like before." Mr. Gallaher got hold of one of these, and
carrying it into his congregation held it upas one of the
most disgraceful things that could be written, and also as
a violent attack upon the Presbyterian church. He so
managed the business, as to give the people to understand
that I was the guilty person. He mentioned no names;
but the people were not difficulted to understand him; in¬
asmuch as he alluded to our jpretended friendship at our
quarterly meeting and contrasted jt' with abetting, &c.
the pamphlet in question. See Mr. Manson's narrative
in the March number. Mr. Manson believing me to be
entirely unconnected with the authorship, and re-publi¬
cation of the pamphlet, and wishing to remove all occa¬
sion of separation between the two churches, went to Mr.
G's congregation and said as narrated by himself.—This
he did, not because the pamphlet was so hateful a thing
as Mr. G. had represented it; but merely to check the
rage of Mr. G. by removing from him the only pretext
he had for so wanton an attack. This unfortunate, though
well meant effort of Mr. Manson's to restore peace, be¬
came however, a snare, and was so pressed by Mr. G.
and his friends, both in public and private, as to repre¬
sent his being guilty of "gross falsehood," and worthy of
the highest censure in the Church. It gave rise also, to
the following letter of Mr. Gallaher to Dr. Rubell, a
member of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Ro¬
gersville.
"Rogersville, January 23, 1826.
Dr. Rubell.—Mr. Manson and others of the Metho¬
dist connection appear desirous to satisfy the members of
the Presbyterian church, that they have no reason to com¬
plain of the conduct of the Rev. T. Stringfield, in relation
to the pamphlet of which Mr. Manson spoke yesterday,
the motto of Which is "I never saw the like before."
If Mr. Stringfield is not censurable, it ought, in justice to
him, to be known. I now propose, that if Mr. String-
field will state on paper that his influence in no way
contributed to the re-publication of that pamphlet; that
12
he did not give his approbation to its re-publication; that
he has had no agency in giving it circulation, and that he
disapproves of its re-publicatioQ and circulation; if he
will put these things on paper and forward them to me
by you or any of his friends, I will, injustice to his good
name, as a gentleman and a christian, publish his state¬
ments to my congregation.
JAMES GALLAHER."
As I knew that the character of the pamphlet was not
what Mr. Gallaher had represented it to be, "an attack
upon the Presbyterian Church," and if it even were, that
I had never had one of them within twenty miles of his
congregation, I was really at a loss' to know why I
should be considered "censurable" as having given Mr.
Gallaher's congregation "just reasons to complain/"
and why I should be under any obligations to him or his
congregation to clear myself of the dreadful charge of
its republication or circulation! Another "new and
strange thing under the sun," was, Mr. Gallaher's great
solicitude for my "good name," he kindly offered, to pub¬
lish my innocence to his congregation! This mysterious
kindness of Mr. Gallaher will be understood when it is
known, that he had it in his power to prove that I had
presented one of these pamphlets to a Presbyterian lady
at least one hundred miles from that place! His kind
solicitude to declare my innocence, therefore, was a
stronger desire to involve my character. The above let¬
ter, not being directed to myself, but designed to reach
me in an oblique way, together with other considera¬
tions, I finally concluded, after consulting with some of
my brethren, not to answer it, but hearing that Mr. Gal¬
laher had made many boisterious threats, and fully
intended to "destroy our doctrines," and "tear up our
church government, root and branch," I concluded to
attend in person, and speak for myself. He had preached
two virulent sermons against us, and had promised to
finish one of them, the Sunday week after I was there;
and having no appointment on that day, I concluded to
meet him at that time, and, if he would allow me the
opportunity to answer his arguments before the congre¬
gation was dismissed; and if he was unwilling to that, I
would answer him in the evening of the same day. I
informed the friends of this, and also left an appointment
to preach the day before his appointment. I hesitated
not one moment, however, to ^inform the friends, that I
was concerned in the re-publication of the " odious
13
pamphlet" and that I was prepared at any time to defend
it. Of this circumstance Mr. Mahson was not apprised,
nor indeed were many others, 'till afterwards. After this
however, it was soon spread abroad, and Mr. Gallaher
used it to ruin the character of Mr. Manson; and also, to
triumph over me, supposing that he had me ensnared; or,
to use his own words, "that he had caught the big fish,"
speaking, I suppose, ironically.
I went up to Rogersville the Friday evening before
the appointment, and was told that Mr. Gallaher's recent
conduct, together with his general treatment of the Me¬
thodist preachers, justified a belief that he would give me
no opportunity of replying to his arguments, but that he
would preach, dismiss the congregation, and retire, with
as many as he could influence to follow him. I desired
nothing but fair dealing, and as he had carried things so
far, I was resolved to contend for it. I determined,
therefore, to bring him to the tribunal of enlightened
public sentiment, and hold him responsible to an enlight¬
ened community for his conduct. I addressed him the
following letter, early on the Saturday morning of my
appointment to preach.
" Rogersville, Feb. 4. 1826.
" Rev. James Gallaher,
"Dear Sir—Having understood that you are resolved to
continue, according to previous appointments, your warm dis¬
cussion of controverted doctrines, 1 would be glad to have an
opportunity of replying to your arguments immediately after
the close of your sermon to-morrow. The liberal manner in
which you used my name before your congregation, in my
absence, and also, the request you made in your letter to Dr.
Rubeli, that I would state certain things on paper, and forward
them to you, that " in justice to my good name as a gentleman
and a christian " (to use your own words,) you might publish
them to your congregation, are sufficient reasons why I should
be allowed to speak for myself. As truth has nothing to fear
from liberal discussion, I trust you will afford me an opportunity
of doing so. As some of the country people will he in town to
hear both sermons, and the day will be sufficiently long, no good
reason can be assigned why they should not both be delivered
before the dismission of the congregation.
Should you not be disposed to grant this reasonable request,
you will confer a'favor by publishing my appointment at two
o'clock, P. IM. As I have an appointment to preach to day at
11 o'clock, and wish to publish the order of to-morrow, I shall
be glad to receive an immediate answer to this, by letter.
" Yours, respectfully*
«THOS RTRINfiFIF.r/n.'5
14
The Rev. George White conveyed the above letter
directly to him; and, after spending some time in con¬
versation with him, returned without a written answer,
but with a promise that I should have one in the evening.
I retained a copy of the letter I had written him, and
read it to the congregation on Saturday, with accompany¬
ing remarks, stating my reasons for acting as I did and
intended to do; and also, why I brought the whole affair
before the public in that manner: namely, (as I have
stated above,) that 1 might hold Mr. Gallaher bound
before an enlightened public, to treat me as a " gentleman
and a christian," (repeating his own words) until I should
forfeit my claims to such treatment, by ungentlemanly
and unchristian conduct.
Mr. Gallaher came to Rogersville that evening, and
consulting popular opinion, as it is thought, found it
would not do to refuse my request; he therefore, sent me
the following note :
" Rogersville, Feb. 4, 1826.
" Rev. T. String field,
" Sir—You can have the privilege of preaching to-morrow
before the congregation is dismissed, according to your request.
"Yours, &c.
"JAMES GALLAHER."
The next resort was to take every advantage of the
approaching contest. The appointment had been pub¬
lished to be at the court-house ; but soon on Sunday
morning it was removed to the Presbyterian church.—
About this I was not consulted, but was under the pain¬
ful necessity of disappointing the people; hundreds of
whom had come to town, from the surrounding country,
to hear the sermons, or I must answer Mr. Gallaher in
his own house.
I went to the church, however, in company with seve¬
ral other preachers, at 11 o'clock, the time at which I
heard that divine service was to commence. The wea¬
ther was cold, but there was a large congregation, assem¬
bled in a cold, unfinished house, not even having any
shutters to the doors or windows, only as some of them
had been partially closed by bed covers, to keep out the
piercing wind. The congregation sat trembling with
cold 'till about twenty minutes before 12 o'clock, the
time, as I afterwards learned, at which Mr. Gallaher was
to commence divine worship. He finally came into the
house with Mr. Ross, a Presbyterian preacher, from the
neighborhood of Kingsport, He used no means to find
\5
me out, or to be introduced to me, we having never seen
each other. Two chairs only were provided, there being
no seats in the temporary pulpit, and these were occupied
by Mr. Gallaher and Mr. Ross. I discovered immedi¬
ately that Mr. Gallaher designed to treat me with neg¬
lect, not to say with contempt. Let ministers of the
gospel, who can feel, imagine how I felt!—In a strange
congregation—in a Presbyterian church, pledged to the
public to answer Mr. Gallaher's sermon ; but not favored
even with the formalities of an introduction to his stand ;
and I must either go there without such introduction, or
recede from my intentions I determined, however, not
to be defeated, and soon after he commenced preaching I
went boldly into the stand, that the congregation might
know I was " ready at my post."
He commenced divine service as usual, and continued
the sermon which he had commenced two weeks before,
on Psalm xcvii. 1,2," The Lord reigneth," &c. In his
introductory remarks, he apologized to the congregation
for his former warmth, by informing them that he was
" imperfect, very imperfect—imperfect as a man—imper¬
fect as a christian—and imperfect as a minister of the
gospel"—that he " sinned every day of his life," &c. &c.
He then proceeded, briefly, to recapitulate the proposi¬
tions and principal arguments of his former sermon. I
thought he seemed, in some measure, embarrassed, or
angry, but having never seen or heard him preach before,
I was not prepared to judge. After preaching about
an hour and twenty or thirty minutes, he closed his ser¬
mon. But instead of giving place to me, that I might
answer his arguments while they were fresh in the minds
of the hearers, he, as if anxious to divert the attention of
the people from them, and to confuse my mind as much
as possible, brought up the business of the pamphlet
alluded to above. And then, dismissing the pamphlet,
directed his attention entirely to my case, and exerted all
the energies of his soul to prejudice the congregation
against me. He wandered from his sermon, from the
pamphlet, and from every thing connected with the
business of that day, and seemed desirous to direct the
whole to a personal attack upon my character. He
said I had attached him eighteen months ago, in a paper
published by me in Huntsville, that I had attacked Mr.
Harden, a peaceable Presbyterian Preacher, that I had
attacked Mr. Anderson of Maryville, Mr. Eagleton of
Kingston, and that I had gone so far in a sermon preached
16
at a Camp-Meeting in Greene county, as to call ^some
lady an "up-start" alluding, as a gentleman thought, to
Mr. Gallaher ! He represented me as a general persecu¬
tor of the Presbyterians, wherever I went. With this
course of mme^.he contrasted his eivn, that he was a man
of peace, (giving a short history of his ministry among
them,) but that he had been forced to defend himself in
the manner he did. He stated farther that he never had
gone to Methodist meetings, to their camp-meetings, &c.
&c. to pick a quarrel with them. He even appealed in a
crying way to their sympathies. He thanked God that
the time had passed by, in which the Presbyterians were
consumed in the flames of persecution for the glorious
doctrines they embraced. He managed this in the most
artful way, ranking the Presbyterians and their preach¬
ers with Christ and his apostles , and his persecutors
with theirs ; this he did without mentioning names ; but
all persons of discernment understood him. He spoke as
pathetically of the persecutions of the Presbyterians, as if
the Methodists had actually burnt, or hung some of them
for their religious tenets. One of the most ungenerous
parts of Mr. Gallaher's treatment towards me, was, his
alluding to the circumstance of my following him to his
own Church to answer him: this he did twice or three
times on that day, and again, two weeks afterwards.—
The circumstance of their removing the appointment
from the court-house to his church, may easily be looked
over on the ground of the congregation being too large to
be accommodated in the court-house, and the removal
Was considered partially necessary by Mr. Gallaher's
friends; but for Mr. Gallaher to allude to my going to
his church, and treat it as an instance of persecution on
my part, was certainly highly exceptionable ; and that
he did this, at least, indirectly, is well known to those
who were present on the occasion. In the above ungen¬
erous strain Mr. Gallaher went on 'till about two o'clock
in the evening. Four long hymns had been sung, two
lengthy prayers had been offered up, a tolerably lengthy
Sermon had been preached, and a long train of personal
abuse had been introduced, by which the Sermon had
been lost sight of, and the prejudice of the whole congre¬
gation directed against me !
Mr. Gallaher then permitted me to speak, observing to
the congregation, that he reserved to himself the privilege
of resuming the stand again after I was done.
I was chilled with cold and So hoarse, by reason thereof,
17
as to be scarcely able to ,extend my voice to the extremi¬
ties of so large a congregation: the hearers were also,
very disagreeably situated ; but under all these disadvan¬
tages, I appeared before them; and endeavored, first,
briefly to notice his personal remarks, and then to answer
his arguments. How far it was done to the satisfaction
of the congregation, they only can determine, and to
them the whole is cheerfully submitted.
After I was done, he answered all the arguments I had
advanced, by saying " They had been used long ago by
the Unitarians!!!'7 A masterly stroke this! Thit?
sweepirig argument, it is thought, was given him by Mr,
Ross, who had just whispered in his ear, and it is quite
probable, for Mr. Ross repeated the substance of it in his
Sermon the same night in the court house.
I made a few remarks in reply, by permission of Mr.
Gallaher who told me to be brief; I intended to be so,
not only because he requested it; but because I did not
wish to enter into a personal dispute with him, who, I
plainly saw, was ripe for it. From first to last, I made
no allusions to Mr. Gallaher's uncharitable remarks about
the Methodist preachers " taxing their members, even
down to the negroes," or their being "like a man that
would burn down your house, after great pretensions of
friendship." I knew that it would have been easy to
rouse the feelings Of his friends, and disqualify them for
attending to a sober discussion of doctrines. Indeed,
though I had it in my power to re-echo the charges of
persecution, with severe retort, I felt no disposition to do
so, I said not one word about the attack he had made on
our doctrines about two years ago, and the palpoble
manner in which he bad misrepresented Messrs. Wesley
and Fletcher, picking up scraps of sentences from their
writings, and so using them as to make them contradict
the context; as any person may see, who will compare
the quotations in Mr. Gallaher's sermon with the pages
of Fletcher's Cheeks which he cites.
In short, many things might have been said that was
not, merely to avoid altercation.
Mr. Ross preached the same evening in the court-house,
and noticed some of the arguments I had used in the
day. Some of them he either did not understand, or
designedly misstated. I asked liberty to reply, but Mr.
Gallaher contended that I should not, and Mr. Ross, who
at first consented, finally refused, and published his reason
for doing so, to the congregation; which was, what Mr
18
Gallaher iiad stated that day, namely, that his i: granting
a Methodist preacher the privilege of answering him in
a Presbyterian church, was not to be considered as a
precedent, for he should not feel himself under obligations
to do so any more." After the congregation was dismiss¬
ed, however, I made a few friendly remarks, and we all
retired with feelings of cheerfulness.
Before the congregation retired I published a two days
meeting to be in Rogersville the 18th and 19th of March,
Mr. GaUaher had, that day, published to preach two
weeks afterwards on Church government, but he put off
his appointment four weeks longer and made it on the
same day of our two days meeting. One object with
him, of late, appears to be, to keep his members from
hearing our ministers preach, as though he either sus¬
pected the good sense of his brethren, or the superiority
of Methodist doctrines or talents. He has shifted his
appointments several times so as to hold them on the
same days that our travelling preachers attend near his
congregations.
Our two days meeting came on, and we attended ac¬
cording to appointment. We had a large congregation
and a profitable meeting, especially in love feast, Sunday
morning, when two persons became probationers in the
church, and the power of God was felt among his people.
The Saturday of this two days meeting I made some
remarks about the rise, progress, and present state of the
controversy; Mr. Gallaher heard of this, and on the
Wednesday following came to the Rev. George White's,
where I had been confined to my room by reason of
sickness, from the Sunday evening of the two days
meeting 'till that time, and wished to know whether I
was willing to talk the whole business over, in order to a
proper understanding of certain things which he thought
I had misstated the Saturday before. My bad state of
health, together with a belief that his object was not so
much to have an understanding, as it was to get some
advantage of me, caused me at first to refuse ; but I
afterwards, contrary to the wish of two physicians who
attended me, consented, and in the presence of eight or
ten gentlemen we talked the whole controversy over.—
In the very outset of our conversation, I discovered a
disposition on the part of Mr. Gallaher to establish the
impropriety of my course on Saturday. And throughout,
he seemed more than solicitous to establish the fact, that
I had made false statements. In this, however, he was
10
not successful; and left the room, no doubt, considerably
disappointed. This conversation being a recapitulation
of what is written above,,and also too lengthy for inser¬
tion here, I shall not trouble the reader further, having
already imposed on his patience by paying too much
attention to an individual.
That Mr. Gallaher will soon make another attack upon
the ministers and doctrines of the Methodist Episcopal
Church is quite improbable, unless he thinks he can make
more than he has done by the present controversy 1!!
SVETTEIt, &c.
Mogersville, December 1 tli, 1826.
Rev. Thomas Stringfield;
Sir,—Some time since, I saw the March num¬
ber of your Western Arminian. In that pa¬
per your circuit rider, Mr. Manson, tells the public
a "sad tale" respecting some "marvellous adven¬
tures," in behalf of his Presiding Elder, which he
had made at Rogersville. In your April number,
behold, forth comes along complaint from the Rev.
Thomas Stringfield, detailing divers mishaps, griev¬
ances and sore disasters, which had befallen him at
the same place. Mr. Mansoifs case seems to be
the following; of his own 4"free will," without being
asked or sent for, he went into a Presbyterian con¬
gregation in Rogersville, and wished leave to speak;
it was granted; he then arose and told the people
certain things which were nottrue\ in a short time he
was detected. Leaving Rogersville, he went the next
sabbath to a Presbyterian church thirteen miles dis¬
tant, and there wished to explain the statements he
had made in Rogersville; this was not granted; he
was told by the minister, "these people did not hear
what you said; they know nothing about the matter;
if you wish to explain, go back to the people of Ro¬
gersville, they heard your statements, and if you have
told them any thing that is not true, go and explain
it to them." And now, through the Western Armi¬
nian, Mr. Manson pours his complaints into the
public ear, and appears very desirous that the public
would be sorry for him and cast all the blame on the
Presbyterian. Rut whether the Presbyterian should
be most blamed because Mr. Manson told what was
not true, or because he was caught in it, or because
he was advised to explain his statements to those
22
who had heard them, he has not informed us. Mr.
Stringfield's case is even more distressing. Hearing
of the unpleasant plight of his circuit rider, he ap¬
pears to have thought, that when a thing will not
bear to be looked at, the sooner it can be shuffled out
of sight the better, and what so likely to turn the
public attention from Mr. Manson's case as for the
Presiding Elder to give out "big talk" and propose
to march directly into the Presbyterian congregation
and attack their doctrines and overthrow the argu¬
ments by which their preacher would defend them,
right in the face of his hearers; yes, a high-sound¬
ing challenge to the Presbyterian, to face the Presid¬
ing Elder in public debate on doctrines; this will do;
this will excite interest among the people and turn
their attention to new objects, and thus the unlucky
Manson will be lost sight of, and ere long, he can be
removed to some other part of the country. But
stop; can this be done with safety; is there no dan¬
ger of the challenge being accepted? "Ay, there's
the rub." Mr. Stringfield consults with his friends
who had loug resided in the neighborhood, and as-
wSures us that he "was told that Mr. GallahePs re¬
cent conduct, together with his general treatment
of Methodist preachers, justified a belief that he
would give Mr. Stringfield no opportunity of replying
to his arguments, but that he would preach, dismiss
the congregation and retire with as many as he could
influence to follow him." Excellent! most excellent!
"Recent conduct" and,"general treatment" all justify
a belief that he will give me no opportunity of re¬
plying. Then, the challenge may be sent with per¬
fect safety; he is certain to decline it, and then, I
and my friends, aha! how we will crow and boast
and triumph. And forth comes Mr. Stringfield's
challenge.
"Sir,
"Having understood that you are resolved to con¬
tinue according to previous appointments, your warm
23
discussion of controverted doctrines, I would he glad
to have an opportunity of replying to your, argu¬
ments immediately after the close of your sermon,"
&c. &c. Presently he styles this a "reasonable re¬
quest,and intimates that no "good reason" can be
given for declining it. Did ever plan promise fairer
to succeed? But alas! as it was in the days of the
Scottish Poet, so is it still;
"The best laid schemes o' mice an' men
Gang aft a-gly,
An' lea's us nought but grief and pain,
For promis'd joy."
The Presbyterian, contrary to his expectation and
that of his friends, accepts his challenge and grants
him the "opportunity of replying." Alas! alas! what
shall be done? The appointed morning comes; the
people assemble. Where is our challenger and how
does he fare? He shall speak for himself. "I was
chilled with cold and so hoarse by reason thereof,
as to be scarcely able to extend my voice to the
extremities of so large a congregation." "I had to
take the labouring oar." "The prejudices of the
whole congregation were directed against me."
"Let ministers of the gospel, who can feel, imagine
how I felt." Such is the outline of Mr. String-
field's case, and now, from his publication, it is
plain, that he is very desirous that the public would
be sorry for him and throw a quantity of blame on
the Presbyterian. But whether the Presbyterian
should be most blamed because he did not decline
Mr. Stringfield's challenge, as had been so confi¬
dently expected, or because Mr. Stringfield took a
chill after he found it was accepted, (the like has
befallen many a challenger before,) or because Mr.
Stringfield found himself at the labouring oar, or
because the prejudices of the whole congregation,
seven of whom Mr. Stringfield included, were
Methodist preachers, were directed against Mr.
Stringfield, or because Mr. Stringfield had such
queer feelings; for which of the above dire dis-
24
asters of the Presiding Elder, the Presbyterian
should be most blamed, he has not told us.
Whether any of your brethren will undertake to
"imagine what your feelings were," I cannot say:
but certainly, all will agree, that the stories told by
you and Mr. Manson, are, in the language of Ossian,
" Tales of wo." It may be, that some persons at
a distance, on reading your statements, have pitied
you, but, in this neighborhood, where facts are
known, little commiseration has been excited; the
mournful effusions poured forth by you and Mr.
Manson, have been no way melodious jto the public
ear. The general opinion, in this quarter, respect¬
ing your efforts and Mr. Manson?s, to work upon
public sympathy, is about the same which Dr.
Watts has expressed on another subject;
" As well might heavenly concert spring,
From two old Intes with ne'er a string,
Or none besides the bass."
Mr. Manson and yourself, have labored much to
give the public a good opinion of yourselves and a
bad opinion of me; it is to be regretted, that you
did not labour more to tell "the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth." It seems you
were so intent on the former object as quite to over¬
look the importance of the latter ; for really, sir, if
the adage be correct, that " practice makes perfect,"
if you and Mr. Manson aimed to tell the truth, you
are most lamentably out of practice.
For the satisfaction of readers who live at a
distance and have had no opportunity of correct
information on this subject, I will here give a con¬
cise history of the rise and progress of the contro¬
versy, to which the publications made by Mr.
Stringfield and Mr. Manson relate.
The growth and prosperity of the Presbyterian
Church, in this part of the country, has been, it
seems, an eye-sore to many a circuit rider, and many
a Presiding Elder, if we may judge from clamorous
25
and after repeated efforts, to place our doctrines in
an unfavorable light. But " surely there is no
enchantment against Jacob, neither is there any
divination against Israel," and notwithstanding all
that has been reported at a distance concerning
" mighty refutations of Calvinism " which had taken
place in this neighborhood, the people, where these
exploits were said to have been performed, continued,
year after year, to press into the Presby terian church,
so that, in two congregations, where ten years ago,
there were but about seventeen of our members,
there are now, two large churches, which, with
respect to numbers, intelligence and uniform piety,
may compare with any churches of any denomina¬
tion of christians in the western States. A number
of our present members were formerly Methodists,
and three of our present Puling Elders, were for¬
merly of that connection, but are now thankful to
God, that their eyes have been opened to see, and
their hearts to love, the truth as it is unfolded in
the sacred oracles.
How those who despise our sentiments were
affected in view of this state of things, I shall not
now attempt to say ; but certain it is, that such songs
as were sung over the country some years ago,
respecting the Calvinists, have fallen rather into
disuse in this quarter—we no longer hear it chanted
aloud,
" Their doctrines shall be downward h'url'd,
The Methodists shall take the world."
In the fall of 1825, when it was known that Mr.
Stringfield was Presiding Elder over the Methodists
in this region, some of their contentious members,
(for there are a number of Methodists in this county
who are peaceable and friendly with other denomi¬
nations, but) some of their contentious members, were
eagerly expecting that he, perhaps, would be able to
check the progress of Presbyterianism. A local
preacher, for example) was blowing and boasting to
thjs effect in a company in Bogersville: "Mr,
26
Stringfield is to be our Presiding Elder this year, lie
is a mighty controversialist; when he comes, he will
give it to the Presbyterians,77 &c.
At length, Mr. Stringfield came to a Quarterly
meeting at Rogersville, and made his first onset, in
this place, on Presbyterian doctrines. Hte preached
two sermons, in each of which he made an attempt
to batter Calvinism ; and, lest the people should not
be aware of his consequence, he assured them that
" where he was known, he was generally considered
a privileged, character." Some of the Methodists
were highly pleased with Mr. Stringfield's attack
on the Calvinists.
About this time a pamphlet was circulated here
which professed to be a letter of thanks from the
vilest classes of mankind, addressed to those who
hold the doctrines maintained by Presbyterians,
alleging that these doctrines encouraged all kinds
of impiety and enabled the profane to " serve the
devil without fear, in sin and. wretchedness, all the
days of their lives.77 In this style it went on through
fifteen pages. This pamphlet, written, it is said, by
a Methodist bishop, had been re-published by four
Methodist preachers, one of Avhom was Mr. String-
field ; it was carried through the country and cir¬
culated by Presiding Elder, circuit rider, local
preacher, &c.
This pamphlet was put into my hands a few days
after the quarterly meeting. I was also informed
how the doctrines of our church had been assailed.
I concluded that it would not be improper for the
people to hear what has been said on the subject of
these much despised doctrines by Christ and his
apostles ; I accordingly preached the next sabbath
from Acts xxviii, 22, "As concerning this sect, we
knowr that every where it is spoken against.77 On
the same day, I brought the famous pamphlet before
the congregation, and informed them, that as such
measures were resorted to for the purpose of stigma¬
tising the doctrines of our church, I would preach ft
27
series of sermons on those points which are-most
frequently assailed. During the following week,
this pamphlet was read by many -wh(v«^'*e pro¬
fessors, by many who were not ; public sentiment
revolted; and all, so far as I then could learn,
agreed in pronouncing it a mean, base and abomina¬
ble production. Many of the Methodists spoke of
it in terms of unqualified disapprobation, nor did
Mr. Stringfield's warmest friends speak openly in
its favour at that time.
Who had this pamphlet re-published ? Who put
it in circulation ? were questions frequently asked |
there was none to answer; but, behold! public sus¬
picion begins to settle down on Mr. Stringfield; his
friends take the alarm. What shall be done?—
They knew that if the people were not made to
believe that Mr. Stringfield was " entirely uncon¬
nected " with that odious business, he would be
able to effect nothing against Presbyterianism in
this neighborhood; he would be as totally incapaci¬
tated for successfully making war against the truth
now, as Dagon was in old times, when he had
" fallen upon his face to the ground before the ark,
and the head of Dagon and both the palms of his
hands were cut off upon the threshhold; only the
stump of Dagon was left to him.7'
Accordingly, on the next sabbath week, when our
people assembled, Mr. Mansori made his appear¬
ance. I was informed that he desired to speak to
the congregation; and when the sermon was closed,
I mentioned it and gave him the opportunity; lie
arose, and labored to make an impression 011 the
minds of the people, that Mr. Stringfield was
"entirely unconnected" with the pamphlet; his
identical words are not recollected, but his assertions
were sweeping and unqualified ; he did not say that
it was his opinion that Mr. Stringfield was not
concerned, or that he thought so, but his assertions
were direct and positive; and, in fact, he told us
plainly, that he was "authorized" to make the
28
statements which he made. Indeed, when it is con¬
sidered iijat that pamphlet had then been published a
HumbeiyJ months, that it contained a furious attack
on those very doctrines against which Mr. Manson
had been making unsuccessful war; or more pro¬
perly, against which he had been attempting to keep
up a retreating jire for many years; when it is
considered, that Mr, Stringfield and Mr. Manson
had been together at a number of meetings after Mr.
Stringfield commenced circulating this pamphlet;
that Mr. Stringfield, at these meetings, enraged
against Calvinism, like the Jews against Stephen,
was " gnashing on it with his teeth," and Mr.
Manson was present, very desirous to see the mo¬
ment that would give him the opportunity of "con¬
senting unto its death when these things are taken
into view, it seems next to impossible, that Mr.
Manson could have been ignorant of Mr. String-
field's connection with the pamphlet. After Mr.
Manson had made the statements recorded above,
I mentioned to the congregation that I had been
informed that Mr. Stringfield had given one of
these pamphlets to a Presbyterian in Roane county;
this was the only instance in which I had ever
mentioned his name before my congregation, and
this was done in consequence of Mr. Manson's
assertions. I then remarked to the people, " Mr.
Manson has told us who did not re-publish and
circulate this pamphlet, will he now tell us who did ?
At that moment his countenance fell; this was
pushing the matter farther than he had anticipated ;
he did not deny but that he had some knowledge on
the subject, but he refused to communicate it to the
people. Before this, however, Mr. Manson had
roundly asserted to the congregation, that this
pamphlet had never been patronized by the Metho¬
dists, and therefore, we should not entertain hard
thoughts of them on account of it.
Mr. Manson's assertions induced some of the
people to conclude that Mr, Stringfield was entirely
29
unconnected with the pamphlet; others strongly
suspected that the whole was a piece of "plaster
work," and; that after all, Mr. Stringfield was, in
reality, concerned. As truth does not injure any
man, nor any cause that is good, I determined to
have the truth brought out, if possible, that the peo¬
ple might know it. I accordingly addressed to Dr.
Rubell, the best informed local preacher we have in
this county, the following letter.
" Rogersville, Jan. 23, 1826.
Dr. Rubell:—Mr. Manson and others of the Me¬
thodist connection, appear desirous to satisfy the members
of the Presbyterian church, that they have no reason to
complain of the conduct of the Rev. T. Stringfield in rela¬
tion to the pamphlet of which Mr. Manson spoke yester¬
day, the motto of which is, "I never saw the like before."
If Mr. Stringfield is not censurable, it ought, in justice to
him, to be known. I now propose, that if Mr. String-
field will state on paper that his influence in no way
contributed to the re-publication of that pamphlet; that
he did not give his approbation to its re-publication; that
he has had no agency in giving it circulation, and that he
disapproves of its re-publication and circulation; if he
will put these things on paper and forward them to me
by you or any of his friends, I will, injustice to his good
name, as a gentleman and a christian, publish his state¬
ment to my congregation.
JAMES GALLAHER "
At the time the above letter was written, I had
never seen Mr. Stringfield; there was considerable
anxiety abroad to know whether Mr. Manson had
told us the truth or not. The object of this letter
was, to put the question directly to Mr. Stringfield
and compel him to Come out. Could the investiga¬
tion have been stopt, the people, most likely, would
never have known but that Manson's statements
were true. Dr. Rubell was acquainted with Mr.
Stringfield, he had also been present and heard Mr.
Manson's statements. I thought it most proper
therefore, to put the question to Mr. Stringfield
through him. On that evening, Mr. Stringfield came
io town; he tried to answer my letter, which might
i*\0
so
have been done in very few words, but his efforts
proved abortive. Before he left town, however, lie
confessed to some of his friends., that he was con¬
cerned in the re-publication of the pamphlet; this
was presently known through town, and the next
question was—what now is to become of Man son
and his statements, that he was " authorized to
make."
I had an appointment the next sabbath at New
Providence church, near thirteen miles above lio-
gersville. Among the first men I saw at the church,
was Mr. Manson. I suspected in a moment that as
he had given ns the song on the last sabbath, at Ro-
gersville, he had now come here to giv e us the tune.
He told me he wished to explain to the congregation
here, the statements he had made last sabbath at
Rogersville; I told him his request could not be
granted, for this plain reason : this is another con¬
gregation; these people did not hear your statements;
they know nothing about the matter. If you wish
to explain, said I, go back to Rogersville; the
people there heard what you said, and if you have
told them any thing that is not true, go and explain
it to them. I also expressed to Mr. Manson my
astonishment at his conduct. " Either you did
know that Mr. Stringfield was concerned in that
business or you were ignorant on the subject; if
ignorant, why did you make such positive assertions,
and say, you were "authorized" to do so ; if you did
know the fact, why did you attempt to deceive the
people?" He complains that I told him to "he
ashamed." I do not remember; perhaps I did;
certainly, such advice might have been given without
great impropriety.
Before we proceed further with our history, I
Would remark, that all the letters which I wrote to
Methodist preachers during the controversy have
been published in the Western Arminian except one.
Myletter to the local preacher, Rub ell, comes forth in
31
print; my letter to the Presiding Elder is also spread
before the public; but there is another letter to the cir
cuit-rider which, "it was thought/* the public had bet
ter not be troubled with. If the reader please, he shall
have an opportunity of judging whether this letter is
not as worthy of perusal as the others. During the
sermon I preached on the day Mr. Manson came
to tell us about the pamphlet, he was busily engaged
in taking notes. That evening, at the Methodist
preaching room, he attempted to refute the arguments
he had that day heard, but finding it rather trouble¬
some to note down my arguments and then refute
them, lie addressed a few lines to me, desiring me to
furnish him with the notes of the doctrinal sermons
I should preach. This was not the first time such
an application had been made. Home time ago I
preached a sermon in Jonesborough ; when it was
closed, a Methodist preacher arose and announced
to the people, that another Methodist preacher,
would, 011 a certain day, answer the arguments they
had just heard. Presently, the preacher who was
to answer, sent a messenger to me for my " notes."
I presented to the messenger a Bible; "here, sir,
are my notes, take these to the preacher who sent
you." But, strange to tell! the messenger utterly
refused to accept my offer Whether he apprehended
that the " notes " which I offered him, were not in
good standing with the person who sent him, or
suspected that any use he might make of them would
be unfavorable to his promised " refutation," or was
influenced by some other consideration, I shall not
attempt to decide. Shortly before I received Mr.
Hanson's letter, a local preacher applied for the
notes of my sermoris, presently, behold, Mr. Man-
son's application comes to hand. As I found X was
likely to be pestered with these applications, I
addressed the following letter to Mr. Manson for
ks instruction and for the benefit of all such appli¬
cants.
82
Rog ersville, January 31, 1826.
Mr. Hanson I have received your letter in which
you ask me to write for you a copy of the notes of the
sermons I may preach from time to time in Rogersvilie.
You say, this request is founded in a "sincere desire to
learn, embrace and know the truth," and that you intend
" candidly to examine in the light of revelation, whatever
maybe advanced." Now, all this sounds well, but I am
somewhatat aloss, how to reconcile these professions of can¬
dor and cleverness, with your own conduct just before your
letter was written. When I last preached in Rogersvilie,
you were present and had an opportunity of taking notes
for yourself. On that day, I attempted to discuss a highly
important and much controverted subject. Twice did
you hear me state to the congregation, that I could not,
in one sermon, bring forward all the proofs which I
intended to produce in support of our doctrine, and that
on the next sabbath week, Providence permitting, I
designed to produce additional evidence in confirmation
of it. These statements you heard. How did you act ?
Without waiting till I could place before you the additional
proof, which, for aught you could tell might be absolutely
unanswerable, and without even allowing yourself rea¬
sonable time " candidly to examine in the light of reve¬
lation," the numerous arguments you had heard, you,
that very evening, publicly condemned my sentiments,
and exerted yourself to the utmost to overthrow them.—
In fact, I have been told, that such was your zeal to
refute oZZ my arguments, that you actually attacked the
argument founded on Isaiah xlv. 5-7. This passage,
you know, was not produced to disprove any sentiment
held by the Methodists ; it was only produced in oppo¬
sition to the sentiment of the Magian philosophers, who
maintained that there were two Gods, Oromasdesand Ari-
manius;one the causeof all good, the other the cause of all
evil. Andisitso,Mi\ Mansun, that your prejudices against
Presbyterians run so high that you will take sides against
us and attack our arguments when we are endeavoring to
expose the absurd notions of the benighted heathen ? If
it be true, that "actions speak louder than words," what
am I to think when you act in this way, and then ask for
the notes of my sermons, declaring that the request is
founded in a "sincere desire to learn, embrace and know
the truth;" and that you intend " candidly to examine, in
the light of revelation, whatever may be advanced ?"—
After this view of the subject, you will not be surprised
33
to learn that I am inclined to think your chief, if not
your only object, in asking me to write for you a copy of
my notes, is, that you may refute and overthrow the doc¬
trines of the Presbyterian church. You will excuse me
from complying with your request, for the following
reasons : 1st. I have jnany things to do, and can scarcely
find time to write for myself the copy of the notes which
I use and wish to preserve; 26. I write the notes in a
kind of short hand, which, if you had, you would hardly
understand ; 3d. I believe the doctrines of our church to
be true, and that their overthrow would be a great injury
to mankind; and lawyers tell us, that it is unlawful to
give " aid, counsel, comfort," &c. to any one who is aim¬
ing to do a great public injury ; 4th. If I even thought the
overthrow of these doctrines desirable, I have some seri¬
ous doubts,(allow me to speak plainly,) I have some serious
doubts that you are hardly sufficient for the undertaking.
These doctrines have stood since the days of Moses and
the prophets. Many fierce efforts have been made to
overthrow them; many Presbyterians have been impri¬
soned for years on account of their doctrines; many have
been banished from their home and their country. Mul¬
titudes have been put to the sword ; multitudes have been
beheaded; multitudes have been burned to death at the
stake ; men and women, young and old; yet, their doctrines
have stood; have triumphed over all these cruelties. For¬
give me, then, if I do you injustice, when I tell you, that I
am rather apprehensive that you are scarcely sufficient to
overthrow a system, which has sustained, without injury,
so many stout rebuffs from persecuting Kings and
Queens, Popes and.Emperors. I think it not very pro¬
bable that the reader of ecclesiastical history, a thousand
j'ears hence, will find it recorded, that the" Presbyterian
church, after having for many centuries, successfully
withstood the rage of the Popes of Rome and all the
severities which the persecuting monarchs of Europe
could inflict upon her, was, at length, in the year eighteen
hundred and twenty six, overthrown, at Rogersville, in
East Tennessee, by a Mr. Manson, a Methodist circuit
rider."
But if you think differently, and expect to send your
name in a stream of light to posterity, as the destroyer of
the Presbyterian system,you need not ask for my notes;
I am but an obscure member of the Presbyterian church,
and if you were even to answer all my arguments, our
church would not admit that her doctrines, were over-
34
thrown ; but our church agrees in sentiment with the
apostle Paul. His " notes " on the doctrines you oppose,
you will find in his epistle to the Romans, and also, in
his epistle to the Ephesians. Take his " notes " and
answer and refute and overthrow as fast as you can, and
when you have fairly done this, Presbyterians from one
end of the continent to the other, will admit that their
doctrines are refuted. I must caution you, however, not
to make use of "Wesley's Testament" if you hope to
succeed in this undertaking, for Presbyterians will not
admit that he had a right to make the alterations he has
made. We all acknowledge that even Shaking Quakers,
could prove their sentiments by the Bible, if they were
first allowed to alter the language of the Bible to suit
their sentiments, and then bring it forward in proof of
them * JAMES GALLAHER.
Let us now turn to Mr. Stringfield. In the pub¬
lication he has made, he attempts to infer from my
letter to Dr. Rubell, that I had a " strong desire to
involve his character." How was this ? Why, I
had been told by an individual that he had given one
of these pamphlets to a Presbyterian in Roane
county, and yet, in my letter to Rubell, wished him
to state whether he had had any hand in circulating
it. From these premises he infers, that I had a
" strong desire to involve his character." But Mr.
Stringfield, " unless your scull be cudgel-proof," as
Trumbull lias it; or, in the language of one of your
circuit riders, "as thick as a puncheon," I can soon
convince you that this is bad reasoning. You will
please to observe, then, that what that person had
told me about your agency in circulating this pam¬
phlet, I had mentioned publicly, before the congre¬
gation, in the hearing of Rubell and Manson, the
very day before my letter was written. Where,
*Before this letter was written " Wesley's Testament " was
advertised for sale on the cover of Mr. Stringfield's paper, but
after be saw this, and found that a number of Wesley's alterations
had been read publicly to the people in this county, its name
is not to be found in his list of books ; he thought, doubtless,
that it was best to strike it off and say nothing about it, for peo¬
ple could forget it sooner than he could justify it.
35
then, was the snare laid for you ? Had I concealed
from your preachers any thing I had heard? Did
not they communicate this information to you before
you made your abortive efforts to answer my letter?
Was there any danger of your character being " in¬
volved" if you stuck to the truth ? Did you ever, in
all your life, know any man caught in a lie, that had
not told one ? Do you think it would have been
better that the people should have remained deceived
by Manson?s statements, than that you should have an
opportunity of telling a falsehood ? According to Mr.
Manson, you were <( entirely unconnected with the
pamphlet." Another person alleged you were not.
Where was, then, the impropriety of making direct
apnlication to you, to know which of these opposing
statements were true ? Ah! but u Mr. Gallaher
had it in his power to prove that I had presented one
to a Presbyterian ! " And what of that; this proof
could do you no harm so long as you kept to the
truth. Do you really wish the public to be sorry
for you because you were so circumstanced that you
must either come out with the truth or else be detec¬
ted and exposed? A dire dilemma! One article in
my creed is, that when a man departs from the truth,
the sooner he is caught at it the better. Another ar¬
ticle is, that where truth is concerned, a Presiding
Elder should be no more " privileged" than another
man. Ah! but this is Calvinism, that odious creed,
which you think is doing so much injury !
But suppose that I had known absolutely that you
had been engaged in that business, and had kept it
io myself, and then had put the inquiry to you for
110 other purpose than to ascertain whether you would
violate the truth or not, where would have been your
ground for complaint ? If you will turn to the 5th
chapter of Acts, you will find that Ananias came and
told Peter a falsehood respecting the price for which
he had sold his land; Peter, with awful solemnity,
rebuked him, and he u Fell down and gave up the
Ghost ; and it was about three hours after, when his
36
wife not knowing what was done, came in and Peter
said unto herf "Tell me whether ye sold the land
for so much/ and she said fyea, for so much." Now,
Peter' knew before he asked her, that they had' sold
the land for more, and he asked her the question,
not to obtain information about the price of the land,
but just to see whether she would tell a He about it.
But, according to Mr. Stringfield, this abandoned
Women, instead of taking shame and confusion to
herself for her abominable habit of telling lies, might
have gone through the country making a 'poor mouth
and complaining that because Peter had information
on the subject before he put the question to her, he
had a "strong desire to involve her character."
You say "you hesitated not oner-moment to in¬
form the friends that you were concerned in the re¬
publication of the odious pamphlet." Wonderful
promptitude! But who ever heard of such attach-
menttotruth? You hesitated not one moment to
confess, believing that Mr. Gallalier had it in his
power to prove, in case you should deny.
Mr. Stringfield, it appears, before he wrote his
famous challenge to me, had the precaution to en¬
quire of his friends whether there was any proba¬
bility of it being accepted. He declares that he
" was told that Mr. Gallaher's recent conduct,
together with his general treatment of Methodist
preachers, justified a beliefthat he would give Mr.
Stringfield no opportunity of replying to his argu¬
ments but, " that he would preach, dismiss the
congregation, and retire with as many as he could
influence to follow him." Such was the information,
he assures us, he had received, before he ever had
seen me, or sent me the scratch of a pen, or made
any application to me, for liberty to come to my
congregation and "reply to my arguments;" but,
having had the above information, he waxes very
courageous, and forthwith sends me the challenge
he has published, averring "he would be glad."to
have an opportunity of replying to my arguments
37
immediately after the close of my sermon and lest
his courage should be doubted, he undertakes to
enforce his claim by a phalanx of arguments. Let
us hear them.
Argument 1st. (i The liberal manner in which
you used my name before your congregation in my
absence/' [that is, you used it once, and once only
since Noah's flood, and that was in answer to some
untrue assertion of my own circuit rider; but this
is one] " sufficient reason why I should be allowed
to speak for myself."
Argument 2d. "Your letter to Doctor Rubell,"
[which presented to me, what John Randolph would
call, a tri-forked alternative; that is, I must either
say nothing, and then, the people would, at once,
conclude, that I was connected with the pamphlet,
or, I must come out with the truth, and so swamp
the " well-meaning " Manson. Or, I must deny ;
and then, I apprehended, that proof of the fact was
at hand ; this is another] " sufficient reason."
Argument 3d. " Truth has nothing to fear
from liberal discussion," [but observe $ before I
gave this banter, I took care to ascertain, that I wasr
justified in a belief that no opportunity would be
given.]
What powerful reasoning! Wo to Dr. Hopkins,
that he has fallen into the hands of such a logician !*
Mr. Stringfield alleges thatit was my recent con¬
duct, together with my general treatment of Metho¬
dist preachers, which made him so confident that he
might send his challenge with perfect safety ; for no
opportunity of replying would be given. Perhaps
his confidence was increased by another considera¬
tion ; perhaps he knew that in this free country a
* " Why do you not read Stringfield's review of Hopkins,"
said a local preacher to a young man in Rogersville. " Why,
sir," said the young man, " when I hear of such men as String-
field attempting to overthrow the arguments of such men as
Edwards and Hopkins, it only reminds me of Esop's account of
the viper gnawing the file>
D
38
worshipping congregation, whatever be their name,
have a right to expect no interruption ; perhaps, he
knew that when Christians of one denomination are
assembled at their own appointment, no man of
another denomination has any right to intrude upon
them for the purpose of disputation. If the people
of Rogersville and the vicinity, wished to hear him,
they could go to his appointments; if they would
not do that, he might calculate that they differed
with him in opinion respecting the " superiority of
Methodist doctrines and talents" which he modestly
mentions. Who would have made louder complaints
than Mr. Stringfield, had a Presbyterian gone to a
Methodist meeting for the purpose of public dispu¬
tation? These considerations, doubtless, strength¬
ened his (i belief" that his challenge would be
treated with neglect, and " no opportunity of reply¬
ing " be given bim.
But what 6i general treatment of Methodist
preachers" does he allude to? I recollect but
three occurrences, in the course of my life, that
were any way analagous to the present case. The
first I shall mention was in Jonesborough, when a
Methodist proclaimed that on a certain day, one of
their preachers would ((answer the arguments con¬
tained in my sermon," and I took no public notice of
it. 2d. When a Methodist preacher, at the close
of a sermon I preached at Rogersville, came to the
pulpit and told me to inform the people that he
would ((answer my sermon at his house, on a
certain day 5" " I will tell them no such thing," was
mv reply, for I knew the <s length, breadth and
thickness " of his intellect too well, to believe that
he ever would, or ever could, answer arguments built
m the infallible word of divine truth; and that to
>11 'he people he would, would be telling what Mr.
1 "arson calls a " downright, most glaring untruth."
1 f:cr the people were dismissed, he stated, *e that if
\hey would come to his house on such a day, he
wculd read to them, scriptures for and against Cal-
39
vinism(queer scriptures! for if Calvinism be true,
I should think there would be no scriptures against
it, and if it be false, it is strange, that there are any
scriptures for it.)* Of this I took no public notice;
the congregation were dismissed, and I just " retired
with as many as I could influence to follow me."
The third instance was 6i recentMr. Manson
had come to our meeting, taken notes on my sermon,
and then taxed his reasoning powers for the work of
refutation ; but though he had made a great noise,
not among the people, but through his own organs,
I had taken no public notice of it. Such was the
*( recent conduct and general treatment of Methodist
preachers," which made Mr. Stringfield so confi¬
dent, that he might send his challenge without
the least hazard, for no opportunity of replying
would be given him.
On the Saturday before my next appointment in
Rogers ville, I had one in the country, several miles
from home. Mr. Stringfield had come to town and
was to preach on that day, in the court house.—
About ten o'clock, as I was preparing to start to my
appointment, behold, a local preacher appears,
bearing the challenge of his Presiding Elder; the
messenger was greatly in the fidgets to have an
immediate answer. I told him I would give Mr.
Stringfield an answer in the evening. I was alone,
while there were in town, eight Methodist preach¬
ers, collected from different counties, in consultation
for stopping, if possible, the progress of Calvinism.
We learn, however, from sacred history, that a
very bad cause may have a great majority of advo¬
cates.
Mr. Stringfield's messenger returning without an
answer, and the absolute refusal they so confidently
* If those who are most violently opposed to Calvinism, are
constrained to acknowledge that they find scripture for it, they
need not be surprised that those who are impartial, can find no
scripture against it, for the scriptures are-all harmonious.
40
exjreeted at the first presentment of liis challenge,
not being given, created, it seems, no small quantity
of uneasiness ; lest, after all their plotting and con¬
sultation, their plan should miscarry; for, on that
same day, after his sermon in the court house, he
lowered his tone amazingly ; no blowing now about
his being a " privileged character," as when he
came first to Rogersville and pounced on the doc¬
trines of the Presbyterians. No, no; now he is an
unassuming, inoffensive, peaceable body, and alarm¬
ed, lest things should take a direction quite different
from what he had anticipated; he thought it neces¬
sary to take time by the fore-lock ; he labored to
make an impression on the public mind, that I, not
he, had commenced the controversy; he, modest
man, was acting merely on the defensive, and told
the people " he would not run." He also alleged,
that "he had been told, I had said I would tear up
the Methodist church root and branch, first the
doctrine and then the discipline," &c. &c.
After I had read his challenge, I was satisfied
that neither he nor his advisers had any expectation
it would be accepted ; that they calculated from my
"generar treatment of Methodist preachers," as
noticed above, that it would be treated with neglect,
and then, eight preachers, could carry the news
abroad, and persuade the members of their church,
that this was a great exploit of their Presiding
Elder.
I was well aware, that in ordinary cases, it would
be improper to permit a worshipping congregation
to be interrupted by any one who should wish to
intrude himself among them for public disputation,
but as some of the Methodists had been making
much ado about Mr. Stringfield's previous attacks
on Calvinism, and boasting that he was a mighty
man for controversy, I concluded, that, for once, I
would depart from my general treatment of Metho¬
dist preachers, and give to this "man of war from
his youth," the opportunity of replying to my argu-
4i
ments, and if he should come, perhaps the result
might furnish a warning " to all others in like cases
offending—contrary to the peace and dignity of the
State." Accordingly, I that evening addressed
him a note, telling him lie could have the privilege
he demanded. In the mean time, Mr. Ross, hearing
of this muster of Methodist preachers, a part of
their company having come from the county beyond
him, had also come down to Rogersville, At length,
the appointed morning came. Mr. Ross and I went
to the church; it was the new Presbyterian meeting
house, which had just been erected. An open
platform or temporary stand had been formed for the
speaker; the congregation might amount, perhaps,
to six hundred; I had never yet seen Mr. String-
field, and of course, did not know him by sight.—
No one came forward and reported himself the
author of the challenge that had been sent me, and
whether the challenger were there at all, or had given
us "leg bail," it was not my business to enquire.—
After some time, Mr. Ross and I went iuto the stand
and commenced the exercises of the day in the usual
form. I that day preached a doctrinal sermon from
Psalm xcvii, 12. After I had been preaching fifteen
or twenty minutes, some person, of strange aspect,
scuffled out from among the people in one corner of
the house, where they were very closely seated, and
making his way over some benches, came up into
the pulpit and seated himself beside Mr. Ross.—
Whether the man had been actually crowded out of
his seat by the people in that quarter, and was drawn
to the pulpit merely by the temptation of an empty
chair, or wished to look at the congregation, or
wished the congregation to look at him, or was adul¬
ated by some other motive, were inquiries which I
did not then pause to make. He was qo sooner
seated, than producing paper, pen and ink, he busily
engaged in writing; but, whether he was writing
Scottish rhymes, English blank verse, his own
biography, or notes on the sermon, or something
D2
different from all these, each spectator might form
his own opinion. Events soon transpired, however,
which furnished a clue for identifying this mysteri¬
ous person. It was observed, that at certain points
of the discourse, the writing man would flinch, and
give symptoms of uneasiness. What he was wri¬
ting, was ascertained in the following manner.—
After the argumentative part of the sermon was
closed, the preacher addressed the congregation thus:
"These, my friends, are the doctrines, for maintain¬
ing which, our denomination have been ' every
where spoken against;' but you should not think
strange that your names are ' cast out as evil/
because of your doctrines, for your Redeemer was
treated in the same manner. The opposition shew n
to Christ, when on earth, was chiefly on account of
the doctrines he taught; his life was harmless, his
conduct was kind and benevolent—doing good to
men; but the doctrines, the doctrines he taught,
these stirred the gall of bitterness in the unsanctified
heart, and called forth the rancorous opposition
with which he was assailed; he has told you, 'the
disciple is not above his master, nor the servant
above his lord.' 'If they have called the master
of the house, Belzebub, how much more shall they
call them of his household/ He says his disciples
;shall be hated of all men for his name's sake;'
that is, on account of the doctrines they received
from him. When he taught in public, his enemies
were so much displeased with his doctrine, that they
said, 'he had a devil.' They pronounced his
doctrines 6 blasphemy.' When he taught at Naza¬
reth the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty, his hearers
' were filled with wrath, and thrust him out of the
city, and led him to the brow of the hill on which
their city was built, that they might cast him down
headlong;' Luke iv, 29. When he preached to
the people, his ^enemies ' sent spies to watch him
that they might entangle him in his talk,' and no
doubt, took notes on his public discourses." At
4.8
this moment, it is said, the writing man, dropt his
pen and threw up his handkerchief over his eyes,
held it there, and "gave signs of wo." From this,
the people concluded, that he, too, had been taking
notes, after the example of those ancient worthies.
. After sermon, I mentioned to the people the chal¬
lenge I had received from Mr. String field, and that
he was to have an opportunity of replying; but as
Mr. Stringfield had, on Saturday, made a number
of statements about Manson and the pamphlet and
the origin of the controversy, &c., and in his state¬
ments had gone somewhat astray, I thought this
was the proper time to have these matters put to right.
X briefly reminded the people of Mr. Manson's
assertions concerning the pamphlet, and told them
how the truth of that matter had been brought to
light; and then observed, in substance as follows :
" I have understood that Mr. Stringfield, on yester¬
day, labored to make the impression on the public
mind that I had commenced this controversy. If
the people please, they shall hear the truth on this
subject. Mr. Stringfield attacked me eighteen
months ago in a public paper in Huntsville, Ala¬
bama, and represented me as a teacher of false
doctrines—doctrines, inconsistent with reason; and
contrary to scripture, and styled himself myan¬
tagonist About twelve months ago Mr. String-
field attacked me at a camp-meeting in Greene
county, represented my doctrines as false, and used
some reproachful epithets. He next came to Ro-
gersville, and in two sermons attacked the doctrines
of our church; his pamphlet was then circulated,
which represents our doctrines as the most abomina¬
ble things on this side the bottomless pit. All this,
while I had never seen Mr. Stringfield, nor have I
ever seen him yet, unless, perhaps, he may be some¬
where in the house to-day. You will now observe,
that when Mr. Stringfield attacked me in the papers
in Huntsville, I took no notice of it; I entered into
ao controversy with him. When he attacked me
44
in Greene, I took no notice of it; never, until he
came to Rogersville, and twice attacked us and put
in circulation his pamphlet, did I enter into any
controversy with him ; I then thought it proper to
say something in defence of the truth. Now, these
being the facts of the case, I am utterly at a loss to
know where Mr. Stringfield's conscience was, when
he attempted to persuade the people yesterday, that
I had commenced the controversy. I also under¬
stand, that Mr. Stringfield, on yesterday, said, that
he had been told I had threatened to tear up the
Methodist church root and branch ; first the doctrine
and then the discipline. I hope, if he is present,
to-day, he will inform us who was his author. Mr.
Stringfield can now come forward."
"I'm here now," said somebody on the stand,
near me, before these remarks were finished, and
behold ! our note taJcer is metamorphosed into the
Rev. Thomas Stringfield. He arose and attempted
to answer the enquiries just recorded; and first, said,
(i he did not remember, that on yesterday, he tried
to make the impression that I had commenced the
controversy!!! This gave the first death-wound to
Mr. Stringfield's reputation here, as a man of truth.
Numbers present, who had heard him the day before,
were amazed! To impress the people that I had com¬
menced the controversy, had been the leading object
in an address of some length; he had exerted him¬
self to make the impression ; it was but last evening;
how can he have forgotten it; and now, when facts
are brought up, and he finds he cannot maintain his
ground, not to have the candor to confess he had
made erroneous statements, but try to creep out
through the back door of a treacherous memory!-—
Outrageous! Persons who were not members of
either church, expressed, afterwards, their astonish¬
ment and regret that Mr. Stringfield had allowed
himself to act thus. He next told us, that Doctor
Rubell had informed him that I had threatened " to
tear up the Methodist church," &c. Doctor Rubell
45
was present; I arose and called on him :—" Doctor
Rubell, did I threaten to tear up the Methodist
church root and branch, first the doctrine and then
the discipline ?" " It was the government," said the
Doctor, "the church government;" "well, did I
say I would tear up the church government root and
branch?"—"I don't know that 'root and branch'
were mentioned," said the Doctor. Mr. String-
field doubtless expected that this local preacher
would stick to him through thick and thin ; but the
Doctor, thinking that " self-preservation is the first
law of nature," chose rather to follow the maxim,
"every man for himself;" and discovering that -his
Presiding Elder had got into a swamp, over head
and ears, obstinately determined, that neither for
" clan nor kin " would he " involve his character."
Mr. Stringfield was thus, again, left in miserable
plight before the whole assembly. He had roundly
asserted that I had threatened to "tear up the
Methodist church root and branch, first the doctrine
and then the discipline;" he is called on for his
proof; his witness admits, I did not say any thing
about tearing up the Methodist church root and
branch; that I did not say any thing about tearing
up the Methodist doctrine root and branch; that
what I did say, was about their church government,
and he did not know that I said I would tear up
that, root and branch; but he had said " I had
threatened to tear up the Methodist church root
and branch, first the doctrine and then the discip¬
line."
How much these things contributed to increase
the " chills" which Mr. Stringfield confesses he
was troubled with on that day, the reader can judge.
The reader will now see, why Mr. Stringfield com¬
plains so much, in his publication, about the remarks
I made, after my sermon and before his reply. He
had thought, doubtless, that he was puting things in
fine train on yesterday, when he was persuading the
people, in my absence, that I had commenced the
46
controversy, &c.; that I had threatened to tear up
the Methodist church root and branch, &c. ; that he
was acting merely on the defensive, and that he
would not run, &c. ; and he was now, no doubt,
sorely grieved to find the whole fabric he had reared
with so much pains, shivered about his ears in the
view of so large a congregation. He says a "long
train of personal abuse had been introduced." Is
there one word of truth in this, Mr. Stringfield?
Was there one abusive epithet applied to you? Was
there any thing but a plain, unvarnished statement
of facts given ? Has your past conduct been such,
that a simple recital of it sounds in your ears like a
" long train of personal abuse," calculated to "con¬
fuse your mind as much as possible !"
In his publication, Mr. Stringfield says, " The
prejudices of the whole congregation were directed
against him" and wishes the public to blame me
for it. The people present that day, were certainly
as impartial and as capable of doing justice to Mr.
Stringfield as any other people, one fourth, perhaps,
being members of the Methodist church. What
was it, then, that directed the prejudices of the whole
congregation against him ? Was it any thing that
I had said ? Or did the people detect in Mr. String-
field deception, shuffling, and gross violations of
truth ? If he had just taken the trouble to enquire,
he might easily have found which of these it was
that, "directed the prejudices of the whole congrega¬
tion against him." The reader will bear in mind, that
had Mr. Stringfield's challenge been treated with
neglect, as he expected, he would have escaped go¬
ing through his facings in this drill-muster, which
we have just noticed.
The time had now arrived when Mr. Stringfield
must attempt his refutation of my arguments; but,
the reader will readily judge, that, if before he
sent his challenge he had no expectation nor desire
of being put at this task, but intended his challenge
as a mere bravado, which he and his friends could
47
afterwards use to their own purpose, he was now,,
after being taken through his catechism, in the man¬
ner already recorded, if possible, more anxious to
be off. He stood and looked over the congregation
" the very picture of indecision," observed he did
not know whether he had better proceed or not. All
was silent—he then turned round and asked me
whether I thought he had better go on or not; "I am
no judge for you, sir, you must act for yourself,"
was my reply; there silence again ; at that moment
one of the preachers, who was sitting off in the
crowd, alarmed at the " Where shall I go ? What
can I do ?" appearance of his Presiding Elder,
sprung i,o his feet, and hurrying through the crowd,
came to Mr. Stringfield and whispered in his ear.
The purport of this communication was, doubtless,
assuring Mr. Stringfield that it was now entirely too
late to think of " flying the path," and that hit or
missj he must try to say something. Mr. String-
field placed his notes before him' and commenced,
but a huge mischance, soon checked his career ; the
notes which he had taken with such bustle and pa¬
rade, before the congregation, he-now seemed unable
to read. Whether this was reality or merely a
sham, in order to get the whole business off his
hands, I know not; he turned suddenly round to
me, and said "give me your notes," he knew well
that I was under no obligation to give aid or assis¬
tance to him in his opposition to what I considered
Bible truth; he also knew, that I had been in the
habit of refusing to give my notes to Methodist
preachers, for he was in company with Mr. Man-
son, the evening before, when I sent him the letter
the reader has seen; he doubtless calculated, that I
would refuse to give him my notes, and this would
afford him a pretext, before the people, to cut the
matter short, and make his escape. Contrary, how¬
ever, to my "general treatment of Methodist preach¬
ers " I handed him my notes. Lack-a-day ; what
-shall be done next I Why* the man canfi<?t read my
48
jaotes ! Or pretends that he cannot; round he turns
and asks me to tell my arguments over again to him 5
certainly this will be refused, and there will he a
chance to get out of this miserable scrape; but, no,
the Presbyterian, as if determined that Mr. String-
field,
" With stomach stout
Should see it out,"
tells over his arguments to him again. Time af¬
ter time, Mr. Stringfield is at the end of his row,
and cannot tell what comes next, and turns round to
me and asks, and each time I told him ; when he was
stalled, I started him again, and thus we moved on.
In this way, 1ip repeated several of those objections
or arguments, as they call them, against Calvinism,
which are found in the books of the old opposers to
truth. As this was the first time in my life that I
had undertaken to help a man along who was trying
to refute Calvinism, the reader must know, I was
quite a raw hand at the business ; any assistance
therefore, that I afforded him, was, perhaps, very
awkwardly done ; as to his part, he performed it,
just as the reader would expect of a man who was
very much "chilled" and had to take the "labor¬
ing oar"—a man whose " mind was confused as
much as possible" and who thinks it would puzzle
any other person to " imagine how he felt." Onf
however, we moved, much after the fashion of a
heavy loaded old cart, on a slippery hill side, that
is drawn by a balky poney, directed by an awkward
driver, and has lost all the fellows and tire from the
wheels.
And now, reader, after all that you have seen,
Mr. Stringfield complains that I took " every ad¬
vantage." But, what more could I have done for
him? He had the privilege of taking notes on my
sermon ; he had the opportunity of replying, before
the congregation; when he could not read his notes,
I gave him mine; when he could not read them and
was fairly balked; I told him again and again what
49
come next, and thus helped him along, and still, he
is not satisfied. It seems he wanted me to tell him
both the " dream and the interpretation;" first, tell
him what my arguments were, and then, turn round
and show htm how to refute them. But, in my view,
such an expectation is quite unreasonable. The va¬
rious expedients to which he resorted for the pur¬
pose of getting rid of the contest on that day, have
satisfied a number who were present, that he is a
very firm believer in the doctrine taught by the poet,
Butler;
" The man that is in battle slain
" Will never rise and fight again,
" But he that wheels and runs away
" May turn and fight some other day."
Xn his publication, Mr. Stringfield says, that I an¬
swered all his arguments by saying "they had been
used long ago by the Unitarians." But, Mr. String-
field, as you ventured to broach this subject, why did
you shrink from telling the whole truth. My re¬
marks were these ; "I have now done, what few men
would have done; I have let Mr. Stringfield come
and attack our doctrines here among my own people,
I have done more, I have sat by him, and helped him
along, as you have all seen, and yet, I am appre¬
hensive, that Presbyterianism is such stern, stubborn
stuff, that after all his evening's work, with me to
help him, he has not shaken the faith of a single
Presbyterian. With respect to his arguments, I
will make but one remark; not one of them is his
own, they have, every one, been borrowed from the
Unitarians ; they were all used by the Unitarians
against the Christian church before John Wesley
was born. And is it come to this, that a Methodist
Presidiug Elder shall ask leave to come into a
Presbyterian church to refute Calvinism, and when
liberty is granted, and he rises to make his refuta¬
tion he is not able to bring forward one single argu¬
ment of his own, but is reduced to the miserable
necessity of rattling over the old, threadbare, w orn-
E
50
out arguments of Unitarians, that were answered,
perhaps, a thousand times before any of us were
born. But, if Mr. Stringfield denies this, if be
denies that his ^arguments are all borrowed, if he
says that any one of them is his own, let him just
tell us which one it is, and when he will be here
again, and I now pledge myself, on that day, to
shew that argument in a Unitarian book." Mr.
Stringfield flounced and floundered not a little ; but,
alas ! escape was impossible, and however great his
mortification, not a single argument did he dare to
claim ; lie knew they were not his own ; and now
found, to his great confusion, that others knew it as
well as he. Mr. Stringfield, why did you flinch
from telling this ? Were you afraid that if you
told it, some of your brethren wrould try to " ima¬
gine how you felt?"
On that night, Mr. Boss preached. His sermon,
in the judgment of the great majority of those who
beard it, contained an array of testimony, the most
luminous and decisive, in support of " the faith once
delivered to the saints."
It was about six weeks afterward, Mr. Stringfield
came back to a two days meeting. On Saturday he
undertook to tell the people about the controversy
we had when he was last with us. Some men
would have thought this an odd business ; for the
people had been present to see and hear for them¬
selves, and were certainly more capable of judging
correctly, than a man so hugely out of order, as Mr.
Stringfield tells us he was on that day. He was
aware, it seems, that the impressions the people had
received, w hen they witnessed the controversy, were
such as he did not wish them to retain, and he now
undertakes to tell them his way of it. He had
given me no notice that he was going to "fight all
his battles o'er again," and of course, I was no<
present. Indeed, it appears, that Mr. Stringfield,
having tried his haud against Calvinism once, when
some of its advocates were present, became fullj
51
satisfied that he could do better, if he had the field
altogether to himself; and so it turned out, for his
friends reported, that on this day, when no opponent
was present, he was vastly victorious! Two or
three of the statements he made shall he noticed.—
He complained, that on the day of the controversy
he i( had to take the laboring oar ^ he also said,
that my appointment had- been at eleven o'clock,
and I had put it off till forty minutes after eleven to
prevent him from having time to reply. By this,
lie most likely hoped he would get the people to
think, that perhaps he might have done letter, if he
had had more time. One other remark we shall
potice. Shortly after Manson had publicly denied
Mr. Stringfield's connection with the pamphlet,
George Mountcastle, a local preacher, in Rogers-
ville, who was intimate with Mr. Manson, and often
in his company, when conversing with a gentle¬
man of this town about Manson's denial, had said,
" if Manson said Strmgfield had no hand in pub¬
lishing that pamphlet, he was mistaken and knew
better." On the day when Mr. Stringfield was at
our church, this gentleman handed me a certificate
of what Mountcastle had said; but, although we
had many Methodist preachers, collected from dif¬
ferent counties, yet, Mountcastle was not here, the
news of what he had confessed had got abroad, and
early that morning he had been dispatched off
toward Bay's mountain, and did not return till the
discussion wa3 over. Whether this was a plan of
Mr. Stringfield's and Mr. Manson's to have him
out of the way, lest his testimony should be called
up, the reader may judge. Returning that evening,
he acknowledged to the gentleman who gave the
certificate, that he had made the above statement.—
This created awful perplexity* and when Mr. String-
field, six weeks afterward, came back, he undertook
to explain, and tell the people how it was ; and first,
he urged that it was probable that Mountcastle had
no£ made the statement; and, secondly, that if he
52
had said so, the people must observe, that Mount-
castle did not understand grammar, and had said
Manson isIcnew better," when he meant to say
Manson knows better now ! In a conversation with
Mr. Stringfield a few days afterwards, I said, 4'how.
is this Mr. Stringfield, you tried to make the people
think it was probable Mountcastle had not made this
statement, when Mountcastle confessed he did make
it. What are we to think, sir, when the Presiding
Elder endeavors to persuade people, that a local
preacher has not said, what the local preacher him¬
self confessed he did say ?"
"Does not understand grammar" Who ever
heard the like of this ? Header, have you not
known many men who never studied grammar, who,
notwithstanding, could make out to tell the truth?—
Mr. Stringfield, if the study of grammar affords
any assistance in telling the truth, I would advise
you and Mr. Manson to take a pretty serious round
at it, for there surely is, at present, a quantity of
bad grammar among you.
At this meeting, Mr. Stringfield, feeling that his
cause needed a desperate effort, and not being suffi¬
ciently cautious, knocked his head with so much
violence against staunch old Calvinism, that he was
most alarmingly stunned. Indeed, from his own
account, it seems he was past going about for several
days, and needed the aid of two physicians.
On the Wednesday following, having heard of
the statements he had made, I concluded to call on
him for his authority, particularly for asserting that
my appointment had been at eleven o'clock. Mr.
Stringfield says, he at first " declined " this conver¬
sation, and gives two reasons: "his bad state of
health," and {-£ a belief that it was my object to get
some advantage of him." How shy he had become!
Where was the danger, if he had stated nothing but
the truth.
"Thus oft it haps, that when within,
They shrink at sense of conscious sin,
A feather daunts the brave."
53
He adds, that " afterwards, contrary to the advice
of two physicians, he consented." But he is care¬
ful not to tell the reason why he consented. When
I told him I had come to talk with him respecting
some assertions lie had made publicly, he appeared
unwilling, and urged that he was too unwell,—
"Very well, Mr. Stringfield," said I, "if you are
too unwell, I don't insist on the conversation now,
but observe, you will be well enough to have this
conversation, before you are well enough to leave
Kogersville; and I insist on it before you go away."
It was this that brought him to it; he found that his
excuse would not do for a passport to take him off.
Several gentlemen were present. He said Mr.
Manson was his author for the appointment being
at eleven o'clock; Mr. Manson was present and
was called on; he said he had heard it in a crowd,
and did not know who told him. This artifice,
however, could avail him nothing, for, it is well
known, that when the appointment was made, Mr.
Manson was present at our meeting, and must have
known that it was not at eleven. Thus, all Mr.
Stringfield's fuss about the appointment being put
off, &c. &c., was found to be a thing just conjured
up by himself and Mr. Manson, to serve their own
purposes. As to his complaint about the "laboring
oar," I observed, " what oar did you expect, Mr.
Stringfield ? Be assured, sir, I never designed to
give you any other than the laboring oar; if you
had the laboring oar, it was the very oar I intended
you should have." If Mr. Stringfield had read his
Bible attentively, he would have found, that the
opposers of truth have, in every age, had a " hard"
task, or in his style, the " laboring oarPro v. xiii.
15; Acts ix, 5. Another incident that occurred at
this interview, shall be mentioned. I was catechising
Mr. Stringfield respecting the originality he had
displayed in the story about " tearing up the Me¬
thodist church root and branch," &c.; his challenge-
bearer was by, and seemed not at ail to relish the
m
54
entertainment; at length, he sprung to his feet, and
with a countenance that would have afforded amusing
employment to such a painter as Hogarth, said, " he
would now tell what he never had told before ; that
on the day he brought Mr. Stringfield's letter to me,
I had made that very statement to him.v He doubt¬
less expected, Mr. Stringfield would feel that "a.
friend in need is a friend indeed." But, it seems,
the poor man had not discernment enough to see,
that this hold manoeuvre of his, could not afford one
whit of assistance to his Presiding Elder, for, he
.acknowledged he never had told it before, so that
even supposing his statement to be true, (which is
supposing a great deal, J Mr. Stringfield's original
genius was as much in the narrows as before.—
Some ®f the company, however, thought it strange,
that 011 the very day Mr. Stringfield published his
statement of whatl hadsaid, I should have happened,
by a marvellous contingency, to have made that very
statement to his challenge-bearer, though he did not
know it; it is also strange that the challenge-bearer,
when he saw Mr. Stringfield in such a woful predic¬
ament before the congregation,at our church, about
this very statement, the very next day after he should
liave heard it, should not then have recollected and
mentioned it; and, moreover, it is strange, as more
than six weeks had past away, during which, there
had been much talk among the people about the
controversy and this identical statement, and the
challenge-bearer had been by no means idle, that to
Stringfield, Manson, or his most intimate friends,
he never had told it before. I will close this narra¬
tive with a parody on Mr. Stringfield's concluding
sentence. "That Mr. Stringfield will soon send
another challenge to a Presbyterian Minister, is
quite improbable, unless he have stronger evidence
that it will be rejected, than mere inferences from
"recent conduct" and "general treatment of Me¬
thodist preachers."
And now, Mr. Stringfield, let us take a brief
review of what you and Mr, Manson have publish-
55
etl. In my letter to Doctor Rubell, you say, "I
requested you to state certain things 011 paper.7*—
This is miserable grammar, Mr. String-field. I
made no request in that letter. My words are, 1
now propose," &c. It is said you have been giving
translations of the Hebrew in your sermons through
the country, thereby giving the people a broad hint,
that you understood Hebrew. Is it possible, that a
man who understands Hebrew, is unable to distin¬
guish between a proposal and a request? They are
not the same thing in Hebrew, are they Mr. String-
field ? I will not charge you with designed mis¬
representation here; perhaps you have got so far
into the Hebrew that you cannot see back so as to
discover the import of plain English, for absolutely,
Hebrew and English are not like the two sides of
Hudibras's horse, one may go forward and the other
lag behind.*
The evening after you had sent your challenge,
you say that (i consulting popular opinion, as it is
thought, I found it would not do to refuse your
request.77 Indeed! you must have been vastly
popular! Your attempt to give the matter this turn
now, when it is all over, reminds me of the smart
little sailor, Avho, wishing to shew his activity to his
fellows, ascended the main mast and attempted to
stand on the top of it on his head, but losing his
hold, he came down faster than he went up; the
ropes and rigging, however, checked his descent
and broke his fall, so, that he lit upon the deck
on his feet; thinking it was better to boast than to
*Not long since, it is said, a Methodist preacher, in a neigh¬
boring county, took pains to persuade the people that he under¬
stood Greek ; he was often telling how this and that text stood
in the Greek, &c. &c.; a gentleman who understood the lan¬
guage and knew that such blowing and parade are the certain
index of ignorance, handed the preacher a Greek testament, and.
asked him to read. But never were the Jews more unwilling
to have "any dealings with the Samaritans" than our boaster
was, to grapple with the Greek letters, words and sentences,
Lntreaty was vain j not a syllable would he read.
56
acknowledge his disappointment, he turned to his
companions, "There! any of you do that if you
can." Take notice, reader, Mr. Stringfield was
this evening, in his own opinion, vastly popular.
You intimate that I took " every advantage of the
approaching contest." What cruelty! First to ac¬
cept the challenge of a Presiding Elder, and then,
" take every advantage of him ;" but how was this
done ? Why, " the appointment had been published^
to be at the court house"—bad grammar, Mr.
Stringfield; we bad our appointments at the church
whenever the weather would permit; in the court
house, only, when it was very cold. You say, " It
was removed to the Presbyterian church; about this
I was not consulted" !!! Oh, ye inhabitants of the
earth, be sorry for this Presiding Elder ; for lo ! a
Presbyterian congregation assembled in their own
church without " consulting him."
It is said, that " misfortunes seldom come alone
this was exemplified in the experience of Mr.
Stringfield, for no sooner has he recorded the aflront
offered him by the Presbyterians who had the pre¬
sumption to assemble in their own house, without
asking his leave, than he goes on to a train of disas¬
ters and disappointments, such as have rarely be¬
fallen a great man since the day that Hainan swung
fifty cubits high, on the gallows he had built for
Mordeeai; it was at the church, on the day of the
controversy; Mr. Stringfield shall tell the mournful
story himself, but as he has complained that I was
deficient in courtesy, I must take care to shew him
that I am not wanting in sympathy ; while, there¬
fore, he repeats the history of his woes, the public
will allow me to include in [brackets] snch interjec¬
tions as may be extorted by the sorrowful tale. And
now, Mr. Stringfield, we hope, that after the exam¬
ple of the ship-wrecked hero of old,
• You will restrain your tears.* and briefly tell,
What on that sad and fatal day hefel."
57
Mr. Grallaher "used no means to find me out or
to) be introduced to me/7 [great a man as I was]
"we having never seen each other. Two chairs
only were provided [be ashamed, ye people of the
neighborhood !] "And these were occupied by Mr.
Grallaher and Mr. Ross,77 [when I was on a bench!]
"I discovered immediately that Mr. Grallaher de¬
signed to treat me with neglect, not to say with con¬
tempt,77 [popular as I was the evening before! ]
" Let ministers of the gospel who can feel, imagine
how I felt,77 [they could do this more easily if they
had only seen how you looked.] "In a strange con¬
gregation,77 [alas! alas! ] "In a Presbyterian
church,77 [worse and worse.] "Pledged to the pub-
lie to answer Mr. Grallaher7s sermon77 [for I was
told that he would give me no opportunity. Friends,
why did you thus deceive me,] &c. &c. What round
of "means to find you out77 do you think I should
have used? Ought I to have gone to a justice and
taken out a " search warrant77 and provided a con¬
stable, &c., to ransack the whole church in search of
a " strayed77 Presiding Elder ? Mr. Stringfield,
as we afterwards found, had ensconced himself be¬
hind the crowd in one corner of the house, waiting
as appears from his publication, to see a quantity of
" means used to find him out.77 But discovering, at
length, that no person would take the trouble to hunt
for him; that things were going forward without him;
and that it was regarded as a matter of little conse¬
quence, whether he was ever " found out77 or not,
in a short time, " came out.77 But what has become
of your great popularity Mr. Stringfield ? For last
evening "popular opinion 77 run so strong in your fa¬
vour, that "Mr. Gallaher found it would not do 77
to reject your challenge. But this morning, before
the eyes of the whole assembled neighborhood, he
can "treat you with neglect, not to say with con¬
tempt."^ How did it happen that your high blown
popularity was overset so suddenly ? Or did it
never exist any where but in your own conceit?
58
Again ; he was "In a Presbyterian church;" of
this he has complained frequently. I told him we
should have viewed his conduct in the same light, if
our meeting had been, not in the church, but in the
court house or any where else. But still he com¬
plains of being in a " Presbyterian church ;" this
church was the only building within twenty miles
that would have admitted the whole congregation,
I have never heard but one satisfactory reason why
he complains so much of this; it has been said, he
knows that on that day he made a poor figure, and
is vexed that we were in the church, for no other
house would have admitted so many spectators.
Speaking of the remarks I made after my "ser¬
mon was closed " you say, I " wandered from my
sermon." You should have a patent right for this
discovery, for beyond all doubt, it is the first time a
man has been charged with " wandering from his
sermon" after it is finished. Please to tell us in
your Western Arminian, how long it must be after
a sermon is finished, before the preacher must talk
about any other subject, without " wandering from
his sermon." What was it, Mr. Stringfield that led
you into this gross absurdity ? Have you been so
long circuit riding round and round, that you think
that when a man preaches a sermon at one place,
he should post off to another and preach the same
Sermon over, and then to another, and the same ser¬
mon over, and
" Like the drum's discordant sound
Keep beating round and round and round,"
and if he does not do this, he must be charged with
" wandering from his sermon."
In my remarks after the sermon was finished, you
say, I spoke of the " persecutions of the Presbyte¬
rians." What a pity that a man so amazingly ignor¬
ant of grammar, as you are, should attempt to be a
historian. These remarks contained nothing on
this subject. In the latter part of the sermon I had
given a brief history of the sufferings our fathers
59
endured for the " word of God and for the testimo¬
ny of Jesus Christ." But the remarks afterwards,
related to Mr. Stringfield, the mis-statements he
had made the day before, &c. &c. Perhaps more
than two months had past away, from the day of the
controversy until the publication of his statement,
and still, the " confusion of his mind" was so great
that he confounds extracts from church history giv¬
en* in the sermon, with remarks about his own mis¬
statements, made after the sermon was closed. He
needs the aid of more than " two physicians."
I \yill now give the reader a specimen of Mr.
Manson's dexterity in truth-telling. In the sermon
I preached on the day lie told us about Mr. String-
field and the pamphlet, he says, " I had made a vio¬
lent attack upon the doctrines and preachers of the
Methodist Episcopal Church." How does this
agree with his declarations just after the sermon was
ended ? He then, in the presence of the whole as¬
sembly, declared his entire approbation of the man¬
ner and spirit in which that sermon was delivered.
Indeed, so unqualified were his declarations, that
some of the people thought he was certainly conver¬
ted to a belief of the Calvinistic doctrines. There
was not a syllable in it about 66 Methodist preach¬
ers." What put it into Mr. Manson's head to make
the above statement ? Did he suppose the people
had forgotten what he said on that day ? If he did,
he is much mistaken. Again ; on the day of the
controversy, I reminded the people, that Mr. Man-
son, when he first came to our meeting, had tried to
make the impression that Mr. Stringfield was not
concerned with that pamphlet. Mr. Manson says,
that by using the word " concerned " I " entirely
misrepresented his meaning " for, he had said "Mr.
Stringfield was not the man that had the pamphlet
re-published." His meaning ! So, when he came
and told us that "Mr. Stringfield was not the man,"
he did know and did mean, that he was concerned
In it 5 for how else was his meaning entirely raisre-
do
presented by my statement. This accords precise¬
ly with Mountcastle's declaration, that Manson
"knew betteryet, he and Mr. Stringfield have
tried to persuade the public that he was ignorant of
Mr. Stringfield's connection with the pamphlet,
when be stated what he did at our meeting; if so,
what becomes of his assertion that, by using the
word " concerned" I entirely misrepresented his
meaning. Beautiful! Beautiful!
Speaking of the certificate of what Mountcastle
bad said, Mr. M anson calls it " ridiculous," and ai-
ledges, that it " proves incontestibly the futility of
the allegation." Is it so, then, that a local preach¬
er's asserting a fact concerning a circuit rider, is
" incontestible proof " of the reverse ? I have long
known that the riding connection held their heads
high above the local preachers, and exclude them
from their annual and general conferences, but was
not aware, before Mr. Manson's publication come
out, that they carried matters so far as this.
These must serve as a specimen of Mr. Manson.
And now for Mr. Stringfield, and as his memory is
rather treacherous, I will number his misstatements
that when he comes to reply, they may not escape
his memory. We will begin with a few already no¬
ticed.
1st. " That I had commenced the controversy."
After the sad plight in which you were before the
people, Mr. Stringfield, on account of this statement,
is it not surprising that in your publication, you have
attempted to make the same impression abroad ? At
the Quarterly meeting you first attended at Rogers -
ville, you say, "all was peace and christian harmony
from first to last," and when you returned a few
days afterwards, you say, you were " surprised to
learn that Mr. Grallaher had come out against the
doctrines and preachers of the M ethodist church in
the most violent manner." What must these people
think of you who first heard your assertions on this
subject, and then, when you were detected, heard
61
you denying that you remembered it, and now read
the same thing in your publication ? Must they
not think that your memory ebbs and flows accor¬
ding to circumstances ?
2d. That I had threatened to tear up the Metho¬
dist church root and branch, &c.
3d. That I introduced a long train of personal
abuse after my sermon, &c.
4th. That I had a " strong desire to involve your
character," when I wrote to Rubell; and here you
will take special care to show the difference be¬
tween the snare you suppose was laid for you, and
the snare Peter had laid for Sapphira, Acts v, 8 ;
do not let this ecape your memory by any means.
5th. That my appointment was at eleven o'clock,
and was put off to prevent you from having time to
reply.
6th. That it was probable Mountcastle had not
said Manson " knew better," when he confessed he
did say so.
7th. At your first Quarterly meeting here, you
say "all was peace and christian harmony, from
first to last." Is this the truth? Did you not
yourself, both on Saturday and on the sabbath,
publicly attack the doctrines of the Presbyterians ?
Did you not represent them as dishonorable to God
and injurious to man? Where, sir, was your con¬
science, when this statement was made? If you
had been at our church and I had spoken of Metho¬
dist doctrines as you did of ours, would you have
gone off and reported " all was peace and christian
harmony ?" If you have been long in the habit of
making such statements, it is not at all surprising
that " where you are known you are generally con¬
sidered a privileged character."
8th. You say I have "shifted my appointments
several times, Ho as to hold them on the same days
that your travelling preachers attend near my con¬
gregations." Had you not better hunt up your
witness and drill him a while, lest, in a pinch} he
62
might serve you as Rubell did? As it is well
known that my appointments on the Sabbath, when
at home, are at liogersville and New Providence
alternately, from year to year, the above charge is
too contemptible to deserve a serious answer. If the
picture were reversed, perhaps we should have the
truth. It reminds me of the complaint of a Metho¬
dist, who, taking up Watts's hymn book, saw a
number of hymns which Wesley has taken from
Watts, without once mentioning his name, and lie
believed Wesley made them himself; on seeing
them, he exclaimed, " why, dear me ! what a great
number of Wesley's hymns Watts has taken!"—
These, Mr. Stringfield, must serve as a specimen of
what you were capable of stating, from the time of
the controversy until you published your April num¬
ber. That paper contains other things, equally
reprehensible, which I have not mentioned ; a . part
of them you thought proper, publicly, to charge on
your printer, when you came to Rogersville and
found what the people, who witnessed the contro¬
versy, were saying of you and your statements. If
your printer is answerable for one fourth part of
the mis-statements you have published, he is a bad
printer.
In your September number, you have attacked us
again. I will not say the people here were sur¬
prised at what you have there published, for, after
what they had seen of you and your writings, I do
not know that any thing you may ever publish can
surprise them ; but for the sake of persons at a dis¬
tance, I will notice a few things you have there said.
You say, that "for some time after the controversy,
I was quite reserved in my manner of preaching on
doctrines." Let this be recorded as your
9tli mis-statement. If any sermons I ever preach¬
ed, deserve to be styled controversial, those on the
firsi three sabbaths after the controversy, were of
that class. On two of these daysy I read to the
people, from Wesley's testament, i number of the
63
alterations of the language of the testament which
he has made, in order to work our doctrines out of
the scriptures. On one of these days, your chal¬
lenge-bearer was present, nor can I think that even
he will venture to certify for you in this case. The
two next sermons were on church government; in
which, among other things, your discipline was
brought forward, which shows that your people, as
distinct from your preachers, have no vote in your
annual conferences ; no vote in your general confer¬
ence ; that your bishops are chosen, not by the
people, but by the preachers; your presiding elders
are chosen, not by the people over whom they pre¬
side, but by the bishops, &c. &c. But, perhaps
you think, what the bible teaches concerning the
right of the people to have a voice in church coun¬
cils, and in choosing church officers, is not doctrine.
What was it, Mr. Stringfield, that induced you to
make the above declaration ? Had you the most
distant thought, that any person here, where facts
are known, would believe one syllable of it ? Or
did you think that it would make an impression at a
distance, and that in this quarter, you had nothing
to lose, for you were ivell known already ?
10th. Respecting the revival of religion in this
county; of the professors of anxiety, you say,
" they could not refrain from joining the church,
without the repeated charge of vile hypocrisy." I
never heard this until I saw it in your publication.
11th. Did not your conscience check you while
you were writing that the anxious were exhorted to
" take upon them a profession of religion at once,
and not wait even to think of praying." The anx¬
ious were exhorted to give their hearts to God with¬
out any delay, but was this exhorting them to "take
upon them a profession of religion at once, and not
to wait even to think of praying." Look at your
statement, and blush, Mr. Stringfield, " if you are
capable of blushing."
12th. Your assertion that we " pronounced per"
64
sons regenerated ' before they had been even oper¬
ated upon enough to shed one tear " is another dis¬
play of your " privileged character."
13th. Of two hundred and fifty persons who had
joined our church, you say, "one third, it is thought,
are small children." From the commencement of
the revival until September, the date of your pub¬
lication, I can think of but one person that joined the
church that was not over thirteen years of age ; if
there were any others, their number was very
small. That one third of two hundred and fifty were
small children, is an assertion that will be duly ap¬
preciated " where you are known." It appears
you were aware of being called to an account for
this, when you inserted "it is thought." Was this
clause intended to cover your retreat if any notice
were taken of you ? Did you think thus to throw
the charge of falsehood off yourself on your inform¬
er? And is it so, that you have in this county as¬
sociates capable of making such statements ? If so,
you should advise them, too, to study "grammar" if
it would do them any good.
Speaking of Mr. Patterson, who was with lis
some weeks during the revival, and whose labors
were much blessed, you say, that,
14th. " He and others would name out, aloud, cer¬
tain distinguished persons in the neighborhood, for
whom they would pray until their next meeting.
One would name Col. another Esq. "
&c. &c. It is almost needless to tell the intelligent
reader, that no such things took place here. The
first I, or any with w hom I have conversed on the
subject, ever heard of this, was from Mr. String-
field's publication. It is said almost every man
may excel in some branch of business ; the difficul¬
ty with many is, to hit on that branch which suits
their genius ; but, it must be admitted, that Mr.
Stringfield has taken up a trade so congenial to his
cast of mind, that he has already attained great dis¬
tinction. I have now noticed five of the statements,
65
in your September number, which you will certain¬
ly excuse the people of this county from believing.
There are many others of the same kind. In¬
deed, the paper, from which the above extracts are
taken, was some time since in the hands of a gentle¬
man who was here all the time of the revival;
he has numbered on the margin of five pages,
twenty four of your statements respecting things in
this county, which you must have intended as com¬
modities for a foreign market, as you certainly
knew they would never answer for home consump¬
tion.
But I will follow you 110 further; having already
given specimens enough to satisfy an enlightened
public, how much dependence can be put in what
you say or publish, before I dismiss you, I will
propose a few things for your calm consideration.
1. When a writer forsakes truth and publishes
the most shameless falsehood, and is publicly expos¬
ed, whom ought he to reproach ? The man who ex¬
poses him ? Or ought he rather to reproach himself
for his detestable habit of propagating falsehood.
2. How must such a man appear in the eyes of the
God of Truth ?
8. How will he stand in the estimation of an en¬
lightened public 66 where he is known?"
4. How will such a man stand in the estimation
of honest, upright members of the Methodist church.?
You cannot be ignorant that there are many membert
of the Methodist church who will hold the liar's
conduct in unqualified abhorrence, and will esteem
him as not the less censurable because his lies have
been told with a view to injure another denomina¬
tion. I have an acquaintance myself with many
such members of your church, and however we may
differ on other points of doctrine, we agree in this,
that truth and moral honesty are essential to the
existence of christian character. And, sir, if the
maxim be correct, that while worth and virtue are
found: m-any community, they will be found, not
66
among corrupt and designing leaders, but among the
people, is it not to be regretted, that the people of
your church are denied the right of a voice in your
higher councils ? Are they allowed to decide by
their vote what circuit rider shall preach to them ?
Or is this decided without their vote ? Are they
allowed to vote what circuit rider shall be promoted
to the office of presiding elder ? Or is this done
without consulting them ? Are they allowed to vote
who shall be their bishop ? Or have the preachers
taken this mattei altogether from the people. The
people may know that a circuit rider is unworthy of
promotion, and yet, the bishop has power to make
him a presiding elder. The people may know that
a presiding elder is unworthy of promotion, and
yet, thz general conference, where they have no vote,
may make him a bishop.
To conclude. You doubtless remember that on
the day of the controversy, when you were at a loss
for arguments, you began to prophesy ; and uttered
this prediction ; " In twenty years, no man, at the
risk of his character, will dare to preach the doc¬
trines held by the Presbyterians." In one point, you
have profited by the experience of your worthy pre¬
decessor, Nimrod Hughes. Nimrod would have one
third of mankind killed in a short time after lie pro¬
phesied, but the day past over, and down went his
reputation as a seer of visions, and dreamer of dreams.
You have wisely allowed yourself a longer rope.
Your prophesy is not to be fulfilled for twenty years.
But whether in that time the Presbyterians will
have sustained more injury from the weapons you
are employing against them, than the one third of
the human race did from Hughes' storm, time must
determine. And now, if you are in the humor of
prophesying, you may utter the following predic¬
tion ; viz : u until there is some degree of evidence
that you are a reformed man, and have ' used means
to find out and be introduced to' a certain stranger,
called truth, and take this stranger's direction when
67
you speak or write about other people, it is 'quite im¬
probable' that I will notice you or your statements
again ; that if I should, it will be solely on ac¬
count of the station you may hold in the Methodist
churc|i, and not because Thomas Stringfleld, as a
man/leserves any attention ; and further, that if you
and the stranger above named, should not become
acquainted, and an enlightened public will forgive
me for havin^aioticed you this once, you will, most
likely,; be permitted (especially if some friend will
furnish you with a pair of long ears,) to bray on at
me and my congregations as long as suits you."
JAMES GALLAHER.