# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1882_S36
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

— 36 —

with them too such cases as the two mentioned above had occurred, as the district presidents, if desired, could state; but in this matter 2 or 3 examples are as good as 10 to 20.

These two cases mentioned above satisfied the Conference, with the exception of Pastor Muus. Since fairness requires that the other party also be heard, the Conference resolved to ask Prof. Schmidt whether he acknowledged what had been said as correct or whether he believed that something had been incorrectly presented. This too was emphasized: If Prof. Schmidt may express himself on facts that concern this second point, then it should of course also be permitted him to express himself on the facts contained in the first point of the protests.

Thereupon Prof. Schmidt answered: I cannot go into the facts here without speaking about the principle from which I proceeded in my manner of acting.

The Conference regarded this as an assent on the part of Prof. Schmidt to the facts mentioned, only that he of course wished to put them in a quite different light. But we must, according to God's Word, call this faction-making. And now consider this too: If at a council someone had asserted of an Arian that he had publicly taught: Christ is not God, the question would have been put to the Arian: Did you teach that? If he had now said: "I do not answer to this unless I may also set out the principles why I spoke so"; would the council probably have accepted anything of the kind? Would it not rather say: If you have admitted that you spoke so, the matter is settled for us, your principles we need not hear here, we know them long since, indeed we are now not at all in a position to say: Dear brother, come now, let us now also talk about the principles.

On the other hand, astonishment was also expressed that it has come to the point with Prof. Schmidt that he acts directly against the principles with regard to congregational rights and another's office, about which he was formerly one with us and which he had zealously defended. Hence it is also quite incomprehensible why he, who has acted directly against the purpose of the Conference, which is: "to remove disturbances of unity and practice that occur," — why he, who first destroys unity, then comes into the Conference and wants to help remove the disunity which he himself causes. He should now, for honesty's sake, say openly: What I formerly taught and believed with you, that I now retract; I no longer have the faith that the Conference has.

Pastor Muus had the following to remark on all this: When the fairness and justice of this Conference are repeatedly praised here, I will nevertheless try to illustrate them with an example,