# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1882_S37
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

— 37 —

and indeed with just the one that Dr. Walther has given. So, a teacher is accused of having said: I do not believe that Christ is true God. He comes before a council. This council says to him: Be so good as to tell us whether this fact is correct, that you have said it. We want to hear nothing else from you than yes or no. If he says yes, the council will probably condemn him. And they have not let him say why he spoke so. Perhaps his meaning was this: I do not believe that he is true God in so far as he was born of the Virgin Mary. — — Any heathen "Court," if it wants to be decent, would have given the accused every opportunity to say everything that is to his advantage, heathens who follow only the mere light of nature.

To this it was replied: It has just been said that heathen courts would proceed more justly than we, in that the accused there would have more opportunity to defend themselves. But is there a "Court" which would allow a convicted thief, whom it asks: Have you stolen? and from whom it receives the answer: That I cannot answer simply with yes or no, without first explaining and setting out my principles — which would allow a thief first to set out the principles according to which he has stolen?

It now seemed expedient to the Conference to bring the three protests, in which they agree, into a definite short form under which the Conference would adopt them and make them its resolution. The formulation of this resolution was entrusted to the Pastors Adelberg, Tirmenstein and Beyer, who are to present it tomorrow forenoon.

On a second proposal: to appoint a committee which should deal privately with Prof. Schmidt about the protest and his conditional admission to seat and vote in the Conference, there was still talk for and against when the time for closing had come. It was thought on the one hand that such a committee might perhaps speak more effectively and beneficially with Prof. Schmidt. On the other hand it was pointed out that what the committee, as representative of the Synodical Conference, does is thereby itself done by the latter, and thereby one would already de facto depart from what stood in the protests. Something quite different it would of course be if Prof. Schmidt himself wished and desired such a committee.

Since Prof. Schmidt did not expressly declare this, the matter was dropped. However, it was also stated definitely, among other things: Even if we cannot deal with Prof. Schmidt as a brother, we could nevertheless, e.g., hold a colloquy with him outside the Synodical Conference.