# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1882_S40
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

— 40 —

To this it was now replied: Pastor Rasmussen poses as though it were just as right to polemicize sharply against the truth as against error. We in the Missouri Synod have never said that it is right to polemicize against the truth at all, let alone with sharp expressions besides. Consider further: What we want to say with our protest is this: If Schmidt merely believed we were Calvinists, but did not go out with it before the whole world and did not portray us publicly as people full of cunning and hypocrisy, we would still negotiate with him as with an erring brother. And further: It is true, Pastor Muus has treated us here just as Schmidt did in public, Muus has uttered equally shameful abusive words; but he did it in the right place. We take it amiss of no one when he comes out here in the Conference ever so roughly against us, indeed if he were to call us Turks here, because we confess such a doctrine of election. Then we must just look into whether the Apostle Paul himself has not taught our doctrine. But how Prof. Schmidt has acted, that is heretical, partly because he publicly curses God's truth, partly because he makes factions in the congregations before the whole of Christendom. Therefore we must include him in Rom. 16, where it says: "Avoid them." — It is also further to be considered: Who introduced the Nominal-Elenchus? Missouri was ready for all private negotiations. Who made that impossible? Prof. Schmidt! That can therefore never be adduced as proof that we now lead the fight against him publicly. And Schmidt acted still much worse toward the Wisconsin Synod. Wisconsin has deliberately not written against Schmidt in its organs. But Schmidt never said: I will still negotiate with you; but as soon as the Wisconsin Synod had made its declaration of confession, he threw it away, publicly branded it as Calvinist and broke into its congregations. How can the Wisconsin delegates now be expected to recognize Prof. Schmidt as a brother? One should think that anyone who has acted as Schmidt has would want to have nothing more to do with such an assembly and would not come into such an assembly at all. Anyone who still has a Christian conscience ought to be able to see that it is impossible to sit together with Prof. Schmidt as a brother in this way. Schmidt has himself to blame for this, and it now rests with him to remove out of the way the ground which he himself has created. He has it at any time in his hand to improve the situation. — And if anyone blames us because we have defended ourselves, indeed defended ourselves sharply, in the fight against Prof. Schmidt, he does the same as in the following case: A highwayman attacks me and wants to beat me to death. I defend myself against him and probably also inflict heavy wounds on him. If now someone comes, indeed