# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1882_S49
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

— 49 —

he does not wish to depart from the truth, then we have enough; for then we must declare for conscience' sake: We must exclude him, unless he repents.

It was also decidedly rejected that Prof. Schmidt demands to be allowed to defend himself on the basis of his credential as delegate. With that we have for the present nothing to do. We are not asking him as a delegate, but have for the present to do only with his person. On his answer for his person it depends whether he can be regarded as a delegate or not.

Prof. Schmidt then remarked: "I only wish to call attention to the first point: in it it stands that I am to confess that I have reviled the doctrine of Holy Scripture and of the Confession concerning election. I ask, how can one expect of me to make such a confession! What does one take me for, and what does one declare me to be, that I should make such a confession, that I have reviled the doctrine of Holy Scripture and of the Confession! It does not stand there at all that I have treated the doctrine of the Missouri, Minnesota and Wisconsin synods so, but that of Holy Scripture and of the Confession. I ask the Venerable Synodical Conference to consider what an absurd demand it makes of me. I must naturally answer No to that, and if I were to answer so, it would not be rightly understood, in that people would say: We keep to the wording."

Against this the general declaration was now given that no one had understood it so, that Prof. Schmidt in his own sense and position should confess that he had reviled the doctrine of Holy Scripture and of the Confession; but that he had done this with reference to our synodical doctrine, which we must naturally designate as the doctrine of Holy Scripture and of the Confession.

A Norwegian delegate declared: "I should like to remark that I had not understood the matter at all so, as though the Synodical Conference demanded such a declaration of Prof. Schmidt. If that were the case, my position would be quite a different one from the present. I had not at all understood it so, as though one demanded such a declaration on the part of Prof. Schmidt, and I believe that even the wording of the Missouri protest is clearly against it. And this I may also admit, that if such a demand had been made of Prof. Schmidt, I should have voted No with as much as I could muster."

In proof of what has just been said there was read from the reasoned protest of the Missouri Synod the following passage: "We are namely ready to withdraw it as soon as Prof. Schmidt

1. publicly and without reservation retracts the charge of Calvinism publicly raised by him against us and 2. [acknowledges] the steps taken by him toward splitting our Synodical Conference and tearing apart our and