# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1851 08 05_S194
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

194

since he, being once for all pursued by street boys, as he pretends, has no inner substance and dignity, and that — instead of, say, admonishing the supposed boys kindly or seriously, or, if he lacks the moral greatness for that, at least not engaging with them — he falls into a rage, scolds, runs after them, grabs for mud and stones, runs hither and thither, and since he hits none of them, they always "taking to their heels," grows ever more furious. Whoever has a mind to may only take Mr. S's paper in hand, in order to find, in the manner of writing of that article, what has just been said, and what Mr. S. himself has plainly indicated by means of a comparison, actually painted out and realized.

We therefore let this be, and in the following lines go through Mr. S's article with the intention of demonstrating once more to the kind reader, from that very article, how Mr. S. continually parades stupidity, ignorance and dishonesty in his articles directed directly or indirectly against the Christian religion. The writer of this, however, wishes first to guard himself. Words such as the foregoing may have seemed harsh, and still seem so. But they are, according to conviction, used only when something is said contrary to sound common sense, which Christians, Jews, Turks and heathen accordingly have in common with one another, or where a gross lack of knowledge shows itself in a field in which someone even sets himself up as a teacher, or where even opponents, if they only wish to be honest, must concede that a dishonesty has occurred here. Furthermore, when we declare it our intention in what follows to expose Mr. S. once more in his nakedness, the dear reader must not think that we take some pleasure in the like, or that the writer of this, while he is putting these lines to paper, would forget the fear of God. No, the writer of this is conscious even now that the dear Savior died on the cross also for Mr. Schmidt, although Mr. Schmidt tramples His blood under foot; the writer of this is also conscious that he shall have to give account for every idle word, and has therefore besought God the Lord that He would keep his lips and pen. But precisely thereby the writer of this feels himself constrained to bear witness, to the best of his ability, against such an abomination as is found in Mr. S's papers, and whereby the world is confirmed in its godlessness, the wavering are brought to a fall, and the weak are disquieted and grieved, which, in his opinion, cannot be done more concisely and briefly than by bringing to light how Mr. S's attacks upon the Christian religion in general and the Bible in particular, whether they be made indirectly or directly, are nothing but a web of ignorance, stupidity and dishonesty, and especially when this is demonstrated in an article that is meant to serve to justify himself against the evil qualities just named, with which Mr. S. is charged.

We will now go through Mr. S's article in order.

Mr. S. says in the introductory part of it that in the article in number 18 of the Lutheraner we had "attempted to attack him by virtue of the authority of the church fathers." In that article, whose length Mr. S. himself gives as seven columns, the historical testimonies cited from the church fathers, to prove ignorance in Mr. S's motto, borrowed from Thomas Paine, take up not one column. Otherwise, and directly against Mr. S., we proceeded only on the basis of knowledge drawn from sources other than the church fathers, and by virtue of the authority of sound common sense. That, to be sure, Mr. S. does not wish to let his readers know; therefore he takes refuge in a distortion, and says we had attacked him "by virtue of the authority of the church fathers."

In the first part of his article Mr. S. behaves very badly over our article entitled "Rückerwiederung," in No. 21 of the Lutheraner. We had said therein: We leave it to the judgment of everyone who cares to get to the bottom of the matter, whether he be a so-called believer in the Bible or not, only that he have understanding enough to grasp the article in the Lutheraner and Mr. S's reply to it, and honesty enough to let that be true which is true — we leave it to the judgment of every such person to decide whether Mr. S., in his reply, has not proceeded in such a way that he has passed over some points in the article of the Lutheraner, misunderstood others (we leave it undecided whether intentionally or unintentionally), and distorted and twisted the rest, and, having thus gained ground for himself, has brought in his witticisms. Mr. S. has certainly reckoned upon it that his readers would not get to see the Lutheraner, otherwise he would hardly have exposed himself so greatly to them. So far we.

Mr. S. says with reference to the same article that we had raised three accusations against him, and "not said so much as a syllable to prove them, but set forth nothing, nothing at all but the bare accusation."

According to the foregoing, this is plainly a distortion, for what becomes of Mr. S. with our words: We leave it to the judgment of everyone to decide, etc.? The sense of them was — and we think it requires only a moderate understanding to grasp it: — Mr. S. deserves the accusations pronounced, and this is so clear that it requires no further proof on our part, but that everyone (under the above stipulations), whether friend or foe, needs only to compare Mr. S's article and our article in order to convince himself that the accusations raised against Mr. S. are fully well founded. Is that saying "not so much as a syllable" toward the proof of a matter, when one declares that a matter is so evident that everyone will see it for himself without further guidance, and that even opponents would have to concede it? Mr. S. has therefore again been guilty of a distortion. He resorts to this, however, because he has no good cause. For had he not wished to distort, he would have had to tell his readers that the Lutheraner leaves it to the judgment of everyone to decide, etc. Therefore let him, Mr. S., call upon those who care to convince themselves of the truth or untruth of those accusations to compare the article in the Lutheraner and his own with one another, and to judge. But had he acted so, he would have fared ill, as surely as we believe that not all understanding and all honesty have yet departed from the world. Therefore Mr. S. takes refuge in the distortion, "we had not said so much as a syllable to prove our accusations," but thus only makes his cause ever worse, in that he now, precisely in order to clear himself of the reproach, namely of distortion, resorts to a new distortion. When, therefore, Mr. S., on pain of his coming to speak of us once more, etc., demands "proof," and indeed "concise and clear, without any digressions and cross-cuttings," or "retraction" of those accusations; we can only reply to the stern gentleman with the most obedient request that he first show himself honest, and take back the second distortion, by which he sought to cloak the first, and call his readers' attention to the proof indicated by us. That must happen first. Should it then turn out that the ground of the accusations made against Mr. S. appeared not so evident as it is to us, we would gladly be ready to undertake the slight trouble of setting it in the light in the clearest and most concise manner and "without any digressions." Only we should like first to know what Mr. S. intends to do, if such were really to happen on our part? For he says well enough what he will do where we render neither proof nor retraction, but not what he will do if we furnish proof. And hitherto nothing of the exposure of his nakedness on our part, or only witticisms, has been of benefit to Mr. S's readers, so far as it lies with him.

Mr. S., having thus given in the first component part of his article a new proof of his dishonesty, a new one meets us at once in the second. This second part is supposed to be a rejoinder to our longer article in No. 21 of the Lutheraner.

One occasion for our article was the assertion set forth in No. 2 of the "Freie Blätter": "Our Gospel of Thomas is mentioned in the writings of the old church fathers as early as any of those contained in the New Testament, so that, accordingly, with the help of the church fathers the assertion