# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1852 01 06_S79
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

79

that the matter be investigated and decided by a committee. Thus he himself made no secret of it that he had urged his opponent hard to bring his committee member without delay. And when this was long since known to him, he not only did not reject it as unfit, but took steps, by his own avowal, to bring in his own part also. But to be sure, he has suddenly been convinced that with the Missouri Synod one cannot negotiate together concerning matters touching the Office of the Keys. Just as if he had known this Synod only since yesterday, and had not been reading the "Lutheraner" for years, and had not in his hands the whole of its constitution and its synodical proceedings, yea, as if he had never learned anything of its practice and therefore could not know that it not only confesses itself sincerely to the Lutheran doctrine, but also acts faithfully accordingly. Let Pastor Winkler look well to it in what light he places himself before all honest Christian people by letting himself be so suddenly and all at once convinced, through the shameful and reviling second synodical letter of Pastor Grabau, that the Missouri Synod is false. Indeed, that synodical letter is in truth such a product of a zealous and foaming party-hatred that it must awaken in every simple man a prejudice only against the author himself. And that Winkler can go so far as to say that Pastor Crämer's proceeding had awakened in him no confidence that the Missouri Synod would be in this matter an honest, Christian church court, quite apart from the question of orthodoxy and fidelity to the Confession, does not that show plainly that he has learned from the said synodical letter not so much wholesome doctrine as unwholesome reviling? Pastor Winkler knew the undersigned already from of old, and has come to know him in this matter also only in such a way that he acts against his better knowledge and conscience when he is able to doubt his honesty and Christian mind. But when he further reports that he joined the Synod there in Buffalo, and that his congregation also, though only amid much wrangling of the ringleaders, decided for the Buffalo Synod, that not a single vote was cast for the Missouri Synod, yea, that even of the seven complainants some voted for the Synod of Buffalo: let some extracts from letters serve as an answer, which the undersigned received at about that time from the complainants. In one of them it is said among other things:

"Pastor Winkler was in Buffalo, and as one hears, he wishes to join that Synod, and on the 26th of last month he went to the Holy Supper there. Already on the 2nd we asked to know whether his part of the committee would appear on the 11th and 13th. He gave an evasive answer to the effect that he would first hold a meeting of the elders, and indeed after the evening service; yesterday evening we might present ourselves, which also took place. He then related that he had been in Buffalo and meant also to join that Synod. He could not have the matter settled by any robber, factionist and sectarian synod." —

In another, somewhat later, it is said:

"Pastor Winkler shows more every day that he wishes to sell the congregation by deception, as appeared plainly last Sunday, craftily, without its knowledge, into Pastor Grabau's hands."

From this it is clear that at that time the joining of the congregation to the Synod of Buffalo had not yet taken place. And suppose it had been the case, what has that to do with the present matter, which had long been in progress, and, according to Winkler's own steps, according to his own constitution, could only be carried out and brought to an end on the way already begun, as indeed that must now be so much the more the wish of the complainants, as the whole proceeding made it ever more plainly evident that he did not want the matter to come before an impartial church court. Worthy of remark, moreover, is also the evil distortion of the facts when he says: "the man who first brought the matter to President Walther in St. Louis, as before, so now again, since a better understanding had moved him to turn back, laid it in the hands of the Synod of Buffalo." This should, according to the truth, read thus: the man who gave the immediate occasion for the complaint, but who never belonged to the number of the complainants, never brought the matter to President Walther, went back to Buffalo, joined Pastor Grabau's congregation there again, and laid his personal matter in Pastor Grabau's hands.

The report goes on with a letter of Winkler's to the undersigned, in order then, with masterly art of lying, to represent the sad conclusion of the whole so distorted and perverted that that which, alas, has actually brought Pastor Winkler's impure and dishonest mind to light must serve only to load the undersigned and the Synod to which he belongs, unjustly, with deep disgrace, and withal in insolent arrogance even to call upon God as avenger. Now, let no man be deceived, God is not mocked. HE will one day speak to them in his wrath, and in his sore displeasure he will vex them. —

It is indeed true that Winkler wrote to the undersigned that his further coming would be in vain; but it is just as true, and known and testified to Winkler, that the complaining party wrote those two urgent letters, mentioned before, to him, and besought him earnestly not to forsake them in their present great distress, but to come in haste to Detroit, since otherwise they would be exposed, helpless and without counsel, to the craft and malice of Winkler. Since now Winkler in his letter alleges not a single reason why now no committee could come into being, and the undersigned had been not only assigned in regular course by the President of his Synod to the people as committee member, but had also been hitherto recognized as such by Winkler: what could he do else than travel to Detroit without delay, partly to do what was due to the duty which lay upon him toward the people, partly to learn best by word of mouth why Winkler now suddenly declined, and would know nothing more of the formation of a committee. But that, under such circumstances, he took with him to Winkler expressly three of the complainants, was done solely in order to have Pastor Winkler testify, through the persons concerned themselves, that he had not come uncalled, but rather at the urgent request of his own part. And it is so far from true that the undersigned merely said gruffly and mockingly: "You wrote that I should not come, but these people wrote to me that I should come," that, on the contrary, Winkler did not let him come to a word, but at once dismissed him with the answer that he had nothing more to negotiate with him here, for his part were the Buffalo people, and they would not meet with us in any committee, because we were false in doctrine; he could only still negotiate with him before the Board. And when the undersigned thereupon demanded that he should first prove to him wherein we taught falsely, he did not enter upon that either, but sent him straight away, and said only that he would let him know when the Board should assemble. That indeed took place, with brief words, and there was then, to be sure, no mention made of the three men. But they had heard with their own ears how the undersigned had been accused of false doctrine. So they had of necessity to be present when the proof of it was furnished before the Board, as he was entitled to believe, or, in case that was not possible, the unfounded accusation was withdrawn. What wonder, then, that he brought these three men with him, since it requires not even a Christian mind, but only worldly respectability, to see that an accusation made before witnesses must also be proved before these witnesses. But as to the fourth man, he was, as a mission pupil just arrived from Germany, already kindly received by Winkler, and had access to his house. How good it was, however, that under the existing circumstances this at least undeniably impartial witness was present, seeing that Winkler is bold enough not only to declare the true report of the undersigned to be falsified, but himself reports about it in a manner which scorns not only Christian truthfulness but also mere civil respectability. But more of this in what follows.

(Conclusion to follow.)