# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1852 12 07_S1025
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Supplement to No. 14, Volume 9, of the Lutheraner.

The Pastors Grabau and Winkler and the Congregation at Cleveland.

(Conclusion.)

"From this," Pastor Grabau continues, "it follows: 1. That there was no ground for removing Pastor Schmitt from his office, but that his enemies pressed for his resigning; 2. That Mr. Sihler, without Pastor Schmidt's consent, gave it out as wisdom to have another preacher come; 3. That Pastor S. would have continued in his office if he had not been discouraged by Sihler's unchristian conduct; 4. That many members of the congregation were not agreed to such a removal of Pastor S., but only his enemies who persecuted him; 5. That Sihler only flattered the hostile crowd and conformed himself to their will; 6. That Pastor S. still remains obliged to continue his office, from which he has resigned wrongly; 7. That the preacher intruded upon Cleveland by Sihler has no divine call; 8. That the same is also a preacher of a faction, since he serves the unreconciled enemies and persecutors of Pastor S. with the Lord's Supper."

So then, that those abominable accusations in No. 3 are not true, one learns; that is admitted after their fashion; but with it not one little word of regret is expressed that the good name of the neighbor has been so shamefully torn down. Whoever would be a Christian ought not to be ashamed to beg pardon, even if he had wronged an open villain, above all when he himself must confess to have borne false witness. Or does one perhaps not need to do so in the case of a "faction," just as one need not keep one's word to heretics? Here, however, not only is no pardon begged, but the retraction also is put into words with particular artfulness, so that as much as ever possible may stick with the guileless reader, and even in the retreat a thrust is still delivered backward from behind. For first of all one does not see rightly to whom the words belong. There are quotation marks there, to be sure. But with these it is a peculiar matter in the Informatorium. Whoever has once fallen into this trap cannot be blamed if at the sight of these marks (") he feels somewhat as though there stood posted up "here lie foot-traps!" Now it is true, foot-traps are otherwise no product of the coarse smith's trade, but the Buffalonians have furnished proofs that they understand also such finer work. For it is plain that the sentences quoted are not the ipsissima verba of Pastor Schmidt; but who can know how much belongs to him, how much to Pastor Grabau? Why does one not print the actual words and in full? Further: Pastor Grabau says in No. 3 that he learned those things through Pastor S.; Pastor S. says in No. 4 no to that. Who, then, speaks the truth? Why is clear wine not poured out entirely? Why does Pastor S. not report the whole truth? Pastor S. will not be father to the horrible untruths in No. 3. Pastor G. will in the end probably not wish to be so either. Well, the child must yet have a father! Who is it, then? It will probably again be some dear informant who prudently stays in the Buffalo smoke-hole. Finally, let the words be whose they may, we cannot help it, No. 4 also is full of untruths, which the reader will easily find out by the above narrative of the history.

But what sets the crown upon the whole work is the 8 inferences which Pastor G. draws. By this one recognizes that we have here not some botched piece of an apprentice, but really a work of the renowned master himself. He understands the art of making conclusions that fit everything. These conclusions are made ready beforehand and have an elastic edge at the bottom. Now let facts come, whichever they will, one claps them on their head, and behold, they fit! That is a masterpiece, which one of our sort cannot do. — The 8 inferences, namely, one would let pass, if the state of the case in Cleveland were really somewhat as it was given out in No. 3. But now Pastor G. himself concedes, the state of the case is not so; the inferences, however, —still stand. Just as if Hans first said: you have stolen; therefore you are a thief. But a while after: No, I was mistaken, you have not stolen, but a thief you are all the same. So does Pastor G. At first it is said, you are rebels and enemies of the divine Word, you have out of malice deposed your pastor, chased and driven him away, etc. etc., therefore you are a faction. Then: no, it is an error, your pastor himself resigned, etc. Well, then we are not a faction on that account!—What? how? no, that makes no difference at all, you are a faction and remain a faction! But how so? I will have it so, period! I must have something for the Informatorium!

The thing would be laughable if it concerned trifles and if it were not such abominable earnest. O! how far has it come!

In conclusion we now ask the Messrs. Pastors W. and G.; these gentlemen, who always have so much to say of unauthorized interference of the Missouri Synod, what call then had they actually, to concern themselves with the Cleveland affair? Dr. Sihler was urgently asked for help from 3 sides, that is, from all the parties concerned. Who called the Buffalonians? The congregation has nothing to do with them; Pastor Schmidt himself says that Pastor Winkler's interference does not please him at all. So they might well have waited until they were asked; their body would not have burst, unless perhaps from superfluous gall.

But that might still pass, if they had only first inquired properly before they wrote into the world. These highly righteous judges, who always have it in their mouths that one must hear both parties, whom then have they heard? Dr. Sihler, Pastors Röbbelen and Steinbach had all the parties before them, and no one has complained that the investigation was not long and sharp enough. Whom have they examined? Pastor Schmidt? No, for he says himself he did not want to answer, indeed has for 1½ years broken off his correspondence with Pastors G. and W. The party that stood on Pastor S.'s side? Let them name those. The opposite party? and that, too, would have been the point. No! Why not? Why, those were mere factionists. But how did they know that? That went without saying. So whom have they heard before they wrote? The one and only poor informant, as Pastor W. himself confesses, and it must be so with him that one does not like to name him. That is what one calls, then, hearing both parties and judging justly! It is indeed remarkable. They demand of us that we should hear both parties, thus also their party in disputed congregational matters. But if now someone comes and asks for a look into their records, it is said: you are a factionist, and for factionists our holy ministerial acts are not. If another comes to investigate, one whom they themselves have acknowledged, and does not place himself at once from the start on their side, then he is run away from, and afterward a great outcry is made (as Pastor W. did); if one offers them meetings and conferences, they are declined for this and that reason, and if that will not do, then the answer is: first give us right, then we will talk with you and see who is right (as Pastor G. did). And when they have thus refused every hearing and one judges only according to the testimony of witnesses or even on the ground of documents which are partly written by their own hands, they cry murder that we have not heard them. They themselves, however, as we see here, if they can only find such an informant, write the most dreadful things without further inquiry boldly out into the world. It does not matter, you see, they are only "factions."