| 544 2. The conclusion is also equally just that if the church were to drop a doctrine, tenet, or policy to accommodate itself to the opinions, or beliefs of those withdrawing, the same ones, or others might ask for other concessions, and so the church be asked to recede from all, if demanded, and for similar reasons.
3. There was no congratulation upon the representatives of the church standing firm, in the editorial referred to; but the plain statement that they did stand firm. There was no effort to overstate the matter, or to underrate the men or distort the motives of those who withdrew.
4. The reasons given in the paper of withdrawal are not the assault upon the faith of the church. That assault was made before those reasons were formulated and presented; and the article by Elder Briggs itself states that those presenting their letter of withdrawal had "controverted certain doctrines, etc." It is not left to inference that because "certain doctrines and principles or policy are more or less accepted and taught by the elders in the church;" these men withdrew from it; this is their own allegation. What conclusion can be fairer than the one that as the church had not, or would not drop the things complained of, and the elders who accepted and believed them enjoined by the church from teaching them, these men withdrew from the fellowship of the church; thus making the belief of a few or the many of the elders in those things which they did not believe the cause and the occasion of their withdrawal.
5. The report of committee to whom the article of withdrawal was referred, is not in substantial agreement with that article of withdrawal. It is a reaffirmation of the position the church has occupied and now occupies upon the points named in that report. If the things affirmed in the report are a correct statement of the positions of the church, and in agreement with the men withdrawing, then should they not have withdrawn. If Elder Briggs is in substantial agreement with that report, then was there no occasion for withdrawal.
6. There was no necessity for the church to affirm belief in what the parties withdrawing objected to. The church had never affirmed some of them at all, and some of them in nothing like the sense in which those withdrawing presented them. Some of the objections are without point, as far as belief of the church is concerned; and no one should expect an elaborated answer in such a case.
7. The gagging by the Board of Publication could apply to but one of the parties who withdrew, if to any, and was a matter solely within the control of the Board, subject to an inquiry before the conference. No complaint was made to conference of refusal to publish, and the Board asked to state why such refusal was given, or explanation asked from the Board before the conference.
8. The action of withdrawal by the parties named in it was presented at an early moment in the conference, and made the giving a reason for refusing to sustain at the preceding session unnecessary; hence the
(page 544) |
