Not long after, we were notified to be present at a meeting to be held in the vestry of the church. There were but few present. The influence of my father and his family was such that our opposers had no desire to present our case before a larger number of the congregation. The single charge preferred was that we had walked contrary to their rules. Upon our asking what rules we had violated, it was stated, after a little hesitation, that we had attended other meetings, and had neglected to meet regularly with our class. We stated that a portion of the family had been in the country for some time past, that none who remained in the city had been absent from class meeting more than a few weeks, and they were morally compelled to remain away because the testimonies they bore met with such marked disapprobation. We also reminded them that certain persons who had not attended class meeting for a year were yet held in good standing. {1T 42.4} | |
Vidnesbyrd for menigheden bind 1 kapitel 4. 42. Fra side 42 i den engelske udgave. | tilbage |
Ikke længe efter blev vi bedt om at komme til et møde, der skulle holdes i kirkens sakristi. Der var kun få til stede. Min fars og hans families indflydelse var således, at vore modstandere ikke havde noget ønske om at fremlægge vor sag for et større antal af menighedsforsamlingen. Den eneste anklage, der blev fremført, var, at vi havde handlet i modsætning til deres regler. Da vi spurgte, hvilke regler vi havde overtrådt, blev der efter lidt tøven sagt, at vi havde været til stede ved andre møder og havde forsømt at møde regelmæssigt op i vor klasse. Vi sagde, at (43) en del af familien havde været ude på landet for nogen tid siden, og at ingen, som var blevet i byen havde været borte fra klasse møderne i mere end nogle få uger, og de var moralsk tvunget til at blive væk, fordi de vidnesbyrd, de gav, blev mødt med markant misbilligelse. Vi mindede dem også om, at visse personer, som ikke havde fulgt klassemøderne i et år, stadig nød god anseelse. |