Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-05-18
BROTHER LONG
Takes All the Sap Out Of Brother Daniels
Letter and Proves Presbytery
in the Wrong.
1t Did Not Question His Orthodoxy, Yet
Refused to Take Him and His
"Strangers" In.

To the Editors of the Appeal:
The Rev. Eugene Daniel, in his article in
this mornings APPEAL, delineating my
awkward predicament," makes two or three
statements which may be OF sufficient I'M
portance to require kind correction.
WASTED REBUKE.
Fira-I am CORY to see my brother waste
such a sound and solemn rebuke on typo
oraphieaI error. The language which l used
| from the pulpit "on Sabbath evening m aking
so grave an accusation against presby:ery
| was; "But, finally, hold that this decision
was made in direct violation OF the consti-
tntion Of our Church" But / will bottle
I'D" this good advice and keep it for some
other time. / had taken the trou bic TO in
form myself upon that point.
iSecond-I thank Brother Daniel for
"ouoting fully the language of the minutes
of the General Assembly of $780," did not
have the minutes" by me, else l should
have quoted them. In my humble judgment,
every minded reader viii see that in
stead of "annihilating my assertion" the
deliverance as quoted by Brother Daniel
completely establishes my position.
There are two points, however, In which l
was mistaken. (d) l said that the friends
of DR.. Dana brought in an overture. 1t APP
pears from the record that DIR. Dana brought
in the overture or letter himself. (b) l said
that "the Judicial Committee" brought in
unanimous report. The record shows that ii
was the COMMITTEE of Correspondence"
Mr.. Daniel pretends that there is point IL
this. while in fact il makes not the slightest
difference whether it was the Judicial Com
mittee," or the Committee on Foreign Cor
respondence, or the Committee on Bills and
Overtures, or no committee at all. The de-
lirerance Of the Assembly is the law, 1t makes
no III ference how the matter is brought be-
fore the assembly.
THAT DELIvERANCE.
Now, as to that deliverance. / said from
my pulpit that il was to the EFFECT that there
is nothing in the nature or constitution of the
Presbyterian Church preventing Pres5yte-
rian minister from taking charge of an indie
pendent church." In my answer to the
"memoriap at Somerville, which was pub
lished in the APPEAL two weeks ago, said
that the Southern General Assembly in 1880
decided, by an overwhelming majority, if
not unanimously, that there was nothing in
the nature and constitution of the Presbyte-
rian Church TO forbid Presbyterian pre- ch-
er's preaching to or becoming the pastor OF
an independent church, if, in the judgment
of the presbytery, the cause of Christ would
be advanced thereby; aud further, that no
presbytery should remove one of its mem
bers from an independent church unless the
cause of Christ undoubtedly demanded it."
This is the exact language Of my manuscript
as laid before the committee at Somerville.
1 was not pretending to give quotation
from the assembly's minutes, but only an ex-
act meaning of the deliverance, which, by
it with the quotation of Brother
Daniel, you will find to be absolutely correct.
THE LAW.
Ques.-Is it unIagfuI for a minister in your
to be pastor of independent
church? Ans.-There is nothing in our
ter in our connection from preaching the Cos
pei at any church where he has the consent of
his own presbytery..
Ques.-Can presbytery by simple vote
of the majority displace pastor against the
will of both pastor and congregation?
Ans-See Form of Government, chapter V,
section 4, paragraph 6. "The presbytery has
relation and to dissolve it at the request Of one
or both of the parties, or Where the interests Of
religion imperotitely demand it, While the
presbytery clearly has such power, the assem-
BIZ decides that a presbytery taking such ac-
ton should be thoroughly convinced that the in
terests Of religion imperGiuety demand It,"
A CLEAR AND FoRCEFUL ANALYSIS.
Now, let Us analyzs this deliverance, as it |
bears upon my case:
Frrst-Ihe General Assembly decides that |
''there is nothing in our Book of Order to |
prevent Presbyterian minister from preach |
ing at any church where he has the consent |
Of his presbytery." But. as everybody knows
who was at Somerville, the m ain position Of |
Ihese brethren was that l had no right to preach |
10 any but a Presbyterian church. One brother, |
The Rev. Mr.. Gill, the chairman of the COM
mittee, said that "the very existence of the |
Church had for its object the
of Presbyterianism,n and hence
hat no Presbyterian had right to labor for
any other church. The assembly decides
hat he has right to do it with consent of
course, that the presbytery will be guided by
just consideration of the question whether
,r not the interests of Christ's kingdom will
be advanced by giving its cons Mt. This is
he very point against which l appeal. The |
1resbytery absolutely refused 10 consider any
question ,1cept that Of It's cum local interests.
lad there an orderly request from the Stran-
;ers church to lay before the presbytery for
ny services. These brethren knew that l
lad such a request, for l had told
ONE OF THE "MEMoRIALIsTs'
,efore he went to Somerville. But before had
,een on the floor of the presbytery an hour,
Brother Daniel arose and read the memorial,
n order, as l believe, to prevent the consid-
ration of the request of the Strangers
hurch. Whether that was his object or not,
did prevent it. Thus the presby terry sum-
narily refused to consider the question
Thether it ought 10 give its consent" upon
he basis of church law and the great ques-
ion of the interests of religion. By doing
his, it no. only ignored the deliverance of
be Genera Assembly, but its own duty as a
curt of Jesus Chris, and also gave the
trapgers church q slap in the face l and
very man admit the necessity of obtaining
ne consent Of the presbytery to preach to any
hurch. l cannot and would rot, preach for
resbyterian church without the presbytery's
onsent. But deny the legal right of pres
ytery to cast aside an orderly request of an
yangelical church for my services without
ven respectful consideration, and then TO
RIDER me to
CEASE PREACHING
that church. Neither the constitution nor
lie assembly comedies such authority to a
resbytery. For, says the assembly and the |
lrm of government: HWhere the interests
religion imperatively demand it." "The
ssembly decides that the presbytery taking
Ich action should be thoroughly convinced
lat the interests of religion imperatively de-
landed it," l deny, upon the basis Of the
cord, that the presbytery even considered
lie question whether the interests of religion {
nperatively demanded my removal from
lie Strangers church in the sense intended !
y the law. The evident meaning of this
revision il, that where there is such discord
strife between a minister and his church,
where the minister has been guilty of such
ross and notorious immortality, or has been
nilty OF preaching such heretical rieps as that {
THE CAUSE OF RELIGION
emands his removal from the church, and
lie presbytery is thoroughly convinced of ..
lie fact, then the presbytery may dissolve
lie relation or displace the minister without
is or The church's consent. Brother Daniel {
lght to know that this is the meaning of I
Ie law. Now, Brother Daniel and the :
-ethren on his side denied that they had !
~ charge to make against my orthodoxy. /
his they insisted on over aud again. They /
ID not argue that the interests of religion .
emanded my removal from the Strangers G
lurch. Nothing was considered but the 5
terests of Presbyterianism. They did adopt e
report convicting me of something (they '
d not say WHAT as mot conducive 10 pure |
Id indebted religion" If l understand
em correctly z
THE ARGUMENTS 2
ed by them were only three. a. / had G
right as Presbyterian minister to labor
r anything but the propagation of Presby- i
rianism. ~ That ] was disturbing the {
saee and unity of the PRESBYTERIAN Church | =