Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-05-19

worthy information concerning his entire
course, and from that she came to the conclu-
sion that he was whether Intentionally or
not, yet really,l making such mistakes in
policy as had resulted in discussion, and SO
had disturbed the unity, peace and purity of
the church. 1t is simply absurd to say that
presbytery was brought to the conclusion
that Mr.. Long had disturbed the peace of
the church, by the paltry considerations he
mentions. Is "That the publication of
my examination at Germantown, and my
preaching at the Strangers church, had ex-
cited against them the Criticisms and
sneers OF the ungodly, the ipfdel and atheist,
which had become insupportable" Mr..
Long answers this allegation by saying that
he was not responsible Tor those results. 1t
was shown in presbytery that
Mr.. LONG WAS RESPONSIBLE;
that he himself csused such publications
concerning his examination at Germantown
as created misunderstanding and dissensions
which afterward il was impossible for him
or anybody else to arrest. 1t is a fact, ac-
knowledged by Mr.. Long in open presbytery,
that the very defective and CT pdrte report of
his examination one year ago at German
town, WAS made at his instance and by a
private reporter whom he had engaged for
the purpose. He gave as his reason for this
step that he expected that he would be con-
demned on his examination, and that he was
resolved that the world should know for
what he was condemned. Now, just here,
let it be remarked that if Mr.. Long had de-
manded that every question and answer in
his examination should be reduced to
writing, that he might publish it, he knew
well that no presbytery would have dared
to deny him that privilege. But he had the
reporter present without the knowledge of
presbytery. The report was made and sent
to Memphis. Mr.. Lons asserts that when he
Al. L
telegrsphed to have the report suppressed;
but it tDds published all the same, and from
THAT Ex-PARTE REPORT,
in the opinion of presbytery, began the ex-
citement which has prevailed ever since
Now, where does the responsibility for this
lie? Mr.. Long was not responsible Tor not
stopping the report-he says he tried to do
that-but he wds responsible for starting it.
1t was rash, imprudent, ever to have carried
that reporter to Germantown in that semi
clandestine way, and Mr.. Long never SHOULD
have done it. If he had desired to have his
examination published he could easily have
accomplished his purpose in an open and
direct manner have not the slightest
doubt that he was afterward sorry for what
he had done. Indeed l do not see how he
could have felt otherwise; but regret in this
instance as in 30 many others, came too late
to stay the consequences of the imprudent
act. These and many other arguments
which Mr.. Long does not mention, when
stated in full moved presby terry to its action
And they also would have prevailed in
synod if Mr.. Long had taken such a course
as would have made it possible for synod to
consider the matter at all. And this sug
gests
THE LAST TOPIC 1 TOUCH.
In my former letter showed incoDtrovert-
IDLY by citations from law, that Mr.. Long
through several mistakes of his own, has
made it impossible for this case ever to be
entertained by any higher court. 1t is easily
possible, however, that test case may be
made which shall be judicial in its character.
This is the result which all of Mr.. Longs
brethren have been dreading and deprecat-
Jog. We have, in kindness to him, avoided
tabling charges against him and subjecting
him to judicial prosecution. 1t was thought
that he might respect the coneiliatory coun-
sci of the presbytery at Somerville, given in
love te him, and with fervent prayer for his
welfare. But he has returned to Memphis to
cuse the presbytery OF papal tyranny. Can
this conduct have but one result? If per-
sisted in, how can the presbytery
maintain her self respect without tabling
charges of characterization and instituting
against Mr.. Long judicial process? To this
course he will simply compel us. Convicted
by the presbytery, he may then appeal to the
synod, and then to the assembly; and SO he
may keep himself, his church and this COM
munity in a state of turmoil for many
months, until finally expelled. As the AP-
PEAL has said, "for this extreme of scandal
he should not wait" He may be Presby-
terrain, or he may be an independent; he can
not be both. E. DANIEL.