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

MIN In the nret nail OF my last letter, winch
he neither denied nor attempted to disprove.
Let us see how the matter now looks. l in
sisted that he left out an essential part of the
deliverance of the General Assembly last
Sunday night, and thereby made a very erro-
neous impression upon the mind of his au-
dience. How does he answer this? Evil
IDENTIFY by quoting What he did say as to that
deliyerance. But what does he now affirm
that he said? Precisely what l stated, word
for word.
"Now as to that deliverance: said from
my pulpit that it was 10 the effect
that there is nothing in the nature or
constitution Of Presbyterian church pre-
venting Presbyts4ian minister from taking
charge of an independent church. In my
answer to the memorial at Somerville, which
was published in the APPEAL two weeks ago,
said" etc. But let US pause here. Mr..
Long will excuse us for declining TO confound
what he sslid at Somerville with what he said
in Memphis. My objection related to what
he said last Sunday night. l claim that he
then and there left out the essential part of the
law which the people thought he was quot
ing, which he undoubtedly did. The assem-
bly, says that there is nothing to prevent a
minister from taking charge of an indepen-
dent church .'~here he has the consent IF his
ourl pTesbyteTy." Mr.. Long certainly should
have included that important provIso. BY
not doing 80, he made it incumbent upon
another 10 correct him, or else to let his err
ror leave its impress upon the minds of all
who heard him. 1t is certain, then, that my
first point was we'll taken.
ABANDONING HIS UrrERANcEs
of last Sunday night, be flies back to Somer-
vile, and would have us go over the whole
record made there. He even proposes to give
a synopsis of the speeches that were made
and the arguments that were presented, pro
and con; and, as far as the APPEAL will per-
NIT, we cheerfuily follow him.
/. Mr.. Long admits that the presbytery
has full power to refuse permission to one of
its ministers to serve an independent church,
if, IN the judgment of the presbytery, the in
terests of religion will not be promoted
thereby. He ssys, truly, that in such a case
the presbytery is bound to consider The inter-
ests of religion; but he denies that Memphis
Presbytery did this in his case, because she
acted, as he alleges,
SOLELY FOR PREsBYTERIANIsM.
Now the whole truth on this subject is
simply this: The Presbyterian Church, just
like every other branch of the church of
Christ, exists for the sole end of extending
the religion of Jesus. Her polity, her doc
trines-everythipg about hers for that
great end. 1t is perfectly fallacious, there
fore, for Mr.. Long TO try to show that the in
terests of the Presbyterian Church and the
interests of religion are incompatible, so
that while presbytery is considering the one
she is not considering the other. Let it be
admitted that Methodists, Baptists, Presby-
terians, and ali other ecclesiastical bodies,
are not considering
THE INTERESTS OF RELIGION
while considering their own denominational
work, and then none of these churches can
might it be said that each regiment of an
army, occupying its own position, having its
own weapons and fighting against the COM
mon enemy, was net considering the interests
of the grand army to which it belongs.
More over, the presbytery is TO be the judge
of this matter for itself. Says the assembly:
''The presbytery has the power" Only lei
the presbytery thoroughly consider what the
interest of religion demand. But who is to
judge as TO whether she has done this or not?
Clearly the presbytery herself. And the
presbytery of Memphis
ASSERTS soLEMNLY
hat she did this very thing, using such Ian
gusge as this: "Lamenting the dissensions that
rend the body of Christ, Brother Longs connec-
ton Nth said church IS not condu-
clue TO true and undsfIed religion" This quo
tation from the report certainly shows that
the pre- sbytery 6eliered she was trying to ad-
vance the interests of religion in this case.
Will it be affirmed that she was self-de-
ceived? If SO, then that fact can be known
O My to God. And il she did act from this
NJ olive in this case, then Brother Long him.
self admits that her action was lawful But,
Brother Long vainly attempts TO show that
the l,resbytery refused to consider the inter-
ests OF religion in his case in this way,
namely: He says that she would not permit
him to present a request from the Strangers
church for his pastoral services. This / en-
phatically deny. The facts are simply these:
The presbytery met at 10 o'clock Wednesday
and
BROTHER LONG
was not present. After sermon, and the
the moderator announced that
the first item on the docket las is usual) was
the reception of communications addressed
to the BODY. Several of these were received.
One memorial was withheld, for expected
that the request from the Strangers church
would be forthcoming. But it was not.
Prssbytery took recess. After dinner Mr..
Long came in. He gave a reason for
hardness: My own culpable ignorance of
the time of meeting At least half of the
afternoon wore away, and still the request
from the Strangers church was not presented.
The question then arose: Could we longer
delay our memorial? Plainly not.
H..
to know early in the session, by an open and
manly policy on our part, what he must be
prepared to meet, and thus have time to
make his answer. THAT very argument was
used.) The presbytery required time TO con-
slider the matter, appointing committee and
discussing fully the report thereof; and so
we felt compelled to retain the memorial
no longer. Would to God that Brother
Long could understand that we had no NAL
ice toward him in all that transaction! The
was received by the presbytery
and referred to committee. Mr.. Long,
riqM then, might have presented the request
from the Strangers Church. The presbytery
could have received it along with the memo
rial and referred it to the same committee or
to another one, as Mr.. Long might have
preferred. The reception of the one docu-
ment could have had no effect toward ex-
GLIDING the other. And Mr.. Long even
then might have had his paper considered
before ours or afterward, or Simultaneously
with it, Just as he chose. L certainly would
have been in favor Of granting him that
privilege. But the fact is that he neUer did
present to pres5ytery the request from
THE STRANGERS CHURCH,
and 30 the presbytery never had the oppor-
tunity of considering it. Mr.. Long expressly
declined to present it, but sald he would
simply lay it before the committee. II was
read as information, but it was never offered
to the presbytery for action. Now, can any
man say that the interests OF re-
ligion were disregarded here because the
presbytery refused TO consider this request,
which never was presented? Surely not.
say nothing as to the motire which Mr.. Long
attributes to me in this transaction. He
simply fails TO understand the man he is
talking about.
2. Mr.. Long says that there were only
three arguments moving the presbytery TO
its action. ID That he had mo right a
minister to labor but for any
thing but the propagation of Presbyterian
ism." l deny that this brief sentence fully
gives the position actually taken. 1t was
clearly explained that "Presbyterianism"
here was a term used to set forth the work
of Christ simply as done by and through the |
Presbyterian Church, the great work OF saw
ing souls being the chief end and aim OF that
church, the one thing to be pursued through |
all her agencies and doctrines. 1t was
never claimed that any church had |
light TO make mere decentralization p7ra- |
a cunt to christianity, but that the |
h ief business of eue7y denomination ID the |
re al work of evangelizing the world. ~ !
That he was
DISTURBING THE PEACE
md unity of the Presbyterian Church by |
lrawing away their congregations, especially |
It nightso This is (uniutentionaily, per- |
aps.) mere caricature of the reasoning pre- |
snted. To show the full force Of the pres |
,ytery's position, to which Mr.. Long here |