Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1882-05-27
NJ. LoNe,s CASE.
Another Section of the Newspa'
per Judiciary Heard FrOml
sOmeryiile Falcon, %.

Bonneville Falconi -.
1t seems to us that the Appeal goes
outside the record in deciding the
Long case. That able journal had q
precOnceived idea of Mr.. Longs re-
ligious status and bends its decision to
accord with what it had foreadjudged.
While we shall not speak OF Presbyte-
rianism with as much asperity as our
Memphis contemporary and have no
occasion to laud Liberalism, we are
not effected by sympathy on the one
hand or prejudice on the other. tMr.
Long is conscientiously Presbyterian
he should not become a Liberal to
win the plaudits of the Appeal or
those Of the people of Memphis.
But whether Mr.. Long is orthodox
or heterodox has never been called
in question. The laxity Of
his views or the strictness Of his re-
ligious principles is not a matter of
controversy. The only point to decide
is whether he has violated the law of
the Presbyterian Church in preaching
at the Church of the Strangers. We
were an attentive and unbiased lis
teuer to the arguments before the
Presbytery, recently convened in this
place, and have carefully read the
newspaper controversy between
Messrs. Long and Daniels. In our
opinion, very humbly expressed, Mr..
Longs course has been perfectly regu-
lar and entirely consistent with Pres
byterian Church law. The Appeal
charges Mr.. Long with the arti-
Giles Of faith adopted by the Strang-
.ers' Church. 1t is a we'll
known fact that the Strangers
Church is not Presbyterian nor
does MI. Long claim such a thing, but
siuce he has not been charged with
heresy this matter is entirely foreign
to the subject discussed. On one
point brought forth in the newspaper
controversy, we can testify as a wit
ness, aud will be supported by all who
attended the Presbytery's sittings.
MI. Long was not allowed an oppor-
tunity to file the petition he brought
from the Strangers Church before
Nh. Daniels read the now famous
memorial. 1t seems to be nothing I'M
usual or strange for a Presbyterian d.
vine to preach to an independent
church. In fact, a member Of the
Presbytery who voted against Mr.. Long
confessed that he had preached from
the same pulpit that Mr.. Long now
occupies, to the great modification
of his Memphis bretheren. The church
law certainly permits such a thing, the
only condition expressed being the
consent of the Presbytery. If Mr..
Long had violated the law in preach
ing to the Strangers Church without
previous consent of the PIesbytery, he
came to Somerville, as members ofthe
P~resbytery knew, 10 ask that consent.
1t would certainly have been more in
accord With the Christian spirit which
brother Daniels SO loudly profess to
have readily given consent and thus
remedied the breach Of law, il any
any breach had been made. But
the fact is that Longs opposers in
the Presbytery resorted to sharp
practice to prevent such consent
from being given. To unprejudiced
observers Of the Long case it is sp.
parent hat there is some secret snimus
instigating the prosecution not brought
out in the memorial. W. do not say
that this is wholly personal jealousy
nor are we inclined to believe such a
thing. 1t may be a desire to get Mr..
Long out of the Presbytery without
trying him for heresy. But we cannot,
like the Appeal, judge Mr.. Longs
conscience in the matter and antici-
pate his church in adjudgiDg him a
hereto. The charges preferred in the
memorial presented to the Presby-
terry, and in the report Of the commit
tee, are all that is before the public,
and so far as they go we think that
Mr.. Long has the Presbytery at a
decided disadvantage.