The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1876-04-26
EAST HANOVER PRESBYTERY, AND
SUSTENTATION.


tertained by the majority Of the Presbytery of East
Hanover in its recent action 1t is only fair, how
ever to state that it was passed by bare ma ority
of two and that it is to say the least, exceedingly
doubtful whether it represents the opinion of an
actual majority of the ministers and elders, it all
had been present 1t is well known that the adop-
ton of the resolution was quite unexpected on both
sides. 1t will be viewed with deep regret by
many but as it stands as the action of the Pres
bytery it should be as earnestly supported and car
ried out by the minority, as if it had been in ac-
cordance with their views. A few remarks on the
communication of Presbyter' seem to be called
for.
The first reason given for "a change in the
plan of conducting our Domestic Missionary ope-
rations" rests upon mistake as to the facts.-
When it is borne in mind that the ground out Of
which this whole Sustentation scheme arose, was
the necessity of giving help to 'our weak country
churches" it must strike the common sense Of our
people as passing strange if the application OF this
same scheme would "annihilate" them. If that
be so, what huge hiatus there was in the wisdom
of DR.. j. Leighton Wilson when he pro posed it in
1866, and in the Assembly that adopted it. 1t
was professedly framed upon the general model Of
the Sustentation scheme Of the Free Church OF
Scotland, which plan came, in almost the CON-
pleteness now attained, from the brain of such
man as DR.. Chalmers-the master ecclesiastical
economist of this age. 1t was the salvation of the
Free Church of Scotland, in its great fight Of
affections" ard in its deep poverty" We have
never met with person wellintormed as to the
operations of our Assembly s scheme who did not
agree, that it had saved scores of our feeble church
es from perishing in the PROSTATE condition of the
South after the war. And when our people are
told that the operation of this same plan to our
churches will work destruction, no wonder if they
are surprised, and anxious to learn how and why
it should be so. sdf
Our brother, PeSJvter, says tits the operation
of the fire gear rule" That rule is this: No
appr opriation shall be made to church. or union
of churches for period of moe than five con-
secutive years, except under extraordinary circum
stances or except where they are strictly classed
as missionary churches"
Does any one call in question the propriety of
this ruler This, by the way is not the rule OF the
Assembly's Committee merely, but, as in the case
of all its Committees, these rules are sanctioned by
the Assembly itself Every one knows the con-
slant tendency there is in those who receive aid to
rely too much upon its continuance, instead of
using it to help themselves to position Of indie
pendence The design of this rule is to stimulate
the churches receiving help, so that after little
they may do without it.
But it will be observed that this rule is not abb
soute. Presbyter says, IAN overture was sent
from this EAST Hanover Presbytery requesting
that the flee gears rule be modified to such an ex
tent as to enable US to care for those churches
but the prayer of the overture was not granted.
This statement, though not so intended, is likely
TO mislead Such an overture was sent up to the
Assembly, and here is the paper it adopted GA re.
port of the Committee of Bills and Osertures.
Overture No. IA is from the Presbytery Of
East Hanover, asking the Assembly to make such
change in Bylaw of the Executive Committee
of Sustentation as will favor continued assistance
to such feeble churches as, in the judgment of
the Presbyteries, may be thought to qure it, in
stead of discontinuing aid to them after the period
of five years.
.The Committee recommend the following an.
swer That in the judgment of the Assembly, the
provision for extraordinary cases, attached to the
By. law in question, invests the Committee of Sus
tentation with sufficient discretion, in its applica
ton, to meet the requirements Of each particular
case." minutes for 1875, p. 49,
The only question then is, are the cases pre-.
sented in East Hanover Presbytery extraordinary
in their character? Weare not aware that our As.
ssmby's Committee ever hesitated to regard them
as such, if SO represented by the Presbytery its
Committee. When has it refused ?
Here, then. in its first and most fundamental
position. the plea of necessity" makes a COM
plete break down. No such necessity" for this
separation Of the Presbytery Of East Hanover from
he usual plan of cooperation with the Assembly's
Committee can be made out, from anything found
N its rules or their application The other reasons
'emain to be noticed