The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1877-07-25

hands of few men. The work of the Com
mittee is annually subjected to supervision,
and supervision which has meaning
Our Church wisely discarded Boards invest
ed with more permanent existence, period
of three or four years being needed to change
their organization; and also being, in fact,
another and, it might be, an antagonistlc
power. A good custom too, has grown up,
that of making the report on the dOings of
the Executive Committee, matter of actual
discussion, and not merely theme for plat
form and "spread eagle" speeches. In the
last Assembly, the doings or rather the "say-
inqs" of the Committee, was made the theme
of such discussion. We do not sympathize
with the scope of some remarks on the Ian
guage used by the Committee. We honest
ly think it was strained, to say the least
The Committee and the Secretary of Susten-
tatiOn were bound to present such facts and
statements as would, in their opinion, put
the Assembly in full possession of the correct
view of their position; and distinctly disaVowed
any purpose of "censuring" the Presbyteries.
(We do not profess to understand how dis
avowal of parpOse to censure, implies a
claim to the right to censure.) The Assem-
blv seems to have understood the Committee,
and by this first resolution, cleared them of
the charge.
1t may not be amisS to express, though
very briefly, our own views of the action Of
the Presbyteries, which have undertaken to
work separately. We give few suggestions
a. This whole scheme of separate action is
of old time. We remember once hearing it
ably advocated, even for conducting Foreign
Missions But heretofore, such enterprises
did not proved permanently successful. a.
Suppose the work of Foreign and Domestic
Missions" we're to be conducted as one work,
as well as by one agency. Would not the
whole reasoning which justi6es separation
of given Presbytery from the Committees
agency, be equally pertinent. If it is right
to give Just one-tenth or one-hslf of contri-
buttons to domestic Missions" for regions
beyond our bounds, and for work among the
colored people, why not decimate or halvt
the entire contributions for {" Missions ?"-
Have China or Brazil any stronger claims
than our own destitutions and the heather al
our doors ? True, there are peculiar cases
and they may justify exceptions. But each
Presbytery may connect with the question o.
calls for help, the question of the promise o.
the field to be helped. There are churches
in the Southwestern field, in Texas for ex
ample, which by few years help have be
come self.sustaining. On the other hand
there are churches, in our Synod, which need
ed help forty or fifty years ago, have always
needed it, and most probably will always b.
needy. Now this difference may be due tt
no lack of zeal or judicious effort, by people
or Pre8bytery. 1t is due to want of pOp~la
tom. We say then, while considering thu
wants of our Presbyterial bounds, inasmuct
as we are part of the whole Church, ought We
not to unite consideration of the wants out
side of our bounds, and act on the principle
of seeking the welfare of the Vhole Church
and aiming to make our work, to this end
tell on the greatest numbers, and minister tt
the most permanent results. This is the only
principle on which we can justify our giving
so much more to carry on the work of Mis-,
sions in foreign lands, than We give fol
church extension in our own. But we can
not do more than offer these hints at this
time.
The second resolution was mere corollary
to the sentiments of appreciation expressed
in the first, and calls for no special remark,