The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1880-04-14


exceedingly like rebuke We here have
one class of Presbyteries having $4,000
members of whom it is said % that they
work, and (2) that they "are chiefly en-
gagged IN attending to the aOantS Of their
special feldS We distinctly repudiate
the implications of both assertions. Our
Presbytery never has refused to coope-
rate with the Assembly's aOork, but is
heartily doing so now. 1t has never
taken any action that could be tortured
into an expression of decreasing interest
in the great work of Home Missions. 1t
distinctly disclaimed any such purpose
at the time it resolved to take control of
its own work four years ago (in April,
1870. 1t then ordered that whilst it
would be its own judge of the proportion
of its collections to be given for the
general cause outside its bounds, and
of the best methods Of erpendimg its oaOn
funds in its own bounds, one-tenth of all
its collections for Home Missions must be
sent to the Central Committee in Balti-
more to be used as that Committee chose
in the Church at large. If any one
thinks the ne-tenth small sum, let him
and the number of feeble churches in this
Presbytery, and let him also notice that
during the first three years following our
assumption of the management of our own
field we sent to the Central Committee the
sum of $787, every dollar of which was
expended by that Committee outside this
Presbytery. In spite of our vast needs,
and in spite of the fact that we never
have yet given our own feeble churches
as much as they needed, we have each
year sent to Baltimore one-tenth of our
collections. We have done this expressly
to show our interest in the work at large,
and to teach our own people in this Pres
bytery to think of the whole Church and
not of part only. And every appeal
we make to our churches for increased
contributions to Home Missions is an APP
peal for the whole Church, because in all
cases ten per cent of them goes to the
central Committee. Is it fair or proper
therefore, for the Committee to alIude to
us as those who do not cooperate with
the Assembly's work, and to contrast us
with the 100000 members e lOho are
united IN carrying out the Assenaby's
scheme for the up6uiJding and extension
of the Church ?" Surely not We also
repudiate the implication that we are en-
gagged chiefly in attending to our own
special fields in any sense different from
all the other Presbyteries of the Church.
Where is there single Presbytery in all
the Church, which has any considerable
destitution within its bounds, that does
not spend upon those destitutions at least
the larger part of its collections and at
tention? Do not all our Presbyteries do
this? Nay, are there not great many
of the Presbyteries which are so fully CO.
operating with the Assemblys scheme,
that spend every dollar they raise in
their own fields and then beg more be-
sides from the Central Committee? Would
1T be either wise or Just for East Hanover
Presbytery to expend the larger part of
It's collections outside its own special
fields when not one of its feeble churches
can support pastor? Why, then, is
such Language employed? Why allude
to the 10000 In manner which clearly
implies that they are engaged in a selfish
scheme of their own, and that it is of no
use to. look to them for any aid for the
general work of our Church Why not
appeal to this Presbytery, seeing ten per
cent of all we raise goes to Baltimore?
The offence of this Presbytery if Of
fence it be, is simply that, in the exer-
else of that authority inherent in it's very
constitution, with which no committee, or
Assembly even, has the slightest right to
lntermeddle, it resolved that inasmuch as
Its mission field was vast (embracing
twenty entire counties not touched by us
as yet, and fifteen very feeble churches)
and calling for constant changes of rules
and methods, and especially inasmuch as
it did not intend to ask for any aid from
the Committee, it would be it's own Judge
of the proportion of it's collections to be
devoted to its own fields and of the rules
OF expending its funds in its own bounds.
Inc idea Of losing interest in the general
work Of the Church was in nobody s mind.
The language we have been criticisine
has been employed a number of times
both in public and in private speeches
and in written circulars-not the same
words but the same ideas, and we are
sure it is not only unfair to use it, but it
Is hurtful and mischievous in tendency.
Its gravity arises not merely from the
fact that 1T casts unmerited reproach upon
good brethren Gin spite Of the good inten-
tlons Of its authors) but from the fact that
lt is Of the nature Of gag-1av or,D1iod boo