The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-01-18
For the Central Presbyterian.
Appeals for Helm.

MesSrS. EolitorS,-I am sure your two
correspondents "J." and L. B. j." who
have lately written on this subject would
be sorry if the effect Of what they have
said should be to keep help from reach
ing any meritorious and really needy con-
gregation, but as neither of them alludes
to any rules by which the Assembly s
fund is protected from imposition and the
latter rather intimates that the imposi-
tlon Is frequent, it seems important that
a word should be said in explanation.
did not understand 81. F." to refer in his
article to the organized work of the
GSh9ggrch ( as it is cared for by the General
the he indiy;dno9j d9 the the IPresbyteries, but to
made so frequently of late Both of your your
correspondents are correctin stating that
there is need of great care in bestowing
help lest harm should be done to the re-
cipient and damage to the cause. This
necessity was fully appreciated and pro-
vlded for by the General Assembly when
1t instituted It's Sustentation Fund, and
In the bylaws which govern the Execu-
tive Committee and the Presbyteries, in
flexible rules are laid down, the observ-
ance OF which will entirely prevent the
evil deplored. Thus bylaw 3 contains
the following language: No appropria-
ton shall be made to supplement the sal
ary given by feeble church, unless the
P,resbyterial committee, through which
the application Is made, can certify that
the congregation itself has done all that
could reasonably be expected of it to raise
a sufficient salary" Bylaw is as fol-
lows: No appropriation shall be made
to aid In repairing or erecting a church
edltice, except where the Presbyterial
committee OF missions can certify l. That
the congregation themselves have not the
means to do it" ETC., etc., etc. These
rules touch the point under discussion so
accurately and are In themselves so plain,
| that explication is needless. No applica-
ton for aid can be granted unless it be
recommended by the Presbyterial com
mittee, and the Presbyterial committee
is inhibited from recommending it, unless
conformed to the bylaws above cited.
1t would seem, therefore, that the imposi-
ton dreaded by IL. B. j." is entirely
barred, except as the Presbyterial com
mlttees are subject to infrmity, as all
human beings are. But even here the
apprehended danger is reduced to the
minimum from the fact that the Presby-
terles almost universally choose their
most prudent and best accredited men to
represent them on this committee, who
are required to report all their doings to
the Presbytery for their approval, so that
the most rigid possible supervision of the
whole business is observed In order that
your readers may see into what kind of
hands this important interest has been
put by the Presbyteries, l will mention
the names Of the Presbyterial ohairmen
in the Synod Of Virginia, who are at pre-
sent and have for some years been in Of
fee. They are Rev w. V. Wilson, Rev.
A. W. Pitzer, d. D., Rev. T. D. Wither-
spoon, d. D., Rev j @. Brown, Rev. r..
@. Walker, Rev. W. U. Murkland, D. D.,
Rev. Daniel Blain, Rev. II. A. Brown.
Rev. r. l.. Dabney, D. D., and Rev. A.
@. Hopkins. l suppose that it would be
hard to find in the Synod other ten men
who would be harder to fool or less apt
to err in the discharge Of their duty. and
what is true in this respect of the Synod
Of Virginia, believe to be generally