Lewisburg Ap. 21./ 64
Rev. B.H. Thomas
	Dear Bro.
		Yours, bearing date 29th Ult.
is before me. Absence, prevented an earlier reply.
I regret, very much, The fact of its being official,
as courtesy requires me to present it to our 
Board and some remarks are needlessly harsh.
  The tenor of the letter places our action in a
wrong light and from want of a proper under-
_standing [imputes?] to us wrong motives. All
personal references I pass in Silence.
  					          h
     The distinct charge made is that of selfis^ness.
“The action of your Board” “we regard as very selfish
not to say contracted and dogmatical.” Again:
“It does not require a Sophomore to understand the
drift of the above remarks, and I confess can-
didly, to the Trustees, at least, it smacks of 
Superlative Selfishness and dogmatism” Again
“They certainly could devise some method honorable
and just to all to aid a poor and worthy brother
without Subjecting him to the expense and inconvenience 
you demand provided they were disposed to allow a few
dollars of the Societies fund to be expanded elsewhere than
at Lewisburg and vicinity” Now in all candor
is this charge Sustained by the past or present action 
of this Board. We have aided young men at
Abington, George Creek, Shirleysburg, Mansfield,
Rochester, Madison, and even in the Western Theo-
_logical Seminary Alleghany City (Presbyterian) Is
not this liberal enough?      At present, One is
				    and
at Shirleysburg, one at Hamilton^ two at Rochester
In Lewisburg Academy we have Four. 
  These facts are a sufficient vindication. I expressed
to you my regret that Bro. J. was not aided and
while I concur in the action of my Brethren as
a wise measure and one commending itself to every
considerate mind I am sorry that it interferes 
with his prospect and the desires of Brethren in
your region and other localities but I fail to 
see the propriety of the charge of selfishness.
    Our rules are before you and the Churches. They
are explicit. Young men must come before the
           in Philadelphia
Board^ or its Executive Committee at Lewisburg
and relate their Christian experience [illegible in original] From these
rules the Board have never deviated save in the
two aided (one a married colored man) in Western Theo.
_logical Seminary Alleghany City Some years ago.

     The application of Five out of Eight comes
     before them   This precedent is urged. You
have in two instances aided outside of this rule
 Why not aid Bro. W.H. Gorson of Shirleysburg? This
case was then pending. [illegible in original] acknowledged error in
the case of these precedents at Alleghany City but
resolved to adhere to their rule  They admitted the
Br. subject to this rule   He came before the Board
Executive Com. at Lewisburg - was accepted and
allowed to pursue his studies at Shirleysburg. I fail
to See Selfishness here.    The other cases were thus
disposed off and not brought up: except Bro. J.
case. This I attempted to put before them on the
ground of great distance but it was without dissent
declined.
But the general policy is good. I heartily approve 
this care and [anxiety?] to hold sacred their trust.
If in any case it seems severe I again respeat
these few cases much to my deep regret must be
considered as Martyrs to a Sound and liberal prin-
cipal or rather to law and order  There is scarse a 
single rule but what trenches on the prospects 
of isolated cases. This does to Some extent. 

Which admitting this I am far from seeing
that in the case of. Bro. J. it has any hard
and severe application. All others have been
compelled to the same course. At the age of
16 I was required to go before the Board in Phil.
making a round trip of 300 Miles and on being
accepted had to go 200 more to Hamilton and 
the entire 500 Miles on foot. Br. Saxton. Br.
Baush and others of that day done the same. In
this day no Student but what has to come to
Phil or to Lewisburg on an uncertainty: He may
be disappointed. One young man from Meadville
Crawford Co. was among the applicants whose
names I presented with Bro. J. aplication. He
had even come to Lewisburg and spent an entire
Term with us but not meeting the rule requiring
a distinct recommendation from the Church his case 
was disposed off of in the same manner. The rule
was hard upon him but still its enforcement was
incumbent on the Board. He could not charge us
with selfishness as hew as a Student in meadville
and it would have been gain to “Lewisburg and vicinity”
to have had him remain.
Such and similar cases constantly occur but the
				      to
Board ought not on this account ^ deviate from
their prescribed rules.