University of Virginia Library

THE DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN MISSIONARY SOCIETY OF THE CHURCH.

Our Church was too tardy in this noble enterprise, especially as
to the foreign department. The first impulse given to us was the
tender of some pecuniary help from the Church Missionary Society
of our mother-country, if we would enter upon the work. The
missionary character and tendency of the Colonization Society did
much to excite our Church to action. The plea for Africa was a
pathetic one, addressing itself to all hearts. But it was not heard
at once by all. Even after our first efforts in behalf of that unhappy
land, I heard an old and respectable clergyman of our Church,
preaching at one of our General Conventions, designate the foreign
missionary effort as a wild crusade, and another of high standing
express the opinion that the foreign missionary work was for other
denominations, and the domestic for Episcopalians. In three years
after, however, I heard the latter plead zealously for the foreign
missionary cause. An effort for preparing coloured missionaries
for Africa was made at Hartford under the patronage of Bishop
Brownell and Dr. Wainwright, but, from various causes, it proved
of but little avail. The efforts of our Virginia Seminary commenced

with preparing Mr. and Mrs. Hill for the Greek mission, and have
ever since been successfully continued. The missionary work went
on gradually increasing on its first platform until the year 1835.
Some of its friends then thought that its labours and funds might
more rapidly increase if some changes in its organization were
effected. It was proposed to place it more entirely under the
patronage and direction of the General Convention; to constitute
the whole Church, consisting of every baptized person and child, the
Society; to declare the whole world to be but one field, forbidding
the distinction of foreign and domestic, or so arranging it that no
dissensions should arise in the management of them. I was not at
the opening of this General Convention, being detained several
days in Virginia. All things were agreed upon before my arrival
between some of those who, from their location and other circumstances,
took a more active part in the conduct of the Society. On
reaching Philadelphia, a number of those brethren whose lead I was
always ready to follow in regard to such matters, and some of whom
are yet alive, informed me that a most happy agreement had taken
place among the active friends of missions, that all party distinctions
were to be done away, and that, in proof of the liberal feeling toward
those of our way of thinking—that one Bishop should be chosen for
China and two for the domestic field—one of the latter, together
with the former, should be such as we would designate. Of course
this was very acceptable to one who had never professed to be indifferent
to the distinctions which prevailed in the Church. It
seemed to promise well. On conversing with that wise and good
man, Bishop Griswold, I found that he was not at all carried away
with the new plan; that he would rather it should assume more
than less of the voluntary system, referring to the two successful
Societies in England,—the Church Missionary Society and the Society
for Propagating the Gospel,—which had always acted on the
voluntary principle. When the proposed changes came before the
whole Society for discussion, there was, I thought, a disposition on
the part of some to underrate the character and success of the old
organization, and I took the liberty to object to such strictures,
and to refer to what it had done, and especially to the great increase
of its funds for the last year or two, at the same time declaring my
intention to act with those who understood the operation of the
Society better than myself. All things were settled on the new
platform, and some of us continued until the last night of the Convention
under the pleasing expectation of having two missionary
Bishops of our own choice; but it so happened that two of the other
side were chosen for the domestic field, and the election of one for
the foreign field was indefinitely postponed. This, among other
things, may help to account for the fact that some of us are rather
fearful of what are called compromises.

Though thus disappointed, we determined to support the new
organization. In many addresses throughout Virginia, I advocated
the peculiarities of it,—even as though it had commended itself
entirely to my own choice and judgment. The Society under the
new organization has certainly not succeeded as well as was expected
by some. An impulse was given to it by the first extraordinary
efforts made in its behalf, and its funds increased for a time; but, as
they were already on the increase, it is impossible to say whether,
with the same exertions, the increase under the old system might
not have been even greater. Certain it is, that the annual increase
soon began to decline, and that the advocates for the new arrangement
were disappointed. The friends of missions have long mourned
the want of zeal and liberality of the Church toward them. The
domestic department especially has languished. The Constantinople
mission dragged heavily for some years, then stopped altogether
for want of men, means, and success. The Greek mission,
being in a measure self-supporting, has sustained itself well. Those
of China and Africa alone seemed to draw forth missionaries and
support, and even these have done it in a degree most disproportioned
to the importance of the object and the wealth of the Church.
At the last General Convention, the causes of failure were inquired
into, especially with a view to some change in the management of
the domestic department, which was in a very languishing condition.
A night was appointed for the consideration of the subject. Through
some mistake on my part as to the place of meeting, I was not
present. I had intended, if present and opportunity offered, to
have stated my own candid convictions as to the main causes of the
deficiencies complained of. I should have referred to the notorious
fact, that the domestic department was unpopular with a large portion
of those entitled Low-Churchmen, whose funds were given reluctantly,
while many on the other side were far from being liberal to
either department. I heard it said by at least two of the Bishops,
ranging on the other side, that it would be necessary to place both
departments in the hands of Low-Churchmen, in order to draw forth
funds from the people. That confidence was wanting in the other
portion was evident from the fact, that a voluntary society had been
formed in Philadelphia for the disposal of its funds on such missionaries
as it might select. The committee of the General Society was

also changed, and some of well-known Low-Church views were put
on it, in the hope of inspiring confidence and raising funds. Some
effect has certainly been produced by this measure, though, unless
other causes of failure be removed, the effect may be only temporary.
Had a similar course been pursued in the election of Missionary
Bishops at the reorganization in 1835, according to the supposed
understanding of some, and as was most reasonable, that liberal
policy might have attached a larger number of one portion of the
Church to it, have received more funds, and have had some effect as
to the kind of missionaries employed. But, in connection with this,
there had been other causes in operation. I had never been disposed
to ascribe to the domestic committee a desire or willingness
to send unsuitable persons or men of extravagant views to the
domestic field, in preference to others. It was not their province,
indeed, to select where there were Bishops. The Bishops received
certain sums of money, and nominated the missionaries on whom it
was to be expended. The committee must, indeed, approve; but
all must see that when a Bishop makes his selection the committee
can scarce object, except in some most notorious case. Whatever
be the cause, the fact is not to be questioned, that the reputation
of the Society has suffered from the reported character of many of
her missionaries. Their very reports, in the "Spirit of Missions,"
were often very unsatisfactory on several accounts. To hearts
imbued with evangelic feeling there was nothing to interest,—
the mere externals of religion being dwelt upon, and even those
not prospering. Their evil report came back to the Eastern
States through various channels. Although there were doubtless
a considerable number of worthy men among them, yet I have
from time to time met with clergymen and laymen who were to
be relied on, who, from their own observation, have declared that, as
to very many of them, we must have different men and of different
views in the Western field, or our Church could never prosper.
From Virginia many individuals and families have gone to various
parts of the West, and from these, through their friends and relatives
at home, I have heard much that was unfavourable. The great
want of the Church, therefore, is not merely more missionaries, but
more of the best kind,—evangelists in the truest sense of the
word,—men of sense to eschew all follies and novelties, and men of
self-denial and toil and with as much experience as possible. For
such men must the Church pray and labour as she hopes for success.
Many have withheld their funds from this Society, because not
knowing unto whose support they might be given, and what false
views of the Gospel and the Church they might be made to promote.
I confess that such has been my case for many years. At first, and
for some time, I gave my annual contributions to domestic missions,
hoping the best; but such were the accounts received in various
ways, and such the most unsatisfactory reports of some of the
missionaries, that I could not continue them with a good conscience.

Still, I avoided all public declaration of my difficulties, and never
attempted to interfere with the conduct of others in regard to it.
Though hoping that the time would come when, under favourable
auspices, some voluntary society might by general consent be
formed, I have hitherto discouraged all suggestions or proposals,
either public or private, which looked toward a new society antagonistic
to that already established. In the Episcopal Missionary
Society for the West, established a few years since in Philadelphia,
I was pleased to see an organization which, while paying all due
respect to the General Society, came as near as circumstances would
allow to such an institution as will afford a channel for the conveyance
of funds to those missionaries, and those only, who are believed
by the donors to be calculated to disseminate the true doctrines
of the Gospel and the Church. While it continues to fulfil the end
and design of its formation, I shall gladly contribute to its support.
I shall also rejoice to know that, by the blessing of God in turning
the hearts of many right-minded and zealous young men to the
ministry, our General Society may have such numbers of suitable
ones at its command that no just cause for complaint may hereafter
arise.