It is of much importance that the foreign missionary benevolences of a church should be wisely administered _as a whole_. When different missionary societies of a denomination appeal, as they do at present, to our churches for funds to support the missionary cause in foreign lands, it is of great importance that moneys received by these different bodies should be appropriated wisely. They should be brought together both for unity of results and for economy of expenditure on the mission field. My observation convinces me that, for want of a wise union or correlation of our missionary agencies at home the various departments of the work (of the Congregationalists, for instance) on the mission field are very unequally supported, and an unwise distribution of the benevolences of the churches follows as a result. A previous, full consideration, by a competent general committee of finance, in America, should be had of the needs of the various departments of each mission and of the distribution of all the funds collected for that mission by the various societies; and they should be carefully distributed in accordance with the urgency of those needs respectively.
These missionary societies should aim to cultivate in the churches the spirit of missions as a _Christian principle_. Advocates of the missionary cause strongly feel that the interest of the Church in missionary work today is too little based upon the real and fundamental principle of missionary work as a necessity of the life of the Church itself, and too much dependent upon exciting narrative, tearful appeal and poetic romance. The cultivation of the missionary principle and the inculcation of the doctrine of the privilege and beauty of supporting missions, apart from any impassioned appeals or tragic events, is one of the _desiderata_ of the Church today. It is a morbid condition of the mind of the Church which demands exciting narrative and hysterical appeal in order to arouse it to its duty in this matter; and it also tends to create a standard of missionary advocacy which is neither manly nor sufficiently careful to balance well the facts and data of missionary work as it is found upon the field. There is considerable danger of accepting, today, only that form of missionary appeal which is directed to the emotion and which abounds in mental excitement rather than that which furnishes food for sober thought. The consequence is that this advocacy is in danger of becoming a producer of more heat than light—of more emotion than intelligent conviction.