Answer to an anonymous Letter from “An Observer,” on his Objections to Foreign Missions
I should not have thought it necessary thus publicly* to notice an anonymous letter, had it not afforded me an opportunity of answering an objection to foreign missions, which has been more than once advanced—that of its interfering with exertions in favour of our own countrymen. I shall say but little of the gross misstatement in the letter,† as that my going to Scotland, in 1799, was to “witness the state of that country,” and to “concert measures for doing good;” that I did not “condescend” to halt, and preach, between York and Newcastle; and that “it cannot be said that one convert has been made” in foreign missions. Such assertions must have arisen from the want of information. My journey was merely owing to a kind invitation given me to go and receive the donations of a number of my fellow Christians, who were willing to contribute to the giving of the Holy Scriptures to a great nation which had them not, as all the country between York and Newcastle has. My excursion was not a preaching one, though I did preach, and that to the utmost extent of my power. If I had taken half a year, I might have stopped much oftener than I did; but then it is possible my own congregation would have reminded me that “charity begins at home.” Whether success has, or has not, attended foreign missions, the accounts which have been printed of them, so far as human judgment can go in such matters, will enable us to decide.
The only question that requires attention is, Whether the spirit, which, within the last ten years, has prompted Christians of different denominations to engage in foreign missions, has been favourable or unfavourable to the propagation of the gospel at home?—It is a fact which cannot be disputed, that, within the above period, there have been far greater exertions to communicate the principles of religion to the heathenized parts of both England and Scotland than at any former period within the remembrance, at least, of the present generation. If I were to say they have been five times greater than before, I think I should not exceed the truth. Nor has that part of the kingdom to which the writer of the letter alludes been overlooked. And how is this fact to be accounted for? Will this friend to village-preaching unite with Bishop Horsley, and say it is the effect of political motives; and merely a new direction of the democratic current, which was interrupted by the Treason and Sedition bills in 1795? If so, we might ask, How came it to commence two years before those bills were passed? How is it that it should have prevailed, not so much among those Dissenters who took an eager share in political contention, as those who had scarcely ever concerned themselves in any thing of the kind? And finally, How is it that it should have extended to other nations as well as Britain, and other quarters of the world as well as Europe? But I suppose the writer of this letter would not attribute it to this cause. How then will he account for it? The truth most manifestly is, that the very practice of which he complains has been more conducive to that which he recommends than all other causes put together. It is natural that it should be so. A longing desire after the spread of the gospel, when once kindled, extends in all directions. The same principle which induces some to leave their native land, to impart the heavenly light, induces others to contribute and pray for their success; and while they are doing this, it is next to impossible to forget their own countrymen, who, though they have access to the written word, yet live “without God in the world.”
It is very singular that the example of “Paulinus,” (I suppose he meant Austin the monk,) who came to Britain as a missionary from Rome, about the year 596, and is said to have baptized ten thousand people in the river Swale,* should be alleged against foreign missions. Allowing Austin’s converts to have been real Christians, (which, however, is very doubtful,) according to the “Observer” there was “much blame attached” to his labours of love, since the probability of greater success was in favour of Italy; a country far less distant than Britain, and more deserving of his charity, which should have begun at home.
Unfortunately for this proverb, I do not recollect ever hearing it alleged but for a selfish purpose. Go and ask relief for some distressed object of a wealthy man. His answer is, “Charity begins at home.” True, and it seems to end there. And, by the reasoning of this observer, his would do the same. So long as there are any sinners in Britain, we must confine our attention to them. A person of a contracted mind once objected to the exportation of our manufactures. “We have many poor people in England,” said he, “who are half naked, and would be glad of them; and charity begins at home.” He was informed, however, by a merchant, that to send our commodities abroad is not the way to impoverish, but to enrich ourselves, and even to furnish the poor with clothing, by providing them with plenty of good employment.
Fuller, A. G. (1988). “Answer to an anonymous Letter from “An Observer,” on his Objections to Foreign Missions.” Appendix. The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller: Controversial Publications (J. Belcher, Ed.; Vol. 2, pp. 835–836). Sprinkle Publications.
