“The missionaries themselves used to confirm and meet together for ordinations. The catechists used to baptize. Each congregation was independent, and ruled by its own missionary, although the missionaries would occasionally meet, as it were, in synod, and were in the habit of accepting guidance of any more prominent men, as, for example, of Schwartz, whom his brother missionaries always regarded as their spiritual father, and created into a quasi-bishop. Each missionary in local affairs was assisted by his catechists, who, under his presidency, formed a sort of disciplinary council, the decisions of which in various matters brought before them were usually confirmed by the civil power. The missionary was, in fact, regarded as the head of the community, in the same principle as native headmen were recognized, and was permitted to fine, flog, and otherwise punish offenders belonging to his community.” It is not surprising that under this rather complex system of self-government, without lines of direct communication with England, Denmark, and Germany, a born administrator like Schwartz should have been looked up to with reverence and confidence. For he had the faculty of managing men with cheerfulness, and yet, as one had said of him, Schwartz commanded instant respect to his wishes, and made others feel their inferiority without any sense of fear. He had a personal charm, the power of exercising a powerful influence which inspired confidence, even with those natives who were ready to distrust everything European. He never lost touch with his people. One who knew him well in his relation to others reveals the secret of his great influence. “They saw,” he says, “other Europeans in succession lift themselves from obscurity and humble stations to affluence, rank and power, then disappear and others take their places, but none taking any interest in their welfare or making use of them except as a means of accomplishing their own aggrandizement, but _Schwartz remained with them_. In him they always saw the same unaspiring meekness, and found in him the same kind and disinterested friend. What could the natives of India among whom he lived conclude respecting such a man, but that which they did conclude, and which was a common observation among them when he was spoken of, namely, that he was unlike and superior to all other men!”