can only be explained on scientific principles, would there not have been equal occasion to "feel anxious for the credit of Christianity?" It is curious to observe how different men, attaching peculiar importance to some one branch of knowledge, think all others may be dispensed with, if their favorite science is not neglected. Dr. Buchanan's missionary might be qualified to deliver lectures on history or geography; but Mr. Douglas says, "Even in the colleges of India, where learning is most required, only two branches of instruction are especially required a knowledge of the English, and of Chemistry, in its simplest form, as applicable to daily phenomena, and daily uses."* Is it not better to hold that missionaries may, profitably for themselves and for others also, possess knowledge as much as they may, and not have too much. A man's stock of knowledge is easily carried about with him. It is neither burdensome nor dangerous, and is sometimes far cheaper than ignorance. But to divest the question of all ambiguity, I think it should be stated in this way : (1.) It is allowed on all hands that missionaries, although possessed but of limited knowledge, may be useful and honored laborers; but if their range of knowledge were widened, and their uncultivated talents better improved, would they not in all probability be more successful, as being more fitted for their work? We know that the blessing of God is equally necessary to render efficacious the labors of the learned and ignorant, the wise and the unwise of his servants; but we * Hints on Missions, p. 83. are here speaking of them simply, as comparatively better and worse adapted to their work, from the possession or want of ordinary qualifications. But if a missionary is not better fitted as an instrument from his ceasing to be illiterate, and becoming a man of various learning and general knowledge; then this cultivation of his talents, and storing of his mind, must be of no use, if not positively injurious. And neither of these doctrines do I consider tenable. You must here distinguish between two things— the INDISPENSABLENESS of learning to a missionary, and the ADVANTAGE of learning to a missionary. For the former I do not contend: for the latter I do. That is to say, extensive erudition is not indispensable to the success of missionaries, because many highly honored servants of God, destitute of all such pretensions, have been, and are, abundantly useful and acceptable. Such men have been, and will be, sent out; and, especially in connection with others of higher intellectual power and more extensive acquirements, with great advantage to the cause. But I think that knowledge of every kind, as much as may be procured, is always advantageousand never injurious. Hence I infer that the friends of missions should give to every man they send out, the means of acquiring as much learning and knowledge as circumstances will admit. And my quarrel is with those who, inconsistently as I * A remark of that keen observer, Richard Cecil, deserves to be remembered. "Ignorance in ministers is an occasion of exciting enmity against Christianity. A man may betray igno rance on almost every subject, except the way of salvation. But if others see him to be a fool off his own ground, they will think him a fool on that ground. conceive, admit the advantages of learning, yet do not use the means to make missionaries learned; and shift off the duty of procuring learned men by pretending that they cannot be obtained, and then comfort themselves that "inferior men may do as well, if not better!" This, I repeat, is lowering the claims and character of the missionary cause, and injuring its interests not merely in the eyes of the world, but by rendering its operations less effective and successful than otherwise, there is reason to conclude, they would have been. (2.) If it be admitted that learned and able missionaries, other things being equal, are to be preferred to men of inferior attainments, ought not all proper means to be used to procure men of the former description? Is it not wrong to rest contented with inferior instruments, and palliate or excuse, or even justify the men of superior station and learning, who might prove more effective instruments, merely because they do not choose to go, or do not find it so "easy" to make the requisite sacrifices? And is it not wrong in a professed friend of the cause, (and the more eminent that friend, so much the greater his crime,) to sanction and teach the "rich and learned" to scorn the missionary work as beneath them to take any actual share in it, leaving it to men of learning so limited, and station so mean, that they may charitably be supposed to be good for nothing else? I know not whether most of the arguments against the employment of highly qualified persons may not be traced to an underrating of the office of the ministry. It was truly observed by one,* concerning the apostle Paul, that "his life * R. Cecil. and death were one magnifying of his office. His object was to win souls ;-to execute the will of God." And it was profoundly added, “As the man rises in his own esteem, his office sinks; but as the office rises in his view, the man falls." So when men are regarded as very rich or very learned, they are thought too high for the office of a missionary. The office sinks before their wealth and wisdom. But the right view of the office shows that, while men are evidently unfit-too low for it, none are too great, too high for it. "Who is sufficient for these things?" is the exclamation of one impressed as he ought by a sense of the weight and difficulty of the office. I thought that Christianity taught its disciples to condescend to men of low estate; that it taught the rich to rejoice in that he is made low, while it taught the brother of low degree to rejoice in being exalted; but if we are to adopt the principle of excusing the rich man, because he cannot "assimilate with the poor," and "associate with their poverty, and tolerate their ignorance," politely assigning him a good place at home, where he will not be shocked with the contact of poverty and ignorance, are we not “having respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, saying unto him, Sit thou here in a good place: and saying to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool?" See the whole of the second chapter of the epistle of James, and try if you can reconcile it with the doctrine here animadverted upon. I suspect you will find it to be more difficult than some have found it to reconcile James with his brother apostle Paul. I am, &c. ON LETTER XIX. THE MEANS то BE USED IN RAISING UP My dear Friend, IT must have struck you in perusing certain books, which profess to give a general view of the doctrines and duties of revelation, how little the missionary character of Christianity has been brought forward. Indeed, so obscure a place does this subject hold in some systems of divinity, whole duties of man, &c. books, otherwise sound, judicious, and comprehensive, that a reader might peruse the whole, and scarcely be able to tell if the duty to propagate the Gospel was not wholly left out of the system. The duty of praying for the coming of the kingdom of God, is of course introduced in the exposition of the Lord's prayer, and the duty of love to God and man naturally embraces every object, which is a proper expression of love; and among the rest, the promotion of the divine glory, and the welfare of our fellow-creatures, by disseminating the truth of God. But this is treated as a subordinate topic, while doubtful questions and strifes of words occupy many pages, and call forth all the zeal of the authors. But if some writers have made too little of this point, perhaps you may think that I have made too much-that I have spoken in too unqualified terms on several topics connected with the spread of Christianity-such as the obligations resting upon properly qualified Christians (nil obstante) to become missionaries to the heathen—the quantity of |