Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

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 honoured labourers; 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 labours of the learned and ignorant, the wise and the unwise of his servants; but we 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,

*

* 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 ignorance on almost every subject, except the

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 thingsthe 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 honoured 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 connexion 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 advantageous— and 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 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

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.

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.

[ocr errors]

(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?"

[ocr errors]

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 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 shews 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

* R. Cecil.

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.

« ForrigeFortsæt »