_Commercial men_ also, actuated by the same benevolent and disinterested spirit, might develope the resources of heathen lands, and apply them in a wise manner for the benefit of those lands; promote industry, and afford the means of civilized habits; increase knowledge, by expediting communication; and in this way, indirectly, though efficiently, aid the progress of the Gospel. By exhibiting also in their dealings an example of honesty, uprightness, and a conscientious regard to justice and truth; by showing practically the only proper use of wealth, the good of men and the glory of God; by conversing daily with individuals, as did Harlan Page and Normand Smith, at their houses and by the wayside, on the great subject of the soul's salvation; and by presenting in themselves and in their families examples of a prayerful and godly life, they might exert a powerful influence, and perform a very important part in Christianizing the world.
There is also much need of farmers, mechanics, manufacturers and artisans. They should go forth like other laborers in the field, _not with the selfish design of enriching themselves_, but with the disinterested intention of benefiting the nations. Private gain must be kept strictly, carefully, and absolutely _subordinate_, or immense evil will be wrought and no good be done. They should be men who cheerfully throw themselves and their property on the altar of _entire consecration_, and go forth to labor and toil so long as the Saviour pleases to employ them, with the _lofty design_ of doing good to the bodies and souls of their perishing fellow men. Going forth with such a spirit, and with emphasis I repeat, allowing _no other_ to intrude, they could do much in raising up the nations from their deep degradation. In the first place, they could do much good by communicating a knowledge of their several employments. Not only is a reform in government necessary, but an introduction of the useful arts also, to raise up the people from their indolence and filthy habits, and to promote thrift, order, neatness and consistency. Look at a heathen family as above described.
How can you expect from them refinement or elevation of soul? How can you expect from them the proprieties and consistencies of a Christian life? Even though they may attend the sanctuary, and be instructed in schools; and even though the government be reformed, and hold out motives to industry; yet will not something else be wanting? Unless the various useful arts and occupations be introduced, how is the land to be filled with fruitful fields, pleasant dwellings, and neatly clad inhabitants? And to introduce these improvements, _men must go forth for the purpose_. Such men too might do good, by exhibiting in themselves and in their families habits of industry, domestic peace and strict economy; by holding up the hands of Christ's ministers, and by scattering the word of life in their appropriate spheres.
That laymen of every useful occupation are needed in heathen lands, is by no means the opinion of one alone. In looking over the periodicals and papers of the last few years, I find that such is the sober and deliberate opinion of many foreign laborers. I find urgent appeals for such helpers from at least five important missionary fields. Would such appeals be made if the enterprise were not a feasible one?
Look too at the fact, that _there is scarcely a nation on the globe where men do not go, and permanently reside for the purpose of making money_. It is absolutely amazing to what an extent this is the truth.
Why then cannot men go forth, and while they obtain a livelihood, make it their ultimate and chief aim to do good?
But the inquiry arises, In what way should laymen go forth? It may not be desirable that they should go forth, to any great extent, under the care of missionary boards at present existing, lest the objects of those boards should become too numerous and complicated. And it may not perhaps be desirable, or necessary, to have any other organization for the purpose. I am not wise enough to give an opinion; but would suggest, that men of some pecuniary means take those means, and emigrate to heathen lands, just as some good men have gone to the far West. May there not also be small combinations of men, not to help others, but _each other_ into the field, just as there is in worldly enterprise?
When once established in the field, it is supposed that their trades and occupations will afford them, with trials, hardships and reverses, an adequate subsistence, and open before them a wide door of usefulness.
Some have suggested, that ministers of the Gospel should go forth and sustain themselves abroad. That is a far different question. If ministers of the Gospel ought not to sustain themselves in Christian countries by laboring with their hands, still less should they attempt such a course in foreign fields. They have _other work_ to do--enough to occupy all their time.
But for laymen to go forth, and sustain themselves in this way, is it not both proper and appropriate? and have not such enterprises, to some extent, been already entered upon with success? Different fields, of course, present greater or less obstacles; but what undertaking is without its difficulties? Perplexities, embarrassments and sufferings, would be a matter of course; but no greater and perhaps far less than those Christians endured, who, being scattered abroad from their beloved Jerusalem, went everywhere preaching the word.
It may perhaps be objected, that should many from all classes of Christians thus go forth, to live and labor abroad, they would soon possess the land, while the heathen would melt away before them. Let us look at this point. And first, where is the evidence of such a result?
When and where has the experiment been tried to justify such a supposition? When and where have individuals or companies gone forth with the sole design of benefiting the heathen, and yet proved their extermination? The settlers of New England are not an example in point, for the improvement and salvation of the heathen was not their main aim.
It was indeed an idea in mind, but not fully and prominently carried out. It is _yet to be proved_ that a company of persons, however numerous, of disinterested views, aiming solely to save the nations, and directing all their energies of body and of mind to that end, would prove the extermination of the heathen, instead of their salvation.
Neither can it be presumed that the descendants of such persons, trained, as ought to be supposed, with faith and prayer, would possess a spirit so selfish and different from that of their fathers, as to prove the extermination of the heathen. And if such is the necessary event, what is the conclusion at which we must arrive? It seems certain, that a mere handful of missionaries cannot put forth the instrumentality which, according to God's usual providence, is necessary to save them: that a great number and variety of laborers are needed to do the work. Let us be slow, therefore, to trust in the objection; for if it must be admitted, the lawful inference will not necessarily be, that Christians of all classes and in great numbers should not go forth to the heathen; but the inquiry will arise, whether heathen nations as nations must not cease to exist, and remnants of them only be saved--a painful and dread alternative, from which every benevolent heart must instinctively recoil.
_There are other reasons why laymen should engage in the work of missions._ The work of the world's conversion is too great, too momentous and too pressing, to admit of exemption simply on the ground of profession or employment. When the liberties of a people are at stake, how few are excused from the field of battle? But now the question is not one of temporal liberty: it is whether six hundred millions of the human race shall be won to the company of the redeemed on high, or left to sink in the untold agonies of the world of woe. In this unparalleled emergency, when the question is, whether the destiny of a world shall be heaven or hell, who can be excused on so slight a ground as that of profession or employment? A few ministers cannot do the work. It is too great. It is presumptuous to expect, that a speedy and complete triumph is to be effected by a few missionaries of the right stamp going through the length and breadth of Satan's extensive and dark empire, and sounding as they go the trumpet of the Gospel around his strong fortifications and deep intrenchments. Such an expectation places an immeasurable disparity between the means and the end. It supposes it to be so easy to effect a transformation of heathen society, heathen habits, heathen minds, and heathen character, and to raise them up from a degradation many ages deep, that a few sounds only from the herald of salvation, as he passes on his way, are sufficient.
"Leviathan is not thus tamed." The prince of the power of the air is not thus vanquished.
Neither can the work be effected by a small number of preachers, stationed at different posts, in the midst of the wide domains of darkness and death. Like specks of light, few and far between, how can they illumine the broad canopy of darkness? To commit the work of the world's conversion to a few missionaries is, in effect, to leave the heathen to perish. A large company of preachers must go forth, and a large company too of other laborers. There must be among the whole body of Christians, not only an interest in the work, but to a greater extent than is imagined, _a personal enlistment_--an actual going forth to foreign lands.
Again, laymen must go abroad; for no less a movement than this will convince them that the work of saving the heathen presses upon them individually, and with all its weight and responsibility. Mere giving does not seem to answer the purpose. Very few laymen at home seem to imagine that they, individually, are as responsible for the life and death of the heathen, as the laborers abroad. Many seem to act only as they are acted upon. This _passive_ state will not answer: there must be a more general feeling of personal responsibility. And how is such a feeling of equal and individual responsibility to be induced, till laymen in great numbers begin to go abroad? Till then, there will be a spirit of luxury in the church; a spirit of worldly-mindedness, and a spirit of committing the world's conversion to other hands. To destroy this spirit, which is evidently eating out the piety of the churches, laymen must be urged to arise; to break off their luxuries, to bury their covetousness--to make an entire devotement of body, soul and spirit, to the _direct_ and arduous work of saving the heathen.
Once, I remember, after urging laymen to go forth, and to assist in evangelizing the heathen, a father in the church said to me, "Your reasons are just and weighty, but it is of no use to present them before the churches: they have not _piety_ enough to act upon them. If you can clearly show that men can accumulate wealth, that they can really make fortunes by going to heathen lands, then your appeals will succeed.
Bring this selfish principle to operate, and colonies will quickly scatter over the world. But to go forth with a spirit of self-denial, running the risk of trials and straitened circumstances, and with merely the prospect at best of obtaining a comfortable livelihood and doing good, is a measure not adapted to the present standard of piety in the churches. Until the spirit of devotedness shall rise many degrees in the churches, the course you urge will be looked upon as entirely visionary."
Alas! can the church be so low in grace? If it be a fact, it is painful and humiliating. If it be true, then the church is lacking in the most essential qualification required of it--is unfitted for the main design of its organization; and is there not reason to fear that God may cast it away, as he has the Roman church, and raise up another after his own heart, that shall do all his pleasure? Christian reader, can you calmly entertain the thought of being set aside by the Lord as unworthy of his employment--of being rejected on the ground of not fulfilling the purpose for which you were called?
CHAPTER VI.
CLAIM OF MISSIONS ON MINISTERS OF INFLUENCE.
In early days, ministers of the greatest influence were called to the work of missions. To prove this assertion, let us read the first verse of the 13th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. "Now there were in the church that was at Antioch, certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them." Paul had been at Antioch a whole year, and Barnabas a still longer time. Their labors there had been blessed. The word had been attended with the demonstration of the Spirit and with power, and many people had turned to the Lord, so that a large church had been gathered in that great and opulent city. Believers there became so conspicuous for their numbers, as to be designated by a particular name: "The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."
There were laboring in that city, besides Paul and Barnabas, three other ministers; "Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch." The Holy Ghost saw that this city, though very important for its numbers, wealth and enterprise, could not claim the labors of five ministers, while the world at large was entirely destitute of the Gospel. Therefore, on a certain occasion, when the church were worshipping before the Lord and fasting, the Holy Ghost said, "Separate me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them."
The Holy Ghost did not say, "Separate me Simeon, and Lucius, and Manaen," but, "Separate me BARNABAS and SAUL"--the spiritual fathers, and main pillars of the church. Had the church been allowed to vote, it doubtless would have spared its sons, rather than its fathers: they would have stated their fond attachment to their first instructors; would have plead the great influence of these two fathers in the church, and the irreparable injury which would be sustained by their leaving it; and would have said, If we must part with some of our teachers, take Simeon, and Lucius, and Manaen, but bereave us not of our spiritual fathers. The question however was not left to their decision. The demand is stern and solemn from the Holy Spirit, with whom there is no selfish bias, "Separate me BARNABAS and SAUL."
In reflecting on this narration, do we not come to the conclusion, that MEN OF TALENTS AND INFLUENCE ARE CALLED TO THE WORK OF MISSIONS?
If this sentiment be true, it is one of immense and practical importance; one that not only ministers, but churches also ought fully to understand. Let us, then, dwell a moment longer on the practice of early times.
The instance to which we have alluded is a striking one; it contains, distinctly and impressively uttered, the mind of the Holy Spirit. It is infallible authority that speaks, and what does it declare? The paramount claim of missions to the ablest, holiest, and most experienced men. If Antioch was required to spare her two ablest men, what may not be required of such cities as Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore? And judging too from this case of Antioch, what is the mind of the Holy Ghost in regard to the twelve thousand or more evangelical ministers in the United States? Can it be his will that they should all quietly remain where they are?
Again, God in early times made known his mind on this point, not only by the express admonition of the Holy Ghost, but also by the _overrulings of his Providence_. Take the account of the first dispersion. The Saviour ascended from the Mount of Olives, and the disciples returned to Jerusalem. The day of Pentecost arrived, and three thousand converts were added to their number. This multitude of believers was daily and rapidly increased. Here, then, was a very large city, the capital and pride of the nation, and a place of immense resort from all the nations round about. And in this city were many thousands of Christians, who were in peculiar need of constant care and faithful instruction, and had they been divided out to the pastoral care of the twelve apostles, would have made perhaps as large churches as any twelve in the city of New-York. Jerusalem then presented to the apostles a vast amount of pastoral care, and a field of labor unequalled perhaps in religious influence, considering the world as it then was, by any city that can be named within the limits of Christendom. The apostles were inclined to remain in Jerusalem, and considering the call for labor there, it is not wonderful that they were thus inclined. They seemed for a time to have forgotten the last command of their ascended Lord, and to have chosen a work more resembling that of settled pastors. But the Saviour allowed a persecution to rage in the city, till first the great body of the church, and afterwards all the apostles, except James, were scattered abroad. So the great Jerusalem was left with but one apostle. Eleven of the twelve, who had become in a measure settled there, were driven abroad; and not from Jerusalem only, but without the limits of Palestine. Such is evidently the _fact_. Let every one draw from it the instruction it affords. To my mind it clashes irreconcilably with the present distribution of ministers.
Take another case. Paul had been laboring at Ephesus two whole years, and had collected a very large church in that city. This city was the emporium of Asia Minor; a place of much resort, and greatly celebrated throughout the known world. The large number of disciples there, who needed a pastor to warn them day and night with tears, and the wide door which was there opened for preaching the Gospel, presented such strong claims to the mind of Paul, as seemed likely to fix there his permanent abode. What pastor of the present day can urge stronger reasons for continuing his charge, than Paul might have urged for continuing his relation to the large church at Ephesus? For in addition to a large city and a large church, the converts had been but lately gathered from heathenism--were but babes in Christ--and needed constant instruction and unwearied care. Yet God was pleased to allow Demetrius to excite an uproar, and thus to sever Paul from his church and congregation, and send him abroad into Macedonia. This is another _fact_--a STUBBORN FACT, which we ought to bear in mind, and weigh well. If God saw best thus to break tender ties, separate Paul from a large city and a large body of such converts as, above all others, needed special care, and to leave the important post almost destitute, _can it be_ his will that all the pastors of the present day should stay in their places, and that none of them should go forth to the heathen? If the city had been Boston, with its thousand means of grace, the case would have been comparatively weak; but it was Ephesus, a heathen city, and depending almost entirely on the living voice of Paul, and yet this one preacher must become a missionary. Let us look at this fact, and each one for himself draw conclusions; not those that are wild and extravagant, but such as are _true and sober_.
We have here a commentary on the last command of Jesus. It was commented upon by the providence of God, separating the apostles from Jerusalem, Antioch, and Ephesus. It was commented upon by the direct admonition of the Holy Ghost in a particular case. It was commented upon by the practice of the apostles. Let us beware that we substitute not, for this correct commentary, any worldly-wise interpretation of our own. Let us admit it just as it comes to us from early days, fresh and unmodified, and allow it to govern our lives.
There are but few who do not admit, that the present distribution of ministers is anti-apostolic--that many, who are now pastors, ought to have become missionaries before they were settled. And can the mere fact of being settled have produced such a vast change in the question of duty, as to place it forever at rest? If the clustering together of twelve thousand ministers within the bounds of the United States, where a thousand means of grace and improvement exist besides the voice of the living teacher, is a very different thing from going into all the world, and preaching the Gospel to every creature--an egregious disproportion to the wants of the world--must we stifle all emotion and all inquiry, in taking it for granted that it is now too late for change? And yet there seems to be a tacit understanding, that any other distribution than that now existing, of the _present generation_ of ministers, is a point not to be agitated. At least, many a pastor quiets himself with the thought, that no change is to be contemplated in his particular case, for the care of a church is on his hands. Almost by common consent, pastors are excused; and missionaries are looked for from the young men and the children; and the hope of the heathen amounts to this, that some young men may be kept from imitating the example of their fathers and elder brethren, and be prevailed upon to enter the missionary work before they _become pastors_. For if the mere fact of being a pastor places the question at rest, young men will feel themselves relieved as soon as they enter that office.
I have known young men whose minds were goaded on the question of going to the heathen, like the conscience of a convicted sinner, till a call was presented to some important church; and then they succeeded in laying the subject at once and entirely aside. Like the pursued ostrich, who thrusts her head into the sand, and vainly imagines that she is concealed from her pursuers, so, I fear, some endeavor to elude the convictions of conscience. I put the question to your own good sense, your candor, and your pious feelings: Can the mere fact of being a pastor excuse a man from going to the heathen, when perhaps he became a pastor in violation of the Saviour's command?
It is acknowledged, that many pastors ought to have become missionaries before they were settled--that the present amazing disproportion between settled ministers at home, and missionaries abroad, ought never to have existed. To argue so plain a case would be a waste of breath. How then can the fact of having wandered from duty excuse one from the performance of it? To-day, it is the duty of Jonah to go to Nineveh.
To-morrow, he has engaged his passage to Tarshish, has paid his fare, has gone down into the sides of the ship, and is quietly at rest. Is he therefore excused? To-day, the command of Christ presses upon me the obligation to go to the heathen. To-morrow, leaving out of mind this command, which still applies in all its force, I enter into an obligation with a particular church to take upon me its pastoral care: which obligation is binding? The last, do you say? Can I then thus easily thrust aside the Saviour's last and most impressive command? Can I, by such a course, shield myself effectually from its further application? I have yet to learn, that by any change of place or circumstances we can free ourselves from the weight of the Saviour's injunction. I mean not to assert, that all who ought to have become missionaries before they were settled, ought to become so now. Some have entirely hedged up their way; and though they may have been disobedient in doing so, yet deep regret and sincere repentance is all the reparation they can now make. But those who ought to have gone to the heathen, and before whom the door is still open for going, _such_ should still become missionaries, and on the obvious principle, that it is better to do our duty late than not to do it all. The mere plea of being a pastor is not a sufficient excuse; and it is losing too, continually, more and more of its force. It is a wonder that it should be relied upon so much as a _quietus_, since, in the present age, the residence of a pastor is very transient and uncertain.
Again let me say, it is a great thing, a good thing, and a rare thing, to be entirely honest in the sight of God. Let us endeavor to be so. It is to be feared, that there may be some who exempt themselves from becoming missionaries on the ground of being pastors, who are not altogether honest in their excuse. Are there not some individuals, who make it, who would manifest but little hesitation in leaving the pastoral office to take the oversight of a college, to become a professor in a theological seminary, or to take charge of some prominent religious periodical? When urged to become a missionary, the pastor pleads his attachment to his people; their affection for him, which gives him great influence; and his acquaintance with their prejudices, opinions, habits, and whole character, so as to adapt his instructions to their particular case. He mentions these, and the like considerations, and concludes very readily that he can be more useful in his present situation than in any other. But when a presidency, a professorship, or a more influential church is offered, the reasons before urged seem to lose something of their force; and through the intervention of some new light, which I shall not account for, the conclusion is formed that another situation would be more _useful_. The motive for a change is a good one; but it is to be remembered that this same motive, that of being more useful, could not prevail upon them to become missionaries.
Facts of this kind could be collected, I think to a considerable extent; and they lead me, however unwilling, to suspect that, in some cases, the honest reason why ministers do not become missionaries is not that they are pastors, but something quite different.
Another fact, too, makes me suspicious that there is some lack of entire honesty. A pastor says he cannot become a missionary, for he has the care of a church. In a few months, for some cause or other, he is dismissed from his church and people. What does he do? become a missionary? I have one in my eye who was a pastor of a church in a large city. He told me, that nothing but his relation as pastor in that city could keep him a moment from the missionary work. Soon after, he was dismissed from his church and people; and think you he became a missionary? You would betray a very limited knowledge of human nature to think so.
"But," says one, "I am opposed to fickleness and change." Ah! indeed; does it betray fickleness to leave a church to become a missionary? Did God favor fickleness and change when he prevented the permanent location of the apostles in Palestine, by a voice from heaven, and by violent persecutions? Did the Saviour favor fickleness in his last command? When a presidency, a professorship, or a more prominent and influential church is offered you, then speak of fickleness--the excuse may possibly be in place; but never, never in place, while untold millions of our race are dying for lack of vision, and our commission reads, "GO YE INTO ALL THE WORLD, AND PREACH THE GOSPEL TO EVERY CREATURE."
One pastor excuses himself, by saying, "The attachment between me and my people is very dear, and this attachment gives me great influence with them." I reply, Was not the attachment very dear between the apostles and the disciples at Jerusalem, and also between Paul and the converts at Antioch, and at Ephesus? What language of affection and solicitude can equal that of Paul for his converts? He calls them his "joy and crown"--the "little children for whom he travails in birth, till Christ be formed in them." He says to them, "I live, if ye stand fast in the Lord."
And had not the apostles great influence in the churches in which they labored? Had not Paul and Barnabas great influence in the church at Antioch? Did not the church love and respect them, and hang in breathless silence upon their lips, and look upon their departure as an irreparable loss? Yet, though entwined into the hearts of the people, and possessing every advantage to instruct them which intimate acquaintance and unbounded influence could give, the Holy Ghost, notwithstanding, said, "Separate me BARNABAS and SAUL."
Attachment is your plea; but the spirit of the Gospel is a spirit of self-denial, and requires us not only to forsake church and people, but also father and mother, brother and sister, son and daughter, and to hold our own lives loosely. Those persons to whom attachment is strongest, and who _can't be spared_ on that account, are the best fitted for missions.
You plead the _influence_ which you possess with your church and people.
This, instead of being a reason for remaining at home, is a powerful argument for going abroad. In that very influence you possess an advantage and qualification for the missionary work, which very few missionaries enjoy. It is greatly to be lamented that the church has but little acquaintance with her missionaries. It was not so in primitive times. On this account there is room for the question to arise, Whether there ought not to be less of the home minister for life, and the exile for life; a narrower gulf between the two, and more passing and repassing, as the apostles were wont to do; a breaking up of caste, grade and condition among ministers, as regards various fields--a more literal compliance with the precept of "going into all the world, and preaching the Gospel to every creature." Be this however as it may--for there is much that can be said on either side of the question--it is most certainly true, that the pastor possesses one very great advantage: that by going to the heathen he can wake up, in one church at least, the spirit of doing good--the enterprising and benevolent spirit of Christ and his apostles. He may take with him, as helpers, some of its most intelligent and active members, and call forth the contributions and enlist the prayers of those who may remain.
It seems, that nothing less than such means as the separation of pastors for the work of missions, can avail to awake the slumbering churches, and to lead them to begin in earnest to seek the salvation of the heathen; to feel that the work presses upon them individually, and demands all their energies and their personal enlistment. For it is a sober and humiliating fact, as I have had some opportunity of judging, that there are few churches comparatively, in our land, who seem to have drunk deeply into the missionary spirit. There is need, therefore, of a movement on the part of pastors, to arouse the churches from their guilty slumbers.
A pastor possesses much influence with his church and congregation. The Lord then has given him five talents, and he can easily make them ten: by going abroad he can benefit his church perhaps as much as by remaining their pastor, and, at the same time, be the instrument of saving many heathen souls. "There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth;" and "he that watereth shall be watered also himself." God's blessing distils upon the liberal soul, and the liberal church. The performance of duty is attended with the Saviour's smiles and a rich reward. Who does not see, that a pastor could in no way so effectually awaken in his church a spirit of benevolent feeling and action, as by exhibiting it in his own person; by rising up, and going forth to the heathen, urging a part of his flock to accompany him, and the rest to sustain him in the field? Who doubts, that by such a course he would do more to arouse the pure and active religion of Jesus Christ and his apostles, than he could possibly do in any other way; that he would give an impulse to his church in favor of primitive piety and practice, that should add vastly to its strength, its glory and its numbers, and be felt in all time to come. Let not the pastor, then, excuse himself from the missionary work, because he has acquired influence in his church and congregation; for that very fact is a powerful argument for going abroad.
For the same reason, no one can excuse himself because he fills a _post of vast importance_. He is the pastor of an influential church, a president of a college, a professor in a theological seminary, the editor of a religious paper of immense circulation, or the secretary of some society: his station is one of vast responsibility, and he imagines that he is therefore excused from becoming a missionary. But was not Jerusalem an important place? more prominent, compared with other cities of that time, than any city in the United States? And yet all the apostles, except one, were required not only to leave that city, but to go without the limits of Palestine. Was not Antioch as important as Boston or Philadelphia? Yet Paul and Barnabas were not suffered to remain there.
Besides, is not the work of a missionary a difficult, important, and responsible work? The Holy Spirit thought so in apostolic times. When a man was needed to preach to Cornelius and his household, a man of no less ability and influence than Peter was chosen. When a man was called to go to Antioch, Barnabas was sent, a man of great piety and influence.
And when two of the five preachers at Antioch were called to go to the heathen, the Holy Ghost did not choose Simeon, or Lucius, or Manaen, but said, "Separate me BARNABAS and SAUL;" the men of the greatest ability, experience, piety and wisdom. Thus the Holy Spirit seemed to declare that the work of a missionary required greater talents, more mature wisdom, and deeper piety, than the work of a pastor in the largest and most influential churches.
And is not this doctrine, while it accords with the instructions of the Holy Ghost and the practice of primitive times, also a dictate of common sense? Would you choose weak men to penetrate into the very midst of the enemy, and to grapple with the Anaks of the land, and keep those who are strong in a garrison at home? Would you select indifferent statesmen to settle the affairs of revolutionary France, or to reduce to order the chaotic mass of the South American states; and employ the able, the wise and talented, in governing a country already quiet and peaceful? Did it require less wisdom to lay the foundation and form the constitution of our good government, than it requires to manage the state on principles already established? Does it require less skill to draft the plan of a capitol, than to work at the building when the plan is mature? Does it require less wisdom to govern a camp in a state of mutiny, than when in subjection and at peace? Look, then, at the work of missions. Does it require less talent to deal with minds clouded by ignorance, perverted by superstition, and barred by arrogance, bigotry, and pride, than to instruct the unbiassed, the willing, and intelligent? Does it require less wisdom to tear up the foundations of heathen society, and lay it anew on the principles of the Gospel--to change society morally, religiously, and socially, than to preserve in a good condition a people already intelligent, industrious, and Christian? Surely, if talent is needed anywhere in the kingdom of Christ, it is in the missionary work.
That minister, whose talents and piety make him so useful at home that he _cannot be spared_, that is the minister who is needed abroad. The foreign field calls for no laborers who can be conveniently spared.