short period of time? or does it require a series of years, spent in the practical use of the tongue, where it is generally spoken and known? If it can be shown that the latter statement is a fact, I suppose there cannot be a doubt that the missionary should, in all cases, be enlisted for life; for it would be the excess of folly, to take him from the field of his labor, at the very moment when he begins to be useful. I contend, then, that the entire command of the eastern languages, or either of them, must cost the labor of years; and, although I am not possessed of much data to establish this point, I think the very circumstance, that Mr. Judson has now been twenty-three years in India, and but just completed the translation of the Bible, will go far to prove it.

We all know how long the scholar must study each of the classical languages, before he can become a tolerable proficient in the use of its terms; and that, too, when they are closely related to his own vernacular tongue by many affinities of etymology and construction; and is it probable that he can master the strange sounds of the east, and apply them in reading, conversation, and preaching, at a less expense of time and exertion? I think not. It does not appear to be possible that one can learn to talk or preach in these languages sooner than he can learn to read in the classics. If this argument is judged to be solid, it does seem to be inexpedient to limit the term of missionary service to a very short period,-say ten years, when half that time, or thereabouts, is to be spent in the mere preparation for action.

But, perhaps it will be asked, Why may not the missionary learn the language at home? why may it not become incorporated into his literary and theological course, and thus be acquired in advance, before he enters the field of his labors? In reply to this question, I have only to say that this cannot be done; and I will illustrate this truth by an argument of analogy. I have already had occasion to refer to the study of the classics, and I think that this analogy may be pressed a little farther in point. After spending years at school and at college, in the study of Latin, for example, what is the result? The scholar can, perhaps, read intelligibly almost any Latin author that falls in his way; but he can do no more. He cannot converse or speak in that tongue. It may be doubted whether the best classical scholar in the United States can talk in Latin as he can in English, or, in fact, with any tolerable degree of ease and correctness. And if this is true of a language so nearly allied to our own, we can easily infer, by an argument a fortiori, how it would be with one which has no such resemblance.

In the study of Greek, for example, which is still farther removed from the English, the same scholar, after bestowing the same amount of time and attention, cannot do even this: he cannot take up any Greek book, and read it as he can an author in Latin; and still less is it true that he can converse in one as well as the other. Now, the argument which I deduce from this fact, is this, that as the eastern languages, to say the least of them, are

as hard as the Greek, it would be precisely so with them all; and, that the most important, practical knowledge of these tongues, that which the missionary most needs, and must have, cannot be acquired simply and only from books.

Am I asked, How, then, can they be learnt?-I answer, By residing in India, by mingling with the natives, and by using only their language. This mode, jointly with the study of books, is absolutely necessary before one can hold any general intercourse with them; and I may, I think, safely challenge any one who doubts this position, to adduce a fact to the contrary. If there are exceptions they are but exceptions, and cannot contradict the general truth of the rule. I repeat it, he, who would learn to speak the Burman language like a native citizen of that empire, must live in that country; he must learn to think and speak in that tongue constantly and habitually. All the scenes and associations of life should point to that object. His mind should, if possible, be shut up against all counter impressions, and by thus presenting steadily an undivided object of thought, he would, most surely, bring it within the reach of his power.

While it is admitted that the oriental languages cannot be wholly acquired in this country, it is still contended that they may be partially learnt, so that six months actual residence in India will prepare one to preach. As no authority is cited to sustain this position, I consider it only mere belief or opinion. And I am not one of those who will receive the ipse dixit of any man as entitled to credit, where it is not clearly founded in reason and fact. I do not believe that there is any thing in the known laws of mind, in history, or analogy, to establish a statement like this.

It is, I know, thought by some, that the study of the Eastern languages might be profitably commenced in this country, but I very much question whether any great advantages would result from such an arrangement, unless we could have a teacher, who had always lived in the East. The extreme difficulty of pronouncing correctly some of the European languages, is understood and acknowledged by all; and we should undoubtedly realize as great a difficulty, in attempting to articulate the uncouth words of Hindostan and Burmah. To learn accurately and thoroughly the true principles of accent and emphasis, we must take the genuine sounds as they come fresh from the lips of a native. If we learn from one who has been one of ourselves, we shall be much more likely to acquire broken forms of expression; they will be but imitations of an imitation; and who does not know that with the multiplication of copies the chance of errors is always greatly increased. A course like this, would, I think, tend to generate a sort of mongrel dialect, which is neither good Burman nor English, but something equally distant from both.

He is

Nor is a mere knowledge of language, the only thing, which makes it important that the missionary should be on the ground, before he begins to fit himself for the sphere of his duties. to study men as well as books, and this can only be done by long

habits of intimate acquaintance and intercourse: the longer he has been among them, the more fully he can enter into their wishes and feelings, the more likely will he be to find out the best way to approach them, the more completely will he be identified with them in affection and interest, and thus reciprocate with them, those expressions of confidence and esteem, which they naturally extend to each other. Human nature indeed exists in the Burman, but it is human nature so peculiarly modified by vice and idolatry, that one must study long and profoundly before he can analize or explain it.

I am aware that the intense heat of the climate, and the great risk of health and life on the part of the missionary, has been urged as a reason, why he should only be engaged for a while. But I think there is a great mistake on this subject. I conceive that the chief danger to be apprehended, lies in the exchange of one climate for another; and when the individual has thoroughly passed through the process of acclimation, that he has no just cause for alarm. I am far from thinking that heat of itself is always slowly and insensibly wasting the system; on the other hand, I believe that the constitution gradually becomes accommodated to the change, and in the end scarcely realizes a difference. It is believed that a large proportion of our missionaries, who have fallen abroad, died in the first years of their labors; and of the rest, it may be supposed that many fell victims to a life of hard unceasing adventure, to frequent exposures and perils, and not to the simple action of climate.

Again, it is urged in behalf of this plan for return, that a vast amount of money, and great perplexity, would be saved in regard to the widows and children of missionaries. There is something, I think, in this sentiment which is utterly at variance with all Christian benevolence; yea more, I consider it hard and unjust. Is it right, that she, who has borne equally with her husband the burden and heat of the day, who has shared alike all his labors and perils, should be in the event of his death abandoned to the cold charity of the world, and be left to depend on her own private individual resources and means of support. Has she not still the same capacity of aiding in the cause of the mission, and does not the very circumstance of her desolation and grief, entitle her to our sympathy and assistance.

With regard to the grown up sons and daughters, who are destitute of piety, and against whom the objection appears to be particularly pointed, I have only to say, that the argument supposes a mere problematical evil, which may never exist to any serious extent. In the present infancy of the American mission, I see nothing which may be immediately dreaded. If, however, there be just cause for alarm, it may not be difficult to suggest something, which will operate in the form of a remedy. There might be established within the limits of the Burman Empire, a general Asylum for fatherless children, which might be so conducted, as to partially furnish the means of supporting itself.

Those, who have passed the period of childhood, and who are not really vicious, might be employed in the mission schools, as subordinate teachers in instructing the young: those of a contrary character, might be detached from the mission, and be bound over to some secular calling in the English settlements which are scattered over the empire.

I confess, for myself, that I see nothing in the numerous family of a missionary, which ought to cause fear or regret; on the other hand, I believe it affords a fit subject for congratulation and hope. I think, when the peculiar situation of these children is considered, when we reflect that they are constantly under the influence of parents, who we humbly hope are entirely devoted to God, that we must acknowledge there is every probability that they will, in a great majority of cases, become decidedly pious. Suppose this to be the fact, and what glorious anticipations it is fitted to cherish. Here then, are those, who will probably become permanently attached to the mission; those who are born and bred in the country, naturalized to the climate, taught from their earliest infancy to lisp their first accents in the language of the country, and feeling all the attachment for the place and the people, which all the associations of home, and kindred are fitted to inspire.

With what superior advantages, would these young sons of the church, engage in the great labor of missions? They would have all that assurance of life and health, which belongs to the native; they would have, in advance, all that knowledge of language and speech, which the missionary from afar, could only obtain by the labor of years; they would feel every motive of interest, affection and duty, which could bind them to the people, and country, and would therefore become as devotedly engaged in the work, as any human agents could ever possibly be. It is but fair to suppose, that one such missionary, born in Burmah, would, from the length of his life, and other circumstances, be worth a half a dozen others, who come from a distance, and who actually die before they have fairly mastered the language.

To the employment of the younger members of the missionary family, in the same great work with their parents, I conceive there can be no valid objection, where they are devotedly pious, and wish to contribute to help forward the cause. It may, perhaps, be urged, that something more is necessary, beside a simple knowledge of language; that their minds must be matured and developed by a liberal course of study and discipline, before they can obtain those intellectual resources and qualifications, which will fit them for duty. But what hinders their preparatory studies at home, in the midst of the scenes of their life and their labors. There is a college in Calcutta under the venerable Carey, where I believe the native youth are instructed in all the branches of a liberal education; and I see not why this may not be successfully employed in behalf of the mission. That these are advantages resulting from the employment of natives, is what I think all must acknowledge, and that the elder children of missionaries will, as I

have suggested, be likely to embark in this work, has been strikingly proved by the fact, that several of the children of Dr. Carey have actually engaged in the cause. So far, therefore, from indulging in any gloomy anticipations respecting the children of missionaries, I look to them as likely to give us the most valuable men for the service; and I trust, in process of time, they, in connection with the original natives, will be able to sustain the mission without foreign assistance.

Again, it is argued that the missionary enterprize would be better supported, if there were those among us who have spent years in the service. The writer, it seems, would have them return, and connect themselves with some church or society; but when we consider how few would probably live to return, and that by being stationary they could only exert a very partial and limited influence, in the way of personal effort, it is evident they could not produce any great change in public opinion, except by means of books and the press. Now this mode of action is equally possessed by the missionary who is now at his post, with this decided advantage, that the tidings, which we are constantly receiving from him, have a much stronger claim to the appellation of news, and are therefore much more calculated to excite attention and interest, than an old story which we have heard before and almost forgotten.

When we recollect that we live in an age of Christian enterprize and benevolence, that the present is peculiarly a time of religious excitement, and that every thing relating to missions is published and read as soon as it reaches the country; when we remember, that within the last seventeen years there have been no less than six or eight missionaries of our own order, who have visited this country, and travelled extensively in the states, and communicated all the important facts wherever they went, with the avowed intention or wish to wake up a spirit for missions; and beside them, perhaps a still more numerous body of orthodox brethren who have done the same thing-it does seem hard to conceive, how it could help the cause much, to recall the best men we have on the ground, and locate them in some given city or village, and confine their operations to this or that single society.

Again, it is said, the feeling of responsibility would be greater. How this can be made to appear, I cannot conceive. Surely he who returns at the expiration of his term, and who has nothing to hope or fear from his employers, but a vote of approbation or censure, cannot feel his responsibility like one, who is still in commission, and who knows that he cannot expect the confidence of the Board, when he no longer deserves it. The whole idea of the responsibility in question might be construed as a reflection upon the general character of our missionary brethren; though I am confident no such thing was intended. For myself, I believe that they are one and all actuated by other motives, than responsibility to any mere human authority. The zeal and activity of Mr. Judson, the fact that he is the founder and guide of the Burman mission, that he has consecrated his whole mind and heart to