“Why alarm?” may be asked. But a careful reading of the provisions of the bequest which we publish in another column will assure the reader that the conditions under which it is given are unprecedented and allow possibilities so dangerous as to create great anxiety in the minds of those who are well grounded in the faith and zealous for the maintenance of pure doctrine. As it is needless to say that in matters of such moment we hold that the most stringent regulations and careful scrutiny should be exercised, it is evident that the utter abolishing of all tests, allowing the teaching of the most dangerous heresies by Unitarians, Universalists, Spiritualists, Christian Scientists and what not,—and this to be done in the name of Christian Missions,—is startling, to say the least. It will be readily seen that to the mind of the untutored savage unable to distinguish genuine Christianity from that which is spurious, and as likely to accept the one as the other, the danger of confounding the two to the discredit of all true piety will be great, if the restrictions laid down in the bequest are to be binding. To be sure, the men and women sent out by this fund must be presumed to possess a fair amount of intellect and moral character, though how their spiritual condition is to be ascertained before hearing a statement of their creed we fail to see. Doubtless something may be done in the way of building up schools and supplementing the work of those whom our Board sends to preach the gospel. For this we rejoice and give thanks. Knowing the genuine Christian character of some members of the committee, we are led to hope that they will deem no one fit to send out as a proclaimer of the doctrines of Christianity who holds the evidently loose views of the framer of this singular bequest. As only one of the trustees is a Unitarian, and as Unitarians are proverbially indifferent to foreign missions, it seems to leave considerable ground for the hope that none of that sect will apply, or, if applying, will be sent. The donor’s name is withheld, but it is shrewdly surmised to be the late Mr. Albert Danforth of Springfield, formerly a noted Free-thinker, but who is said to have had a deathbed repentance and to have attempted to appease his conscience by bestowing his vast wealth in the manner described. In this case why his name should be withheld remains a mystery. It will be noticed that another peculiar feature of the bequest is that one trustee at least shall always be a woman. In the course of time there is nothing to prevent all of them being women, as four of the five appointed are known to be in favor of female suffrage. As the late Mr. Danforth, among his other radical notions, held the same unscriptural view of woman’s functions, the promotion of “women’s rights” views by the endowment in question is to be feared.