The focus of this study is the curriculum created by David Bogue at the London Missionary Society (LMS)'s Gosport Academy, which provided the “template” for the mission strategy followed by Robert Morrison and William Milne in opening the first Protestant missions in China and Malacca. Christopher Daily makes a significant contribution by examining this previously unexplored preparatory background. Any further study of Morrison and Milne (and other Gosport graduates) will need to take Daily's work into account.

After a brief review of British Protestant dissenter evangelicalism, and a summary of the failure of Thomas Haweis's “godly mechanics” approach to missions in Tahiti and South Africa, Daily turns to a new LMS strategy championed by Bogue. That strategy drew upon other experiences, especially those of the Moravians and David Brainerd, but was developed into a systematic approach to missions in a three-year curriculum at Gosport. In the template he created, missionaries “were to acquire the native languages; to translate the Scriptures and compose a dictionary, grammar, and a supply of evangelical texts; and to establish a seminary for converts” (p. 82).

Daily clearly articulates his thesis and in the remainder of his book convincingly presents the case that Morrison (and Milne) followed Bogue's strategy almost to the letter. In doing so, Daily has assisted future scholars in understanding the preparation Morrison received and his faithfulness in following his instructions. This is a not insignificant achievement.

That Morrison followed the three-part template, however, is not all that surprising. First, there were few known “modern” patterns for missionaries to follow, and at least one prime example (the previous failed LMS missions) of strategies not to follow. Second, the curriculum Bogue designed, in the context of that particular strain of Scottish evangelicalism, was logical and compelling. Third, and perhaps more important, however, is an understanding of how missionaries functioned in relationship to their sending agencies. While even the LMS in their instructions to Morrison clearly recognized that it is not always possible to dictate every detail of how their agent was to function, missionaries dependent upon their organization for sending financial, logistical and emotional support generally follow the guidance given to them. While there certainly are “rogue” missionaries throughout missions history, the overwhelming majority of them adhered to their instructions to the extent to which it was possible to do so. I do not believe Morrison would have claimed that he was creating a new mission strategy; rather, I believe it is clear from his correspondence the depth of his appreciation for Bogue's guidance and his desire to follow it.

Daily also makes a solid case for the need for scholars to make more use of primary sources in the study of Morrison, Milne and the early China mission. Of course, historians of missions have been using primary sources very heavily for many years, albeit not extensively in their work on Morrison himself. Daily bemoans the heavy reliance on Eliza Morrison's hagiographical biography of her husband, which he also uses. But, serious historians are aware of the nature of mid 19th-century hagiographies and the pitfalls of the use of such sources. With those understandings, Eliza's book remains a useful source for the primary texts it contains. Many of the letters and journal entries she included no longer exist, but many of them are still available in the full forms and can be compared. In terms of primary sources, Daily relies primarily upon Bogue's lectures (an important new source of information), the LMS archives at SOAS, and Eliza's book. All are important, but the LMS collection is less than half of the extant documentary correspondence record on Morrison. Unfortunately, that record is widely scattered around the world and not readily accessible. By family tradition, most of the personal papers between Morrison and family members were destroyed a number of years ago; yet many of them are still in existence.

This book is one which would be enjoyable to the general reader of missions and religious history, and Chinese history, but also is an important study for mission scholarship, not only about Morrison and Milne, but as a missiological pattern that continued to be used in part or wholly for many years to come, and has not yet disappeared. The lack of Chinese characters for names and places is somewhat disconcerting, but due to the fact that most of them are well known, it is not a critical issue.

There are many areas related to Morrison and the first Protestant mission to China which still need serious scholarship. To his credit, Daily points out a number of these in the course of his study. One could have wished for more in this book; for example, what, if any, impact did Morrison's brief time in the United States on his way to China have on him. However, these other issues are beyond the scope of his study and Daily has wisely kept his work focused on his primary thesis of Bogue's template and Morrison's fidelity to it. Consequently, while Daily's book is a valuable study that reveals an important area of Morrison's life and mission, the reader who seeks a full understanding of the first Protestant missionary to China will need to read other available works along with Daily's book to gain a more complete picture. Morrison clearly was, and is, an extremely important person in missions history, East–West relations, Sinology, translation studies and other areas. The definitive biography of Morrison is yet to be written, and, given the necessity to understand such a broad range of subjects, will be a challenge to write. One can only hope that some scholar as indefatigable as Morrison will take up the challenge.