"who shall be heirs of salvation?" Is he not one sent forth from God, to stand between God and man, to guard and assist the poor, helpless children of men, to supply them both with light and strength, to guide them through a thousand known and unknown dangers, till at the appointed time he returns with those committed to his charge; to his and their Father who is in heaven?

*O who is able to describe such a messenger of God, faithfully executing his high office? Working together with God, with the great Author both of the old and new creation! See his Lord, the eternal Son of God, going forth on that work of omnipotence, and creating heaven and earth by the breath of his mouth! See the servant whom he delighteth to honour, fulfilling the counsel of his will, and in his Name speaking the word whereby is raised a new spiritual creation. Impowered by him, he says to the dark, unformed void of nature, "let there be light: and there is light." "Old things are passed away : behold all things are become new." He is continually employed, in what the angels of God have not the honour to do, co-operating with the Redeemer of men, in "bringing many children to glory."

Such is a true minister of Christ. And such, beyond all possibility of dispute, ought both you and I to be.

II. But are we such? What are we in the respects above named? It is a It is a melancholy, but necessary consideration. It is true, many have written upon this subject; and some of them admirably well. Yet few, if any, at least in our nation, have carried their inquiry through all these particulars. Neither have they always spoken so plainly and homely, as the nature of the thing required. But why did they not? Was it because they were unwilling to give pain to those whom they loved? Or were they

hindered by fear of disobliging? Or of incurring any temporal inconvenience? Miserable fear! Is any temporal inconvenience whatever to be laid in the balance with the souls of our brethren? Or were they prevented by shame, arising from a consciousness of their own many

and great defects? Undoubtedly this might extenuate the fault, but not altogether remove it. For is it not a wise advice, "Be not ashamed when it concerneth thy soul?" Especially, when it concerns the souls of thousands also? In such a case may God

"Set as a flint our steady face,

Harden to adamant our brow!"

But is there not another hindrance? Should not compassion, should not tenderness hinder us from giving pain? Yes, from giving unnecessary pain. But what manner of tenderness is this? It is like that of a surgeon, who lets his patient be lost, because he is too compassionate to probe his wounds. Cruel compassion! Let me give pain, so I may save life. Let me probe, that God may heal.

(1.) Are we then such as we are sensible we should be, 1st, With regard to natural endowments? I am afraid not. If we were, how many stumbling-blocks would be removed out of the way of serious infidels? Alas, what terrible effects do we continually see of that common, though senseless imagination, "The boy, if he is fit for nothing else, will do well enough for a parson ?" Hence it is, that we see (I would to God there were no such instance in all Great Britain or Ireland) dull, heavy, blockish ministers; men of no life, no spirit; no readiness of thought; who are consequently the jest of every pert fool, every lively airy coxcomb they meet. We see others whose memory can retain nothing; therefore they can never be men of considerable knowledge. They can never know much even of those things which they are more nearly concerned to know. Alas! they are pouring the water into a leaky vessel; and the broken cistern can hold no water. I do not say with Plato, That "all human knowledge is nothing but remembring." Yet certain it is, that without remembring, we can have but a small share of knowledge. And even those who enjoy the most retentive memory, find great reason still to complain,

"Still comes so slow, and life so fast does fly;
We learn so little, and forget so much."

And yet we see and bewail a still greater defect, in some that are in the ministry. They want sense; they are defective in understanding; their capacity is low and shallow: their apprehension is muddy and confused: of consequence they are utterly incapable, either of forming a true judgment of things, or of reasoning justly upon any thing. O how can these who themselves know nothing aright, impart knowledge to others? How instruct them in all the variety of duty, to God, their neighbour, and themselves? How will they guide them through all the mazes of error, thro' all the intanglements of sin and temptation? How will they apprize them of the devices of Satan, and guard them against all the wisdom of the world?

It is easy to perceive, I do not speak this for their sake; (for they are incorrigible) but for the sake of parents, that they may open their eyes and see, A blockhead can never "do well enough for a parson." He may do well enough for a tradesman; so well as to gain fifty or a hundred thousand pounds. He may do well enough for a soldier ;` nay, (if you pay well for it,) for a well-dressed and very wellmounted officer. He may do well enough for a sailor, and may shine on the quarter-deck of a man of war. He may do so well in the capacity of a lawyer or physician, as to ride in his gilt chariot. But, O! think not of his being a minister, unless you would bring a blot upon your family, a scandal upon our church, and a reproach on the gospel, which he may murder, but cannot teach.

Are we such as we are sensible we should be, 2dly, With regard to acquired endowments? Here the matter (suppose we have common understanding) lies more directly within our own power. But under this as well as the following heads, methinks, I would not consider at all, how many or how few, are either excellent or defective. I would only desire every person who reads this, to apply it to himself. Certainly some one in the nation is defective. Am not I the man?

Let us each seriously examine himself. Have I, 1, Such a knowledge of Scripture, as becomes him who undertakes so to explain it to others, that it may be a light in all their paths ?

Have I a full and clear view of the analogy of faith, which is the clue to guide me through the whole? Am I acquainted with the several parts of Scripture; with all the parts of the Old Testament and the New? Upon the mention of any text, do I know the context, and the parallel places? Have I that point at least of a good divine, the being a good textuary? Do I know the grammatical construction of the four gospels? Of the, Acts? Of the Epistles? And am I a master of the spiritual sense (as well as the literal) of what I read? Do I understand the scope of each book, and how every part of it tends thereto ? Have I skill to draw the natural inferences deducible from each text? Do I know the objections raised to them or from them by Jews, Deists, Papists, Arians, Socinians, and all other sectaries, who more or less corrupt or cauponize the word of God? Am I ready to give a satisfactory answer to each of these objections? And have I learned to apply every part of the sacred writings, as the various states of my hearers require ?

2. Do I understand Greek and Hebrew? Otherwise how can I undertake, (as every minister does,) not only to explain books which are written therein, but to defend them against all opponents? Am I not at the mercy of every one who does understand, or even pretends to understand the original? For which way can I confute his pretence? Do I understand the language of the Old Testament? Critically? At all? Can I read into English one of David's psalms? Or even the first chapter of Genesis? Do I understand the language of the New Testament? Am I a critical master of it? Have I enough of it even to read into English the first chapter of St. Luke? If not, how many years did I spend at school? How many at the university? And what was I doing all those years? Ought not shame to cover my face?

* 3. Do I understand my own office? Have I deeply considered before God the character which I bear? What is it to be an ambassador of Christ? An envoy from the King of heaven? And do I know and feel what is implied

in "watching over the souls of men, as he that must give account?"

Do I understand so much of profane history as tends to confirm and illustrate the sacred? Am I acquainted with the ancient customs of the Jews and other nations mentioned in Scripture ? Have I a competent knowledge of chronology, that at least which refers to the sacred writings? And am I so far (if no farther) skilled in geography, as to know the situation, and give some account of all the considerable places mentioned therein?

stumble at the ever the better So as to apply

5. Am I a tolerable master of the sciences? Have I gone through the very gate of them, logic? If not, I am not likely to go much farther, when I threshold. Do I understand it, so as to be for it? To have it always ready for use? every rule of it, when occasion is, almost as naturally as 1 turn my hand? Do I understand it at all? Are not even the moods and figures above my comprehension? Do not I poorly endeavour to cover my ignorance, by affecting to laugh at their barbarous names? Can I even reduce an indirect mood to a direct? An hypothetic to a categorical syllogism? Rather have not my stupid indolence and laziness, made me very ready to believe what the little wits and pretty gentlemen affirm, "That logic is good for nothing?" It is good for this at least, (wherever it is understood,) to make people talk less; by shewing them both what is, and what is not to the point; and how extremely hard it is to prove any thing. Do I understand metaphysics? If not the depths of the schoolmen, the subtleties of Scotus or Aquinas, yet the first rudiments, the general principles of that useful science? Have I conquered so much of it, as to clear my apprehension and range my ideas under proper heads? So much as enables me to read with ease and pleasure, as well as profit, Dr. Henry More's Works, Malebranche's Search after Truth, and Dr. Clark's Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God? Do I understand Natural Philosophy? If I have not gone deep therein, have I digested the general grounds of it? Have I mastered Gravesande,