Do I understand so much of profane history as tends to confirm and illustrate the sacred? Am I acquainted with the antient 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?
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 stumble at the threshold. Do I understand it, so as to be ever the better for it? To have it always ready for use? So as to apply every rule of it, when occasion is, almost as naturally as I 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, Keil, Sir Isaac Newton’s Principia, with his Theory of Light and Colours? In order thereto, have I laid in some stock of mathematical knowledge? Am I master of the mathematical A B C, of Euclid’s Elements? If I have not gone thus far, if I am such a novice still, what have I been about ever since I came from school?
6. Am I acquainted with the fathers? At least with those venerable men, who lived in the earliest ages of the church? Have I read over and over the golden remains of Clemens Romanus, of Ignatius and Polycarp? And have I given one reading, at least, to the works of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus and Cyprian?
7. Have I any knowledge of the world? Have I studied men (as well as books) and observed their tempers, maxims and manners? Have I learned, to beware of men? To add the wisdom of the serpent to the innocence of the dove? Has God given me by nature, or have I acquired, any measure of the discernment of spirits? Or of its near ally, prudence, enabling me on all occasions to consider all circumstances, and to suit and vary my behaviour according to the various combinations of them? Do I labour never to be rude or ill-mannered? Not to be remarkably wanting in good-breeding? Do I endeavour to copy after those who are eminent for address and easiness of behaviour? Am I (tho’ never light or trifling, either in word or action, yet) affable and courteous to all men? And do I omit no means which is in my power, and consistent with my character, of pleasing all men with whom I converse, for their good, to edification?
If I am wanting even in these lowest endowments, shall I not frequently regret the want? How often shall I move heavily, and be far less useful than I might have been? How much more shall I suffer in my usefulness, if I have wasted the opportunities I once had of acquainting myself with the great lights of antiquity, the Antenicene fathers? Or if I have droned away those precious hours, wherein I might have made myself master of the sciences? How poorly must I many times drag on, for want of the helps which I have vilely cast away? But is not my case still worse, if I have loitered away the time wherein I should have perfected myself in Greek and Hebrew? I might before this have been critically acquainted with the treasuries of sacred knowledge. But they are now hid from my eyes; they are close locked up, and I have no key to open them. However, have I used all possible diligence to supply that grievous defect, (so far as it can be supplied now) by the most accurate knowledge of the English scriptures? Do I meditate therein day and night? Do I think (and consequently speak) thereof, when I sit in the house, and when I walk by the way; when I lie down, and when I rise up? By this means have I at length attained a thorough knowledge as of the sacred text, so of its literal and spiritual meaning? Otherwise how can I attempt to instruct others therein? Without this, I am a blind guide indeed! I am absolutely incapable of teaching my flock, what I have never learned myself: no more fit to lead souls to God, than I am to govern the world.
(2.) And yet there is a higher consideration than that of gifts; higher than any or all of these joined together; a consideration in view of which all external and all intellectual endowments vanish into nothing. Am I such as I ought to be, with regard to the grace of God? The Lord God enable me to judge aright of this!
And 1. What was my intention in taking upon me this office and ministry? What was it, in taking charge of this parish, either as minister or curate? Was it always, and is it now, wholly and solely, to glorify God, and save souls? Has my eye been singly fixed on this, from the beginning hitherto? Had I never, have I not now, any mixture in my intention; any alloy of baser metal? Had I, or have I no thought of worldly gain? Filthy lucre, as the apostle terms it. Had I at first, have I now, no secular view? No eye to honour or preferment? To a plentiful income? Or, at least, a competency? A warm and comfortable livelihood?
*Alas, my brother! If the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness? Was a comfortable livelihood then your motive for entering into the ministry? And do you avow this in the face of the sun, and without one blush upon your cheek? I cannot compare you with Simon Magus: you are many degrees beneath him. He offered to give money for the gift of God, the power of conferring the Holy Ghost. Hereby however he shewed, that he set an higher value on the gift than on the money which he would have parted with for it. But you do not: you set a far higher value on the money than on the gift; insomuch that you do not desire, you will not accept of the gift, unless the money accompany it! The bishop said, when you was ordained, “Receive thou the Holy Ghost.” But that was the least of your care. Let who will receive this, so you receive the money, the revenue of a good benefice. While you minister the word and sacraments before God, he gives the Holy Ghost to those who duly receive them: so that through your hands likewise the Holy Ghost is in this sense given now. But you have little concern whether he be or not: so little, that you will minister no longer, he shall be given no more either through your lips or hands, if you have no more money for your labour. O Simon, Simon! what a saint wert thou, compared to many of the most honourable men now in Christendom?
Let not any either ignorantly or wilfully mistake me. I would not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. I know the spiritual labourer too is worthy of his reward; and that if we sow unto our flock spiritual things, it is meet that we reap of their carnal things. I do not therefore blame, no, not in any degree, a minister’s taking a yearly salary: but I blame his seeking it. The thing blameable is, the having it in his view, as the motive, or any part of the motive, for entering into this sacred office.
Hic nigræ succus loliginis, hæc est Ærugo mera.