_5thly_, Some knowledge of the _sciences_ also, is (to say the least) equally _expedient_. Nay, may we not say, that the knowledge of one (whether art or science) altho’ now quite unfashionable, is even _necessary_, next, and in order to, the knowledge of the scripture itself? I mean, _logic_. For what is this, if rightly understood, but the _art of good sense_? Of apprehending things clearly, judging truly, and reasoning conclusively? What is it, viewed in another light, but the _art of learning and teaching_? Whether by convincing or persuading? What is there then, in the whole compass of _science_, to be desired in comparison of it? Is not some acquaintance with what has been termed The second part of logic, _metaphysicks_, if not so necessary as this, yet highly expedient, 1. In order to clear our apprehension (without which it is impossible either to judge correctly, or to reason closely or conclusively) by ranging our ideas under general heads: and, 2. In order to understand many useful writers, who can very hardly be understood without it? Should not a minister be acquainted too with at least the general grounds of _natural philosophy_? Is not this a great help to the accurate understanding several passages of scripture? Assisted by this, he may himself comprehend, and on proper occasions explain to others, how _the invisible things of |God| are seen from the creation of the world? how the heavens declare the glory of |God|, and the firmament sheweth his handy work_: till they cry out, _O |Lord|, how manifold are thy works! In wisdom hast thou made them all._ But how far can he go in this, without some knowledge of _geometry_? which is likewise useful, not barely on this account, but to give clearness of apprehension, and an habit of thinking closely and connectedly. It must be allowed indeed, that some of these branches of knowledge are not so indispensably necessary as the rest; and therefore no thinking man will condemn the fathers of the Church, for having in all ages and nations, appointed some to the ministry, who suppose they had the capacity, yet had not had the opportunity of attaining them. But what excuse is this, for one who has the opportunity, and makes no use of it? What can be urged for a person who has had an university education, if he does not understand them all? Certainly, supposing him to have any capacity, to have common understanding, he is inexcusable before God and man.