the domeftic animal which, of all others, is the most subject to the wanton cruelty of man, fhould thus poffefs the most formidable of all means of revenge, and become fuddenly endued with the fatal weapon, at the very moment when the injury has been inflicted. Those who are fond of feeing final caufes in every arrangement of the univerfe, and whofe imprudent zeal has, more than all the fcepticism of all the philofophers, brought into disrepute the most fublime of human fpeculations, will eagerly feize upon this fact as an illuftration of the defign, conftantly obferveable in the works of nature. But nothing can be more thoughtless than fuch an ar gument; for, if defign is here exhibited, it is unaccompanied by benevolence. The weapon with which those animals are endued, is useless for defence, and ferves only for revenge; it is ufed indifcriminately against the affailant, and the indifferent fpectator; and finally, it is as certainly fatal to the poffeffor, as to thofe against whom it is employed. The whole fact muft, therefore, be claffed amongst thofe infcrutable difpenfations of Providence, from which we are not permitted to draw any inference, except that of our own profound ignorance.

It is of more importance to remark (and for this purpose we have introduced the prefent notice), that the dreadful leffon taught by the cafes here ftated, fhould be carefully kept in mind by all who are, from their tempers or their habits of life, much expofed to the temptation or the neceffity of using harfh methods with the most common of our domestic animals.

ART. IX. Sermons. By Sir Henry Moncreiff Wellwood, Bart, D. D. & F. R. S. Edinburgh, one of the Minifters of St Cuthberts, Edinburgh, and fenior Chaplain in Ordinary in Scotland to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. Edinburgh, 1805. pp. 480.

IT

T would be improper, perhaps, to pafs an unqualified cenfure on any particular ftyle of pulpit eloquence. • Whate'er is beft administered is beft,' is a maxim at leaft as applicable to preaching as to government. Good fenfe and good morality are indifpenfable requifites; and if the preacher give us thefe, he may be allowed, in other refpects, to follow the dictates of his peculiar genius or fancy. The animated oration-the calm. expofition of moral duties-the critical illuftration of fcripture doctrine-and the ferious exhortation to a holy life-are all adapted to the pulpit, and are all good in their kind. Attempts at wit and vivacity, indeed, might probably be profcribed without any great difadvantage. A preacher is comtemptible, who

does

does not seem to believe what he fays; and we can fcarcely think him much in earnest, who feeks occafion to be facetious, when he reafons of righteoufnefs, temperance, and judgment to come.' There are preachers, however, of this peculiar vein; and there are likewife hearers on whom an epigrammatic point may have more effect, than proofs of holy writ.' Whether, therefore, under an enlarged view of St Paul's maxim, to become all things to all men,' even the witty ftyle of preaching may not be occafionally tolerated, we will not undertake to determine. It is, however, clearly the worst ftyle; and fince we have discovered the worst, perhaps we may likewife be able to point out the best.

The admirers of eloquence and fine writing will be apt in general to declare for the highly oratorical fermon, a fpecies of compofition of which we have few examples in this country; and accordingly, the great French preachers are commonly referred to, as thofe who have come nearest perfection in their

We are however induced to fufpect, that oratory, confidered as an art, can have no very powerful effect in the pulpit. Artis eft celare artem, is an indifpenfable rule of rhetoric; and no eloquence can ever be impreffive which appears laboured and artificial. Now, an orator of genius, when he undertakes to delineate thofe pathetic circumftances in the fortunes or conduct of men, with which every human heart is ready to fympathife, will eafily be able to roufe the feelings of his audience; and all the exaggerations and amplifications which he employs for this purpose will commonly efcape the notice of thofe who have become interested and warm in the defcription. But the cafe is materially different with thofe reprefentations of the future deftinies of men, which afford the chief fcope for pulpit eloquence. As these things are not the objects of our experience, or of our ordinary confideration, there feems to be a fpecies of incredulity and indifference with refpect to them in the human mind, which is only to be overcome by powerful reasoning and serious exhortation, and is more likely to be increased than abated by the trick and the glitter of rhetoric. Instead of being ready to overlook the art of the orator, we are in this inftance rather on the watch to discover it; and if once he appears to be employing artifice, his influence with us is at an end. He may continue to delight us as a poet with his imagination and fpirit; but we fhall pay little regard to him as a teacher of important truth. Compare the fermons of Maffillon with the orations of Demofthenes or Cicero. The Greek and Roman orators, no doubt, had often bad caufes to fupport, and excited the sympathy of their audience, by counterfeiting emotions which they did not feriously feel. The French preacher, on the other hand, we

muft

muft prefume, was always in earnest, and firmly believed the truths which he delivered. But, by adopting the style of a rhetorician, he seems at all times to be acting a part; while thofe illuftrious antients appear quite fimple, even when they are employing their utmoft artifice and fkill. The plain statement of the preacher's fentiments on the fubjects which he is treating, expreffing honeftly what he thinks and feels, without any foftening or exaggerating, appears to us to be the best ftyle of preaching. This is compatible with many very fine ftrokes of occafional eloquence; but, in general, the ftyle will rather be firm and steady, or, at the moft, warm and earnest, than highly coloured and impaffioned; and, after all that may be faid of his tedioufnefs and flovenly compofition, perhaps Tillotfon is ftill perhaps the jufteft model for the eloquence of the pulpit. The volume before us is a very refpectable example of this manner. The fermons of Sir Henry Moncreiff are evidently the productions of a fenfible and ferious man, who trufts more to the weight and importance of his matter, than to the manner in which it may be fet off and adorned. He never aims at aftonishing his reader, nor does he poflefs any peculiar felicity or polifh of expreffion; but he is always inftructive, commonly forcible, and his language has at least the merit of perfpicuity. Without entering into the merits of each fermon in particular, it will be fufficient merely to mention the fubjects, and to quote a fpecimen. The contents of this volume are as follows: 1. On the unequal allotments of Providence-2. On the minute improvement of the bleflings of Providence-3. On felf-denial-4. On the form of godlinefs-5. On Chriftian faith and morality-6. On the refult of good and of bad affections-7. On the inheritance. of a good man's children-8. On the doctrine of grace-9. On the conduct of Providence to good men-10. On the general fpirit and effects of Chriftianity-11. On the univerfal promulgation of Chriftianity-12. The fame fubject continued--13. Profpects of futurity-14. On the cultivation of perfonal religion. From the fixth fermon, On the refult of good and bad affections,' we felect the following ftriking reflections on the influence of parental love.

If we have been the children of worthy and affectionate parents, who are now no more, the remembrance of their love can never ceafe to be interefting. We have pleasure in believing that we have derived from them our best qualities, or that we can refer to them our fuccefs in life. We look back with a melancholy fatisfaction on their anxieties for us when we had no care of ourfelves; on their folicitude to protect or to warn us; on the affection with which they fupplied our want of experience; on the looks of kindness with which they gratified us; on the infruction

inftruction and the difcipline by which they endeavoured to form us for the path of life; on the fervent prayers by which they purified them; on the earneftnefs with which they spake to us of duties and of godlinefs, when they admonished us of the evils to come, and ftrove to fortify or inftruct us by "the labour of love;" on the fanguine hopes which they delighted to indulge, from the progrefs of our talents, or from our good conduct or fuccefs in the world, or from our duty and affection to them, or from our ardour in good works, or from our fidelity to the God of our fathers.

Thefe are the most useful recollections of the human mind. It is the law of our nature, that the parents go down to the grave, and leave their children behind them. But if we can remember our parents with thofe happy impreffions of their affection and fidelity, we have that from them which will intereft and admonish us as long as we live. If we have been faithful to the influence of parental love, it will never lofe its hold of us.

• Why should not each of us examine himself fairly on the subject? Has my conduct been at all worthy of the faithful difcipline of my parents; or of their earueft admonitions to guide and to blefs my youth; or of the laft impreffive prayer which came from "the love which pe rifhed" in the grave?

Do I feel the influence ftill of parental folicitude, to reftrain me in the hour of temptation; or to revive on my confcience my early impreflions of godlinefs and of good works? Or, am I confcious that there is a motive to whatever is pure or estimable, ever returning to my thoughts, from the fenfe of my obligation to justify the hopes, and to be worthy of the examples, which are now no more?

It is confolatory, indeed, to be able to answer these questions to the fatisfaction of our own minds. If we give thanks to Heaven that thofe "whofe love has perifhed " " died in faith and patience, and "commanded their children to keep the way of the Lord," we muft feel that the impreffions, to which thefe queftions relate, are rivetted on our hearts; and that for the influence which they preferve on our conduct, we fhall one day answer to God.

Ah! what shall thofe men do, who know that they deliberately trample on the memorials of parets who loved them in the fear of God? The love which loft its influence before it could avail them, and of which they must feel themfelves to have been unworthy, though it perished in the grave, fhall rife up at " the judgement of the great day," to bear witnefs against them, "except they repent." The thought is deep and awful. If they have any tenderness of mind, and God hath not forfaken them, it will reach the bottom of their hearts.

But it is impoffible not to feel how much the recollection of parental love, which recals us to prayer or to penitence, ought to fuggeft to other men with regard to the love which has not yet perifhed. Their parents admonish them ftill, and pray for them. Surely this is the time to confider how precious the impreffions ought to be of God and of du

ties, which are produced by their earnest and affectionate endeavours to be faithful to God and to them. "My fon, faid Solomon, keep thy father's commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother. Bind them continually upon thine heart, and tie them about thy neck. When thou goeft, it shall lead thee; when thou fleepeft, it fhall keep thee; and when thou awakeft, it shall talk with thee." p. 170-174.

From the 'contents' our readers will perceive, that several of these fermons are on fubjects entirely fcriptural; and, indeed, the motives to virtue which the reverend author lays down, are most commonly drawn from the peculiar and diftinguishing doctrines of Chriflianity. In the fermon on Chriftian faith and morality,' he, indeed, plainly ftates it as his opinion, that there is no way of enforcing Chriftian morals with effect, without deriving them from the fources of Chriftian faith. This is a point which feems to be viewed in very different lights; and although we are not perhaps very competent judges of the question, we fhall venture to make a very few obfervations on it.

We think it then very plain, that a preacher who ftudiously keeps Christianity in the back ground as fomething which incumbers him, and of which he would be as well pleased to get rid, is by no means doing his duty. Whether that religion is true or falfe, is another queftion; but, furely, no one who thinks it true ought to be ashamed of it, and no one who thinks it falfe ought to preach under its authority. The attempt then to preach morals as fomething feparate from Christianity, is highly indecent, and has always a paltry and pitiful effect. Upon this fubject, nothing can be more strongly, or, indeed, happily expreffed, than the following very admirable paffage from the fermon juft referred to.

I beseech you to confider,

(2.) What the morality is, which is induftriously feparated from the doctrines of Chriftianity, or is inculcated independent of its relation to them.

When I fay that morality is feparated from Chriftianity, I do not mean to affirm, that this is always directly done. It happens more frequently, that the doctrines of the gospel are paffed over in filence, or are treated as fubjects which a very wife or enlightened man does not think it neceflary minutely to confider; while moral duties are ftated, with few exceptions, as if they had no reference to them.

Is the morality which is thus inculcated, the pure, the universal, the watchful, or the uniform morality reprefented in the gospel? On the contrary, it is a morality which has feldom any relation to God, or to the duties which we owe to him; a morality which applies chiefly, or entirely, to our prefent interefts; the morality which the fashion, or the general manners of the world require; the morality which de zives its chief motives from prefent fituations, and from prefent events;

the