nected in such a manner with the text, as to introduce it with a very striking emphasis. On the language I have little to observe, except that the phrase, one great instance of this proof, is a clumsy expression. It was sufficient to have said, one great proof, or one great instance of this. In the same sentence, when he speaks of setting out the weakness and worthlessness of external performances, we may observe, that the word worthlessness, as it is now commonly used, signifies more than the deficiency of worth, which is all that the author means. It generally imports, a considerable degree of badness or blame. It would be more proper, therefore, to say, the imperfection, or the insignificancy, of external performances.

"The use I intend to make of these words, is, from hence to raise some thoughts about that very excellent and important duty of praise and thanksgiving, a subject not unfit to be discoursed of at this time: whether we consider, either the more than ordinary coldness that appears of late in men's tempers towards the practice of this (or any other) part of a warm and affecting devotion; the great occasion of setting aside this particular day in the calendar, some years ago; or the new instances of mercy and goodness which God hath lately been pleased to bestow upon us; answering at last the many prayers and fastings by which we have besought him so long for the establishment of their majesties' throne, and for the success of their arms; and giving us in his good time, an opportunity of appearing before him in the more delightful part of our duty, with the voice of joy and praise, with a multitude that keep holydays.'

In this paragraph there is nothing remarkable; no particular beauty or neatness of expression; and the sentence which it forms is long and tiresome-to raise some thoughts about the very excellent, &c. is rather loose and awkward; better, to recommend that very excellent, &c. and when he mentions setting aside a particular day in the calendar, one would imagine, that setting apart would have been more proper, as to set aside, seems rather to suggest a different idea.

"Offer unto God thanksgiving. Which that we may do, let us inquire first, how we are to understand this command of offering praise and thanksgiving unto God; and then, how reasonable it is that we should comply with it.'

This is the general division of the discourse. An excellent one it is, and corresponds to many subjects of this kind, where particular duties are to be treated of; first to explain, and then to recommend or enforce them. A division should always be simple and natural; and much depends on the proper view which it gives of the subject.

"Our inquiry into what is meant here, will be very short, for who is there, that understands any thing of religion, but knows, that the offering praise and thanks to God, implies, our having a lively and devout sense of his excellencies, and of his benefits; our recollecting them with humility and thankfulness of heart; and our expressing these inward affections by suitable outward signs, by re

verent and lowly postures of body, by songs,and hymns, and spiritual ejaculations; either publicly or privately; either in the customary and daily service of the church, or in its more solemn assemblies, convened upon extraordinary occasions? This is the account which every christian easily gives himself of it; and which, therefore, it would be needless to enlarge upon. I shall only take notice upon this head, that praise and thanksgiving do, in strictness of speech, signify things somewhat different. Our praise properly terminates in God, on account of his natural excellencies and perfections; and is that act of devotion, by which we confess and admire his several attributes: but thanksgiving is a narrower duty, and imports only a grateful sense and acknowledgment of past mercies. We praise God for all his glorious acts of every kind, that regard either us or other men, for his very vengeance, and those judgments which he sometimes sends abroad in the earth; but we thank him, properly speaking, for the instances of his goodness alone; and for such only of these, as we ourselves are some way concerned in. This, I say, is what the two words strictly imply: but since the language of Scripture is generally less exact, and useth either of them often to express the other by, I shall not think myself obliged, in what follows, thus nicely always to distinguish them.'

There was room for insisting more fully on the nature of the duty, than the author has done under this head; in particular, this was the place for correcting the mistake, to which men are always prone, of making thanksgiving to consist merely in outward expressions; and for showing them, that the essence of the duty lies in the inward feelings of the heart. In general, it is of much use to give full and distinct explications of religious duties. But as our author intended only one discourse on the subject, he could not enlarge with equal fulness on every part of it; and he has chosen to dwell on that part, on which, indeed, it is most necessary to enlarge, the motives enforcing the duty. For as it is an easier matter to know, than to practise duty, the persuasive part of the discourse is that to which the speaker should always bend his chief strength. The account given in this head, of the nature of praise and thanksgiving, though short, is yet comprehensive and distinct, and the language is smooth and elegant.

'Now, the great reasonableness of this duty of praise or thanksgiving, and our several obligations to it, will appear, if we either consider it absolutely in itself, as the debt of our natures; or compare it with other duties, and show the rank it bears among them; or set out, in the last place, some of its peculiar properties and advantages, with regard to the devout performer of it.'

The author here enters upon the main part of his subject, the reasonableness of the duty, and mentions three arguments for proving it. These are well stated, and are in themselves proper and weighty considerations. How far he has handled each of them to advantage, will appear as we proceed. I cannot, however, but think that he has omitted one very material part of the argument, which was, to have shown the obligations we are under to this duty, from the vari

ous subjects of thanksgiving afforded us by the divine goodness. This would have led him to review the chief benefits of creation, providence and redemption; and certainly, they are these which lay the foundation of the whole argument or thanksgiving. The heart must first be affected with a suitable sense of the divine benefits, before one can be excited to praise God. If you would persuade me to be thankful to a benefactor, you must not employ such considerations merely as those upon which the author here rests, taken from gratitude's being the law of my nature, or bearing a high rank among moral duties, or being attended with peculiar advantages. These are considerations but of a secondary nature. You must begin with setting before me all that my friend has done for me, if you mean to touch my heart, and to call forth the emotions of gratitude. The case is perfectly similar, when we are exhorted to give thanks to God; and, therefore, in giving a full view of the subject, the blessings conferred on us by divine goodness should have been taken into the argument.

It may be said, however, in apology for our author, that this would have led him into too wide a field for one discourse, and into a field also, which is difficult, because so beaten: the enumeration of the divine benefits. He therefore seems to take it for granted, that we He assumes have upon our minds a just sense of these benefits.

hem as known and acknowledged; and setting aside what may be called the pathetic part of the subject, or what was calculated to warm the heart, he goes on to the reasoning part. In this management, I cannot altogether blame him. I do not by any means say that it is necessary in every discourse to take in all that belongs to the doctrine of which we treat. Many a discourse is spoiled, by attempting to render it too copious and comprehensive. The preacher may, without reprehension, take up any part of a great subject, to which his genius at the time leads him, and make that his theme: but when he omits any thing which may he thought essential, he ought to give notice, that this is a part which, for the time, he lays aside. Something of this sort would perhaps have been proper here. Our author might have begun, by saying, that the reasonableness of this duty must appear to every thinking being, who reflects upon the infinite obligations which are laid upon us, by creating, preserv ing, and redeeming love; and, after taking notice that the field which these open, was too wide for him to enter upon at that time, have proceeded to his other heads. Let us now consider these separately.

'The duty of praise and thanksgiving, considered absolutely, in itself, is, I say, the debt and law of our nature. We had such faculties bestowed on us by our Creator, as made us capable of satisfying this debt, and obeying this law; and they never, therefore, work more naturally and freely, than when they are thus employed.

"Tis one of the earliest instructions given us by philosophy, and which has ever since been approved and inculcated by the wisest men of all ages, that the original design of making man was, that he When God had might praise and honour him who made him.

finished this goodly frame of things we call the world, and put together the several parts of it, according to his infinite wisdom, in exact number, weight, and measure; there was still wanting a creature, in these lower regions, hat could apprehend the beauty, order, and exquisite contrivance of it; that, from contemplating the gift, might be able to raise itself to the great Giver, and do honour to all his attri butes. Every thing, indeed, that God made, did, in some sense, glorify its Author, inasmuch as it carried upon it the plain mark and impress of the Deity, and was an effect worthy of that first cause from whence it flowed; and thus might the heavens be said, at the first moment in which they stood forth, to declare his glory, and the firmament to show his handy work: But this was an imperfect and defective glory; the sign was of no signification here below, whilst there was no one here as yet to take notice of it. Man, therefore, was formed to supply this want, endowed with powers fit to find out, and to acknowledge these unlimited perfections; and then put into this temple of God, this lower world, as the priest of nature, to offer up the incense of thanks and praise for the mute and insensible part of the creation.

'This, I say, hath been the opinion all along of the most thoughtful men down from the most ancient times: and though it be not demonstrative, yet it is what we cannot but judge highly reasonable, if we do but allow that man was made for some end or other; and that he is capable of perceiving that end. For then, let us search and inquire never so much, we find no other account of him that we can rest upon so well. If we say, that he was made purely for the good pleasure of God; this is, in effect, to say, that he was made for no determinate end; or for none, at least, that we can discern. If we say, that he was designed as an instance of the wisdom, and power, and goodness of God; this, indeed, may be the reason of his being in general; for 'tis the common reason of the being of every thing besides. But it gives no account why he was made such a thing as he is; a reflecting, thoughtful, inquisitive being. The particular reason of this, seems most aptly to be drawn from the praise and honour that was (not only to redound to God from him, but) to be given to God by him.'

The thought which runs through all this passage, of man's being the priest of nature, and of his existence being calculated chiefly for that end, that he might offer up the praises of the mute part of the creation, is an ingenious thought, and well illustrated. It was a favourite idea among some of the ancient philosophers; and it is not the worse on that account, as it thereby appears to have been a natural sentiment of the human mind. In composing a sermon, however, it might have been better to have introduced it as a sort of collateral argument, or an incidental illustration, than to have displayed it with so much pomp, and to have placed it in the front of the arguments for this duty. It does not seem to me, when placed in this station, to bear all the stress which the author lays upon it. When the divine goodness brought man into existence, we cannot well conceive that its chief purpose was, to form a being who might

sing praises to his Maker. Prompted by infinite benevolence, the Supreme Creator formed the human race, that they might rise to happiness, and to the enjoyment of himself, through a course of virtue, or proper action. The sentiment on which our author dwells, however beautiful, appears too loose and rhetorical to be a principal head of discourse.

This duty, therefore, is the debt and law of our nature. And it will more distinctly appear to be such, if we consider the two ruling faculties of our mind, the understanding and the will,apart, in both which it is deeply founded: in the understanding, as in the principle of reason, which owns and acknowledges it; in the will, as in the fountain of gratitude and return, which prompts, and even constrains us to pay it.

'Reason was given us as a rule and measure, by the help of which we were to proportion our esteem of every thing, according to the degrees of perfection and goodness which we found therein. It cannot therefore, if it doth its office at all, but apprehend God as the best and most perfect being; it must needs see, and own, and admire his infinite perfections. And this is what is strictly meant by praise; which, therefore, is expressed in Scripture, by confessing to God, and acknowledging him; by ascribing to him what is his due; and as far as this sense of the words reaches, 'tis impossible to think of God without praising him; for it depends not on the understanding, how it shall apprehend things, any more than it doth on the eye, how visible objects shall appear to it.

The duty takes the further and surer hold of us, by the means of the will, and that strong bent towards gratitude, which the Author of our nature hath implanted in it. There is not a more active principle than this in the mind of man; and surely that which deserves its utmost force, and should set all its springs a-work, is God; the great and universal Benefactor, from whom alone we received whatever we either have, or are, and to whom we can possibly repay nothing but our praises, or (to speak more properly on this head, and according to the strict import of the word) our thanksgiving. Who hath first given to God, (saith the great Apostle, in his usual figure) and it shall be recompensed unto him again? A gift, it seems, always requires a recompense: nay, but of him, and through him, and to him,are all things: of him, as the Author; through him, as the Preserver and Governor; to him, as the end and perfection of all things; to whom, therefore, (as it follows,) be glory for ever, Amen!'

I cannot much approve of the light in which our author places his argument in these paragraphs. There is something too metaphysical and refined, in his deducing, in this manner, the obligation to thanksgiving, from the two faculties of the mind, understanding and will. Though what he says be in itself just, yet the argument is not sufficiently plain and striking. Arguments in sermons, especially on subjects that so naturally and easily suggest them, should be palpable and popular; should not be brought from topics that appear far sought, but should directly address the heart and feelings.