ISAAC NEWTON-Mr. LOCKEMr. ADDISON, and some very eminent lawyers-Sir MATTHEW HALE in particular and I am proud to mention the late excellent Sir JoSEPH YATES; whose friends knew him to be as pious, and informed a christian, as the Public acknowledged him to be an able, and upright judge.

In this view, a Solicitor-General may stand as properly at the head of a volume of 'sermons, as a Bishop-if he be such a SolicitorGeneral, as I have every reason to believe I address-with whose character I have had the happiness of being acquainted through a period of more than thirty

years.

I wish,

ance.

I wish, my dear Sir, the gift were more worthy of your acceptBut I am persuaded you have candour enough to rate the value of it by the motive which accompanies it. Whatever you think of the book, you will receive it as a testimony of the very sincere esteem and respect, with which I am, dear Sir,

Your very affectionate,

And obedient humble Servant,

WILL. GILPIN.

VICAR'S HILL,

May 10, 1799.

PREFACE.

VERY few of the following Sermons are more than common parifh difcourfes; which are perhaps more generally useful, than fermons of a higher clafs. None of them are on deep fubjects, though most of them on fubjects of great importance, which are impreffed with what perfpicuity and force the author was able to give them.

They are, in general, fhort-certainly too fhort for pulpit difcourfes. But there feemed no great neceffity for amplification, repetition, or recapitulation in printed difcourfes, where preceding pages may be examined. They may be useful, when a fermon is delivered from the pulpit; but here they are cut off.

With regard to the mode in which these fermons are composed, it may be neceffary to fay fomething, both on the writer's account, and the reader's.

When we write a treatise, we confider the fubject throughout. We ftrengthen it with argu ments-we clear it of objections-we enter into details-and in fhort, we leave nothing unfaid, that properly appertains to the fubject. Much prefatorial matter alfo may arife, before we begin the difcourfe.

But in the construction of a fermon, perhaps a different mode of compofition may, in general, be more eligible-at least, where a country-congregation only is addreffed on a common fubject.

In the first place, though a fhort opening of a text may often be neceffary, there feems to be no occafion for a long preface. Whatever appertains immediately to the difcourfe, had better perhaps be introduced into the body of it. If it do not immediately belong to the discourse, it might as well be omitted. At leaft, if it be not perfectly appofite, it takes off the firft edge of attention from an audience, which will not perhaps fo readily be reftored.

A few cafy divifions in difcuffing a fubject, feem ufeful. Some divines think it better to melt all together. But a few heads, I think, are a kind of land marks, which prevent the confufion of running one part into another. They are alfo heads of reference, which bring a fubject more eafily to the memory.

In proving a point before a common congregation, it seems unneceffary to produce all the arguments, that may be used. Such as are most forcible, are enough. Many will labour a point fo much, and throw fo many different lights upon it, that like an object feen in a multiplying-glafs, it will be confused, rather than enlightened. The common people cannot feparate a chain of arguments. They lofe one in another.--And in the arguments you use, if you dwell only on the most prominent parts, you may make an impreffion, which a long detail, though equally good in its

kind,