is directed to say, "by his authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." This form of absolution was omitted by the American convention. But it is not easy to tell the reason; for if a bishop can empower a minister to forgive sins, the same minister can certainly exercise this power for the benefit of sick persons, as well as others.

All that part of the Book of Common Prayer, which relates to baptism, confirmation, ordination, consecration, and visiting the sick, carries with it the supposition, that bishops have the power of communicating the holy spirit, and ministers of forgiving sins, which few persons of the present day, who read the scriptures, consult their understandings, or respect the principles of common sense, will be ready to allow.

I have dwelt the longer on these topics, as they have an intimate connexion with the subject of the preceding letter. The unscriptural parts of these ceremonies have evidently grown out of the notion of the apostolical character of the ministry. They afford a comment on that doctrine, which is well worthy of notice. As the ministers descended from the apostles, it is taken for granted, that they possess the same qualifications; and the rules of their office seem to have been formed on this supposition. When it is recollected by what a precarious tenure the episcopal clergy hold their claims to the apostolical dignity, it will be seen how singularly inappropriate and presuming are many parts of the ceremonies, which have just been considered. That such errors should have crept into the church in the days of ignorance and

darkness is not so wonderful; but that men should still be found in an enlightened and free community, who defend and cling to them, is not less unaccountable than surprising.

Your remarks on the expediency and utility of forms of prayer are not without weight. If we ever give utterance to our feelings in chaste, appropriate, and solemn language, it should be in our addresses to the Deity. If we ever suppress the vain ambition of using lofty phrases, high sounding epithets, and an unnecessary abundance of words, it should be then. We cannot study too much to make our language simple, plain, forcible, and direct. In those religious exercises, in which large numbers unite, and where the prayers are intended to express the wants, and petitions of the whole, there can certainly be no impropriety in using a preconceived form, composed in such general terms, as to be adapted to a promiscuous assembly. No prayer in a public assembly is appropriate, unless every individual present can unite in every part. It may sometimes happen, that the feelings of the speaker, and his want of aptness in arranging and combining his thoughts, may lead him into irrelevant expressions, and such as are not adapted to the occasion. This is the only inconvenience, that can arise from extemporaneous prayers; and, to prevent this, it may be expedient sometimes to have studied forms.

It should be remembered, however, that forms in religion are useful, as far as they promote a virtuous conduct, and vital godliness; but beyond this they are injurious. It is rightful and good to have order and system in our religious institutions and services. But

we must take care not to neglect the reality for the form, the substance for the shadow. There is danger, that by treading in the same steps from day to day, we shall at length persuade ourselves, that we walk in the only true path. We must be careful not to let the feeling grow upon us, that when we perform a ceremony, we necessarily do a religious act.

Reading a prayer is not always praying, any more than the simple act of spending two hours in a church is religious worship. If the soul be not drawn out to God, and impressed with a consciousness of his presence; if the heart and affections be not warm with a lively sense of his goodness; if all the faculties be not humbled with a feeling of reverence and submission, there is no devotion, however much ceremony there may be in standing and sitting, repeating forms, reading, or chanting. And the sincere, humble, penitent soul, can offer up praise and thanksgiving to God, acknowledge his dominion, implore his mercy, and render him an acceptable service at all times, and in all places, in such terms, as the overflowings of a devotional spirit may dictate. The scriptures have not informed us what precise acts shall be considered worship. They have assured us, that sincere worship must spring from the heart, but they have prescribed no particular mode in which we shall express our emotions of gratitude, thanksgivings, praise, dependence, and submission. This is left to the discretion of every christian. It is only demanded of us, that we be sincere.

Is it not a principal object of prayer to express devotional feelings? And what is devotion without fervour, earnestness, and an impressive sense of the pre

sence and inspection of God? Is it not much better, that we should have the life, the spirit of prayer, than the form? God looks into the heart, and regards the sentiments we cherish there, and not the modes we use in disclosing them. These modes should be such, as to enable us to retain the most lively emotions of a pious and holy temper, at the same time we use our best endeavours to offer up our devotions in appropriate and expressive language. To speak words without feeling their full force, or being warmed by the sentiments they convey, is not devotion. Prayers repeated every sabbath from year to year in the same church, must, in the nature of things, lose much of their interest. Habit will diminish the irksomeness of repetition, but it is to be feared, the words will too often pass through the mind, while the thoughts are wandering.

There is another objection, which lies heavily against most forms of prayer, and from which the Liturgy of the church, with all its acknowledged excellencies in many respects, is by no means free. No address should ever be publicly made to the Deity, in which every christian, of every denomination, cannot cordially and devoutly join. It is not an occasion which should be employed to introduce dogmatical theology, or abstruse metaphysical distinctions. All the worshippers of God should assemble before him, "in the unity of the spirit and the bond of peace." Names should be done away, and the distinguishing tenets of sects should be forgotten. Is this true of all the prayers of the episcopal church, and especially of the Litany? Are there not many conscientious and devout christians, whose minds revolt at the kind of worship

there rendered, when they recollect the command of our Saviour, "thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve?" This objection, which arises from the habit of conforming prayers to the views of a sect, bears equally strong against extemporaneous prayers, which partake of this character. An important difference is, that when forms become established, and are often repeated in churches, they are likely to produce more extensive injury to the cause of truth and piety.

When you say, that "with respect to social worship of every description, the doctrine and practice of the church universal are decidedly in favour of preconceived forms," and speak of the "lawfulness of forms being established by divine appointment," I hardly know how to understand you. If, by the "church universal," you mean all the churches of Christ, your statement is of course incorrect, because a great portion of them do not use set forms. If you mean those churches only, which hold to three orders in the ministry, I know not why you call them the "church universal." Or is it to be understood, that you consider all those denominations of christians, who do not adopt this mode of government, as being without the pale of the church?

To prove forms of prayer to have been "established by divine appointment," you quote the general practice of singing psalms and hymns in churches, and say, "the Book of Psalms, was inspired by the Holy Ghost for the use of the congregration." This may be true, but it affords no proof in regard to forms of prayers. Did our Saviour use a form in the garden of Gethsemané, or the apostles in their public or