dertake to teach and exhort the congregation; when it is evident they themselves have no just ideas of the first principles of the doctrine of Christ. From teaching and exhorting, they proceed to dictate the prayers, and offer up the devotions of the congregation, in extempore effusions, with such an air of assurance, such extravagant and incoherent expressions, and such enthusiastic fervour, as puts common sense and common modesty to the blush.

But supposing they are persons of sufficient age, and competent knowledge, yet who hath required these things at their hands? And where is their authority for taking upon themselves the duties of an office, with which they have never been invested? If such persons are capable of giving useful advice, or instruction, to their companions, private opportunities should be taken for this purpose.And, instead of displaying their abilities in extempore prayer in public, let them be content reverently to unite in those prayers which are offered up by the minister; who is regularly set apart for that purpose, as much, at

least, as he is for preaching. Nor let it once be supposed, or feared, that the spirit of piety and devotion will be restrained or impeded by the strictest attention to order and regularity, in the public exercises of religious de

votion.

"Disobedience to rule and order," says a certain writer," is a sure mark of a false spirit; and especially, when persons intrude into that which does not belong to them." Under the Mosaic dispensation, particular per-* sons were especially apppinted as the priests, to offer up the sacrifices, to lead the devotions of the people, and to perform all public religious services. That the Christian church is established under similar rules and regulations, in this respect, must, I think, appear evident to every careful observer. If so, it must be as improper now, for persons, at their own will, without any pretensions to the Christian priesthood, to take upon themselves to lead in public assemblies, by prayers, &c. as it would have been under the Jewish dispensation, for any one of the congregation, without divine appointment, to have officiated

at the altar, or in the temple, or synagogue. And I desire those who may have different views of this subject, to consider whether there is a single instance to be found in the New Testament, of public worship being conducted by any but by persons set apart to the office and duty of the ministry, or by their express direction.

When persons who are so inclined, are permitted to go forward, and take the lead in the duties of public worship, and pour forth their extemporaneous effusions, as a misguided zeal, or a desire to be noticed, and to show their abilities, may prompt them; it appears to me that the solemn order of public devotion is perverted, and its beauty essentially marred. Admitting that such persons are influenced by the best motives, and their experience and abilities fully equal to the performance of those important duties, (which, I apprehend, is not always the case ;) yet this would not justify them in assuming the duties of an office, to which they have no just pretensions.

After attending one of those meetings for

E

public worship, where different persons perform the duties of the ministerial office, the remark is often made, "What an excellent

prayer such an one made-and how remarkably gifted such an one was." None of them, it seems, think the Lord's prayer worthy to occupy any place in their petitions: they have no talent at the business at all, if they can't exceed that. Nor could the hearers be edified by any thing which has the appearance of a form, whoever may have been its author, or whatever may have been its origin. The prayers must all be fabricated on the spot ;→→ and several in succession must try their dexterity and skill.

Now what, I would inquire, can be the object of this kind of proceeding, in the solemn exercises of public religious devotion? Is it that different persons may have an opportunity to display their abilities, or (as some would express it) to exercise their gifts? Or that the congregation may have an opportunity of judging who are most expert, or most fervent? Or that their curiosity may be amused and gratified by these different exhibi

tions? These, I apprehend, are very impróper objects to be mingled with religious worship, and especially, very foreign from the intention of prayer; the true design of which is, or always ought to be, to express our dependence upon the Supreme Being, and to implore his blessing, through the merits of Christ, upon ourselves and others. Is it the object, then, in having different persons to take the lead in this important duty, to see if different voices, different phrases, and different modes of expression, will not move the Almighty to grant those things which he sees needful for us? This, in my view, would be representing our Maker in a very erroneous light, as though he was altogether such an one as ourselves; and it appears to me that this kind of procedure detracts greatly from the dignity, importance, and solemnity of public religious devotion.

With respect to persons being gifted in prayer, extraordinarily assisted, &c. I am at a loss what idea is intended to be conveyed by these expressions. If it is only meant that certain persons have an easy and distinct ar