chat. And thus the hours which should be devoted to private devotion, to the instruction of youth, or to reading such books as may tend to inspire the mind with a serious concern for the important interests of eternity, are far worse than thrown away.

Under the same fear of superstition all notions of sacriligious profanation of holy things are ridiculed and discarded. The consecration of churches becomes an idle and vain superstition; and they triumphantly ask, what can be more absurd than to think there can be any holiness in one house, in one parcel of wood, or of brick and stone, more than in another? True there is not, any farther than as they bear a peculiar relation to God. Having been devoted to his. service they become in a peculiar manner his property, and hence pertake of holiness as he is holy. They are relatively and not absolutely holy. They are holy because he to whom they belong is holy. Is there any thing absurd or difficult to be understood in all this? Look to the nature of property between man and man, and it will be clear enough. Are not all our notions on that subject merely relative? How does he injure me who violates my property, who siezes and appropriates it to his own use, but because it bears a relation to me, a relation sanctioned by the law of the land? What absolute inherent wrong is there in appropriating to one's self one piece of property more than anothor? If this be the case with regard to man, shall we think there is less evil in violating the property of God, and diverting it to our own use, to the gratification of our own humors or worldly interests.

There is to be sure a compendious method of geting rid of this reasoning by saying that it is an idle superstition to talk of God's having property in a distinct sense, when he tells us that the whole earth is his, the round world and they that dwell therein. But what if man by his own voluntary act has given and appropriated a thing to his use, may it not in that case become more peculiarly his? And has man afterwards a right to recall it, and appropriate it to his own use? What one man gives to another, human laws say he has no right to recall; and shall not a gift to Almighty God be equally sacred? After we have appropriated a thing to his use, have we any right left to use it as we please? As well may I give to a neighbor my horse and yet insist that I have a right to use the animal when and as I please. Because there is no human law to enforce God's right, does it therefore follow that the evil of violating it is less? To human society it may be, but ought not to be in reason and conscience.

Let these remarks be applied to the church, the house of God, and how will they be found to square with the use to which it is some times put? Being consecrated and set apart to the service of God, what shall be said of introducing into it political intrigue at elections, with all the base worldly passions which are usually at work in such a scene? This has sometimes been done. Nay more, there have been instances of admiting the military on parade days when the weather has been stormy. Can there be a greater profanation of sacred things, than thus to convert the house of God into a barrack for soldiers, with the usual accompany ment of profane language; perhaps drinking and reveling? By the enevitable recurence of such Ce

a scene to the mind, must not all seriousness and solemnity be banished thence on the following Sunday? This may be called superstition, but it is a superstition that pretended philosophers would do well to consider.

MR. EDITOR.

The Observer.

THE fluctuating state of human opinions has ever been a subject of notoriety and much speculation: like the pendulum of a clock, they vibrate from side to side, from one extreme to another, never noticing the medium or point of station. Perhaps no subject has ever come in for a greater share of speculation, than that of religion; since every man takes upon himself to settle his own faith, and assumes the liberty of judging for himself in matters of orthodoxy. At one time we see its professors exhibiting a starched sanctity of life, a practical display of personal holiness, whose prominent ensigns are, I am holier than thou, and a contempt for all appearance of human enjoyments. Again we view men pursuing a course widely opposite, which, though not so forbidding in its first appearence, is still more pernicious in its effects, when all distinction in religious sentiments is laid level, in whose place one great magazine for common stock is made, into which the tenets of the christian Jew, Mahometan, and Pagan are promiscuously cast, Sincerity being the only criterion by which any preference is to be adjudged to the claimants.

This liberal way of thinking, as it is commonly called, I am sorry to add, seems to have had its influence on the form and structure of churches, both inside, and exterior. But under what obligation, many will ask, is a churchman to build his house of worship in one fashion rather than another; or what impropriety can there possi bly be in placing the pulpit at the side rather than the end? Can a round window have any advantage over one of a square form, and can the congregation be any better accomodated by being forced to pass through one crowded door, instead of having free access to several; or what spiritual advantage can possibly arise from seats in preference to pews?

If we could divest mankind of the power and uniform practice of associating their ideas, and bring them to pursue such a line of conduct, as that analogy of one thing would not consequently bring to mind its concomitant practices, so as to receive a degree of sympathy in the beholders, I would answer that these things were innocent and perhaps advisable as far as they accorded with primitive practices, and philosophical principles. But since we are well acquainted that these are often the ensigns of schism and opposition to the Catholic Church, we must certainly give the preference to the practice of the church, and strongly recommend an adherance to the same. In the New Testament, we are indeed, no where directed how or where to build churches, nor even have we a command to build them at all, and little or nothing can be gathered from primitive writers direct to that point; however, that there was

of old an universal mode for building them, and that a departing from this mode was reckoned an unnecessary if not unjustifiable innovation, may be learned from the opposition that the Greek Church, an extensive and respectable branch of the Catholic Church, made to the introduction of steeples as forming a part of the sacred edifice. This religious fear of innovation we find was not altogether confined to the church abovementioned, since we learn, as Bishop Latimer tells the story, that when commissioners were appointed by royal authority to examine into the cause of the sinking of Earl Goodwin's lands, an old member of the church very spiritly answered, that it was by the judgment of God, because of the building of Tenterdon steeple. These cases, though they are not exactly parallel with those in question, yet satisfy us that modifications and inventions in things appertaining to spiritual uses, were not so greedily received some centuries ago as they are at present. I would not be thought fastigious, or wishing to convey the idea, that any moral evil is attached to the construction of a church in such manner as the builders shall think best; but like wise men and friends to pure and unmixed christianity, we ought to look forward to the end, and pay some attention to contingencies: neither do I conceive we are to join issue with the favorite cry and construct our religious edifices as the present fashion of the day may happen to be, lest the friends of orthodoxy and the church be often disgusted with the schismatical form of a conventicle or Whitfield tabernacle. Such models, as have been the longest in use and obtained the most universal suffrage of the church, most certainly discover a decided preference.

To the custom of placing the church in such a situation, that the door, at the end opposite the chancil, may open to the East, has, I believe, gained the universal consent of the Western churches. The reason is obviously this, that the priest in his ministrations may be enabled, by thus having the earthly Canaan in seeming view before him, more constantly to remind his flock of the heavenly one of which the earthly was a type.

That the pulpit and desk should be located at the end of the building is obvious to every one who understands the nature and power of sounds; and should be thus constructed both for the convenience of the speaker and hearer, since it has its foundation on philosophical principles. In this situation the impulse given the air, by the speaker's exertions, is backed by the wall behind, while the side walls confine and hinder a wide undulation, leaving but one direction for the sound to take, thereby giving the auditors at the farther,end, a chance of hearing nearly equal to that of the foremost. Whereas in all other positions of speaking, the case is similar to dropping a stone into the water, and although the impulse at the place of immersion may be considerable, yet the undulations, *We at present are in the habit of thinking that steeples are not only very harmless things, but very ornamentive, though we have reason to conclude from experience, that they have been of no great service to religion, since they have often been made the means of levelling the church to the humble capacity of a town-house, or any other place of business, where the bells suspended in them have been of use.

being allowed to spread on every side, soon lose their force and spend themselves in the expanse before them.

I must still insist upon the position, that devotional exercises cannot be performed with their proper spirit and solemnity, without a correspondent degree of solemn appearance in the surrounding objects. For this reason the Gothic style of architecture so far exceeds the more light finical one of Greece, when applied to churches. The latter indeed serves to captivate the eye and fancy, but that makes an impression upon the heart and manners. Thus it is that those large crown windows, used in cathedrals and many other churches of long standing, have such a decided preference over these thickest ones of modern edifices.*

Perhaps some inquisitive soul not thoroughly initiated into all the niceties of the times, might demand wherein consisted the supe rior convenience of a multiplicity of doors leading into the body of the church? Charity and a wish to put a favorable construction upon the actions of men, would reply, that it lay, in giving devout wor shippers a more free ingress to the house of God. Nay but rather to accelerate their egress, would sage experience exclaim: “I, would she say in continuation, who have taught the nations wisdom and old age prudence, I have seen the doors of the house of God thronged by the multitude of people pressing out at the conclusion of divine service, but never was my eyes gratified with a sight of the alternative (when the pure service of the temple was the sole motive of attendance,) even when admission was to be gained by a single entrance only." These facts are corroborated by constant observation, both in the late attendance of some and universal hurry that is manifested even before the minister may have finish ed blessing the congregation. The consequence of which haste is that such pious members as wish to offer a short ejaculation at the end of service, are either forced to relinquish their attempt, or suf fer interruption from their jostling neighbors.

I shall now set down the opinion that some have entertained upon this matter that as the invisible church or mystical body of Christ, hath but one method of entrance, and that through the door of bap tism; so the visible hath save one leading to the nave, where the ordinances are administered, and the door into the other authori tively opened.

To the last query, which relates to pews, I shall only add that, ex clusive of the awkward situation into which persons of delicacy may often be thrown by the vacant stare of those who set opposite them, a tolerable share of good breeding will infallibly demonstrate to them, the impropriety of thus denying the speaker the privilege of addressing them to their face.

OBSERVER.

I am happy to state, that I have observed many churches erected in this country which bear the model I have been describing, and I think reflect ne small honor upon the correct taste of the builders.

A new History and Illustration of the Common Prayer. 221

[Continued from page 191.]

THE variety of uses, and the most excellent application of the Psalms for devotional purposes, having been enumerated, it is on this ground the christian church has uniformly appointed them to be repeated oftener than any other part of scripture, excepting only that divine form of prayer which was taught by our Lord himself, and in our church makes a part of every service. This also has been the practice of all antiquity. Christians, says Chrisostom, exercise themselves in David's Psalms oftener than in any part of the Old or New Testament. Moses, the great lawgiver, who saw God face to face, and wrote of the creation of the world, is scarcely read through once a year. The holy gospels, where Christ's miracles are preached, where God conversed with man, where devils are cast out, lepers are cleansed, and the blind restored to sight, where death is destroyed where is the food of immortality, the holy sacraments, the word of life, holy precepts, precious promises; these we read over once or twice a week. What shall I say of blessed Paul, the preacher of Christ? His epistles are read twice in the week. We get them not by heart, but attend to them while they are reading. But as to David's Psalms, the grace of the Holy Spirit has so ordered it, that they are repeated night and day. In the morning David's Psalms are sought for and the first, the midst, and the last, is David. At funeral solemnities, the first, the midst, and the last, is David. The same in private houses. Many that know not a letter, can say David's Psalms by heart. And as in our church alsó, the Psalms are recited much oftener than any other part of scripture, thus far our established practice corresponds with the usage of the ancient church. At the same time, that all the Psalms may be read in course, and that our morning and evening prayer may not tire or disgust by its prolixity, we assign for this purpose the term of thirty days.

But that the primitive practice mostly consisted in an alternate recitation is clear, though the uniformity of it is much less easy to trace. Whatever was the origin, we cannot pursue it higher than the existence of the first century. However it is a practice that nearly corresponds with what is related of Miriam and Moses, in the Old Testament, and the subsequent custom of the Jewish Church, that our Lord and his disciples also sung an hymn alternately is an opinion by no means improbable. Still though the alternate recitation of the Psalms is not to be found under any injunction of our church rubric, it is uniformly adopted, not merely through the sanction of antiquity, the ratifications of respectable councils, and the most approved ecclesiastical laws, but most probably, because it is obviously calculated to keep up the attention, and assist the devotion of the people.

It may be proper to observe, that what some uninformed persons call the difference between the Psalms in the prayer book and the bible, arises from their being taken from the great bible, so called from its appearance in a bulky volume, published under the authority of Henry VIII. by which we are to understand, the translation