one hundred to a thousand dollars in the matter of a site has cost the society from one to three thousand dollars in the actual value of their church when completed. Especially is this liable to be the case when lots are donated. The true policy is never to put a church in the wrong place because a site there costs less, or because some one will donate it to the trustees. The best site should be chosen, and the church put there, whatever the difference in cost may be. There is no economy so expensive as that which balances the location of a church between the right and the wrong place upon a few hundred dollars difference in the expense. Accessibility, quiet, light and air, and appearance from different directions, should all be taken into the account. In an ordinary village, where there is no probability of more than one Methodist church for years to come, a central position may be chosen. Yet not at the expense of quiet, by getting too near to some noisy thoroughfare; nor at the expense of Christian courtesy, by getting too near to some other church edifice. In some instances it can be foreseen that the town will need two or more Methodist churches in the course of a few years; or that it will be built up in a certain direction, thus changing its present geographical center. In all such cases the site should be chosen accordingly. A house may be placed upon one side of a village, (where it will not best accommodate all its present inhabitants,) either because the town is growing most in that direction, which will soon make it central; or because another church will soon be wanted in the other focus of the ellipsis. But here, too, I must confine myself to a few general suggestions; and I cannot better conclude my remarks upon this particular point than by quoting a few paragraphs from the work already refer red to. In "Every church ought, if possible, to have so much space around it as will keep it from contact with other buildings, and secure an abundance of light and a free circulation of air. the country, especially, and in all our newer towns, it should have its acre or half acre of ground, at the least, on which may be pro vided the needful shelter for the animals which bring to the house of God the more remote parishioners; and where trees may be planted, to throw their graceful and thought-inspiring shadows about the place of worship, and make it the more pleasant by their cool protection. The church, in its site and by its surroundings, ought to be as attractive and pleasant as any spot in its vicinity. It should speak a welcome by its very look, as well as by the sound of its bell. It should have such a position, one so commanding and attractive, characterized by such breadth and generosity, and should be aided by such tasteful adornments of architecture and grounds, as not to suffer in comparison with other structures around it. "No place should be selected for a church chiefly because of its cheapness, or because less available or desirable for other purposes. The house of God ought not to occupy a site which is not good enough for the demands of Mammon, but it should have the best, the most generally desirable place to be found within the parish limits. It demands this by right of its character and purposes. And so also it will be found, as it often has been, that there is no so poor economy in regard to church building as that which makes pecuniary cheapness the standard of choice in the selection of a site for dled and died because compelled to struggle a house of worship. Many a Church has dwinwith the infelicities of an inferior position for its house. The true principle in regard to this matter is, first find the best place for a church, be it in city or country, and then pay its necessary price, even though that may sometimes seem an extravagant one." Had these principles governed us as a people, in the selection of sites for churches from the beginning, who can calculate the amount of advantage we should have derived from it. Many a congregation now small and poor would have been large and flourishing; and many an eligible site now in the hands of others—perhaps the Universalists, or Unitarians, or Papistswould have been in our hands, crowned with forms of architectural beauty and grace. A little wisdom years ago would have been millions of dollars and many We see other advantages to us now. our mistake now, but throughout most of the eastern and middle states it is too late to remedy it. Let our brethren in the Great West, and indeed everywhere where sites for churches are yet to be selected, learn wisdom by our former folly, and profit by our melancholy experience. STYLE OF ARCHITECTURE. NEXT to an eligible site, is the selection of an appropriate style of architecture. Not that I am about to discuss the comparative merits of the Gothic and Grecian orders the Doric, Rural English, and Romanesque for this I have neither space nor ability. And yet the general style of the building-its symmetry and grace, and general effect upon the beholder-will never cease to impress him either favorably or unfavorably; to please or offend; to attract or repel. It is important, therefore, whatever is to be the cost of the church, whether a thousand-dollar building upon a circuit, remote even from the smallest village; or a fifty-thousand-dollar temple in the crowded city-in either case its style should be chaste and appropriate, and good taste should govern all its arrangements. claim it a church. This secured, we leave each committee to determine how this fact shall be proclaimed; so my antisteeple reader may sheath his sword, and read on, good-naturedly, to the end of the article. In regard to the style and cost of churches, the following extract from the "Book of Plans," already cited, will probably be acquiesced in, as inculcating the true doctrine : "As to the finish and adornment of churches, it is a safe rule that the church should correspond in style to the better class of the dwellings possessed by those who are to occupy the church. If the people are generally poor, so as the most necessary articles of furniture in them, to be able to have only the plainest houses and then it is not to be expected that their place of worship will be other than plain. But if the people indulge in carpets and sofas, in furniture made of rare and costly wood, in mirrors, and marbles, and ingenious carvings, and hang their walls with pictures, then it is rightly expected that their house of worship will show something besides bare floors, and the array of plain rect In the first place, every house of worship should indicate, if possible, its character as a Christian church by its outward form and materials. It should show at a glance that it is not a barn or a dwelling, a bank or an academy. The stranger should never be obliged to inquire, as he enters a village, which of two buildings is the hotel and which the church. There should be something in the style and surroundings of every Christian church to proclaim it a house of prayer. What Christian heart has not been cheered in his travels by the "sound of the church-angular spaces of unadorned walls. The place going bell," or the sight of a church-spire pointing upward from the far-off village, even though in a land of strangers. These mere externals have a tongue to speak, and their language is unmistakable. They challenge our confidence and enkindle hope; and, ere we are aware of it, we find ourselves imploring a benediction upon the distant temple, and upon all who worship there. "These temples of his grace, How beautiful they stand; And bulwarks of our land." of worship does not demand a profusion of ornament. But so far as the ability of the worshipers gees, if it is accompanied with good taste, it may enrich the house of God with architectural decorations, with little danger of carrying the thing too far." Is there not quite as much danger among us of going to the other extreme-of leaving the ark of God under curtains, while we dwell in houses of cedar? Are there not too many who build fine private houses, in the most approved modern style, and furnish them with taste and elegance? but the moment anything is said about an improved church edifice, something different from those built twenty or forty years ago, when the country was new, and the Methodists comparatively few and poor, we are plied with the significant interrogation, "To what purpose is this waste?" They deplore these sad departures from the ancient land-marks in the style and cost of But some of our " temples" are far from "beautiful :" some are homely and uncouth beyond endurance; and not a few can scarcely be distinguished from any other building a factory or warehouse, a bank or seminary. This, I think, should be avoided, especially when it is so easy, with a little care, in arranging the archi-churches. They can build elegant and tectural features to indicate, unmistakably, their religious purpose. "The spire," says a high authority, "has come to be the recognized sign of religion. This of itself, therefore, will give religious character to the building, of which it is made to form a part." But, whatever it is that proclaims its character-whether its style alone, or its style, and bell, and surroundings, one thing is certain-its exterior should at once pro tasteful stores, and banks, and seminaries, and private mansions, but they wish all our churches built in the plainest style, and at the least possible expense; and if any additional appendage or ornament is proposed, they immediately begin to murmur, as the disciple did about the ointment: "It might have been sold for much, and given to the poor." "How much better to have given the cost of that steeple, or that bell, or that frescoing, or those cushions or carpets, to the missionary, or some other good cause?" But they never think of this kind of benevolence or economy in regard to any other building but a church. The precious ointment might have been sold, and the proceeds given to the poor; and yet it turned out that the disciple who complained of the "waste" cared no more for the poor than his fellow-disciples. John xii, 6. So the gold of the temple might have been sold, and the proceeds devoted to other good uses, and yet God approved of its use in his house, and accepted the offering at the hands of Solomon. So we believe God is better pleased with a good and tasteful church, when the people can afford to build it, than he is with a poor, and cheap, and inferior structure. COMPLETENESS. THIS is a matter of special moment in the erection of a Methodist Church. We should provide for all our peculiarities; and a church that has no accommodations for the weekly prayer-meetings and classmeetings, the Bible-class and Sundayschool, can hardly be said to be a complete church. It is important, therefore, in adopting a plan for a church, to consider the number of classes to be accommodated, the size of the Sabbath-school, &c., and arrange the church accordingly. The great practical difficulty in our church-building is to provide a lectureroom and class-room, besides the main audience-room. To secure these, various plans are adopted : 1. Where the land is valuable, and it is difficult to secure room for a lecture-room separate from the church, one may be provided by a basement under the main audience-room. This is an economical plan, as no extra land is required, and one roof covers the whole. Besides, it affords ample space for class-rooms, lecture-room, &c., and the main audienceroom is easily entered and emptied; but a low basement is liable to be damp, and, as a general rule, should be avoided. The only way to have them dry, and light, and airy, is to build an area-wall, some five or six feet from the church-wall, to keep all dirt away from the latter, and allow a free circulation of light and air all around. There should then be a well-drained cellar of three or four feet under the lower floor, with free ventilation through it, by | means of grated openings in the areas. In this way a depressed basement may be made nearly as dry as if it was entirely above the surface. But even then they should never be depressed over two-thirds of the depth; and, in fact, should never be built "except in cases of extreme necessity." 2. The next best plan, where there is barely room for the church, is to build a basement above ground, and enter the main audience-room by flights of stairs inside. This secures dry and light classrooms, lecture-room, &c., wholly above ground; but it requires the audience to go up and down stairs constantly, which is a burden to aged and infirm persons. And in case of sudden alarm, and a rush for the stairways, churches built in this way might prove exceedingly inconvenient, if not absolutely dangerous. Still, many fine churches have been built upon this plan. and have given good satisfaction. 3. A third plan is to build a lectureroom across the end of the church in the rear; in some instances as part of the one building, with the same roof extending over the whole, and in other cases with a separate roof running at right angles with the main roof. The Market-street church, Newark, N. J., is a specimen of the former style; and the Broad-street church in the same city is a sample of the latter. This plan requires a long lot, however, and on that account is not always practicable; but whenever it can be adopted, it is doubtless the best of all plans for providing class-rooms, &c. 4. A fourth plan is to erect a small lecture-room, or "chapel," as they are sometimes called, separate from the main church; in fact, a small and a large church two instead of one. It may require but little more ground than the plan last described, but it will cost more by being built alone than if placed at the end of the main building, or built as a part of it. On this account, and perhaps for other reasons. this plan is but seldom adopted. The most popular plan, I think, in the eastern cities at least, is to build a basement above ground, under the main audience-room; though many of our best churches are now built with a lectureroom at the end, in the rear of the main audience floor. One of the finest churches in Hartford, Connecticut, (Dr. Murdock's,) is built in this way. The old "Vestry METHODIST CHURCH ARCHITECTURE. street" congregation (now Seventh Avenue and Fourteenth-street, New-York) built their "chapel" first, and are now building their church edifice upon a separate lot adjoining. Trinity Church, NewYork, has a depressed basement, with an open area outside the walls for light and air, and a well-ventilated cellar under the lower floor. Christ's Church, Pittsburgh, has a fine basement wholly above ground. DURABILITY. THIS is another important consideration "A Church," says an eloquent writer, from the necessities of the case as a tem- This is very strong language, and will These remarks apply mainly to large and fine churches, and yet the subject is one that ought not to be overlooked in the erection of any church. Brick or stone should always be preferred to wood, where they can as well be employed; and even where rough stone is used it is Pile up the far preferable to wood. solid masonry of some sort, and time will generally demonstrate the wisdom of your choice. If it is obliged to be of rough stone, very well; let it stand; it will not take fire, will need no painting, and will "Let it stand in its native last for ages. roughness, in keeping with the unsmoothed hills and valleys around, and as abiding as they. Let it stand; afraid of no visitations of the elements, however rude or protracted, but rather gathering new grace and tints of beauty, alike from sunshine and storm, as years and centuries roll by, and the free winds peal their vary God will be worshiped there, it is hoped, while there is a saint to praise him, or a sinner to be reached and saved by the Gospel. The structure, therefore, in which the Church has her visible home and office, the place where she lifts up her penitent soul in prayer, or sounds her lofty psalmodies, or preaches the word of life, ought not to be a structure of which the winds of heaven may make havoc, or which a chance sparking anthems around it. may kindle with consuming fire. It ought, if possible, to be permanent and enduring as the wants of man. Having a purpose for all time, its walls should be of the very stony foundations of the earth itself. Nothing less enduring is really appropriate for the walls of the house of God; nothing less enduring is in keeping with the enduring purpose of such a structure, or fit to be rendered unto Him who is from everlasting to everlasting; and the erection of anything less substantial for a house of worship is to be tolerated only Let it stand; the same church, while the dwellings beside it change and give place to new ones, and generation after generation of their inhabitants are borne through its solemn aisles to burial. Let it stand, one permanent structure, if possible, amid the shifting, changeful sceneries of surrounding life, an emblem of the eternal-a visible link of connection between earth and heaven." From these preliminary observations we shall now pass abruptly to the consideration of individual churches. |