, 1875-09-05
ELEGANT CHURCH ED!FlcEs.

writer in the New York Sun recently ID
dressed an open letter to the Rev. John HAIL.
D. D.. Of tho Fifth Avenue Presbyterian
Church Of that city, in which several comnonta
Was made On the extreme cost Of the church
edidce and grounds, and the reverend gentle
man takss occasion to reply as below:
But tho cost Of the Fifth Avenue Church Is objec-
ttonable. Why? Should there be church there7
Should 1t be eyesore7 Or would not good taste and
style md or The .venue7 Is it our fault
that required $3.50 to buy eto for it or that 1t
enough for church Of over thousand members, and
not out OF keeping with the svenue7 Suppose 70 bad
up 1.s plast=r structure the best part Of
Of circus observation-disclosures should hare been
aured for that Puritancs ack Of taste that
It IS relative. religious edidce in any Am eric1n
town will cos: the price Of ten or fifteen ordinary
houses In tho place. and not b. thought extsavsssns
And the cost OF ten fifteen houses On tho aveuuA
has erected the church On the avenue.
surely it Is not like the good sense Of high class
Tor d.approvsi, shen Tie erection of other handsome
and importing public buildings Is set down to puoho
spirit Why should railways, banis and all secular
tures and tho woranp Of the Almighty be lsemed M
worthy Of some outlay? II, tndued, We begged tho
money, wrnng it from the fears Of tno poor md
needy, or wero conspicuou.ly wanting to Ill public
charides. wo might bc justly censured. But why
should Protestants be precded from erecting II they
rSn udu14VLno aL1uIhuIo Ao1 A0& PA1pV7o u
their Wo1ahip7
Bnt: lie suggested the poor cannot worship tn 1t.
Where Is the evidence Of that? The annual cost you
greatly overstate II many rich men paid large Sun1
pes 1t has heen other objects, that tho leas
rich should be abie worship there 1t moderate
pense- It is worth iaqutrIng whether there ts an
with equal comfort aud advantage 800 tuaea In &ha
year for lesa than s. per annum.
Protestants-poor Protestanss-can ~ aasi1y obtain
the services Of eleEgymen Roman Cltdocs. In
fact, they receive regular pastoral visitation ~ Roman
Catholics do not for 1t IL not the custom fer tho
Roman Clthoc clergy to 60 to the houses Of the
pie uneas when sent for. Protestant ministers
dil,gent hard worked, effective ~ the Roman
Catholic clergy anywhere, put ~ much mind and
heart into their work. and, II they h1ve not ~ large
proportion Of poor ~ the Romau Catholic priests,
Is the fault thet1s or Is their religion to bo
blamed for i37 1t Is mistake ako to suppose, the
open letter. implies, that the Protestant poor cannot
have reljR ~ Accommodation Wh6re ther8 such
poor In N fx York who cannot b accommodated It
is no less mistake to imagine that ali the Roman
Catholic poor attend church. Having lived among
them, and them under ali circumstances, Accord
Ing my observation tbs Roman Clthotc nmunity
contains larga proportion Of nonchurch goeka, to
say tho least, the Protestant The dying "1l III
deed from the nature OF the send for tho clerRJ
but that proves nothing trust am candid enough
to acknowledge whatever ts good In my feowc'i1ena
o. any class nama but you will not deem It strange
that cannot nnJ personal euiogJ that Appeafo
to be levied Oh my brethrtn, nor by silence appear 70
admit statements in open letter 70 me. founded
believe In maapprehension, and injurious IN THAR
tendencies to grear inte1eass.