The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-04-15
BeautifuI Churches.
Alvan F. sanborn in American Magazine.

As l was walking past st. Patrick's
cathedral, in New York. the other day
with friend, he said to me, pointing to
the partially completed spires; whats
the use OF wasting so much money, trying
to get those things up high? They won't
be Of any service after they are done"
A question like this brings TO mind the
''alabaster box Of very precious ointment
and the murmurs OF the disciples: ITO
what purpose is this waste?" Are beaut-
full churches wasteP Perhaps so, from a
strictly economic view point, though OF
that am not sure. Yet l am willing TO
grant that there is no return in hard
money for these enormous OUTLAWS, II adj
hitting this will give our utilitarian friends
any satisfaction. But IL Is useless TO at
tempt to strike n money balance in these
matters. There is a value in the massive
mountain that no book of real estate valu-
alton can recognize. There Is value in
the mighty cataract that has nothing TO do
with water power. so there is value in
the cathedral spire that is not computable
in coin. II Is spiritual value II you will,
this value inherent In the sublimely beau
tiful. | pass st. Patrick's every day, and
there is always some one gazing up ut
those towers that take the thoughtsas well
as the eyes away from the mttling pave
ment And 80, In time, hundreds. yes
thousands, will owe 20 those useless
towers some moments Of self forgetfuness,
some moments of that conscious spiritual
uplifting, which is, in proportion 10 its
power, 10 many mound, to few mount
Of TRANSPORTATION.
The most beautiful church I ever saw
OF ever expect 10 see. until ! worship in
the "house not made by hand" SIS not n
full-grown church; il Is only a chapel a
small, low building, put up at an expense
Of about $1,000. IL is beautiful, because
the cellar wall IL a free-will offering from
poor farmers who had n right 10 claim n
winters rest after the busy harvest season;
because each timber OF the frame work
represents hours OF hard toll in making
aprons and holders, by the sale Of which
10 raise a few dOllaB-hours needed for
rest OF some mothers weary head and
tired hands; because every clapboard tells
OF n pipcful Of tobacco less for the father;
every shingle, n cup OF tea less for the
mother and the daughter; and every nail,
a stick Of candy less for the child. II is
beautiful In containing an organ, while
there arc no organs In the homes Of the
| giycrs; in having pictures on its walls,
though theirs are blank; in It's carpeted
aislcs, while the floors Of the donors are
bare. But would this same chapel be beau
| tiful II II were taken up and set down in
Fifth avenue2 There, instead OF q temple
Of selisacriRcc, Il would appear an ugly,
wooden box OF niggarlliness. The noble
church architecture OF Fifth avenue repre-
sonts certain amount Of self-sacriicc
somewhere, though II is very FAR, fear,
from attaining unto that Of the people who
built the little Dwights chapel.
Don't be afraid OF. making Gods house
too beautiful. As John Ruskin says ''The
question Is not between Gods house and
his poor. II Is not between Gods house
and his gospel: Il il between Gods house
and ours. Have we no tessclated colors
on our floors, no nichcd statuary In our
corridors, no gilded furniture in our cab.
inets7 Has even the 1.-THE Of these been
onered?'' n into the beauty Of form and
Of color Of our larger city churches could
be injected the spirit Of self.denial that
built the chapel in the little hill-town Of
Massachusetts,, we should have temples
everyway worthy Of the most high God.
What an opportunity there Is 10 make the
new Episcopal cathedral the loyeliesl
church ON earthl