deluded countrymen converted to the Christian faith, on the other, every loghouse, and every village west of the mountains, shall feel its holy influence, and rejoice in the day that gave it birth. O pray we then for the peace of Jerusalem, that the zeal which has already been excited in the land of our fathers shall not be evanescent, the mere momentary excitement, but actuated and continued from a principle of the warmest attachment to the Redeemer's cause, which no impediment shall check, no difficulties intimidate.

A vast field for Missionary exertion is before us. If we have hitherto been behind others, let us now strive to be the first in zeal if not the first in fame. Let us act wiser for the time to come, and be more ardent in the glorious work. If we are negligent much longer, the golden opportunity will be lost. The ministers of the altar among us may soon be in their graves. Others must succeed them. "The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye, therefore, the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest." Come forward, then, Brethren, and give the Society your influence, your prayers, your pecuniary assistance. Thus doing our duty, we shall be prospered. We cannot but hope that in this diocess, by the aid of some Missionaries, the Church will increase and display her evangelical power; and that God will fit her members, by the frequent use of her ordinances, to join the saints in light. Let us pray that the zeal which has so happily dawned in the east, will gradually spread, in shedding its evening splendours on this western Zion, and that we may all be faithful to the interests of the Redeemer's cause, till the earth shall be one altar, and the heavens one temple of Jehovah.

Consecration of Pancras Church. From the Christian Remembrancer, June, 1822. On the 7th of May the new parish Church of St. Pancras, the first stone of which was laid by his royal highness the Duke of York, on the 1st of July, 1819, was consecrated by the Lord Bishop of London.

The Church is situated on the south side of the New Road, having its western front in Euston Square; and is so conspicuously placed, that it has attracted a good deal of public attention during the progress of its erection, by its unusual size, and peculiar style of architecture.

As the architectural design is very different from any thing to which the public eye has been accustomed in this country; and as it puts in a claim to consideration in consequence of its being the first attempt to introduce the principles of Grecian architecture, as distinguished from the Roman, into our ecclesiastical buildings of magnitude and importance, it may not be amiss to mention the authority which exists for the several parts of the building, and the manner in which the ancient models have been adapted to the present purpose. The design of Mr. Inwood, which is now executed, was originally selected by the board of trustees as being more simple, more commodious, more accordant with the best standards of taste, than any other, out of the many which were submitted to them. The enormous expense of erecting a Gothic, or English Church, equal in durability and execution, to what might be effected in a less elaborate style, determined them against attempting to build a Church, which after all could only be a very humble imitation of the magnificent cathedrals which attest the endless resources of the hierarchy in the days of Roman Catholic ascendency, but defy all competition in these more economical and unostentatious times. The plan adopted, therefore, was of a different kind; and the models to which it was determined to adhere, as closely as might be practicable, were taken from the spot where science once flourished in its greatest splendour. The Erectheum, the small Ionic temple which still stands on the Acropolis of Athens, the eastern portico of which was dedicated to Erectheus, the sixth king of Athens; the western to Minerva Polias, the supposed protectress of the city; and the attached little fane, or southern wing, to Pandrosus, the granddaughter of Erectheus, has been as nearly copied in the design of St. Pan

cras Church as difference of circumstances and destinations would allow.

It is understood that the Erectheum was completed about B. C. 400, having been in progress during a period of about forty years, in which the fine arts were raised to their highest pitch of glory by the taste and munificence of Pericles, and the skill of Phidias and Ictinus. It is to be expected, therefore, that the decorations and proportions of a building of that date should be of the first rank of art; and such the remains of the Erectheum are esteemed.

In a modern Christian Church it is impossible to adhere servilely to the precise construction of a Pagan temple; nor is it desirable that it should be attempted; but in following the proportions very nearly, and the decorations even minutely, in deviating from the forms and ornaments only where there is necessity that is, in adapting whatever is admirable in the beautiful remnants of ancient art to the character and purposes of a Church of England, all that can be done, is done, for the preservation of good taste. Whatever deviations from the model have been found necessary in St. Pancras Church, they have been made on the principles, as it would appear, of Grecian architecture. Thus, for example, the tower, or steeple, is deemed a necessary appendage to a Church, and therefore ought not to be omitted, however it may interfere with the style of those ages in which no such things were allowed to break up the long extended horizontal line. În submission to established custom, the tower of St. Pancras is raised to a considerable height, and it is composed, not copied, from the tower of the Winds, or Clepsydra, at Athens; a building, indeed, certainly of much later date, and consequently of less authority than the temple of Erectheus, but suitable in many respects (and the only one in Greece which is so) to the purpose of an English ornamental Campanulum. As we find in the Propylæa, or entrance to the Acropolis, that the portico is Doric, but the inner range of columns Ionic, most remarkably brought down to the simplicity of the Doric, by stripping them of their volutes; so here it seems to have

1

been the intention of the architect to adopt the least decorated example of Corinthian, because it more nearly assimilated with the Ionic of the portico; by this means, very judiciously availing himself of the effect of gradual transition, rather than strong contrast. On the summit of the tower, which in the original supported a shifting vane, is planted the cross, the sacred symbol of our faith. On that elevated pinnacle it stands (and long may it stand!) an emblem of the triumph of Christianity, over the boasted influence of heathen superstition. It appropriately terminates the edifice, on the front stone of which is inscribed, in the character and dialect used when the Erectheum was erected,

Μακάριε Φως Ευαγγελία έτως αι
Φωτίξοι της Εθνων αφανείς νέως.

With respect to the construction of the interior, it appears as if the great desideratum, facility of hearing and seeing in a large building, were really attained. The Church contains upwards of 2200 sittings, and yet simply by avoiding all obstructions to the voice, all heavy peers and angular projections, by leaving a free passage below the galleries, and a large uninterrupted area above them, it seems as if no difficulty would be experienced, on ordinary occasions, either by the officiating minister, or his congregation, as to speaking and hearing. Upon the whole, the simplicity, which is characteristic of the style of architecture, and the excellence of the proportions, which diminishes at least one-third the apparent magnitude of the building, the beauty of the mouldings and ornaments, combined with the richness of the communion plate and hangings, presented on the day of consecration a fine architectural treat to those who are fond, and are capable to judge, of the niceties of the fine arts, applied to the best of pur

A Friendly Letter to a Member of the Episcopal Church in Maryland, "The Synagogue is for the spiritual nourish ment of the Sheep, The School for that of the Shepherds."-Buxtorf, Dear Sir,

I HAVE received, with equal surprise and regret, a printed sheet containing the Constitution of the Theological Seminary of the Protestant Episcopal Church of Maryland. This paper has been attentively read in the hope of discovering the reasons on which the measure is predicated. Is the Seminary founded by the General Convention likely to fail, or has it been ill conducted? Have any of the Maryland candidates for the ministry complained of it in any respect? Is the experiment, if it may be so called, to be abandoned when scarcely six months have elapsed? If it be proper in the diocess of Maryland to institute a Theological Seminary, then it would be proper, and much more so, in the distant diocesses; and it follows that they would wish the design of the General Seminary to be relinquished, and the advantages of its present endowment surrendered. Is the Church so wealthy that she can afford to decline the acceptance of Mr. Sherred's legacy of sixty thousand dollars? But I ask again, why have not our Maryland friends stated some objections to the General Seminary, if they have such? Why were they not stated at the last meeting of the General Convention? They might

have led to the result desired. Have these objections arisen from circumstances that have transpired since the meeting of the General Convention? If so, they ought to be brought to the view of the Church in general. A special Convention might be called, and the error corrected. At least, these objections might be brought before the Board of Trustees at their approaching meeting in July. Do not the members of the Church in Maryland owe to their brethren throughout the Union, to state why they have determined to decline a co-operation in a great common undertaking, which has so often and anxiously engaged the deliberations of our supreme council-which was considered of sufficient importance to demand (necessarily at much inconvenience and expense) the late special Conventionin the happy result of which the vener、 able presiding Bishop, for the first time during more than thirty years, specially congratulated that body-with a feeling which thrilled every heart, and drew tears from every eye. At that Convention, not one of the Delegates from Maryland objected to the course then adopted. Their Bishop strenuously advocated the new Constitution. Have they seen cause to change their opinion? The Church anxiously waits a reply to this inquiry. What advantages can our Maryland brethren anticipate from any Theological Seminary, which they may not derive at less expense from the General Seminary? Will their Seminary be better endowed? This would be to say, that one diocess can accomplish more than all the diocesses united. Will it be better governed? This were to say, that there is less intelligence and experience in the General than in the Diocesan Convention, or that a Board of Trustees, selected from the whole United States, would probably be less capable than a board whose members must be citizens of a particular state. Will their Seminary command more able professors'? This would be to suppose, that men of talents, and learning, and exalted piety, would prefer a sphere of limited to one of extensive usefulness-it is to suppose, that such men would shrink from the responsibility of a high station

་

that they were unmindful of the consideration, that if the Church expected much of them, she at the same time offered them much encouragement and a great reward her abiding confidence -her ardent prayers-her lasting gratitude. But I would go farther. If the Maryland Seminary should attract a professor of commanding resources— on whose instructions the blessing of heaven seemed to rest-whose success was apparent and remarkable: if such a man should be invited to remove to the General Seminary-the question of greater usefulness, would come before him in such a shape, that it is believed he could not resist the conclusion. He would feel it his duty to forego his inclination to leave his friends-to follow the call of Providence. I repeat it, then, there is every reason to believe, that the professors of the highest qualifications, will naturally be attracted towards the General Seminary, and when I speak of high qualifications, let me say once for all, that I mean persons not merely of solid understanding and great acquirements, and aptness in teaching, but of sound principles and elevated piety, "good men, full of faith and of the Holy Ghost."

Again. Do our Maryland brethren suppose, that, in their Seminary, they would have better security for those views of theology which they entertain, than in the General Seminary? We have a right to suppose that their theology is that of the Church. Their constitution provides that the course of study shall be consistent with that laid down by the General Convention.* We find similar expressions in the constitution of the General Seminary. The instructions, then, at the two Seminaries will be substantially the same. And where is the necessity of incurring the expense and trouble of erecting two Seminaries, when one would answer the purpose. But let us take a more enlarged view of this important matter. The faith of the General Seminary will be invariably that of a majority of the General Convention. Now, to sup

This expression is somewhat inaccurate. The House of Bishops, not the Convention,

bave recommended a course of study.

pose the General Convention in error, is to suppose the Church in error which they represent. As long as the Church maintains a sound theology, the Convention will do so, and so will the Seminary emanating therefrom, and effectually controlled thereby. What greater security can be afforded by any human arrangements!

But let us look at the other side.

Local prejudices are common and powerful. A few individuals, or a single one, may have an undue influence in his own district. A diocess may gradually embrace an erroneous theology; at least, there is more probability that this should be the case, than that it should be true of all the diocesses of the whole Church, spread over so wide a surface, composed of such a variety of individuals. An impartial mind must admit, that for the preservation of a sound theology, no more effectual method, under God, could be adopted, than that of a General Seminary regulated by the whole Church, and rearing its ministers with common views and kindred feelings. On the other handfor introducing theological errors-for weakening the unity of affection, and in that indirect way, the unity of faithas well as for distracting the councils of our Church by differences of opinion often merely nominal-originating in accident, fostered by unkindness, pertinaciously maintained for want of mutual explanation, and of a common technical language; I say for introducing evils like these, no means more ef fectual could be adopted than the institution throughout this country, (having a population so scattered, and various in character and manners) of several theological schools under the banner of ill-informed, ill-advised, and ill-disposed individuals. If the object of our Maryland friends be the preservation of sound Church principles in our land, for the benefit of themselves and posterity, and I cannot suppose they have any other, let me hope that they will at least pause in their career, and inquire whether that goal be indeed before them, or whether there be no danger that they may unintentionally bring about a different result-conduct their branch at least of the Church to a se

paration from the general body, to all the evils of schism and error. It may be that the present location of the Seminary is disapproved of. This is possibly the objection, but it was not taken at the meeting of the General Convention by any of the gentlemen from Maryland. It was understood that the Bishop heartily approved of that location. Have any new circumstances occurred? Would it not be friendly, is it not a duty to state them, that they may have their effect on the other members of the Church? If the city of New-York be thought objectionable, the considerations laid before the Trustees might induce its removal into the country, which they can do. Do our Maryland friends prefer the District of Columbia? When the question of location was before the Convention, why was not that place proposed? Is it a suitable place, in the immediate vicinity of the Baptist and the Catholic Seminaries? Is it recollected that Congress refused a charter to the Baptist Seminary, except under such modifications as it is hoped our friends would never assent to, because if they mean any thing, they are highly objectionable, and if they mean nothing, they imply insincerity on the part of some of the persons concerned. As it respects expensiveness, perhaps no situation less suitable than the District of Columbia can be mentioned, and for salubrity, a preference is undoubtedly due to a more northern situation.

It seems almost unnecessary to speak of the comparative convenience which may arise to a few candidates. How many candidates reside in Columbia? As it respects the other Maryland candidates, such is the facility of communication, in two days most of them could be landed in New-York. Could those in the remote counties come to Washington in less time and with less expense?

But is it supposed that the southern candidates will prefer Washington to New-York? North and South-Carolina are deeply interested in the success of the General Seminary. They regard it with parental solicitude. Several of their candidates have already gone to it. If Virginia should not have

her own Seminary, will she prefer one over which she has no control, to one of which she is a joint governor, and in a small degree a joint patron? And what is the comparative convenience to a candidate who goes from home one hundred or three hundred miles, the former by land, the latter by water?

But let it be admitted that the Maryland Seminary completely succeeds— that it becomes in every respect equal to, or even superior to the general institution. Will success justify the measure? Can impartial reflection approve of it? Can it be right for one diocess to separate herself in this way from the rest-to refuse her co-operation in a measure which has been almost unanimously adopted by the united diocesses -a measure to which at the time she gave a cordial, or at least a silent assent, In the year 1817, the Bishops, in conformity to a resolution of the preceding Convention, reported, that they had inquired in their respective diocesses, concerning the expediency of establishing a General Theological Seminary, and it is understood that the diocess of Maryland was one of those which recommended the measure. Now, if after sanctioning this design in various ways and on various occasions,* Maryland may withdraw her support from it without any assigned reason, and indeed may oppose its progress-for the rearing of another institution has at least the appearance of opposition-any other diocess may do the same. And what then becomes of the respectability of your ecclesiastical congress? This body meets in 1814, discusses the question of a Seminary, postpones it to consult their constituents, come instructed in 1817 to carry through the measure, in 1820 make various arrangements, and in 1821 finally organize it. Six months after, a particular diocess refuses to cooperate in carrying into effect the decision of the General Convention, approved by their own delegates, specially instructed to sanction it. The exam

At a meeting held in Baltimore, when the Right Rev. Dr. Brownell visited that place, at which the Bishop presided, it is understood an unanimous sentiment in favour of the General Seminary was expressed.

†The decision in favour of a General Semi

pary is here meant, The delegates from Mary: