bestowing less study on it. No man has done all he can to preach Christ, and bring souls to God, who has not tasked his powers to the very utmost; and he who buries the talents Heaven has entrusted to him, or, which is the same thing, neglects to carry them out to their highest possible degree of perfection, must prepare to render up a fearful account of his stewardship. What is the result of a great many of those negligent, uninteresting, canting or prosing sermons, without taste or talent, and full of errors and inaccuracy, which issue from the pulpit? Why, the hearers are disgusted with religion and driven from the churches. The whole appearance of Christianity in such a dress is so unlovely, so utterly repulsive, that it even requires no ordinary portion of grace in the truly pious to endure it. must it appear to those who are not pious? The intelligent and irreligious part of the community are thereby driven to those places where they find greater elegance, though a want of sound views and practical utility. And whose is the fault? Certainly our own, if it comes from our neglect of seeking proper qualifications for our business. Let us not content ourselves with saying that they run away from hearing the plain truths of the Gospel. It is perhaps not for preaching the truth, nor for strictly urging duty, that they abandon us. It is because we clothe the truth in a dress so slovenly and disgusting. We demand too much of persons who are not religious, when we expect them for the sake of truth they are not prepared to appreciate, to endure all the offensiveness with which it is possible to invest it. And how unreasonable it is to leave all the graces and attractiveness of the pulpit, to the cause of error or of heterodoxy, and act as if any thing was good enough for the truth and for practical purposes! What churches this mode of preaching will fill, and which it will empty is very apparent; and the effect stares us in the face every where. Let us not be met with the stale and worn-out objection, that the apostles did not study their sermons. Before we bring this fact to justify indolence and sanctify our own follies, let us wait until we can substantiate our claims to their inspiration. In conclusion, we hope we shall not be charged with looking to human applause in the pulpit preparations. This is not our design.We only desire to see justice done to the cause of God, and of human souls. We wish always to see truth presented as it ought to be, in the clearest, fullest, strongest, and most effectual manner. And in order to do this, two things are necessary, that, first of all, the heart be imbued with the spirit of piety, and then, that the whole strength of the intellect and all the resources of mind be expended upon our work, the unction that cometh from above, and the full exertion of whatever talents Heaven may have given. In a word, let the errors we have described be avoided, and let whatever is excellent in the two classes of ministers be conjoined. Let the intellectual be always decidedly practical, and let the practical become more intellectual. We shall then see our churches filled with more intelligent hearers, and more of them will be converted. We shall then see an end of that invidious distinction which now so generally prevails between great preachers and useful preachers. A man will no longer be looked on with suspicion among the pious and simple-hearted, when he exhibits marks of thought and investigation in his sermons, as if he was turn ing traitor to his sacred obligations. And the weakness and follies of others will not pass current for sure marks of simplicity of purpose and purity of heart. We shall then have no empty sound and frothy nonsense in the pulpit, on the one hand; nor on the other, those tame and spiritless anodynes which convert our churches into dormitories, or which leave the minister to gather the evidences of his usefulness from empty benches. All then will be good to the use of edifying,' when every man employs his talents to the best advantage for holy and spiritual purposes. Then shall peace be within our walls and prosperity within our palaces,' and the purposes of Heaven in bestowing a diversity of gifts and qualifications upon the Church, shall be fully manifest. Then shall He be supremely glorified, who gave unto some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.' J. HOLDICH. New-York, April 29, 1835. 6 THE MORAL INFLUENCE OF THE FINE ARTS. BY EDWARD OTHEMAN. THE object of this lecture is not, of course, to notice the whole extent and variety of the moral influence of the fine arts, or of any one of them, for this would be impossible in the short space allotted for this exercise. Our design simply is to exhibit their claims, as a class of human pursuits, and a source of human enjoyment, to be either extensively or partially patronized and cultivated. And this it is intended to do chiefly by showing that their native tendency is favorable to morality. The arts termed fine, polite or liberal, when spoken of abstractly or without relation to other arts, are painting, sculpture, and architecture; but in the popular or common division of the arts, (which will be adopted in this lecture,) the fine arts consist of such as music, painting, sculpture, rhetoric, gardening, architecture, engraving, and are distinguished from the useful or mechanical arts by their respective objects. The object of the latter is to produce utility or profit, that of the former is to please, or to gratify the taste, by exhibiting whatever they can that is graceful, lovely, elegant, novel, wonderful or sublime. Absolute or relative beauty is a quality common to all their productions, and it is by the power of their works to raise this emotion that we judge of the perfection of those works. Some of the fine arts are also useful; still the most striking, the outward expression of their productions is ornamental. Such are architecture and gardening. By their moral influence, I mean that influence which they exert on the mind and heart, in favor both of individual and social morality; not, of course, as producing convictions of duty, but as a means of cultivating those feelings and sentiments which deter from vice and prompt to virtue. And here we speak of their legitimate, unperverted influence; for the proper question with regard to any principle or pursuit is, what is its natural character and tendency? Are the fine arts, then, in their nature, destructive or promotive of morality? We do not ask, what their actual influence is in any particular time or place, because they, like every thing else, may be abused by the passions and prejudices of men; but, do they necessarily contain the elements of moral corruption? or are they not, when properly used, made direct and efficient aids of virtue? are they not really, bright manifestations of man's noble powers-the embodying of his beau ideal of excellence -the means of attempting to operate favorably on the mind, by the visible or audible expression of those ideas of perfection, the contemplation of which tends to render ourselves more perfect? We pretend not to say, that they are any thing more than aids to morality; but we do contend that, other things being equal, where they are cultivated in a proper manner there will be a more elevated, refined, elegant state of society, that the selfishness and narrowness of human nature will be removed, and the social principles and character more fully developed. It is no small argument in favor of the propriety and importance of their cultivation by the religious part of the community, though they were merely innocent in their tendency, that they will always, doubtless, exist; and it is certainly wise and politic, that those who regard the moral interests of man should employ a machinery of so extensive power, capable of so varied application, for the welfare of society. The belief that they will always be admired and pursued, is supported by the fact, that they are founded deeply in nature, in the nature of man, and of the external world. This fact appears by considering their relation to the mind, and their own character and history. And it might be a short, but comprehensive and true answer to our inquiries on this subject, that their moral tendency must be good, since they exist by the very constitution of nature herself, and hence, by the appointment of Jehovah. But let this point be illustrated a little. Some of the fine arts are imitative, as painting and sculpture; others are the natural, spontaneous productions of man's powers, as music, poetry, and oratory. Each of these classes sometimes partakes of both characteristics, and sometimes one performs the office of the other. The three last named seem to owe their existence to a sort of impulse or inspiration in the mind, and to be the very language of some of man's dearest and noblest emotions and faculties. Fired with some high resolve, exulting in some joyous anticipation or accomplished hope, melted into exquisite tenderness by some fond affection, he pours out his soul in enchanting music, enrapturing poesy, or entrancing eloquence. These seem to belong to human nature, as much as any instinct does to the lower animals. The organs of the human voice are exactly adapted to music and oratory, while the principles of music, whether vocal or instrumental, are absolutely fixed in the very nature of musical sounds. Of poetry the universe itself is full, at least to the eye of fancy; and there are depths of feeling and of thought in man, all unwritten poetry,' the source of that expressed either in his actions or his language. The propensity to imitation is common to man, and leads even now the rude sons of the forest to carve on wood or stone some rough resemblance to the human form and face. The glassy surface of the calm lake, mirroring, in beauty, forest, field or village, either burnished with the golden blaze of sunlight, or softened into milder radiance by the silvery beams of the full moon, would suggest a means of picturing out, in a more durable form, all the charms of a landscape, as a memento of scenes and hours of friendship now far distant, or long passed away. The varied beauty of nature in the green velvet lawn, and the embroidered meadow, the gently meandering river, and the roaring cataract, the grave-browed mountain, and the sleeping valley, no doubt gave rise to the art of gardening. The magnificent temples of nature, whose roof of thickly intertwining branches, and closely thatched leaves, is supported by strong and graceful columns of various forms, possibly furnished the first idea of architecture, and contributed, assuredly, to the perfection of the art. That the fine arts are the legitimate result of the laws of mind, seems farther evident from their adaptation to the mental constitution, from the involuntary, spontaneous approbation shown them in all ages and lands, and by all classes of society. This universal admiration arises from their appealing to a common principle of human naturetaste-which, though differing in some of its applications, is essentially the same in all mankind. Taste is somewhat analogous to the love of nature, and serves the same end with respect to human productions, as the love of nature does with respect to natural objects. They are sometimes both called taste; and it is a fact, so nearly are they allied to each other, that by improving one of them we improve the other at the same time. The love of nature seems, indeed, to have been the origin of the fine arts, of those, at least, which are imitative. Both of these principles were, doubtless, implanted within us for good purposes, and their final cause, which we cannot now consider, is as honorable to the Divine wisdom and goodness as serviceable to man. That department of the mind over which the fine arts peculiarly and immediately preside, is an important one, and is, in fact, that over which morality and religion exercise their greatest control. It is the sensitive part of our nature-the passions and emotions. And here we see the grand reason why their moral influence should be seriously considered, because they touch the springs of action; and why, though founded in nature, their application and use should be sacredly guarded, so as to prevent the perversion of their original purpose. That they have great and extensive power over the mind, whether for good or for evil, appears probable from their nature and qualities, and certain from history and experience. Take a few instances of this power from observation. The power of music, poetry, and oratory is too obvious and too generally acknowledged to need illustration or argument. The corrupting power of painting, when employed for vi cious purposes, is so great as to require the interference of legislative enactments, and of the civil authority for its removal, at least, from contact with the public eye. Painting and sculpture, as agents of superstition and false religion, have held extensive control over the mind in the systems of idolatry; and the Divine prohibition of this use of them by the second commandment is, at once, an evidence of the propensity of the human mind to cultivate these arts, and of the won derful power which they are capable of wielding. Having the common approbation of all classes, the fine arts can, by taking advantage of the times, by favoring some reigning prejudice or passion of the age, mould and direct the popular mass at will. The founders and ministers of a certain Church, noted for their knowledge of human nature, have availed themselves of all the powerful attractions of the arts in the construction, decoration, and service of their magnificent cathedrals and other places of worship, to strengthen the attachment, and secure the veneration of its members for its doctrines and usages. And though the improper and extravagant use made of these arts in that Church may have brought them into a degree of disrepute and neglect by other portions of Christendom, still should we not show more wisdom in retaining the good, while we reject the bad, and in making use of the same lawful means to bind the heart to principles and practices which we consider pure and holy. The universal power which the fine arts have acquired over all men in civilized countries, is seen in the eagerness with which specimens of them are sought, either for the immediate gratification of the taste, or for the embellishment of their dwellings as objects of frequent delight. Greece and Italy are only other names for all that is beautiful and perfect in works of art; and it is interesting to observe the whole civilized world leaning toward them with intent gaze, and ardent desire, to behold their charms and catch their inspiration. The poet, the philosopher, the conqueror, the common traveller, seeks to obtain a fragment even of their architectural columns, their marble statues, their sculptured monuments, not only as a sacred relic of their former glory, but also as a rare and exquisite specimen of unrivalled art. The desire and the practice, prevalent among all classes of society, of obtaining some appropriate and durable memento of love and friendship, as a bust or a picture, is as strong a testimony to our sense of the power of the arts which produce them, as it is to the tender and touching sentiment of our hearts toward the loved and the departed. Whatever possesses such a command over the hearts and actions of men, whatever seems destined to maintain its empire through all generations, is certainly a proper subject for the scrutiny and guardianship of the Christian and the philanthropist; and if it do not contain any thing necessarily repugnant to morality, should be made, in the hands of religion, to subserve the high purposes of human happiness and improvement. The persons on whom the fine arts exert an influence consist of two classes; first, artists themselves; and second, the admirers or observers of the arts. Though their influence is felt by both classes in common, it must be greatest on those, whether professors or connoisseurs, who are most conversant with them. All that can be done at present, however, is to consider their influence as exerted on the general mind. Their moral influence is of two kinds, original, native or inherent, and relative or derived, sometimes distinctly felt, but generally felt in union or combination. The relative influence flows from two sources; one, the subject which they treat of or exhibit, the other, the faculty, passion or emotion which they are intended to excite. Some of them admit of only one source of relative influence, e. g., gardening and architecture. These cannot, perhaps, be properly said to |