the four thousand, "he took the sevenloaves and the fishes, and gave thanks, and brake them." At a common meal at Emmaus, Luke xxiv. 30, he took the bread and blessed it, and brake and gave to those who supped with him. He attached this familiar ceremony to his sacramental supper,-teaching his disciples that as they gave thanks to their Heavenly Father for their daily bread, so especially should they bless him for this bread which was his body, and this cup which was his blood.

Paul among his shipwrecked companions at Melita, "took bread and gave thanks to God in presence of them all." He alludes to this custom, 1 Tim. iv. 4. and 1 Cor. x. 30.

If the reader wishes to consult other passages, those already cited, with the help of a reference Bible, may point them out to him.

The words rendered blessed and gave thanks are used interchangeably, and therefore synonymously. Compare Math. xiv. 19 and John vi. 11, also Mark xiv. 22 and 1 Cor. xi. 24; or if the words had some different shades of meaning, each implied the other, and both suggested the idea of praise and thanksgiving.

From an examination ofthe Scriptures it appears that the Jews and early Christians, and our Lord himself, were accustomed to perform only one service at the table, and that before eating. I believe no instance is mentioned of a second service, except at the communion supper, and here it was a different thing from our returning thanks. It was a distinct blessing of the after supper, as the first service was of the bread. A custom of this kind seems at that time to have been introduced at their more formal and convivial meals, though it was not the ancient practice. When the meat was brought upon the table, the first service was performed, and then as we should say, VOL. I.-No. VIII.

cup

52

when the cloth was removed, and the wine was brought in, nearly the same words were repeated over the cup. Jahn quotes a form of tableservice out of the Talmud, in which the repetition over the cup is in the precise words of the first service, except a verbal alteration to accommodate it to wine instead of bread. It does not appear that this second service was ever used at their ordinary meals. It was not used by the Saviour when he fed the multitudes, nor when he supped at Emmaus, nor by Paul on shipboard at Melita; and in the one instance in which it is mentioned, that of the sacramental supper, it was not a service which we imitate in returning thanks.

It would seem then, that our manner of perfoming the religious duties of the table, by asking a blessing and returning thanks is an innovation on the ancient practice,

for which I see no valid reason, though I perceive several considerable ones against it. Some of these I will state.

1. Two services are not essential, and I think not conformable, to the nature of the duty. The meaning of the ceremony I suppose to be this it is proper that we should always cultivate a sense of our dependance on God, and our obligations to him for life and all its enjoyments; and the table furnishes a frequent and suitable occasion for the expression of these grateful acknowledgements. This expression is as well made in one service as in two. One is more simple and more significant than two; nor is it obvious to me how the object of the duty can be so divided as to render two services natural and proper.

2. The second service is a repetition of the first. The form of words may vary, but the thing expressed is virtually the same. It is at least so in general practice. Common minds do not make a definite distinction between them. Or

if they do attempt to avoid a repetition, they often use words unintelligibly. Thus we often hear a blessing asked upon the food,-which is to me without meaning; or "that the food provided for us may nour ish our mortal bodies,"-which is to me an unnatural petition, because, so to speak, it is only praying that nature may have its course,that an effect may follow its cause. Do we when we come to the table, ask for present blessings? They are already placed before us, and are present occasions of thanksgiving-such the ancients made them. Do we ask for future blessings, that the supplies granted us to-day may be furnished us to-morrow? This is an acknowledgement of our dependance on God. Giving thanks is a similar sentiment expressed in a different form; and if both may not be included in the same form of words, there would seem to me to be a propriety in inverting the order of the two services as now performed, so that we should come around the table with thanksgiving for the blessings now provided for us, and leave it with petitions that the same bounteous Providence would supply our future

wants.

If, however, the supposed distinction is a natural one, let him that thinks it so, point it out, and show that the one service is not involved in the other, and therefore not superfluous.

3. It multiplies, unprofitably, religious services. Especially in the morning. The reading of the Scriptures is followed by the morning prayer, and then in quick succession by the two services at the table. If we are not heard for our much speaking, are we for our many times speaking?

4. The inconvenience of the practice. I shall not dwell long on this head. It is often necessary for the mistress of the family to remain at the table longer than

the rest. At boarding houses the guests usually leave the table in succession. Some have finished their meal when others have just begun, and it does not suit their convenience or their patience to wait till all are ready to leave the table together. The same, and more, is true of public dinners, and of many other occasions. I have often observed at public dinners, that the first service was attended with propriety, but for the second there was no place found for "decency and order." In all such cases, if both services be proper, there is a public neglect of duty, if the second be not performed; but if it be performed, it is done in incongruous circumstances, and is undevoutly attended to

I have heard of a preacher who adduced sixteen reasons to his people, in favour of only one service :I am satisfied with these five. Nay if four of them be taken away, there still remains to me the example of the Saviour and his ancient people, yea and of many of the excellent of my own generation.

The general prevalence of a custom is no infallible evidence of its propriety,-certainly it is not an imperious reason why it should not be made a matter of investigation. I am aware of the sensibility which many good people feel on this subject-as if the omission of the one service were presumptive proof of insincerity in the other, or an evident want of thankfulness to God. I have no wish to offend the consciences of others, or to interfere with their conscientious practice. As a man thinketh, so is he. If my brethren judge it proper for themselves, "whether they eat or drink" to begin and end with "looking up to heaven," I would have them do so; and I exhort all men that they neglect not to acknowledge the bounty of the Divine Providence at their meals, but that they "give thanks always for

all things to God and the Father, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ," always mindful that he giveth them "life, and breath, and

all things," and that his goodnessif it be not lost upon them,-leadeth them to repentance.

PATERFAMILIAS.

The following paper was written several months since with a view to its being published in New-York, and was adapted to circumstances which then existed in that city. It was, however, for the time laid by, and the season for which it was specially intended passed away. But the evil still exists, nay, is growing up to a colossal stature in the land, and demands that the note of warning be sent abroad by every means of publication, to arm the public sentiment against it. The sugges tions of this paper, therefore,, out of place here, it is hoped may not be profitless. The writer does not indeed expect that they will reach, through this medium, the theatregoing ladies for whom they were intended, but he trusts that they will find many among the readers of the Spectator, to lift up the voice against the vices of the stage, and to strive for the recovery of that lost tone of morals, which gave no place to theatres among our virtuous ancesters.

been no period in its history, when it was not the common haunt of profligacy, and the common abhorrence, I will not say, of pure religion merely, but of enlightened The venerable men patriotism. who composed the Congress of the Revolution, esteeming "true religion, and good morals as the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness," and regarding "idleness, dissipation, and a general depravity of principles and manners," as the destruction of a government, "earnestly recommended to the several States, to take the most effectual measures for tainments." the suppressing of theatrical enterIf, then, patriotism has not become a degenerate sentiment in the daughters of the men of '76, I have an argument to them against the theatre.

A LETTER TO RESPECTABLE LADIES WHO FREQUENT THE THEATRE.

In the republics of ancient Greece, a notorious corrupter of yotuh was banished from the commonwealth, as its worst enemy. If the theatre be tried by the same law, it must receive the same condemnation. The theatre has been a notorious corrupter of public morals from the beginning. There has

I need not go to history, to prove to you its inherent demoralizing influence. For if the stage be better now than it formerly was, its present corruption proves it always to have been bad; or if it be worse now, there is a stronger reason why it should be abandoned. Worse it doubtless is, than it has been in our country; for this is the genius of the institution. Degeneracy is its natural progress. It is the nature of all public amusements of an exciting and immoral character, that there are no natural limits to their licentiousness. For while they agitate our stronger passions, our nicer feelings are overpowered; and, though they be of a na

ture to create in us some misgivings, the example of the crowd sustains us. We return to them with our moral sense impaired; that which almost shocked, or half disgusted us before, is now become familiar; and some higher-wrought licentiousness is requisite to bring us up to our former pitch of excitement. Thus beasts and bloodhounds, grown too tame a spectacle, give place to gladiators. Thus one indecency at the theatre prepares us for a grosser one, till we come at length to Madame Hutin. Novelty is the ruling law of pleas. ure; but the only novelty a licentious stage admits of, is in newer degrees of corruption,-another and another startling breach on public decency.

The American stage has not yet attained to all the refinements of the European-though it is travelling hard to overtake them; and hampered as it still is, by our American manners, it exhibits the institution in a state of as great purity, perhaps, as we may ever hope to see it. Yet how far it is, even as it exists among us, from meriting a Grecian condemnation, yourselves may be the judges.

It is a presumptive argument for the corrupting tendency of any popular amusement, that it attracts the vicious to it, as does a horse-race, or an English boxing match. And who compose the many at the theatre? I may not take you behind the scenes to show you who are there, nor speak of the private character of the actors; nor can the impure crowd of the gallery so much as be mentioned with decen

cy in your presence.* But of

*I will here introduce an extract from a communication which very recently appeared in the New-York Spy, or Dramatic Repository. That paper is understood to be devoted to the theatre, and the writer of the communisation is a professed admirer of the drama. It is amusing to see in what

those you see in the pit, how many are there, think you, whom the carriages in waiting, when the play is done, set down at doors where they would by no means wish their bosom-friends or death-bed conscien

terms a person of his stamp-who of ail men in the world "despises cant and ultra morality," and righteousness "over much,”—can express his apprehensions for the stage, and storm forth its corruption. his threatenings against the authors of

"Until lately, the theatre in this city has, as I believe, been conducted with as much regard to decency and public purity as possibie-at least the great evil of which I am now about to complain, never before, I am sure, existed. Managers have hitherto been content with having collected within the walls of their establishments, such only as came voluntarily, and paid their money freely. TRAPS to allure the low, the debased, and the most profligate, are, I believe, the very newest modes resorted to, to increase the funds of their treasuries. I have been assured, from authority that admits not of dispute, that in at least one of our new theatres, a practice has just been commenced which bids fair to produce more real and frightfully injurious results to the morals of youth, than the brains of the "righteous over-much" ever imagined could possibly be occasioned. Free admissions are now being dispensed to the public courtezans of the town, in order that their vile paramours may be induced to follow them, whereby the receipts of the house may be nightly increased; and the profits of the lessees of the saloons greatly enhanced in consequence of the greater demand for their various species of intoxicating beverage. This, Mr. Editor, is a course, monstrous and unparallelled, and will certainly lead to the most disastrous consequences. As an admirer of a pure and MORAL STAGE, it becomes you-it becomes all of us--to effect, if we can, the crushing in the bud of such flagitious procedures. I shall say no more at present: but if the enormity be not immediately cancelled-its authors-its guilty authors--shall be made to tremble, by one who is neither a

LIBERTINE NOR A FANATIC.

Alas for the purity of the stage now! Alas for our chaste school of morals-if this beginning of corruption be not "crushed in the bud!" "Pub

ces to follow them ?-And even of those who occupy an honorable seat in the boxes, how many an individual may you not discover, who, for effeminateness and profligacy, were a fitter knight for Cataline, than for the virtuous company of Cato. And why is it,-if the Theatre be not a corrupting institution -that, wherever the corner-stone of a new play-house is laid, there every hovel, and stall, and cellar in which wickedness may house itself, doubles and trebles its former rent? Why is it that the streets and lanes leading to every haunt of infamy in the city, resound nightly to wheels passing to and from the Theatre; and why is it that so many heart-broken mothers, and griefstricken sisters, mourn hopelessly over their profligate sons and brothers ?

This is the Theatre. I do not ask how your patriotism can uphold it, but I inquire, What is that gener

66

lic courtezans of the town!"-welcomed to the play-house, with "their vile paramours ?" Flagitious procedure"! "Course monstrous and unparallelled," and "disastrous” of “consequences"! Over which even Kean and Madame Hutin, and this "admirer of a moral stage" might join in consistent lamentation, because of "the morals of our youth," and because of the scandal of the profession in the eyes of the "righteous over-much."

But why not admit the class of persons you object to, and that freely, and with open doors? Why exclude from your publie "school of morals" those whose morals most need reform? Are courtezans and their paramours alone, of all the wicked of our race, to be shut away from all good influences? For shut them out from your charity, and whither will they go? I know of no other place of salutary discipline, except the theatre, in which these profligates are willing to be found. Into the assembly of the righteous over-much they are no more likely to fall than yourselves.

One object of the practice which our censor in the Spy thus loudly objurgates, is, he tells us, to enhance

ous love of country, for which your sex is so much honored? In other nations it may be an idle admiration of court-pageantry, or military glory; but in the daughters of Ameri ca it is, I trust, a more enlightened sentiment. It remember the manly virtues of the Revolution. It looks with proud complacency on that incorruptible integrity, and lofty sentiment, and hardy enterprise, which are the true greatness of a people; and on the cowardly vices of the dissolute it looks with a proportionate disgust. It compares our own with other countries, and rejcices in its superior freedom, but it rejoices more in that superior purity of manners which makes us capable of freedom. The patriotism then, which tolerates the Theatre, is either spurious or blind. Blind, if it does not discern the tendency of the Theatre, and spurious if it disregards it.

Were I addressing those of my

the profits of the saloons by increasing "the demand for their various species of intoxicating beverage." The bars of the Lafayette theatre, which is the least or nearly the least popular, I believe, of the six theatres of New-York, are rented for seventy-five dollars a week. It is obvious that a great deal of liquor must be sold to enable the lessee to pay this sum weekly, besides clearing a profit to himself. Add to this all the liquor sold by the stalls and cellars which crowd the vicinity of a theatre, and it will be seen how much dissipation, drunkenness, quarelling, and crime, must result, from the existence of one of these institutions. The quality of the fountain may be tested in the streams. If you would know what kind of morals it is that the stage teaches, our prisons and our almshouses, and the records of our courts may inform you. The recorda of our courts have not yet been consulted on this subject, but this has sometimes been done in England. One parish alone within the space of two years, suffered an expense of thirteen hundred pounds for criminal prosecutions which had their origin in the theatre.