Itisscarcelynecessarytogointoadiscussionhereoftheparticularpointsatwhich，ortheparticularmannerinwhich，thecanonofhonorificexpenditurehabituallytraversesthecanonsofmoralconduct。Thematterisonewhichhasreceivedlargeattentionandillustrationatthehandsofthosewhoseofficeitistowatchandadmonishwithrespecttoanydeparturesfromtheacceptedcodeofmorals。Inmoderncommunities，wherethedominanteconomicandlegalfeatureofthecommunity’slifeistheinstitutionofprivateproperty，oneofthesalientfeaturesofthecodeofmoralsisthesacrednessofproperty。
　　Thereneedsnoinsistenceorillustrationtogainassenttothepropositionthatthehabitofholdingprivatepropertyinviolateistraversedbytheotherhabitofseekingwealthforthesakeofthegoodreputetobegainedthroughitsconspicuousconsumption。
　　Mostoffensesagainstproperty，especiallyoffensesofanappreciablemagnitude，comeunderthishead。Itisalsoamatterofcommonnotorietyandbywordthatinoffenseswhichresultinalargeaccessionofpropertytotheoffenderhedoesnotordinarilyincurtheextremepenaltyortheextremeobloquywithwhichhisoffenseswouldhevisitedonthegroundofthenaivemoralcodealone。Thethieforswindlerwhohasgainedgreatwealthbyhisdelinquencyhasabetterchancethanthesmallthiefofescapingtherigorouspenaltyofthelawandsomegoodreputeaccruestohimfromhisincreasedwealthandfromhisspendingtheirregularlyacquiredpossessionsinaseemlymanner。
　　Awell-bredexpenditureofhisbootyespeciallyappealswithgreateffecttopersonsofacultivatedsenseoftheproprieties，andgoesfartomitigatethesenseofmoralturpitudewithwhichhisderelictionisviewedbythem。Itmaybenotedalso——anditismoreimmediatelytothepoint——thatweareallinclinedtocondoneanoffenseagainstpropertyinthecaseofamanwhosemotiveistheworthyoneofprovidingthemeansofa“decent“
　　manneroflifeforhiswifeandchildren。Ifitisaddedthatthewifehasbeen“nurturedinthelapofluxury，“thatisacceptedasanadditionalextenuatingcircumstance。Thatistosay，wearepronetocondonesuchanoffensewhereitsaimisthehonorificoneofenablingtheoffender’swifetoperformforhimsuchanamountofvicariousconsumptionoftimeandsubstanceasisdemandedbythestandardofpecuniarydecency。Insuchacasethehabitofapprovingtheaccustomeddegreeofconspicuouswastetraversesthehabitofdeprecatingviolationsofownership，totheextentevenofsometimesleavingtheawardofpraiseorblameuncertain。Thisispeculiarlytruewherethederelictioninvolvesanappreciablepredatoryorpiraticalelement。
　　Thistopicneedscarcelybepursuedfurtherhere；buttheremarkmaynotbeoutofplacethatallthatconsiderablebodyofmoralsthatclustersabouttheconceptofaninviolableownershipisitselfapsychologicalprecipitateofthetraditionalmeritoriousnessofwealth。Anditshouldbeaddedthatthiswealthwhichisheldsacredisvaluedprimarilyforthesakeofthegoodreputetobegotthroughitsconspicuousconsumption。
　　Thebearingofpecuniarydecencyuponthescientificspiritorthequestofknowledgewillhetakenupinsomedetailinaseparatechapter。Alsoasregardsthesenseofdevoutorritualmeritandadequacyinthisconnection，littleneedbesaidinthisplace。Thattopicwillalsocomeupincidentallyinalaterchapter。Still，thisusageofhonorificexpenditurehasmuchtosayinshapingpopulartastesastowhatisrightandmeritoriousinsacredmatters，andthebearingoftheprincipleofconspicuouswasteuponsomeofthecommonplacedevoutobservancesandconceitsmaythereforebepointedout。
　　Obviously，thecanonofconspicuouswasteisaccountableforagreatportionofwhatmaybecalleddevoutconsumption；as，e。g。，theconsumptionofsacrededifices，vestments，andothergoodsofthesameclass。Eveninthosemoderncultstowhosedivinitiesisimputedapredilectionfortemplesnotbuiltwithhands，thesacredbuildingsandtheotherpropertiesofthecultareconstructedanddecoratedwithsomeviewtoareputabledegreeofwastefulexpenditure。Anditneedsbutlittleeitherofobservationorintrospection——andeitherwillservetheturn——
　　toassureusthattheexpensivesplendorofthehouseofworshiphasanappreciableupliftingandmellowingeffectupontheworshipper’sframeofmind。Itwillservetoenforcethesamefactifwereflectuponthesenseofabjectshamefulnesswithwhichanyevidenceofindigenceorsqualoraboutthesacredplaceaffectsallbeholders。Theaccessoriesofanydevoutobservanceshouldbepecuniarilyabovereproach。Thisrequirementisimperative，whateverlatitudemaybeallowedwithregardtotheseaccessoriesinpointofaestheticorotherserviceability。
　　Itmayalsobeinplacetonoticethatinallcommunities，especiallyinneighborhoodswherethestandardofpecuniarydecencyfordwellingsisnothigh，thelocalsanctuaryismoreornate，moreconspicuouslywastefulinitsarchitectureanddecoration，thanthedwellinghousesofthecongregation。Thisistrueofnearlyalldenominationsandcults，whetherChristianorPagan，butitistrueinapeculiardegreeoftheolderandmaturercults。Atthesametimethesanctuarycommonlycontributeslittleifanythingtothephysicalcomfortofthemembers。Indeed，thesacredstructurenotonlyservesthephysicalwell-beingofthememberstobutaslightextent，ascomparedwiththeirhumblerdwelling-houses；butitisfeltbyallmenthatarightandenlightenedsenseofthetrue，thebeautiful，andthegooddemandsthatinallexpenditureonthesanctuaryanythingthatmightservethecomfortoftheworshippershouldbeconspicuouslyabsent。Ifanyelementofcomfortisadmittedinthefittingsofthesanctuary，itshouldbeatleastscrupulouslyscreenedandmaskedunderanostensibleausterity。
　　Inthemostreputablelatter-dayhousesofworship，wherenoexpenseisspared，theprincipleofausterityiscarriedtothelengthofmakingthefittingsoftheplaceameansofmortifyingtheflesh，especiallyinappearance。Therearefewpersonsofdelicatetastes，inthematterofdevoutconsumptiontowhomthisausterelywastefuldiscomfortdoesnotappealasintrinsicallyrightandgood。Devoutconsumptionisofthenatureofvicariousconsumption。Thiscanonofdevoutausterityisbasedonthepecuniaryreputabilityofconspicuouslywastefulconsumption，backedbytheprinciplethatvicariousconsumptionshouldconspicuouslynotconducetothecomfortofthevicariousconsumer。
　　Thesanctuaryanditsfittingshavesomethingofthisausterityinallthecultsinwhichthesaintordivinitytowhomthesanctuarypertainsisnotconceivedtobepresentandmakepersonaluseofthepropertyforthegratificationofluxurioustastesimputedtohim。Thecharacterofthesacredparaphernaliaissomewhatdifferentinthisrespectinthosecultswherethehabitsoflifeimputedtothedivinitymorenearlyapproachthoseofanearthlypatriarchalpotentate——whereheisconceivedtomakeuseoftheseconsumablegoodsinperson。Inthelattercasethesanctuaryanditsfittingstakeonmoreofthefashiongiventogoodsdestinedfortheconspicuousconsumptionofatemporalmasterorowner。Ontheotherhand，wherethesacredapparatusissimplyemployedinthedivinity’sservice，thatistosay，whereitisconsumedvicariouslyonhisaccountbyhisservants，therethesacredpropertiestakethecharactersuitedtogoodsthataredestinedforvicariousconsumptiononly。
　　Inthelattercasethesanctuaryandthesacredapparatusaresocontrivedasnottoenhancethecomfortorfullnessoflifeofthevicariousconsumer，oratanyratenottoconveytheimpressionthattheendoftheirconsumptionistheconsumer’scomfort。Fortheendofvicariousconsumptionistoenhance，notthefullnessoflifeoftheconsumer，butthepecuniaryreputeofthemasterforwhosebehooftheconsumptiontakesplace。
　　Thereforepriestlyvestmentsarenotoriouslyexpensive，ornate，andinconvenient；andinthecultswherethepriestlyservitorofthedivinityisnotconceivedtoservehiminthecapacityofconsort，theyareofanaustere，comfortlessfashion。Andsuchitisfeltthattheyshouldbe。
　　Itisnotonlyinestablishingadevoutstandardofdecentexpensivenessthattheprincipleofwasteinvadesthedomainofthecanonsofritualserviceability。Ittouchesthewaysaswellasthemeans，anddrawsonvicariousleisureaswellasonvicariousconsumption。Priestlydemeanoratitsbestisaloof，leisurely，perfunctory，anduncontaminatedwithsuggestionsofsensuOuspleasure。Thisholdstrue，indifferentdegreesofcourse，forthedifferentcultsanddenominations；butinthepriestlylifeofallanthropomorphiccultsthemarksofavicariousconsumptionoftimearevisible。
　　Thesamepervadingcanonofvicariousleisureisalsovisiblypresentintheexteriordetailsofdevoutobservancesandneedonlybepointedoutinordertobecomeobvioustoallbeholders。Allritualhasanotabletendencytoreduceitselftoarehearsalofformulas。Thisdevelopmentofformulaismostnoticeableinthematurercults，whichhaveatthesametimeamoreaustere，ornate，andseverepriestlylifeandgarb；butitisperceptiblealsointheformsandmethodsofworshipofthenewerandfreshersects，whosetastesinrespectofpriests，vestments，andsanctuariesarelessexacting。Therehearsaloftheservicetheterm“service“carriesasuggestionsignificantforthepointinquestiongrowsmoreperfunctoryasthecultgainsinageandconsistency，andthisperfunctorinessoftherehearsalisverypleasingtothecorrectdevouttaste。Andwithagoodreason，forthefactofitsbeingperfunctorygoestosaypointedlythatthemasterforwhomitisperformedisexaltedabovethevulgarneedofactuallyproficuousserviceonthepartofhisservants。Theyareunprofitableservants，andthereisanhonorificimplicationfortheirmasterintheirremainingunprofitable。Itisneedlesstopointoutthecloseanalogyatthispointbetweenthepriestlyofficeandtheofficeofthefootman。Itispleasingtooursenseofwhatisfittinginthesematters，ineithercase，torecognizeintheobviousperfunctorinessoftheservicethatitisaproformaexecutiononly。Thereshouldbenoshowofagilityorofdexterousmanipulationintheexecutionofthepriestlyoffice，suchasmightsuggestacapacityforturningoffthework。
　　Inallthisthereisofcourseanobviousimplicationastothetemperament，tastes，propensities，andhabitsoflifeimputedtothedivinitybyworshipperswholiveunderthetraditionofthesepecuniarycanonsofreputability。Throughitspervadingmen’shabitsofthought，theprincipleofconspicuouswastehascoloredtheworshippers’notionsofthedivinityandoftherelationinwhichthehumansubjectstandstohim。Itisofcourseinthemorenaivecultsthatthissuffusionofpecuniarybeautyismostpatent，butitisvisiblethroughout。Allpeoples，atwhateverstageofcultureordegreeofenlightenment，arefaintoekeoutasensiblyscantdegreeofauthenticformationregardingthepersonalityandhabitualsurroundingsoftheirdivinities。Insocallingintheaidoffancytoenrichandfillintheirpictureofthedivinity’spresenceandmanneroflifetheyhabituallyimputetohimsuchtraitsasgotomakeuptheiridealofaworthyman。Andinseekingcommunionwiththedivinitythewaysandmeansofapproachareassimilatedasnearlyasmaybetothedivineidealthatisinmen’smindsatthetime。Itisfeltthatthedivinepresenceisenteredwiththebestgrace，andwiththebesteffect，accordingtocertainacceptedmethodsandwiththeaccompanimentofcertainmaterialcircumstanceswhichinpopularapprehensionarepeculiarlyconsonantwiththedivinenature。Thispopularlyacceptedidealofthebearingandparaphernaliaadequatetosuchoccasionsofcommunionis，ofcourse，toagoodextentshapedbythepopularapprehensionofwhatisintrinsicallyworthyandbeautifulinhumancarriageandsurroundingsonalloccasionsofdignifiedintercourse。Itwouldonthisaccountbemisleadingtoattemptananalysisofdevoutdemeanorbyreferringallevidencesofthepresenceofapecuniarystandardofreputabilitybackdirectlyandbaldlytotheunderlyingnormofpecuniaryemulation。Soitwouldalsobemisleadingtoascribetothedivinity，aspopularlyconceived，ajealousregardforhispecuniarystandingandahabitofavoidingandcondemningsqualidsituationsandsurroundingssimplybecausetheyareundergradeinthepecuniaryrespect。