the profession of Clerks, than because it was considered that the purity and holiness of that profession fitted them best for so great a work?*

Nay, we have remarkable proofs that feeling without knowledge will do more than knowledge without feeling. There are instances of buildings-Lisbon Cathedral and S. Peter's College Chapel, Cambridge, are cases in pointwhich, with Debased or Italian details, have nevertheless Christian effect. And we have several similar cases, more paticularly in the way of towers.

Now, allowing the respectability which attaches itself to the profession of a modern architect, and the high character of many in that profession, none would assert that they, as a body, make it a matter of devotion and prayer; that they work for the Church alone, regardless of themselves; that they build in faith, and to the glory of GOD.

In truth, architecture has become too much a profession: it is made the means of gaining a livelihood, and is viewed as a path to honourable distinction, instead of being the study of the devout ecclesiastick, who matures his noble conceptions with the advantage of that profound meditation only attainable in the contemplative life; who, without thought of recompense or fame, has no end in view but the raising a temple, worthy of its high end, and emblematical of the faith which is to be maintained within its walls. It is clear that modern architects are in a very different position from their predecessors, with respect to these advantages. We are not prepared to say that none but monks ought to design churches, or that it is impossible for a professional architect to build with the devotion and faith of an earlier time. But we do protest against the

* Compare the general drift of the Address to Paulinus. Eusebius. H. E. X. 4.

merely business-like spirit of the modern profession, and demand from them a more elevated and directly religious habit of mind. We surely ought to look at least for Church-membership from one who ventures to design a church. There cannot be a more painful idea than that a separatist should be allowed to build a House of GOD, when he himself knows nothing of the ritual and worship of the Church from which he has strayed; to prepare both Font and Altar, when perchance he knows nothing of either Sacrament but that he has always despised them. Or, again, to think that any Churchman should allow himself to build a conventicle, and even sometimes to prostitute the speaking architecture of the Church to the service of Her bitterest enemies! What idea can such a person have formed of the reality of Church architecture? Conceive a Churchman designing a triple window, admitted emblem of the MOST HOLY TRINITY, for a congregation of Socinians! We wish to vindicate the dignity of this noble science against the treason of its own professors. If architecture is anything more than a mere trade; if it is indeed a liberal, intellectual art, a true branch of poesy; let us prize its reality and meaning and truthfulness, and at least not expose ourselves by giving to two contraries one and the same material expression.

It is objected that architects have a right to the same professional conscience that is claimed, for instance, by a barrister. To which we can only reply, that it must be a strange morality which will justify a pleader in violating truth; and how much worse for an architect to violate truth in things immediately connected with the House and worship of GOD! It may be asked, Do we mean to imply then that a Church architect ought never to undertake any secular building? Perhaps, as things are, we cannot expect so much as this now: but we can never believe

that the man who engages to design union-houses, or prisons, or assembly-rooms, and gives the dregs of his time to church-building; is likely to produce a good church, or, in short, can expect to be filled from above. with the Spirit of Wisdom. The Church architect must, we are persuaded, make very great sacrifices: he must forego all lucrative undertakings, if they may not be carried through upon those principles which he believes necessary for every good building; and particularly if the end to be answered, or the wants to be provided for, are in themselves unjustifiable or mischievous. Even in church-building itself, he must see many an unworthy rival preferred to him, who will condescend to pander to the whims and comfort of a Church-committee, will suit his design to any standard of ritualism which may be suggested by his own ignorance, or others' private judgement, who will consent to defile a building meant for God's worship with pues and galleries and prayer-pulpits and commodious vestries. But hard as the trial may be, a Church architect must submit to it, rather than recede from the principles which he knows to be the very foundation of his art. We would go further even, and deny the possibility of any architect's success in all the different styles of Pointed architecture, not to mention the orders of Greece and Rome, Vitruvian, Palladian, Cinque Cento, Wrennian, nay even Chinese, Swiss, Hindoo, and Egyptian, at once. We have not even now exhausted the list of styles in which a modern architect is supposed to be able to design. It is even more absurd than if every modern painter were expected, and should prófess, to paint equally well in the styles of Perugino, Francia, Raphael, Holbein, Claude, the Poussins, Salvator Rosa, Correggio, Van Eyck, Teniers, Rubens, Murillo, Reynolds, West, Gainsborough, Overbeck, and Copley Fielding all at once! An

architect ought indeed to be acquainted, and the more the better, with all styles of building: but if architecture, as we said before, is a branch of poesy, if the poet's mind is to have any individuality, he must design in one style, and one style only. For the Anglican architect, it will be necessary to know enough of the earlier styles to be able to restore. the deeply interesting churches, which they have left us as precious heirlooms; enough of the Debased styles, to take warning from their decline: but for his own style, he should choose the glorious architecture of the fourteenth century; and, just as no man has more than one handwriting, so in this one language alone will he express his architectural ideas.

We cannot leave this topick without referring to what the Cambridge Camden Society has said with respect to architectural competition.* It is a fact that at this time many competing designs are manufactured in an architect's office, by some of his clerks, as if by machinery : if a given plan is chosen, the architect is summoned, and sees his (!) design for the first time, when he is introduced to the smiling committee-men. It is another fact that there is at this time in London a small body of persons, with no other qualification than that of having been draughtsmen in an architect's office, who get up a set of competing designs for any aspirant who chooses to give them a few instructions, and to pay them for their trouble. How much it is to be wished that there were some examination of an architect's qualifications, before he should be allowed to assume the name! It seems strange that the more able members of the profession do not themselves feel some esprit de corps, and do not at least endeavour to claim for their art its full dignity and importance.

* See Ecclesiologist, vol. i., pp. 69, 85.

We fear however that very few, as yet, take that religious view of their profession, which we have shewn to be seemly, even if not essential. If, however, we succeed in proving that religion enters very largely into the principles of Church architecture, a religious ethos, we repeat, is essential to a Church architect. At all events, in an investigation into the differences between ancient and modern Church architecture, the contrast between the ancient and modern builders could not be overlooked: and it is not too much to hope that some, at least, may be struck by the fact, that the deeply religious habits of the builders of old, the Hours, the cloister, the discipline, the obedience, resulted in their matchless works; while the worldliness, vanity, dissipation, and patronage of our own architects issue in unvarying and hopeless failure.

We said that there were philosophical reasons for the belief that we must have architects,—before we can have buildings, like those of old. If it be true that an esoterick signification, or, as we shall call it, Sacramentality,* ran through all the arrangements and details of Christian architecture, emblematical of Christian discipline, and suggested by Christian devotion; then must the discipline have been practised, and the devotion felt, before a Christian Temple can be reared. That this esoterick meaning, or symbolism, does exist, we are now to endeavour to prove.

*It may be proper to distinguish between five terms, too generally vaguely employed in common, and which we shall often have occasion to use: we mean, allegorical, symbolical, typical, figurative, and sacramental.

Allegory employs fictitious things and personages to shadow out the truth: Symbolism uses real personages and real actions [and real things] as symbols of the truth :" British Critic, No. lxv. p. 121. Sacramentality is symbolism applied to the truth kar' xóŋy, the teaching of the Church, by the hands of the teacher: a Type is a symbol intended from the first: a Figure is a symbol not discovered till after the thing figurative has had a being.