Latera ejus sunt Concordia et Pax. Frontes ipsius sunt Justicia & Veritas. Pulchritudo ejus est exemplum bonorum operum. Pilastri ejus sunt spiritales virtues. Columnæ ejus sunt boni pontifices & sacerdotes. isces ejus sunt mediatio celestis. Mensa Christi est in camera bona conversatio. Facinus Christi est bona voluntas. Canterellus Christi est nitor conscientiæ. Cathedra Christi est serenitas mentis. Sponsa Christi est sancta anima. Camerariæ Christi spiritales virtutes sunt: Prima Sancta Caritas dicta est; illa Christi regit cameram. Tertia est Sancta Patientia; illa facit luminaria in camera Quarta Sancta Puritas; illa scopat cameram Christi. But besides, and in our opinion stronger than, this express and continuous testimony to the fact that Catholick architecture is symbolical, we have the testimony of all other branches of Catholick art, which none ever did, or could deny to be figurative and Sacramental. Let us take merely the rites which accompany the close of Easter week. We enter a darkened church, illuminated only by the lighted 'sepulchre': we hear the history of the Passion chaunted by three voices in three recitatives: we have the most mournfully pathetic strain for the Reproaches' which perhaps the human mind ever imagined :—we pray for Pagans-and we kneel; we pray for Turks-and we kneel; we pray for the Jews, and we kneel not; in abhorrence of the mockery that bowed the knee to the King of the Jews. We enter that church again, now perfectly darkened, except for the one lamp that renders the lettern 6 and the books thereon just visible: the solemn Litanies seem in that obscurity, and amidst the silent crowd of worshippers, more solemn than usual. There is a short pause: then in one second, Priests and People, voices and instruments, burst forth with the Easter Alleluia: light pours in from every window of the Cathedral: showers of rose leaves fall from the roof: bells,-silent for three long days, peal from every church tower: guns fire and banners wave: DOMINUS resurrexit vere, Alleluia, et apparuit Simoni, Alleluia. Now, without being concerned to defend, or the contrary, any or all of these ceremonies, we ask,-Is it possible to conceive that the Church which invented so deeply a symbolical a system of worship,-should have rested content with an unsymbolical building for its practice? This consideration, perhaps, belongs to the analogical branch of our essay: yet it may also find a place here, as one of the strongest parts of the inductive argument. Seeing then that there are strong reasons a priori for believing that the ritual and architecture of the Church would partake of a decidedly symbolical character: that by the analogy of the practice amongst all religionists, of the operations of GOD in nature, of the conditions of Art, and especially of the whole sacramental system of the Church, it is likely that Church architecture itself would be sacramental: that from the nature of things every thing material is in some sort sacramental, and a material fabric essentially figurative of the purpose for which it was designed: that an actual Christian church, (taken as we find it,) has such accidents as can be explained on no other than a symbolical supposition, and might be analyzed into just those elements from which, by induction we first constructed an hypothetical Christian church and lastly, that from express and continuous historical testimony H : without any actual acquaintance with existing fabrics we might have deduced that the material church would be itself, to some extent, a figurative expression of the religion for the celebration of which it was constructed: it does not seem too much to assert that Christian architecture owes its distinctive peculiarities to its sacramental character, and that consequently we can neither appreciate ancient examples nor hope to rival them, at least in their perfection, without taking into account this principle of their design. In other words, the cause of that indefinable difference between an ancient and modern church which we were led to discover at the beginning of this treatise, is neither association of ideas, nor correctness of detail, nor picturesqueness, nor of a mechanical nature, but, (in the most general point of view) is the sacramentality, the religious symbolism, which distinguished and sanctified this as every other branch of medieval art. CHAPTER VII. EXAMPLES OF SYMBOLISM. In endeavouring shortly to develope the practice of symbolism, according to our view of the subject, we are fully aware that to those, who have never yet bestowed a thought upon it, we shall appear mere visionaries or enthusiasts. It has been the fashion of late to smile at the whole theory, as amusing and perhaps beautiful: but quite unpractical and indeed impracticable. We cannot hope to convince by aestheticks those who are deaf to more direct arguments, and who refuse to view every thing, as Churchmen ought to do, through the medium of the Church. But those who agree with us in the latter duty, will perhaps suffer themselves to think twice on what will be advanced before they condemn it. We shall consider the practice of symbolism as connected with, 1. The HOLY TRINITY; 2. Regeneration; 3. The Atonement; 4. The Communion of Saints; and then we shall notice several parts of a church, such as Windows, Doors, &c., with their specifick symbolical meaning. The Doctrine of the HOLY TRINITY has left, as might be expected, deeper traces in the structure of our churches than any other principle of our Faith. We have already noticed that possibly the Basilican arrangement might be providentially adduced with reference to this. In Saxon times we find the idea carried out, not only by the Nave and two Aisles, but also by the triple division in length, into Nave, Chancel, and Sanctum Sanctorum. This triple division is most frequently given in Norman buildings, by a central Tower; with Chancel and Nave: we also find in this style a triple Chancel Arch, an arrangement never occuring at a later epoch. Thus length and breadth were made significant of this Mystery; nor was height less So. The Clerestory, the Triforium, and the Piers cannot fail to suggest it. Indeed, where a Triforium was not needed, there is often, as at Exeter and Wells, an arrangement of arcading in niches to resemble it, made that the triplicity might be retained. It is only in late Perpendicular, such as the Nave of Canterbury Cathedral, that the arrangement is doubled: there the eye is at once dissatisfied. Again, the triple orders of moulding, which are so much more frequent than any other number, may be supposed to refer to the same thing. The Altar steps, three, or some multiple of three, certainly do. So do the three fingers with which Episcopal Benediction is given. And this is a very early symbolism. It occurs in illuminated MS. We may mention one (Harl. 5540) of the thirteenth century, where it forms a part of the first letter of S. John's gospel. So, as we shall presently see, are Eastern Triplets. And reference is constantly made to the same doctrine in bosses: we may mention as a remarkable instance one that occurs in Stamford, S. Mary's, a figure with an equilateral triangle in its mouth: thereby setting forth the duty of the Preacher to proclaim the doctrine of the Trinity. In large churches, the Three Towers undoubtedly proclaim the same doctrine. We shall hereafter show that neither in Nave and Aisles, in Triplets, or any thing else, is the inequality any thing else than what might have been expected. |