though sometimes he went beyond his depth. His writings-brilliant, impetuous, rash-were never put to an unworthy purpose-never advocated an unjust cause, or concealed an unwelcome truth: they were like the two main principles of his own Gothic style-upright and thorough.

CHAPTER II.

Pugin on Rood Screens-Tractarian criticism-' Reverence' versus the 'All-seeing Principle' of modern church builders-His controversy with the 'Rambler,' the organ of debased Italianised principles in art and architecture-Dr. Newman's tribute to Gothic architecture -Pugin's denial that he would like to destroy St. Peter's, RomeMoorfields Chapel-Musical mass in Cologne Cathedral-Ecclesiastical taste in France-His severe criticisms on the operative music in English Catholic chapels- Church-openings and religious performances'-Pugin's letter on the Catholic Church, Hereford-Legacyhunting-A last 'scene' described-Pugin on the English Catholic hierarchy and its purely spiritual character-On Church government -He is accused of advancing heretical views-Refutation of his accusers-Episcopal opinions-Letters-Anglican orders-His advocacy of the voluntary principle-And of the complete separation of Church and State-The abuses resulting from large endowments— State tyranny and corruption, and consequent spread of infidelity in Europe during the last three centuries.

On the publication of a "Treatise on Chancel-screens and Rood-lofts,' in which Pugin undertook to show their antiquity, use, and symbolic signification, a controversy arose of such a character, that if we be not indifferent to the motives and main springs which were at work in Pugin's mind, and to the principles which animated his conduct in life, we cannot in justice to him pass over in silence. It would seem, at first sight, next to impossible, that, in an architectural treatise, questions could be broached which should not only in

volve the interests of religion, but arouse the spirit of controversy. Were indeed the 'Rood-screens' a simple architectural book, it would be unnecessary to allude to it in this place; but like all the more important works which emanated from Pugin's hands, it enters in a bold and searching manner into the principles which underlie modern innovation in ecclesiastical matters. It is not, he says himself, a mere question of architectural detail, but a question which involves great principles connected with discipline and even faith, for the revival of true architecture is intimately mixed up with education, and the formation of the minds of the rising generation. It may, perhaps, be necessary to explain here that the use of the roodscreen has been of universal obligation, and belongs to no particular style, or date, and that its object is to part the people from the priest, and to set a boundary in a church round the place of sacrifice, to teach the faithful to reverence the seat of the holy mysteries, and to worship in humility and awe. In the constitution of Pugin's mind reverence was the strongest element; it is therefore not surprising that his vivid imagination should be peculiarly impressed by the symbolism of ancient ecclesiastical architecture, in which the doctrines of Catholicity are so reverently figured. To him indeed the grand portals of the ancient cathedrals were ever' Bibles in stone.' The preservation of the rood-screen itself, he maintained, was a vital principle, inasmuch as it would scarcely be possible to preserve the interior faith in the doctrine of the holy Eucharist, if all exterior respect and re

verence were abolished. It was not a struggle on matters of taste or ornament, but a contention for the great principles of Catholic antiquity, tradition, and reverence, against modern development and display. Rood-screens, he contended, were not only inseparable from Pointed architecture, but inseparable from Catholic arrangement in any style-Byzantine, Norman, Pointed, or Debased.

The fundamental principle of the work is the recognition of the intimate connection between the externals of religion and the faith itself, and the necessity, consequent on the sacred nature of its awful mysteries, that the Christian worship should assume a form of solemnity and reverence unknown to the Pagan, and but ill-understood in the present day.

On its first appearance, Pugin's work on chancelscreens was hailed with delight by some members of the High Church party, who strained his argument to the uttermost, in order, if possible, to twist it into a vindication of Anglicanism. One of the ablest writers, in a quondam Tractarian journal, directed the attention of the sound members of his community to this volume, 'which,' he says, 'greatly concerns the Church of England, rightly understoood, on a matter in which the great Roman Catholic architect is found on the same side as the Church of England, and in opposition to the most extreme and Ultra-montane section of his own communion.' 'Amongst the most strenuous and embittered antagonists of the said unfortunate chancelscreens,' continues the writer, with a purpose which is only too transparent, are to be found the "Papists"

par excellence, those members of the Roman Catholic Church who are most Roman, most Popish, most Ultramontane the believers in developments, the converts who find their most congenial home in the oratory of St. Philip Neri.' The writer assumes that those Catholics who are most attached, most drawn to the See of Rome adopted Italian as the typal architecture of ultra-montanism, whilst Pugin and another. section of Catholics, hostile, he allows it to be inferred, to the Holy See, adopted the Pointed as the typal architecture of national Roman Catholicism. This ingenious Tractarian writer, so familiar with the doctrinal divisions in his own community, and so wise in reconciling to his own satisfaction the opposing articles of his own creed, sets up a theory to account for the difference of opinion, which he assumes to exist, in the Catholic Church on the subject of the Eucharist. His theory is, that in modern ages a materialistic aspect has been given to the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Western Church, which has created, so to speak, a sentimental craving on the part of the ultra-Romanists for physical proximity to the altar-annihilated in them the conservative and repressive desire to preserve the traditions of antiquity-the desire, for example, that (to employ the words of our own Anglican Rubric), the chancels shall remain as in times past.' 'These trains of thought,' he continues, have created the theory that chancels, and so forth, were all very well for the middle ages, but that this enlightened generation had developed the necessity of the congregation getting as near the altar as possible, as if in this bodily