Architecture And Archæology.

period at a very IOAV ebb ; and , although no one can doubt that AA-C arc iu the right road UOAV , IIOAV IOAV churches have as yet boon built that can at all bear comparison in point of interest and a certain instinctive sense of complete fitness , even AA'ith the plainest churches of the best medieval periods ! Let us consider AA'hat is the cause of this .

When wc hear a IIOAV church discussed , the points usually touched upon aro tho accommodation , the cost , and tho quality of thc design . We hoar , perhaps , that sittings are provided for 800 or 1000 persons , and that it cost so much —A'ery cheap , or A'ery expensive , as thc case may be . Then wc hear the particular style adopted , the height and treatment of the roofthe richness of tho decoration , and tho

, originality , if there be any , of some part of thc design , with numerous other details ; but AA'C seldom ( I think I may almost say lici-er ) bear a church commended because the building itself , independently of its furniture , gives expression to every part and detail of our services . I do not mean broadh' to assert that none of our modern churches

do give such expression ( though as a rule thoy certainly do not ) , but I mean to say that AA'hen such an exceptional church is met Avith , people do not appear really to knoiv Avhy they like it ; they think it original and clever , but they cannot exactly say Avhy it interests and satisfies them more than larger and costlier buildings , or why , Avithout any copyism , the architect seems to haA'e succeeded in catching the true

spirit of medieval architecture . NOAV , I think that , unless AVC discover tho clement of his success , and recognise it as a principle not lightly to be infringed , Ave shall not make much progress in church building beyond the point to AA'hich the revival has already carried us . Do not suppose that I am presumptuous enough to speak disparagingly of AA'hat has already been done and is noiv doing , nor to

imagine that I can toll you anything neiv and startling on tho subject of church arrangements ; but I cannot hel p thinking that there is a good deal of misapprehension and false feeling afloat on this question , and tho more AA'C can work together and mutually assist each other to recognise true principles and sift them from unfounded prejudices , the better prospect hare AVO of that onward progress

Avithout AA'hich art must decline and die . I suppose AVC haA'o all felt , in comparing old and IIOAV churches , that there is often a deep sense of interest and continued satisfaction in exploring an old church , although it may bo A'ery plain and simple , Avhich is totally wanting Avhen Ave visit a neighbouring modern church , apparently its superior in all the usual architectural features . This is generally attributed to the charm of antiquity and thc sentiment of association , and these feelings , no doubt , have their due Aveioht . But there

is something beyond this , AY Inch I believe to be the existence in the old building of a principle , apparently quite instinctive in the medieval architect , which is too often—I cannot but think—overlooked by us . The principle I allude to may sound absurdly trite and hackneyed , but it cannot be too often repeated until it is better attended to—it is simply , that a building should exactly express its purpose , or ,

in other Avords , iu tho case of a church , that thc bare Avails , or actual skeleton , before a bit of furniture is introduced into it , should bear the distinct impress of every part of the ritual existing at the time of its erection , and should give expression to all ceremonies and forms of Ai'orship about to be celebrated in it . Thus it may well bo regretted , in a purely architectural point of viciA ' , that Ave are forbidden to

erect stono altars ; they Avoro removed in . 1550 to make room for communion-tables ; and though Ave may deplore , tve can scarcely Avonder at tho measure . Mosheim , in his . Ecclesiastical History , remarks . — " Posterity may regret this change as needless in itself , and an injudicious sacrifice of a venerable decoration ; but contemporaries alone can adequately judge of such questions , and they ( the

Eeformcrs ) had undoubtedly a degree of difficult y in Aveaning the people from inveterate superstitions , Avhich rendered all incentives to them obnoxious . " But , thoun-h our altars may not bo of stone , AVC still may , and no '" doubt ought , ahvays to mark by some constructive feature the exact position of tho hol y table—not necessarily elaborately and expensively , AA'here funds AA'ill not alloAv it , but at any rate distinctfully and thoughtfully ; and let us ahvays remember that , on no higher than artistic grounds , a little extra cost

here , at thc expense of the body of the church , will haA'e far more A-alue than the same amount expended in a sprinkling of meagre and uniform decoration OA'er the Avhole building . I do not wish , in a paper of this kind , to say too much upon the hig her grounds for making this the point of attraction in the church , nor to assist at too great length on the credence-tablepiscina , and sedilia as architectural features ,

, seeing that these are , after all , only adjuncts depending on particular forms and methods of celebration , the propriety of Ai'hich this is neither thc time nor the place to discuss . But the principle of always expressing the position of the altar by a solid roredos depends simply on a question of fact : — " Is the most sacred and solemn portion of our ritual celebrated there or not ? " If it is , the building itsolf should

bespeak the fact . To proceed next to the Font . Although thc orthodox , traditional , and symbolical position of the font near the . Avcstern entrance is now A'ery generally adhered to , I have heard a great many different opinions amongst thc clergy as to its convenience . Amongst others , Mr . Pcttit remarks ,. " Where the font is suffered to retain its oriinal position it

g is generally found near the Avestern entrance , and this ,, Avithout doubt , is thc most appropriate spot for a ceremony denoting admission into the church ; yet there may often exist sufficient reasons for placing it elscAA'here . And it is of far more importance that Ave regard , both iu position and design , and tho actual size of the font , thc greatsolemnity of the rite Avhich is administered in it , than that

AVC restrict its locality to any particular part of tho building , " Wherever it is placed its position should at any rate be Avell defined and expressed by some modification or exceptional feature in the architecture , so that there may bo a perpetual and ineffaceable protest againsB' any future removal by a reforming churchwarden or a neiv incumbent . I knoAv an instance , by the way , of a font in a large modern church Avhich has been moved from west to east

and back again , three times in as many years ; and in this ca . sO ; its fiiv ns tire building' itself goes , one place is as appropriate as the other . It would , of course , be inconsistent Avith the custom AA'hich UOAV prevails , of administering baptism during divine service , to place the font in a distant baptistery AA'here it could not be seen by thc congregation ; but if a little thought be bestoivcd on it , Ave

shall generally find that some distinctive feature may be introduced Avhich will add interest and beauty to the church and fulfil the purpose I speak of , without cutting off tho congregation from participation in thc service . Mr . Pottit , a little further on , in the passage I quoted just noAA ' , supports tho principle of making the font as far as possible a part of tho building , and not an

appendage . He uses this last term in speaking of tho font , and then immediately adds— " An appendage , indeed , I should not call it , as in old times it AA'as considered the A'ery heart and nucleus of tho church , erected often long before tho Avails and roof ivhich were to coA'er it . The well-known font of St . Martin ' s , at Canterbury , is OA-idently much older than any part of the present building , and it is not improbable that it even preceded former ones . In Norbury Church the font is decidedly early English , none of the bulletins beinc earlier than late decorated—most of it of tho

latest perpendicular . There are , of course , numerous examples in churches built of late years in AA'hich the font is gii'en its proper importance , and has a well-defined and yet prominent and open position given to it . An arrangement of the kind has been admirably managed in a small church in Suffolk , lately built by Mr . Scott , AA'here a ronnd tOAver ( after the

fashion of the peculiar round towers of that county ) , is placed at the Avest end . It is vaulted AA'ith stone internally , and forms an appropriate baptistery . But , having noticed the principle , I AA'ill not take up time by multiplying examples . Let us pass next to the consideration of the Readingdesk and Pulit . NOAA ' , although these two play , if not

p tho most important , certainly the largest part in our services , it is not often that AVC find one or the other treated as part of the building , or influencing its constructive details in any Avay . They are usually pieces of furniture Avhich give no more impress of character to the building than the