440 



THE CIVIL JCNCJINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



[November, 



betake tlieinselves fo remove these clelesfable evils sliould perform 

 tlieir task witli such liot zeal fis to defeat their own purpose, and by 

 intemperance and excess awaken tlie fears, and influence the preju- 

 dices of ignorance, and so perpetuate the very errors they strove to 

 correct ? 



That we may not be accused of bringing unsupported charges, we 

 intend to consider some of what we believe the erroneous doctrines of 

 the "Ecclesiologist," as exhibiteii in the last two or three numbers of 

 it, and we may do so with tlie greater facility, as the editors usually 

 exhibit in eacli successive part, in one form or anotlier, the whole of 

 their somewhat scanty stock-in trade. 



Commencing vvith the number of the " Ecclesiologist" last pub- 

 lished (in September^, we find it opening with a paper on the arrange- 

 ment of chancels. 



M'c suppose then a Chancel raisiil a single slt-p of six inches" depth at the 

 Chancel-arch, and, considerably Eastward of this, on t«o oilier steps at 

 least; that it has a plain Allar of substantial malerial placed leuglhi\ise 

 under the East windou', and well furnished with changes of hangings and 

 with Sacred Vessels of proper shape ; that the soulli wall is furnished wilh a 

 single Piscina to carry oil' the water in which the Priest has washed his 

 hands belore Celebration, and westward of this with three Sedilia, or seals 

 for Ihe Celebrant, Kpistler, and Gospeller, eonstrucled, if possible, in the 

 masonry of the wall, if not, consisting of oaken tabernacle-work of appro- 

 priate pattern ; that the north wall is provided wilh a tLVedeuce, resembling 

 either a table, or a niche or bracket ; and that in all oilier respecis our C'han- 

 cel is entirely free, open, and unoccupied : what more does it recpiire P 



We do not think this a fitting place to stop to ask whether the 

 above passage tends to aggravate tlie fears of those who charge this 

 work with favouring Roman Catholicism. We confine ourselves to 

 the architectural tenets, and we wish to show that the doctrines so 

 earnestly advocated respecting the form and position of chancels are, 

 at least, not inexpugnable. We may commence by observing that the 

 above sujipositions are wholly at variance with many existing models 

 - — for instance, the Temple Church, and the Camden Society's pet 

 church, St. Sepulchre's at Cambridge, even if we concede the position 

 of the "Ecclesiologist," that in both of these the whole building east- 

 ward of the circular part be considered a chancel, the aisles of which 

 are alone to be occupied by the laity, who are consequently excluded 

 from (in the former instance at least) the greater part of the sacred 

 edifice. The alleged absolute necessity of a distinct and spacious 

 chancel leads to a difficulty, owing to the general insnificiency of 

 church accommodation, which the conductors of the "Ecclesiologist" 

 cannot have overlooked, but they defend themselves against the dif- 

 ficulty by " many and sound reasons," of which the principal seem to be 

 that a distinction of structure must be made between churches and 

 "conventicles" or "preaching-houses," and next that the ancient 

 churches were all built in the manner they are prescribing. To which 

 last argument we have merely to object, first, that even //'all the ancient 

 churches were built in the manner asserted ; that o/oi/e is not a sufli- 

 cient argument lor so building modern churches: secondly, that tlie 

 ancient churches were j/o/ all so built ; thirdly, that there is reason 

 to believe that in ancient churches the airaiigement of the chancel 

 was altered at the time of the reformation. 



With respect to our first objection, which may be termed the theo- 

 retical, we must consider on what principles it is deemed absolutely 

 necessary to follow the ancient models of Christian architecture with- 

 out the slightest deviation. Obviously on two only; first, that the 

 7)r£Sf)(//)H)7;oses of churches could not be obtained without so doing ; 

 secondly, that all changes of structure must lead to architectural 

 errors. Now it can hardly be said, that the present purposes of 

 churches cannot be adequately obtained witlioul excluding the laity 

 from a large part of them, since sneh an assertion would lead to the 

 conclusion, that the rites of the church had never been celebrated ac- 

 cording to the rubric in any one church in the kingdom for centuries. 

 And if it be contended that the absence of a distinct chancel is neces- 

 sarily an architectural error, the onus probandi lies with those surely 

 wdio make the assertion, to show how it is that the fundamental 

 essence, spirit, and principle of pointed architecture are so indisso- 

 lubly connected with the existence of the chancel as to be incapable of 

 vitality without it. This difficult task the Camden Society have never 

 undertaken, or at least, only by \.\\s petitio principii of quoting ancient 

 authorities. 



We consider that simple considerations such as the above, suc- 

 cessfully dispose of this incessantly urged " necessity of a spacious 

 chancel ;" and our opinion will be much confirmed by reflecting that 

 the ancient churches were bnilt of every form and under every variety 

 of circumstances ; that the laws of Christian architecture, unlike those 

 of Grecian architecture, are susceptible of almost endless adaptation 

 and modification of structure ; that in manv instances the eastern 



part of the church was built first, and even in the times of Roman 

 Catholicism, filled bv the laity, until the western part of the church 

 was erected, and that in many instances the western parts vpere not 

 completed at all. The supposition respecting the Temple Church in 

 London, we consider preposterous, and should probably pronounce the 

 same opinion respecting the Round Church at Cambridge, had not the 

 Camden Society so altered it as to render it impossible to remember 

 its original form. Their alterations in that building they can scarcely 

 call nsloralioiis, in the ordinary acceptation of the word, since they 

 themselves will scarcely assert, that it ever has since its foundation, 

 presented anything like its present appearance. They have destroyed 

 real perpendicular architecture of the time of Henry VII., and built 

 up perpendicular architecture of the 19th century; they have paved 

 the interior with plain brown crockery; feloniously insinuated a table 

 of prothesis; forced the minister into a litany desk; brow-beaten the 

 parishioner into the endurance of a communion table made of stone; 

 and when complained of, make much the same answer tiiat the lion in 

 the fable did to the stork, who pulled the bone out of his throat. 



But we promised to show that there were grounds for believing 

 that the arrangement of church chancels was altered at the Reforma- 

 tion. The canons of the Church require, that " the commandments 

 shall be set up at the east end of every church where the people may 

 best see and read the same." The writers of the " Ecclesiologist," 

 fairly confess themselves in a difficulty respecting this canon, and 

 suggest various means of rendering it inoperative — in their own 

 words " considerations which may help to explain (!) this ordinance." 

 The first of these suggestions is that the east end of every church 

 means the east end of the nave ! Now, supposing for an instant, the 

 east end of the nave to be meant, where can the commandments be 

 placed so that " the people may best see and read the saitie." The 

 "Ecclesiologist" candidly owns " it can only be above the chancel- 

 arch; so high, in most cases, as to be out of people's sight." This 

 admission forces us therefore to believe that when the canon speaks 

 of the east end of the church, it really means the east end of the 

 church. A dangerous assumption truly! For the reformers were 

 such imperfect churchmen that they are seldom allowed to have said 

 what they meant, or to have meant what they said. If, however, the 

 commandments must be placed on the eastern wall of Ihe chancel, and 

 that be the best place for seeing and reading th^^m, we suppose the 

 people must be admitted into the chancel. 



We shall now notice, briefly, a few more of the arrangements which 

 the " Ecclesiologist" would have in their chancel : — 



Tlie entrance-arch must he crossed Ijy a screen. This will be composed of 

 an unequal number of arched compartments, of which the miildle one will 

 span the main alley of the church: that alley, wliich commencing from the 

 lont at the dour stretches along the pathway of a life ot meek devotion, and 

 passing at this poin the gate of death, conducts into the blessed mansion of 

 the church invisible 



This in the nineteentli century ! 



The recipe for making stalls is excellent: — 



" Prayers are to be said, we therefore need a prayer-desk. But 

 an injunction of King James directs that a convenient seat be made 

 for the minister : at the back of our desk we must therefore liave a 

 chair. And putting these two parts, the desk and chair, together, we 

 get a complete stall. But it appears in the contemplation of the 

 prayer-book that more than one person shall take part in the per- 

 formance of divine service — there will be more stalls than one. 

 But since confirraatiop and visitations are, or ought to be held peri- 

 odically in every parish church in the kingdom, and on these occa- 

 sions there will be present a bishop and many priests, it maybe stated 

 generally, that every chancel will be furnished with rows of stalls — 

 say six or nine on each side, and returned against the eastern side of 

 the roodscreen." 



There is something quite dramatic in all this. How the plot 

 thickens. 



The simple innocent "prayer-desk" multiplies and increases as if 

 it were a trick in a pantomime, till at last we have " complete rows 

 of stalls" and, oddly enough, arranged j(is/ in the Roman Catholic 

 manner. Singular coincidence! Quite accidental of course, but 

 curious notwithstanding. 



Before leaving this part of the subject, we may observe, that the 

 principle which the earlier numbers of the " Ecclesiologist" warmly 

 opposed, that Christian architecture may admit modifications in com- 

 pliance with modern requirements, has latterly been distinctly recog- 

 nized, for instance, in the following remarks on Lancet architecture : 



" It cannot be denied, that there are circumstances attending 

 church-worship at the present day which render a certain quantity of 

 light indispensable." + » * "Additional light should be gained 

 rather by the repetition and judicious repetition of single lancets. 

 We have very small printed prayer-books to read, and very popular 



I 



