The tower and spire, which rises at the intersection of the cross, are admirable, especially the latter, which, in my humble opinion, is not unworthy to be placed side by side with those of Louth or Grantham churches.

The tower shews one story above the roof of the nave, which is pierced on each side with two belfry lights, having deeply sunk mouldings and decorated tracery heads. The spire is built entirely of stone, octangular; ornamented with arched openings at intervals in its height. There are strong supporting piers at the four sides of the octagon, which are surmounted with lofty pinnacles, having crocketed and finialed heads. It is worthy of remark that there are no transverse ties or braces of any sort in the height

of the spire. When standing inside it at its base, the eye follows the sides of the octagon till they converge to a point at a vast altitude; and there is a feeling produced at once of the observer's own insignificance, and wonder at the excellence of that constructive principle by which the masses of masonry support themselves.

Without going into further detail, it will be gathered from what has been already said, that Ashbourne church is a very fine one, replete with the varied beauties of Christian art. It is impossible, indeed, to examine it carefully, and not be struck with the energy, skill, and extraordinary munificence of those by whom it was reared. Church building was then, as Mr. Wilberforce, in his "Parochial System" well expresses it, "a luxury, a passion," not, as is now too often the case, a matter of nice calculation and merciless economy. Fortunate is it for the interests of Christian art that a more healthy tone of church doctrine has been revived amongst us; it has been followed, as might have been expected, by an increasing appreciation of the piety and genius which raised the thousand temples for the worship of the Most High standing throughout the land, and a desire, more or less energetically carried out, of equalling, if not excelling, the architectural glories of former days.

Ashbourne church was built, not at one but at successive periods, and exhibits the features of three distinct styles of ecclesiastical art. There is afforded by this fact, another proof, although none be needed, that the usual practice of ancient churchmen was, not to carry out a building to completion in the style in which it was commenced, but to proceed according to what was then deemed the purest and most perfect style of art; to leave the imperfections of a past, and follow the glories of a present age.*

• In Titchfield church, in Hampshire, the arches which divide the south aisle from the nave are early Norman; while those to the north aisle, built subsequently by William of Wykeham, are decorated. The effect is curious, as the same space divided into four arches on the north side is divided into only two on the south.

One word upon the windows, and we proceed to notice the recent restorations. Some of these are very fine; those in the south aisle are perpendicular English and three lighted; there are two large windows in each transept; three in the north and one in the south being decorated, the other a fine example of perpendicular, seven lighted.

The window over the altar is of similar character to this last. In the eastern wall of the north transept are two three-lighted early English windows with clustered shafts and altogether eminently graceful.

And now, Sir, a few words upon the late renovation of this interesting structure. Nearly 40007. has been expended, and while much that has been done deserves the highest commendation, truth requires us to say that there is a great deal highly censurable, both in an ecclesiastical and architectural point of view, and if these defects are but pointed out in a friendly spirit, I cannot but think that some good may be done, if not in this, at least in similar cases.

Besides the substantial repair to the structure, which has been most skilfully managed, it should be mentioned in praise that the whitewash has been entirely scraped off the beautiful columns, capitals, and arches, the beauties of which are, in consequence, after a long interval, once again revealed to view, and the former hideous and unsightly pewing has been replaced by seats much lower, and certainly more regularly placed. In the chancel a new reredos has been added, upon which I have only to say that the absence of the Lord's Prayer, Creed, and Commandments, is against the unvarying practice of the English church. The holy table is miserably meagre, with no covering of any sort upon it, and certainly worse than any gentleman would like to see in his own hall; no part of the service is read from it except on sacramental days. Although the chancel is, I should think, sixty feet deep, yet only about seven feet has been allotted for the enclosed space occupied by the table; and I shall hardly be cre

dited when I say that these rails are placed eastward of some good sedilia in the southern wall, which are thus rendered entirely useless; added to which, the sedilia themselves are so lifted above the floor of the chancel as to involve a clergyman in the use of a small ladder, should he be desirous of occupying his right position (when not officiating) during divine service.

The floor of the chancel, surely, should have been raised to admit of these ornamental features becoming once more useful; increased beauty would have been thereby given to the chancel, when viewed from the west end, to say nothing of its ecclesiastical propriety. But I regret to say that throughout the chancel has been treated as though it were erected for no special purposes, or demanded its own peculiar and ancient arrangements. A stone skreen has been placed about one-third of the depth of the chancel, measuring from the west, which rises about fifteen feet, is glazed with plate glass, and completely shuts off the rest of the chancel from the church. From this skreen down to the transepts a series of children's seats descend, one below the other, like the benches in a lecture theatre, so arranged that the children turn their backs upon the altar, contrary to every principle of correct ecclesiastical arrangement; ponderous galleries have been erected in the nave and south aisle, parts of which entirely block up arches and capitals of great beauty; and immense ornamental staircases lead up to them, occupying space that might otherwise be most profitably appropriated to open seats: and all this has been done -these galleries erected-this encroachment made upon the chancel -when the external appearance of the church, destitute as it is of a north aisle, naturally pointed out the building of one as the proper method of enlargement, which would have afforded the requisite accommodation, and involved the parish in no greater outlay. It is evident that the men who reared the building intended that their suc cessors should extend its area in this way, if enlargement were needed; and it cannot be too strongly regretted that so fine an opportunity has been lost of completing the triple form of the nave.

I have no wish to animadvert further upon the interior of Ashbourne church: that it needs a second restoration is, indeed, evident, but it is a consolation to know that all that has been done to the architecture of the church, strictly so called, deserves praise. I would only say, in conclusion, that, in my opinion, a massive stone rood skreen, even placed in a correct position, under the chancel arch, is contrary to the spirit of the Anglican church ritual. In our cathedrals they have led to the total disuse of the nave, and the intrusion of the laity into the choir, and present now the most obstinate objection to any return to the ancient practice in this respect. I would say never, of course, destroy them when they already exist, but do not re-introduce them, and by glazing them, as is the case at Ashbourne, effectually shut off the chancel from the rest of the church.

If the chancel arch be not sufficient, as, indeed, I think it is, to mark the distinction between the parts of the church set apart respectively for the clergy and laity, the skreen should certainly consist only of light, open wood-work, capable, as it is, of any enrichment, and caus

ing but little obscuration of the chancel. But, in truth, these skreens may very well be dispensed with. Many of the continental churches present an uninterrupted view from west to east; and the unbroken vista, it will be admitted, adds to the sublimity of the general effect. I am, Rev. Sir, your obedient humble servant,

MODERN CHURCHES.

AN ECCLESIOLOGIST.

SIR,-In the Times of Wednesday, the 28th of June, Lord Monteagle is reported to have said in the House of Lords that the sacred edifices now being erected throughout the land are distinguished by "lavish decoration," and consequently involve "needless expense. The observations of his lordship were made in the course of the discussion on the Church Endowment Bill, and certainly are among the most extraordinary it was ever my lot to see made upon this subject; so much so, that I really think his lordship, in the maintenance of such an opinion, must stand among churchmen almost alone.

I have, Sir, heard earnest minded and zealous men lament the absolute meagreness and poverty of the vast majority of the buildings now being erected for the worship of Almighty God; they have spoken bitterly of the humiliation they experience, when the churches reared in this wealthy and luxurious age are placed side by side with those erected centuries ago; and most men will think, in spite of his lordship's opinion, that these laments and self-reproaches are but too strongly and emphatically confirmed by fact.

Costly, indeed, are the decorations, gorgeous the enrichment, which distinguish hundreds of our ancient churches; we see it in the massive towers, the lofty spires, the richly moulded roofs, the elaborate windows, the exquisite detail, with which so many of them abound; evidences there are here of an amount of decoration which stern economists might consider "lavish”—they were the characteristics of an age when, as the Rev. H. Wilberforce well expresses it, church building was a luxury and a passion, and less a matter of nice and measured calculation. I dare say the observations of his lordship, if applied to these, would find some supporters; though, even here, I should demur to the correctness of the terms, and rather look upon these glorious temples as displaying a zeal to which we are strangers, as furnishing an example which we should do well to imitate, and inciting us to an enthusiasm of which it were greatly to be desired we should catch the fire.

But to speak of lavish decorations and needless expense, when referring to the religious edifices of an age, which are certainly more meagre, taking them generally, than any that have been raised since the Reformation; in which, with few exceptions, every conceivable method has been resorted to, to build in the cheapest manner possiblean age in which the usual amount of money spent in erecting a large church varies from 3000l. to 50007.; in which cement has been substituted for stone, terra cotta for ornamental detail, and deal for oak; to apply the words to edifices like these implies at once a singular idea

of what decoration is considered to be, and a somewhat limited acquaintance with ancient models. No, Sir, I feel sure I shall carry with me the concurrence of your readers when I say that well nigh all our churches are perfectly free from any decoration that, without the most pungent satire, can be called lavish. Ceiled houses, overlaid with gold, are numerous enough for the comfort, convenience, and luxury of man, and no one ever thinks of animadverting in terms of severity upon their lavish decorations: it is only when God's glory is concerned, in the rearing of temples for his worship, that the discovery is made that any decoration which is not absolutely useful is lavish, that what would be called meanness elsewhere becomes simplicity here; and that needless cost which if expended upon ourselves would only be deemed a moderate outlay.

But while we conscientiously think that such arguments have, in great part, their root in selfishness, it is not to be denied that with some persons they originate from more unexceptionable, if mistaken, motives; they see in the principle which would decorate a church merely to increase its beauty, the development of what they deem a popish spirit; they think it impossible to revive the glories of medieval architecture without encouraging the doctrinal errors of the system under which, we admit, that architecture was fully developed. In the increasing appreciation of ancient models they only see a relaxation of Protestant zeal; and in suggesting any ornament, however modest, by the symbolical meaning of which the arrangement, decoration, and detail of our churches may be made evident, they more than insinuate that we seek to re-introduce the puerilities of an exploded mysticism.

But without going at present into any length on this subject, it may suffice to say that all this is founded upon a misconception. It is not necessary to arrange our churches for the Romish ritual, even while treading in the footsteps of the ancient builders, and endeavouring to catch the spirit which animates their works; but they may and they ought to equal in material beauty the structures of a less wealthy, less cultivated age. The religious system by which we live should at least lead us to equal zeal, equal self-denial, equal fixedness of purpose, in giving to God the holiest and the best of all we have. In rejecting the doctrinal errors of the ancient churchmen we need not fear to imitate and, if possible, emulate their taste. But this can only be, by preserving a deep consciousness of the little we at present accomplish, and the great interval which separates the plainness and economy of the churches now raised with the lavish decorations and costly splendour of those erected in former times, and which, even now, in their aged beauty, mildly, yet emphatically, reprove our marked inferiority. I am, Rev. Sir, yours respectfully,

ROME.

FREDERICK J. FRANCIS.

SIR,-Like other Tuscan cities, I conceive that Rome had (1) a temple in the citadel, with three chapels to Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, the three chief Tuscan deities; (2) that it was dedicated to one of these