A. ARGUMENTS FOR SYMBOLISM.
I. A PRIORI.
Symbolising spirit of Catholic Antiquity, in
(a) Interpretation of Holy Scriptures.
(b) Analogy of the Jewish Ceremonies.
(c) Private manners.
(d) Emblems in Catacombs, etc.
(e) Symbolical interpretation of Heathen writers.
II. ANALOGICAL.
i. Examples of other nations.
(a) Jews.
(1) Temple rites.
(2) Legal observances.
(3) Sacred books.
(b) Turks.
(c) Infidels.
(1) Hindu and Egyptian Mythology
(2) Persian Poetry.
(d) Heretics.
{xvi}
ii. From Nature.
(a) Trinity.
(b) Resurrection.
(c) Self-sacrifice,
iii. From Art.
(a) Sculpture,
(b) Painting.
(c) Music.
(d) Language of Flowers.
iv. Parabolical teaching.
III. PHILOSOPHICAL.
Objective answering to Subjective.
All effect sacramental of the efficient.
Sacramentality of all Religion.
Ritualism peculiarly and necessarily sacramental.
Church Architecture, a condition of Ritualism.
Necessities induce accidents: and these material expressions.
Example:
Necessities of Ritualism, and their expressions in earlier
and later ages.
Hence Symbolism.
Essential.
Intended.
Conventional, which again becomes intended.
IV. ANALYTICAL.
1. Cruciformity.
2. Ascent to Altar.
3. Orientation.
4. Verticality.
V. INDUCTIVE.
Express and continuous testimony.
(a) Apostolical Constitutions.
(b) Eusebius.
(c) Symbolical writers.
Actual examples.
VI. RECAPITULATION.
B. EXAMPLES OF SYMBOLISM.
I. DOCTRINES.
(a) The Holy Trinity, set forth in
i. Nave and Two Aisles.
ii. Chancel, Nave and Apse,
iii. Clerestory, Triforium, and Pier Arches,
iv. Triple windows.
v. Altar steps.
vi. Triplicity of mouldings,
vii. Minor details.
(b) Regeneration.
i. The octagonal form of Fonts,
ii. The octagonal form of Piers,
iii. Fishes.
(c) Atonement.
i. Cruciformity.
ii. Deviation of Orientation.
iii. Double Cross,
iv. The threat Rood.
v. Details.
(d) Communion of Saints.
II. DETAILS.
(a) Windows: a series of examples.
(b) Doors.
i. Norman tympana.
ii. Double doors in Early English.
(a) These explained in two ways,
(1) Christ's entrance into the world.
(2) Our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
(b) Difference between mouldings of Chancel arches and doors.
(c) Porches.
(d) Chancel Arch and Rood Screen.
(e) Monuments.
(a) Difference of ancient and modern symbolism in these,
(1) Sceptical character of the present age.
(2) Paganism of modern design.
(3) Reality of ancient design.
(b) Historical details of Monuments.
(f) Gurgoyles and Poppyheads.
(g) Flowers used in architecture.
C. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
1. Inequality of type and antitype.
2. Difference of Symbolism in the same arrangement.
3. Mechanical origin.
D. HISTORY OF SYMBOLISM.
1. Norman; as symbolising facts.
2. Early English; as symbolising doctrines.
3. Decorated; as symbolising the connection of doctrines.
4. Perpendicular; as symbolising the progress of Erastianism.
5. Flamboyant, etc.
6. Post Reformation Symbolism.
E. CONCLUSION.
Contrast between a modern and ancient Church.
Laus Deo
{xix}
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY
The study of Church Architecture has within the last few years become so general, and a love for it so widely diffused, that whereas, in a former generation it was a task to excite either, in the present it is rather an object to direct both. An age of church-building, such as this, ought to produce good architects, not only from the great encouragement given to their professional efforts, but from the increasing appreciation of the principles and powers of their art. And yet it cannot be denied, however we may account for the fact, that (at least among those for whom we write, the members of our own communion), no architect has as yet arisen, who appears destined to be the reviver of Christian art. It is not that the rules of the science have not been studied, that the examples bequeathed to us have not been imitated, that the details are not understood. We have (though they are but few) modern buildings of the most perfect proportions, of the most faultless details, and reared with lavish expense. It is that there is an undefined—perhaps almost undefinable—difference between a true 'old church,' and the most perfect of modern temples. In the former, at least till late in the Perpendicular era, we feel that, however {xx} strange the proportions, or extraordinary the details, the effect is church-like. In the latter, we may not be able to blame; but from a certain feeling of unsatisfactoriness, we cannot praise.