صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

vestry with the building, in an economical and convenient way,to erect a separate octagonal building for the clergyman's robingroom,—would have been informed, that such arrangements satisfactorily proved to the Committee that their aid, at least, in such a case, must be very little needed.

In 1833, any applicant, showing in his plans, "sedilia,” “reredos," a carved stone altar, and "rich stained glass in the centre part of the windows," would have been civilly reminded, that the object of the Society was to increase the means of religious instruction for the poor, and not to aid amateur church-decorators.

But, in 1843, all this is changed. We have now a new Committee, and we have also new ideas of what is "essential to give to the buildings to be erected, the character of churches or chapels of the Church of England." The very same things, therefore, which, in 1833, would have led to the immediate rejection of a plan-now, in 1843, lead to its being adopted, and assisted, and drawings and engravings made of it, and the whole being published in the annual Report, "as one of the best plans of the year;" and as recommended, with all the authority of the Society, to general imitation.

The change, indeed, is not denied or concealed. In the Annual Report for 1842, they plainly state, that they "have carefully revised the suggestions and instructions with regard to the construction and arrangement of churches and chapels which they issue to applicants for aid; and they hope they may thus more fully meet the wishes of their zealous friends." The plain English of which latter words is, "may satisfy the requirements of the Cambridge Camden Society. Of the changes made in these instructions, one or two examples may be given :-to wit,

"The Lord's Table should be raised two or more steps above the floor of the chancel, which should itself be raised a step or two above the floor of the nave.”

"Both reading-pew and pulpit should be so placed as to intercept the view of the east end as little as possible from the body of the Church."

"The seats must be so placed as that no part of the congregation may turn their backs upon the altar."

But, we can scarcely hope to make ourselves understood, in this rather important matter, without placing before our readers one of the three engravings given in the Report. Here, therefore, is the ground-plan of the new church at Eastover, near Bridgwater, which is given at p. 30 of the Society's publication for the present year.

[blocks in formation]
[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors]

Now, here, as the first point which must strike every one, when examining this selected and approved plan,—we may name the extraordinary length of this very small church. Seating only 420 adults, and 80 children, the minister, when officiating at the communion-table, will be 125 feet from the front door, and 116 feet from the furthest bench. And when to this is added, a lofty open roof, it is clear that a reader or preacher, of weak voice, must be quite inaudible to a large part of the congregation.

Now, this we charge as a positive fault in the plan, inasmuch as so small a number of hearers ought to be accommodated within a moderate distance of the minister.

But the Committee point it out as a merit. They say—

"The proportions are such as to give a great EFFECT of internal height and length. The whole congregation will have a view of the chancel unimpeded."

Precisely the same merit is claimed by Mr. Pugin for his new Popish cathedral in St. George's Fields. EFFECT, disregarding all considerations as to hearing or understanding the preacher or reader, is what he there aims at, and glories in.

Galleries are not only omitted, but, by the narrowness of the building, they are precluded from erection, even if needed hereafter. The Committee

say,

"It will be all but impossible to disfigure the building by galleries; so that, whenever an increase of space for worshippers is required, it must be obtained by the addition of aisles, or by building another church or chapel."

A more explicit declaration of the new spirit which animates the Committee, could hardly have been made. In past years, a very large proportion of the Society's grants have been made "for the erection of galleries," and even now they dare not absolutely refuse such applications. And yet, with singular inconsistency, they bring forward, as specially "worthy of imitation," a church in which the addition of galleries, however urgently needed, has been purposely rendered impossible!

Another feature in this plan especially demands notice. The reader will observe, at the north-east corner of the nave, a little pulpit, against which we offer no objection. But where is the reading-desk? The minister is ordered by the rubric "so to stand and turn himself as to be best heard by the people." Where, then, is he placed?

In the chancel;-raised two or three steps, and quite away from the whole of the worshippers, a little desk will be perceived, the only one which either the plan or the view of the interior exhibits. And so here again, utility is entirely sacrificed, in order to seclude the

"priest" from the people, and to place him in "the holy place,"— there to offer up prayers" before the altar," for, rather than with, the congregation. And this is what the Committee designate, in their Report, "the observance of ecclesiastical propriety."

All this tends towards Rome. The spirit which animates this Committee is identically the same, and the results are naturally similar, with the spirit and the results of the labours of the constructors of those numerous Romish chapels and cathedrals, which are now uprearing themselves on every side.

One more important circumstance remains to be adverted to:we mean, the financial waste which very naturally attends the newborn zeal in Catholic architecture.' It has been already observed, that in the very outset of the society, economy was distinctly promised; and a positive rule on this point was adopted, and has ever since been printed in each successive Report, up to the present moment; to wit,

"That it be a condition in every grant, that no expense shall be incurred for ornamental architecture, beyond what shall, by the Committee, be deemed essential to give to the buildings to be erected, the character of Churches or Chapels of the Church of England."

Now this is sufficiently definite. All persons conversant with the subject, know, that in London a respectable church for 1000 persons, can be properly built for £5000, or about £5. per head; while, in the northern or central dioceses, the same amount of accommodation may be obtained for about £3000, or £3. per head. Hence it follows, that when any person comes to the Committee, and says, I propose to build a Church for 1000 persons, which will cost £7000, and I have only got £5000 in hand,"-the Committee might very fitly reply, "Then you have already got all the money that is really needed, and can have no pretence for making any demand upon our funds."

But what has been the course taken by the present Committee ? Why this very Church at Eastover, which they so admire as to give three engravings of it, and to recommend it to general imitation, is to cost, according to their account, £7500. for only fire hundred sittings, or about £15. for each person accommodated!

Have they, then, merely praised it, and held the founder up to imitation? Not at all:-they have actually made a grant of four hundred pounds to this Church; and that, although, before any application was made to them, more than £5000. had been already subscribed, and thus there was already furnished, more than twice as much as a Church for 500 persons needed to have cost. The fact is, that the Society's grant went, not to build a Church, which

was already secured, but to build a chancel, in which "the priest" might seclude himself from the people, during the time when he was "" offering up their prayers to Almighty God." Nor is this by any means a solitary case. Places which have already funds in abundance, now make no difficulty of applying to this Society, for funds to enable them to add divers Romish peculiarities. In the four pages of the list of grants for the past year, we observe the following four instances.

Chingford, where a church is going to be built, for only 473 persons, at a cost of £3500. The Society grants a sum of £150. Eastover, as we have already seen, to seat 500 persons, is to cost £7500; and the Committee grants £400.

Orlingbury, where, while the whole population of the parish is only 352, a church is to be built at a cost of four thousand, one hundred and six pounds! and towards this enormous amount the Committee has made a grant, though only of £50.

Southend, in Kent, a chapel is to be built, to contain only 240 sittings, and to cost £2000. The Committee have granted £200. in aid.

These four grants, at the least, not to mention any others, were all wasted. Not one additional sitting was obtained by the outlay of this £800. The whole was lavished on useless ornament.

Let us review, then, the whole case. This Incorporated Society has been, for years, a Society discountenancing all endeavours to promote the preaching of the gospel. The mere fact, that certain parties desired to build a church, in which, by a trusteeship, the preaching of the gospel should be always secured,-was sufficient to close their doors against the scheme. Hence no channel has existed, in which the Christian benevolence of those who knew and valued the gospel, could flow. Nothing remained for them, but isolated cases, of a church here or there, to which they might contribute if it happened to be brought before them.

Such has long been the state of things. But it has now become even worse. This Incorporated Society has now been taken possession of by the Tractarians, and it is to be employed, in future, as a means of propagating positive Romanism;—in reverence for "the altar," "the chancel," and the priest who offers "the tremendous and unbloody sacrifice." Has not the moment arrived, then, in which some movement to establish a Protestant Church-building Society, ought to be made?

A still further reason remains; in Sir Robert Peel's recent Act for the promotion of Church-building. By that measure an indefinite but very considerable sum is placed at the disposal of the Church Commissioners, for the endowment of new parishes. Thus,

« السابقةمتابعة »