Unless he meditated upon them with a mind sincerely pious, they would not improve the heart, neither would they give a tithe of the information that might be gained from a single text of the Gospel. Let any one read the Rationale, and he will see the labour and study necessary to learn the whole; it would exceed all that might be required for the attainment of perfect knowledge of any science, even the most profound and difficult. Such remarks might be continued to a great extent, but those already offered are sufficient to shew that the Rationale is a work altogether useless, except that it exhibits notices of manners and of opinions which, however curious, being tinctured with Romanism, are yet rather to be regarded with regret, seldom with approbation. The work, by attempting to do everything, has done nothing, so that its reprint has only added another volume to the almost numberless tomes that load the shelves of our libraries, where they will be left only to exhibit their backs, never to be read or intended to be read and made available to any good purpose. These observations render it desirable that some means should be devised to secure the good which may be obtained by a proper use of symbols, and prevent the evils that must arise from an improper use. Proper regulations will, it is presumed, effect this desirable purpose. Symbols not of a sacred character, as coats of arms, or designations of professions and trades, may be left to the determinations of individual choice; but symbols intended for religious instruction and improvement ought to bear a character suitable to the purpose, and ought to be subjected to conditions and limitations such as follow. In the first place, let the import of the symbol be obviously clear, strongly impressive, so as to win assent upon the slightest suggestion, and be calculated to invite the mind to pleasing and improving contemplation. Secondly, let the symbol be subjected before adoption to the approval of competent and proper authorities, so that when exhibited to public notice, it may be received with a confidence which dissipates doubts and condemns rejection. Thirdly, let all symbols used in sacred structures be those only that are sanctioned by holy writ. Unless the symbol accord with the conditions prescribed in the first rule, it becomes perplexing, affords no instruction, and even leads to error. If it be of doubtful import, it will suggest vague, obscure, and often inconsistent sentiments: it will for the most part be productive of perplexity, be unpleasant in the use, and, if it receive attention, it will afford but little benefit. Symbols accordant with the preceding rules are such figures of sacred objects as may be ornaments attached to the fabric, and may be either imbedded in the structure or merely appendages affixed to it. Figures of a different character are often imbedded in the structure, and constitute an important portion of its ornaments both external and internal. These, so far from being objects of reverence, are the reverse; they represent folly, vice in all its forms, and evil spirits or mischievous and malignant devils. Instances of these are seen in the gurgoyles, alias the gathercoles, the quondam names of the spouts conveying the rainwater from the roofs. Many of those, though now greatly decayed, are of forms indecent, almost always ridiculous, and intended to excite hatred or contempt. In many churches the stringcourse of the parapet is decorated with heads and other figures of almost every description. Among them are seen the heads of kings, of monks, of beasts, and devils, expressing by the angry countenance or distorted features some malignant passion, or by their stupid features absurdity or folly. Figures of the same character constitute the corbels supporting the dripstones of doors and windows. Whatever they may be, they are exhibited as objects of hatred or contempt. They are always found in situations apparently of duresse, and indicative of subjection and slavery. This practice is in principle the same as that adopted by the ancient Greeks, when they introduced into their sacred structures the figures called Caryatides. Many of the idols of the Hindu pantheon are exhibited treading on their enemies. In the introductory essay to the Rationale it is stated, that "victory over the Devil is symbolized in St. Peter's Church, Oxford, by the piers which rest on and crush a monster." Thus general is the use of symbols of this import. The Camden editors of Durandus state facts, which fully confirm these opinions concerning the import of the figures above mentioned. Speaking of the abuses of symbolism, they mention with regret the application of symbolical figures to signify and record the feuds between, as they say, the secular and regular clergy of Romanism.9 They make mention of ornaments which they call stallwork, exhibiting a fox preaching to geese; an ass's head under a cowl; a gurgoyle with a cowled double face. In stalls in the church of East Brent, Somersetshire, a fox is exhibited hanged by a goose, with two cubs yelping at the foot of the gallows: a monkey at prayers with an owl perched over his head: another monkey holding a halbert: a fox with mitre and staff: a young fox in chains, a bag of money in his right paw and geese and cranes on each side. The history of the centuries immediately preceding the age of the Reformation affords a general interpretation of these satirical symbols; the particular persons and facts intended by them were doubtless well known at the time when they were wrought. The same may be affirmed of the ornaments used in the corbels and other parts of the structures, whether externally or internally. These facts, which may justly be called the abuse of symbols, subservient as they may be made to passions utterly incompatible with Christian charity • Moor, Hind. Panth. plates. PIntrod. Durand. p. 120. ¶ Ibid. p. 111. or benevolence, shew the justness of the position that the use of symbols ought to be subject to some salutary and efficient control. may The strange grotesque figures seen in gurgoyles and corbels have been intended to serve another purpose formerly held to be of the utmost importance,-to counteract and prevent the mischiefs that it was imagined might befall the sacred fabric from fascination by an evil or malignant eye, which, it was believed, might grievously affect the welfare and fortune of things either animate or inanimate. Prejudices of this kind seem to have prevailed from ages of the earliest antiquity. The Trojan Hector, when in pursuit of the Grecian Diomedes and eager for the combat, deprecates, ere he makes the attack, all evil influence or fascination by exclaiming, "Avaunt the evil eye." The shepherd Menalcas, in the third Eclogue of Virgil, complains, Some eye I know not fascinates my lambs.s Horace, reciting the advantages of retirement at his rural villa, observes, There none with eye oblique my fortune mars.t Pliny writes a long chapter, shewing by what means ill luck may be averted. The author of Observations on Popular Antiquities shews by a variety of cases that the very same notions were not long ago very generally received in England, and that though the faith in them be now on the decline, yet that it is by no means extinct." At the time when most of our churches were built, the belief in the power of fascination was entertained in all its force, and among the means adopted to avert the mischiefs of an evil, that is, a malignant, eye from churches, figures likely to excite laughter and good humour may be presumed to have been introduced into the fabric of our churches. r Iliad. . v. 164. s Eclog. iii. v. 103. u Brand. vol. ii. p. 399. CHAPTER IX. THE ORNAMENTS OF CHURCHES. ON reference made to the statements given in the preceding pages, it will be found that symbolical exhibitions of the doctrines of religion have been constantly used by all people of all ages, whether they may have been the true worshippers of the Deity, or whether they may have been idolaters. The use of symbols has not only been general, but the symbols used have been, with some few exceptions, the same, with this difference, that by the faithful the symbols were regarded with intelligent respect only, by the idolaters they were made the objects of religious worship. The reason for this similarity will be found in the identity of the principles which led to the choice of the symbols. The forms of all sacred structures originated in the altar and the grove in the middle of the Garden of Eden. An altar in a grove, the imitation of the temple in the Garden, became the temple of Adam after the expulsion. Until an extended knowledge of the different regions of the earth had been acquired, the hill of the Garden was supposed to be the world man was destined to inhabit, |