THE ROUND CHURCHES.-ST. SEPULCHRE'S, CAMBRIDGE.-FONT OF ST. MARY MAGDALEN, OXFORD.

The architectural sketch, which we have been permitted to copy, of the north-west gable and angular bell-tower of the south aisle of Saint Sepulchre's Church, Cambridge, will, we trust, be acceptable and useful to our readers: acceptable, in addition to the view in our last number, as giving a more complete idea of the restoration which is in progress; and useful, as suggesting a feature which we think may be advantageously imitated in many a small village oratory or chapel of ease. The northwest view of the church, when the rebuilding of the north aisle is completed, will be very fine. Those who remember the miserable modern brick walls of the recent south aisle will at once appreciate the judgment of Mr. Salvin, the architect, in regard to the annexed plan, which, ere many weeks have elapsed, will be embodied in wrought freestone.

Several curious particulars have been collected by architectural antiquarians, respecting the adoption of circular forms by Greeks and Romans, by the Druids, and by Christians, in the construction of places of religious worship. The notice of these, for the present at least, we must pass over. The notion that such a form was adopted by the Jews seems to be without foundation; and Mr. Essex, in the sixth volume of the Archæologia, (1782), seems satisfactorily to have proved that the round church at Cambridge was not built by them, but that their residence and synagogue was in another part of the town, near the Guildhall; and that the church was erected possibly by some of the Knights Templars, more probably by some crusader before the flourishing state of that military order in England. He observes that "it will be easier to ascertain the age, than to tell who was the founder of it; for the age may be nearly ascertained by the style of the building, which, notwithstanding the alterations and additions which have been made to it, has so much of the original left, that I have been able to trace it in all its parts, and represent it in the state in which the builders left it; and from thence I may venture to pronounce that it was built in the reign of Henry I., or between the first and second crusades; and is, I apprehend, the oldest church of this form in England, being built before the Templars became masters of the vast property they had afterwards in this and other parts of Europe”—P. 173.

With these views of Mr. Essex, Britton, in his first volume of Architectural Antiquities, agrees. But while Mr. Essex doubts whether this church ever belonged to the Templars, Mr. Clarke, in his Observations on Round Churches, which Mr. Britton has subjoined to his own essay on the subject, seems satisfactorily to shew that of the four round churches now remaining in England, those of St. Sepulchre, Cambridge, and St. Sepulchre, Northampton, "were not the work of the Templars, or at all connected with that order of knighthood." He gives the following very probable conjecture as to the origin of the Cambridge round church; and, in the absence and destruction of records, conjecture is our only resource. Mr. Clarke's supposition, however, gives us the same date of the foundation, viz. the reign of Henry I. We quote his words:

Among the most strenuous leaders in the first crusade, instituted by Pope Urban II. in 1096, was Robert Duke of Normandy. His standardbearer, Sir Payn Peverell, an eminent soldier, was the founder of Barnwell Abbey, in Cambridgeshire [about a mile from St. Sepulchre's

Church]. This he did after his return from the crusade, and placed therein thirty monks, being equal in number to the years of his own age. [Perhaps he enlarged a previous house of Augustinain Canons, and in the year 1112 (12 Hen. I.)]. To this monastery we find St. Sepulchre's Church appropriated; and as it was the custom of the regulars to obtain vicarages to be ordained in churches of which they were the patrons, we may with the greatest reason suppose that this church was the work of this famous Norman soldier, as he is called by our historians. He was at the taking of Jerusalem, with Duke Robert, in July, 1099, and probably returned with him the following year; and as the style of this building seems not far from the first Norman, I am disposed to assign it to an early part of the twelfth century; which, if allowed, will also show it to have existed prior to the Templars having possessions in England, and likely before their institution in the East.' [A.D. 1118.-It is said that the church was consecrated in A.D. 1101 (I Hen. I.)]

It is evident, however, as he observes, that as the church of the sepulchre at Jerusalem is "the archetype of these structures," they were the work of those "who deemed it the honour of their lives to have contributed to rescue that venerated temple from infidel hands." The "round church of the Resurrection at Jerusalem," described by Bede, (Resurrectionis Dominicæ rotunda ecclesia, tribus cincta parietibus, duodecim columnis sustentatur. Loc. Sanc. X.) was originally built by Helena, with the aid of her son Constantine, the first Christian emperor. Jerusalem being taken by the Saracens in 637, and the repairs of this and other churches being neglected until the year 813, Charlemagne, by permission of the then Caliph Aaron, rebuilt the church of the holy sepulchre ; which was again repaired and restored, and, it may be, partly rebuilt, when Jerusalem again came into Christian hands. Charlemagne himself built a round church at Aix la Chapelle; and numerous, both in earlier and later times, have been the imitations of the form of that sacred edifice. The pillars and the whole building were probably arranged in this manner to afford to a numerous assembly an equal view of the central sacred object, the supposed holy sepulchre. With the same view of accommodating a numerous assembly, Baptisteries have been erected of the circular or octagonal form, the font being placed in the middle.

The church has a circular wall, originally perforated with six roundheaded windows; and an ornamented doorway of the same form. The latter has suffered no alteration; but the former were all altered by widening, and the introduction of mullions, &c.; but have now been restored to their former character. Within the outer wall is a circular colonnade of eight columns; which are short and massy, without any base, and with narrow ornamented capitals, varied in the different columns. Eight semicircular arches spring from these, besides some groined mouldings, which support the arched roof of the surrounding circular aisle, between the outer wall and the pillars. Above the arches is the usual arched arcade, under a circular clerestory, the windows of which have also been lately restored to their original Norman character. In the reign of Edward II. another story was added, as a belfry, and filled with similar more modern windows. This absurd addition, which destroyed the character of the building, and imposed a weight on the pillars, for which they were never designed, is now removed.

The east end, or chancel, was built in the year 1313, as appears by a document. A north aisle was added, and perhaps afterwards rebuilt

with red brick. These are now rebuilt, so far as necessary, in stone; and a corresponding south aisle, making the plan similar to that of the chancel of the Temple Church, London; so that, when the walls are completed, the parishioners will have a much more commodious place for worship. When officiating in the church, as it existed until lately, one was placed, as it were, at the junction of two separate churches, holding, it might be, congregations, but invisible to the clergyman. Every portion of the original work is preserved or restored, and the new work erected in full harmony with it.

Funds are still wanted by the Cambridge Camden Society to carry out all that it is desirable to effect. The most ancient of the round English churches, one of the most curious remains of former times, has been rescued from a state of threatening danger, which caused the suspension of Divine service, and foreboded perhaps irrecoverable dilapidation. What remains to be done is to complete the more ample accommodation for the parishioners; and to supply such ornamental additions of stained glass, and otherwise, as may restore this interesting edifice, esteemed to be the most exact model of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, to its pristine glory. All the windows in the round, except two in the clerestory and two in the circular aisle, have been appropriately fitted with stained glass of great beauty, the gift of individual contributors.

We have barely space to remark, that we have given an engraving of the exquisitely beautiful font, in the Church of St. Mary Magdalen, Oxford. The fonts in our churches, except when they have been religiously preserved, as relics, out of a building of an carlier style, are generally of the style of the building itself: and hence the very numerous Norman fonts still existing in churches of every later style. The fonts are a peculiarly interesting feature in our churches, both in other respects, and in an architectural point of view. Two beautiful perpendicular fonts are in the engraver's hands, and we hope to return to the subject. "The Church of St. Mary Magdalen," says Mr. Rickman, "is a small church, much of which is of the decorated style; with some good windows; the south aisle has the waved line pierced parapet, and buttresses, with canopies and niches of remarkably beautiful composition. Its font is a fine one." Can a beter model be selected, where it may be suitable in regard to style? Our own eye is never wearied in ohserving its elegant curve and tracery. "Edward III., in the eleventh year of his reign, A.D. 1337, renewed the south aisle of this church; the font is nearly of the same date. The height is 3 feet 8 inches; outside diameter 2 feet 11 inches, inside ditto, 2 feet 31; depth, 1 foot 1 inch."-Simpson's Fonts.

CORRESPONDENCE.

[The Editor feels it right to make the usual disclaimer of responsibility for the opinions of Correspondents.]

LATITUDINARIANISM VERSUS BIGOTRY (?).

REVEREND SIR,-Every candidate for holy orders, at his Ordination, vows 66 by all proper means in his power to drive all false doctrine out of his parish," or words to that effect, I believe. What then can we say of a Clergyman, who designates Episcopacy, Apostolical succession, &c., NON ESSENTIALS; "but that he is inconsistent,-one who eats the Church's bread, and, at the same time, seeks to undermine her constitution. And such was the language, yesterday morning, of the Rev. ,whilst preaching against Bigotry (so called). [Ordinances and customs of the Church, as old as St. Paul, are, in this enlightened age, constantly ascribed to Dr. Pusey].

Now, what is the inference which will naturally be drawn from this assertion of the Reverend Gentleman, by his credulous and misinformed admirers ?-and he has a large congregation composed chiefly of the humbler classes of society. Plainly this-that there is no essential difference between the Catholic Clergy and the schismatic teachers of rebellion, discord, and strife. To pursue the subject a little further, let us, in our imagination, follow one of his deluded hearers out of the neighbourhood of his favourite preacher, and tossed about by every wind of doctrine, and unable to find within the Church another "Gospel Preacher" to suit his itching ears. We next find him in a conventicle," sitting under " some noisy fanatic and here he learns that baptism too is a non-essential, and matrimony is superseded by legalised concubinage! This is no overdrawn picture. But is such unsound doctrine to be heard from our pulpits,-and is there no redress? If Mr. considers Episcopacy non-essential why did he seek Episcopal Ordination? Why not become the pastor of an "Evangelical Church," as the cant phrase is?

But I fear I am trespassing too far upon your space-so thanking God that I am a member of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and steadfastly purposing to continue in the old paths,

I remain, Reverend Sir, your most obedient servant,

1 Jan. 1842. J. M. [We think with our correspondent, that such teaching is injurious. We never like to hear even an opponent remark that the constitution of the Christian Church is nonessential. The constitution is as necessary as the doctrine of the Church; for if we are not individually Churches, each one of us, we cannot be associated without some constitution, and the only real question is which is Scriptural, Apostolic, and Primitive? The Episcopalian need never fear the discussion of that question; and we sincerely hope that there are very few congregations whose ministers lead them to undervalue the privilege of unity secured to them under our Catholic Episcopacy. We at least cannot understand why the circumstances and occurrences of the times do not more and more prove the essential importance of Episcopacy for the preservation of truth, unity, and peace.-ED.] [P.S. We have lately received another letter, we believe from an attendant at the same Church; and this letter further proves, how exceedingly unsettling and distressing such assertions are. We understand reference was made to the 19th Article, as showing that the Church deemed such matters indifferent. But is there no notice of such matters in the other following articles on the subject of the Church; which enlarge on the several particulars of that first and introductory one? In reference to one of the questions arising out of the 19th Article-"Who can duly minister the Sacraments, &c., according to Christ's ordinance "-read in order Articles 23, 26, 32, 36, and say whether our Church deems Episcopacy, and the three orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, less essential in their place, than the other vital truths to which the Church requires the subscription of her ministers, while it leaves other questions open. But pass on, from the 36th Article, to the Services of Consecration and Ordination, to which it refers, and which it includes, and to which therefore the Clergy have assented. Does the preface to those services indicate any notion that Episcopal Ordination and succession "from the Apostles' time" are non-essentials? If that preface were absent, we dare rest the whole question on the Services themselves. But if the Reverend applies to be admitted into the Scottish Kirk, he will have to declare against Episcopacy, and for the divine right of Presbytery; and if he goes among the Independents, he will be expected to give his reasons for thinking their single self-constituted voluntary churches, the only true models of a Gospel Church, as any account of their (so-called) ordinations, and recognitions of Pastors will show. We repeat it, if any Churchman calls these things non-essentials, "to his own master he stands or falls," -we regret to think that he teaches not according to Scripture, or the Church; and that he may take a lesson from any body of dissenters whatever; who will none of them tell him that the constitution of the Church is a nonessential. On this, as we think, very essential subject, we request attention to the following extract from a charge of Bishop Horne. ED.]

"The constitution and use of the Church of Christ is a subject on which our principles for some years past, have been very unsettled, and our knowledge precarious and superficial. Ignorance is dangerous here, because there are so many whose interest it is to flatter us in it, and to take advantage of it. The definition of the Church, contained in our articles, was purposely less definitive than it might have been, to avoid giving further offence to those whom we rather wished to reconcile; but it does not appear that the Church hath gained anything by its moderation; it hath rather lost; because in virtue of that moderation, hath been pleaded against us that ecclesiastical unity may be dispensed with, and that all our differences in this matter are only problematical and immaterial.

But