conviction, as well as in the judgment of all around them, as far from any symptoms of a better state of mind, on the verge of the grave, as at the time when they imagined themselves to have many years of health and activity before them.

• But a malefactor on the cross was penitent, and found mercy there. This is undeniable. But look at his companion, whose state of mind is held up to us as a warning of much more general application to the ordinary circumstances and experience of the world, than the penitence of the cross.

The bodily sufferings of this hardened criminal were as severe as those of his associate. His prospect of death was as certain and immediate; he had all its horrors on his mind, and he was in as full possession of his faculties and of his recollection, as his penitent companion; but so far from subduing, his certain approach to immediate death served only to irritate the worst passions of his heart; and he died, as he had lived, full of profligate rage and blasphemy.'

pp. 319-323.

In the thirteenth sermon, The Graves opened,' the venerable Preacher has embarrassed his subject, very unnecessarily we think, by referring to the ancient opinions respecting the case of those holy persons who "came out of the graves" after the resurrection of Christ. We are somewhat surprised that, a writing which professes to express the opinions of 'Thaddeus,' should be quoted as stating expressly, that those holy men remained on earth forty days, while our Lord was there, and afterwards, invisibly ascended with him into heaven, the immediate partakers of his triumph over death and him that hath the power of death.' The Author admits that there is good reason to question the authenticity of this writing as the production of Thaddeus.' So we judge. But the import of the writing is by no means correctly given in the preceding passage. The words of Thaddeus, as we find them in Eusebius, are as follows : ἀνέστη, καὶ συνήγειρε νεκρους τους ἀπ' αἰώνων κεκοιμημένους. Και πῶς κατέβη μόνος, ἀνέβη δὲ μετὰ πολλου όχλου πρὸς τὸν πατέρα autoυ*—' he, (Christ) arose, and at the same time raised from the grave, many who had long been dead; and how he descended alone, but ascended to his Father accompanied by a numerous throng.'

་

This is the entire passage to which the Author refers; and it is evidently less definite than would be requisite to justify the representation of its import contained in our citation from his discourse. But there is a circumstance in the account transmitted by Eusebius, which the Author has clearly overlooked, and which, we apprehend, entirely accords with the opinion of

* Hist. Eccles. Lib. I. Cap. 13.

Tertullian which he censures; namely, that the persons who came out of their graves at this time, were the patriarchs or the prophets.' In this idea,' says the Author, he (Tertullian) seems to be quite unsupported; and it is inconsistent 'with the narrative of the Evangelists,' (the Evangelist-Matthew,) which supposes the individuals who came out of their graves to have been personally known to individuals then alive at Jerusalem.' But the persons who are described in the Eusebian document as being raised from the dead, were evidently persons whose decease had not been so recent as to admit of their having been personally known to individuals living at the time of Christ's resurrection. The sentiments ascribed to Ignatius, in the subsequent paragraph, are to be found only in the interpolated Epistles, (Epist. ad Trallianos,) which we should have been better satisfied to have had left untouched by a serious writer in a grave argument. It is but fair to state, that the only purpose for which the Author has cited the passages in question, is to shew in what manner the ⚫ circumstances related were interpreted in the primitive ages.' But, in a case where the authorities are so doubtful, and in respect to which some readers may be exposed to the danger of being misled by representations which go beyond the simple facts of the Evangelical history, we should have been disposed to advise the omission of the entire paragraphs which are in this discourse devoted to a subject of deep and diffi'cult,' but not, we think, of very interesting inquiry' it is certainly one which an expositor is left to pursue without the aid of Scriptural light.

The interpretation given, in the succeeding division of the discourse, of Ephes. iv. 8, 9, 10, is evidently forced: the passage affords no support to the opinion which it is brought to uphold, that the captives whom our Lord led up with himself on high, were those holy men whose bodies came out of their ' graves after his own resurrection.'

In the sixteenth Sermon, on the separate existence of dis' embodied spirits,' in which the Scriptural evidence on the subject is adduced, we do not find any notice taken of the passage Matt. x. 28, which, in our estimation, is one of the most direct and positive assertions of the doctrine in the whole Bible. These words of Christ's are perfectly free from all obscurity; and they form the basis of an argument to which, in our judgement, no answer can be given.

There is an expression in p. 301, which obviously requires to be corrected-' impenitence on the cross of Christ' it should be, near the cross.

Art. IX. Lectures on Architecture; comprising the History of the Art from the earliest Times to the present Day. By James Elmes, Architect. 8vo. pp. 432. Price 12s. London, 1821.

IN

N all criticisms on subjects connected with Art, there must necessarily be much that is purely conventional. There is no great difficulty in laying down leading principles, and it is equally easy to make inferences from them to a certain extent; but when writers on this subject come to applications at once general and specific, they are too apt to substitute description and declamation, for reasoning and legitimate deduction. Simplicity, for instance, is one of the highest qualities of Art; it may exist in as real perfection in the Acanthus of the Corinthian, as in the unadorned capital of the manly Doric;' and we can distinctly perceive its exaggeration in the rude and naked structures of earlier races, or its utter rejection in the wild and florid magnificence of mosques and pagodas. But when we pursue our inquiries into the various applications of the principle to different styles of ornamental building, when we ask why we prefer the simplicity of the Greek, to that of the Gothic, or the Egyptian architecture, we are not sure that any more satisfactory solution can be given, than that which refers our preference to the effect of early and habitual association. When, for instance, the Parthenon presents itself to our recollection, we immediately and unavoidably invest it with the glories of the Acropolis, and connect with it the fame of Ictinus and Phidias, the proud story' of the heroes who worshipped within its precincts, and the classic splendour of the scenery which surrounded, as with a zone of brightness and of beauty, the rock of which that transcendent edifice was the most distinguished ornament. The superiority of the Grecian sculpture may be determined at once by an appeal to the great archetype, nature; but we are not aware that there is any principle equally absolute, that will apply to the theory and practice of architecture; and even with respect to the first, we find it embarrassed with so many qualifications and restrictions, as to the proper range and limits of art, that we are sometimes disposed to refer the whole matter to feeling and prescription. Utility, indeed, is up to a certain point, an unerring guide in every thing connected with the science and practice of construction, nor can it ever be wholly lost sight of with impunity; but, as a general rule, it is of difficult definition, and in its specific application it seems altogether at variance with decoration, though it has unquestionably suggested many of the forms now considered as ornamental. This is the principle so eloquently discussed by Cicero in his treatise de Oratore, and

which he illustrates by reference to natural and artificial objects, to trees and to men, to ships, to columns, and to the pedimented roof of the Roman Capitol. All of these blend usefulness with beauty and dignity, and derive much of the latter from their obvious and exquisite adaptation to the purposes for which they were designed.

We cannot say that Mr. Elmes has been very successful, either in elucidating the principles, or in tracing the history of his art through the imperfect indications of its early progress. There is very little of profound investigation, or of successful research in these volumes, as far as the monuments of remote antiquity are concerned; and, however acceptable these lectures may have been when delivered orally to mixed audiences, we fear that they will not be found equally interesting, now that they are consigned to a more deliberate examination, and a more competent criticism. In all that regards the immediate knowledge of his profession, Mr. Elmes seems to be completely versed: the most valuable portions of his work are those which relate to scientific construction, and his remarks on the errors of modern architecture are acute and just. Mr. E. seems to have formed his taste on the purest models, and his suggestions for the improvement of the prevailng system, are striking and judicious. A little less parade and somewhat more compression,-less theory and more practical illustration, -with a rigid excision of all the verbiage on the very doubtful subject of patronage, would have reduced his volume in mag nitude, but, in an equal proportion, would have increased its worth.

Mr. Elmes is not always fortunate in his reasonings. In his first lecture, he undertakes to prove that the Egyptians had a ⚫ complete knowledge of the arch,' and, for any thing that we can see to the contrary, he succeeds in establishing the fact, that they were entirely unacquainted with it. He gravely suggests, that the absence of this important feature of architecture. instead of betraying ignorance, shews only contempt; though he admits that the nearest approaches to this scientific element ' of modern' building are to be found in the entrance to the great pyramid at Memphis. He appeals, in support of his hypothesis, to the authority of Belzoni, and expressly mentions the arches of Thebes and Gournou. Now it is quite clear, both that the brick vaults to which, we suppose, he refers, when he speaks of the arches at Thebes,' are of modern construction, and that the opinions of Belzoni, in matters of learning and classical research, are not entitled to much weight. With respect to the arch, as it is called, of Gournou, it is entirely destitute of any pretensions to the name, excepting that it is semi

circular. Instead of voussoirs, it consists simply of parallel stones hollowed into their present form, without a key-stone, or any thing that resembles one. If Mr. Elmes wishes for a correct view of the question, he will do well to consult the valuable travels of Dr. Richardson, who has investigated this subject with his usual learning, good sense, and impartiality. The general remarks on Egyptian architecture, and the analysis of its elements, which occur in these lectures, are just and discriminating.

The second lecture relates principally to the oriental styles, and contains much interesting detail. The third enters on the captivating subject of Grecian art, and displays a just perception of its peculiar excellencies. The criticisms on the Orders are in the same good taste, and will assist the student in forming correct notions on that essential branch of architecture. The observations on Stereotomy, or scientific construction, are both entertaining and important, and we shall extract rather largely from this part of the work.

It was a want of this important knowledge in the architect of the Ratcliffe Library, Oxford, that obliged him to abandon the stone cupola which he had begun to construct over that building, and which caused dreadful fractures in the substructure, threatening final ruin, although encircled with buttresses almost colossal. He finally substituted the present wooden cupola, which evidently does not require those immense contreforts, originally destined to supply the stone cupola with that strength which a correct knowledge of the principles of construction could alone have furnished. The same causes produced, though at a more distant period from its first erection, the tremendous fissures in the cupola of St. Peter's, at Rome, which have been recently admirably and scientifically remedied by the celebrated mechanician Zabaglia. This artist encircled the whole cupola, after the example of Sir Christopher Wren, at St. Paul's, with a stupen. dous iron chain, which should have been inserted on its first erection, as its construction was on such principles as evidently required it. Even if the design should come more perfect from the architect than those just mentioned, yet a want of constructive knowledge in the workman would be no less decisive of instability. Ignorance of this in the workmen occasioned some of the arcades in the river front of Somerset House to fall, on improperly striking the centres, and in consequence of the unfinished abutments having been left without temporary support..........On the other hand, it is a well-grounded knowledge of this important branch of our art which elevates Sir Christopher Wren so much above his compeers and rivals. It is in this respect that his works so eminently excel. St. Paul's cathedral may, perhaps, strike some critics to be faulty in design, but, as a perfect piece of scientific construction, it stands without a rival. I speak with some confidence; for, by the advice of the late Mr. Milne, who was architectural conservator of this grand structure, I occupied myself con