fact that you may be unable to proceed with the thinking because of the obtrusion of trees or sky or water, the physical charm which these exert and the empty-headedness which at first they seem to induce. But that empty-headedness is the first thing you need, the preliminary condition to the clear-headedness you came for. Just so, the physical beauties of the house of worship should tend to produce this desirable condition of readiness for the positive message of the hour.

Some of the churches which have moved the pulpit from the central position have made an ineffective compromise. They have moved it and not moved it, building a prominent pulpit from which the sermon is delivered, retaining a less prominent desk in the middle of the platform. Such is the plan in the Fourth Presbyterian Church of Chicago. The pulpit proper is very beautiful and placed in a most commanding position on the great pier of the crossing, but the point of the central visual interest is weakly handled. It is an uninteresting mass of chairs, tables, and choir screening. There is nothing religiously appropriate in the prominence of a choir collected in a gallery behind the preacher. In this building especially, the long lines of a majestic nave strongly lead the attention toward the focal point, but when it gets there, there is nothing there. The whole effect is as if you were to look upon the Sistine Madonna after someone had pasted blank paper over the face of the Virgin.

Shall the average church, then, build with a chancel or not? It depends upon what kind of exercise is to be conducted in it, and partly upon what the people go there for. If the building is to be merely an auditorium, that is, a place to hear in, then it makes little difference. But more and more, modern churches are not being considered as meetinghouses or auditoriums.

When the church spends its money to make a more beautiful structure, it does not do so in order to improve it as a place to hear in but as a place to look in. But so soon as you desire to make a successful appeal to the eye, you must follow the canons of looking and not those of hearing.

If the dependence of future church worship is to be chiefly the sermon, the central pulpit is sufficient. But if there is to

be developed in any kind of genuine sense an art of worship, then there is demanded a more manageable space and a more symbolic differentiation of parts. The possibilities of liturgical and ceremonial improvements are greatly obstructed by high platform and central pulpit; and this entirely apart from any question of reviving any ancient ritual. The traditional chancel plan is just as desirable from the point of view of the invention of new kinds of exercises. It is adaptable in almost unlimited ways. There are no sound objections against it. It dignifies a very small chapel : it is necessary to a great cathedral-like church. It is beautiful, practical, churchly, and positively suggestive to the religious imagination.

I

Chapter XXII: Practicable Matters

T is always advisable for persons who wish to build beautifully to be sure that they are also building prac

tically. The parish life of most modern churches includes a greater variety of other concerns than those of worship. These must not be forgotten. And, also, any movement to improve the beauty of church buildings in general should be concerned for the small parish as well as for the larger. The suggestions must be practicable on a small scale.

First of all, educational facilities are required. It is no longer considered important for this purpose that there be an assembly hall. The younger scholars need separate departmental rooms, the older should meet for assembly in the main church. But all the junior, intermediate, and adult classes should be provided with separate classrooms. These rooms may be also utilized as clubrooms. The Church School building should have very much the character of the regular public school building, on a smaller scale. Some of the recent church plants with an elaborate provision for the Church School have more halls and large rooms than they need and not enough small classrooms and clubrooms.

The social life of the modern parish requires at least one large space for church suppers and other large gatherings. It ought also to have, wherever possible, smaller rooms that are particularly attractive in their furnishings, one or more clublike rooms for men, and one or more pleasant parlors for women. If there is a gymnasium, the same space may be arranged for dramatic presentations such as are not suitable for the main church.

The placement of the building, large or small, deserves the greatest consideration. If possible, the floor of the main church should not be too far above the ground. An easy and inviting entrance is very difficult when too many stair steps are necessary. Whether the church be in the city or in the

country, passers-by should be able at times to get a glimpse of the lighted interior, and to hear the sounds of the organ. All the educational and social rooms should be placed above the ground if possible.

The smaller church and its equipment needs to be given more attention on the part of architects. There is a too common feeling that only the large and rich church can have a beautiful building and adequate parish equipment. It is true that most of the significant illustrations of current usages as to architectural style relate to large and costly buildings. Whatever is done in the large, however, sooner or later affects the style and manner of the small. Precisely the same canons of good artistry apply to the most modest buildings.

It is no more costly to build a very small church beautifully than it is to build an ugly one. On the contrary, my own observation leads me to think that much of the unnecessary expense in many small churches has detracted from the beauty of the buildings rather than added to them. Far too many small churches are not sufficiently plain, direct, and simple. Success in this matter is not a question of materials nor of size but of taste and artistry.

Yet there are especial problems in the small building. It is difficult to design a small church so that it will intimate big ideas. It is hard to secure sufficient dignity in a structure that does not have an amplitude of scale, but it can be done. Mr. Cram's little chapel at Arlington and Mr. Goodhue's little side chapel at St. Bartholomew's in New York are scarce twenty feet wide, but they are more dignified and impressive than some of the biggest churches in the country. They prove conclusively that the small building need not lack dignity. By the right proportions and something to give the interior a religious tone, a very small church may be just as inducive to reverence as a large one. On the whole, no single feature of the plan besides these matters of proportion and tone will so help the small building in dignity as a chancel. The simple arrangement of placing the communion table centrally in the interior composition at once specifies the religious character of the building. Immediately there is