Below is an ornament representing an upright human figure, treading upon a serpent; to the right and left are four other "lordly worms," on each side two, endeavouring to sting the figure to death, but apparently to no purpose. This representation appears to symbolise holy Church, or the Christian man, attacked by the powers of evil; but as long as CHRIST is with them, in vain! Side b, to the right; Two crosses, each under a round arch, clearly cut, and in high preservation. Side c, the back; A rich floral Runic worm ornament, to be understood only by a correct engraving, which we hope will some time appear. Side d, to the left; A finely carved true love knot, perhaps used here as emblematic of unity. : This font is mentioned in the following Swedish works: 1. J. Oedman. Chorographia Bahusiensis, Thet är Bahus-Läns beskrifuing. Svo. Stockholm, 1746, p. 180. 2. N. H. Sjöborg. Inledning till kännedom af fädernes-landets Antiquiteter. 8vo. Stockholm, 1797, p. 153. With a coarse engraving of the font. 3. J. G. Liljegren. Svenskt Diplomatarium. Vol. II. pars 1. 4to. Stockholm, 1834, p. 94 (No. 1976) of the Appendix entitled "Monumenta Runica," which last work is also printed separately, in small 8vo. 4. A. E. Holmberg. Bohusläns Historia och Beskrifning. 8vo. Uddevalla, 1845, (Vol. III. p. 301.) About a dozen other Runic fonts remain throughout Scandinavia (see Liljegren, 1. c.) one in Denmark, one in Norway, and the rest in Sweden; but most of these are of a far later date than that now described, which bears every mark of being the work of the 11th century, even though the tradition of the church to which it belonged having been built by S. Olof of Norway (and for which of course no direct proof can be advanced,) should not be accepted by sceptical critics. In Great Britain I am not aware of the existence of any native Runic font, unless the one mentioned above at Bridekirk should still remain. GEORGE STEPHENS. Copenhagen. ROODSCREENS IN HOLLAND. THERE is a good deal to admire in the present condition and arrangement of Dutch churches. They form a curious and (in their way) edifying contrast to those of the Scotch Establishment on the one hand, and to those of Lutheran communities on the other. The few old churches of Scotland are, with one or two exceptions, as everybody knows, filthy, ruinous, and in all respects abominable to a degree that would be disgraceful to the temples of barbarians. Lutheran churches, on the contrary, with their crucifixes and images, their lights and pictures, their chants and introits,-in some cases their chasubles and albs, are a fearful sham. They bear about the same resemblance to Catholicity that a corpse, excited by galvanism, does to a living body. But the Dutch Establishment steers clear, in a very remarkable manner, of filth and sham. The churches are, for the most part admirably kept up; and the arrangement is very real. The Dutchman's sacraments are preaching and hymn singing. He lavishes, therefore, his thousands on his pulpits, and his tens of thousands on his organ-lofts. Marbles of every degree of richness, gilt capitals, brazen balustrades, bases inlaid with different colours, -none of these he thinks too good for what he esteems. He does not profess to believe in the true doctrine of the Blessed Eucharist, and then celebrate it on a kitchen-table. No; he boldly denies the faith, and as boldly abolishes the altar: his heresy is consistent and real. There is one point, however, in which there is, in most Dutch churches, a great want of reality; we mean the choir. This is usually kept up, with the single exception of the destruction of the altar, as it was. Frequently very much elevated above the aisles and presbytery, furnished with stalls and subsellæ, defended by a noble roodscreen, it presents a most imposing appearance, especially if it should so happen that a canopied high-tomb takes the place of, and may to the fancy at a distance represent, the altar. Nay, such a passion have the Dutch for this particular sham, that, in cases where the roodscreen has been destroyed, they will, at great expense, erect a modern one; and in cases where the choir lies absolutely open, without the slightest separation, to its aisles, the screen will be kept locked. We will now proceed to give some details of a few of these screens. Passing over modern instances, such as S. Mary, DORT, where it is of brass, and of Egyptian character; S. Laurence, ROTTERDAM, where it is of brass and marble; S. James, THE HAGUE, and the Niewe Kerk, DELFT, where it is of iron,-we will come to the famous cathedral church of S. Bavon, HAARLEM,-a building, we may remark, about the size of Amiens cathedral. Here the substructure is of wood, and has nine panels on each side the doors. These are enriched with monkeys, and other grotesque figures, carrying shields. Five excessively rich wooden monials,-one in the centre of the doors, the others at each end of the north and south portions of the screen,-run up, and support the framework of the whole. The four latter are buttressed,—two by couchant lions, two by opossums (the artist has supplied the pouches of the latter with buckles and straps). Above this basement is brass work, (seventeen lights on each side the doors, and two in each door,) the most delicate and exquisite that can possibly be conceived. προβλῆτος ἕλιξ πολύκεστος ἀκάνθης ὑγρὰ διερπύζων ἀνελίσσετο, δεσμὸς ἀλήτης, χρύσεος, ἱμερόεις, ἀκίδα τρηχεῖαν ἑλίσσων. The roodbeam is simpler, but has a very rich brazen cresting, flanked at each end by a dog in the same material. This screen is not dated, though various parts of the church are-1400 (?), 1455, 1484, 1530, 1532. The last comes nearest to that of the erection of this most noble structure. The Niewe Kerk, (SS. Mary and Catherine.) AMSTERDAM, has a screen which, though of post-Reformation date, the Batavia Sacra seems to imply that it was erected after 1645,-is, in its way, very fine. The substructure is here of marble; the upper part of brass, and the cresting (in the centre are the national arms) very rich. The bed moulding of the cornice has curious brass dentils. There are two sets of doors, one on each side, and no central passage. Nor is this a postReformation arrangement, as it is found in Dutch screens of unsus pected antiquity. The doors are of solid brass, and so heavy, that it requires a strong man to open the half one. The cost of this erection must have been enormous. S. Laurence, ALKMAAR. This screen is of wood, and is remarkable for having its door not in the centre. There are two divisions, of ten lights each, to the north; one such division to the south. The tracery is elaborate, but thick; the cresting and pinnacles of the roodbeam and its monial-shafts most exquisite. S. Peter, LEYDEN, has one of the most curious screens in Holland. The substructure is wood, the superstructure brass. Here also are two sets of doors. The spaces north and south of these have nine monials, the doors themselves six, and the interspace four. The wooden panelling is worked in very large quatrefoils. The brass foliations are as rich and exquisite as in the other examples. The abbey church of S. Adalbert, EGMONT, had, till its almost total destruction in 1572, one of the finest roodscreens. It seems to have been of marble, with marble arches (perhaps something of the arrangement of S. Ninian's, at Perth); the superstructure of brass, with elegant foliations. But the glory of Dutch roodscreens was undoubtedly that of the metropolitical church of S. Martin, UTRECHT. This church, (which even now, when the nave has been destroyed by a whirlwind, and the choir is consequently cut up by rising seats like a lecture-room, is nothing "less than archangel ruined,") must have been one of the very finest in Europe, and worthy to be the See of S. Willibrord and S. Frederic, S. Alfric and S. Ansfrid. By all accounts. the roodscreen and its roodloft must have been of the very choicest work; and the rituals of Utrecht fully bear this out. All Dutch roodscreens may be summed up, as to their materials, into three heads :-wood, wood and brass, marble and brass. It would be a curious speculation why brass was so largely used. Perhaps the difficulty of procuring either stone or wood is the true cause. From Romanesque to revived Pagan, many of the best churches were built in brick; and the small, red, brick-like stones of which many others are composed, are not at all adapted for carving. Indeed, where brick monials and foliations are so common, we cannot expect stone screens. Hence, too, the brass and copper fonts that occur :-that at S. Walburga, ZUTPHEN, is an excellent example. Other metal work is usually very excellent, as the crane for the font-cover in SS. Antony and Elizabeth, HOOGHSTRAATEN, (South Brabant); the effigies in S. BREDA, and In the village churches, however, where the screens have almost universally been destroyed, they would seem usually to have been of wood. There is a debased example at S. Boniface, RYSWIJK; and there was a very elegant one at S. CASTRICUM. But it is not here we are to look for anything very remarkable ; whereas the screens which such churches as those we have mentioned have, and which formerly existed in such churches as S. John, BOIS-LEDUC; S. Cyriac, HOORN; S. -, MIDDELBURG; S. MEDEMBLICK; S. Pancras, ENKHUISEN; may be considered some of the finest examples of their kind that ever existed. 'SINGING OR SAYING." THE following passage from a most unsuspected authority, Ferdinand Wolf, in his work Ueber die Lais, Sequenzen, und Leiche, is valuable testimony in our favour. It occurs at p. 49. So beweisen diess, ausser den bererts angeführten, folgende Stellen der Trouvères, wobei ich jedoch bemerken muss, dass wenn dire allein (d. h. nicht in verbindung mit chanter, oder dem entgegengesetzt mit conter und lire) für den Vortrag gebraucht wird, dieses, so wie das griechische Aéyew, das lateinische dicere, und das alt- und mittelhochdeutsche sagen, bald singen und sagen, bald nur sagen (d. i. recitieren, erzählen) bedienten könne Et si estoit si affaitiez De dire lais et noviax sons Et rotruhenges et chançons.-BARBAZAN. iii. 117. Ainsi dit Orpheus son lais : Les âmes du triste palais Pour la douçour du son plorerent.-BOREL. Dict. s.v. Lais." In his illustrations, (p. 234,) Wolf supplies us with a number of additional examples. After referring to Fischer's Anacreon, p. 4, Broukhusius in Tibull. II. i. 54, Heydler, Ueber das Wesen der Christl. Kirchenlieder, p. 13, and other writers, he quotes these in stances: S'en doi bien dire chançonette.-BARBAZAN. ii. 372. De tel barnage doit-on dire chanson.-- Rom. d'Amile et d'Amis, in Et pour l'amour qu'il ot a li, Dist en haut ce motet joli.-Roman. de Rénaud. iv. Renart le A cascun més et entremés Nouvel. 408. Fu dite cançons u rondés.-Id. p. 422. From this it appears that, in the language of the Fabliaux, (which, as Wolf shows, was also that of the Medieval Church,) to say, when taken by itself, commonly meant to sing when taken in connection with to sing, it meant to recite,—which, as every one knows, was done on the monotone. CHAMBERLAIN'S THEORY OF CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. THIS is the title of a small volume of sermons, lately published by Mr. Masters, by the Rev. T. Chamberlain, of Christchurch, Oxford. The subjects of some of the sermons will show how important and welltimed is the publication. The sermons discuss, among other things, "The Ritual of Heaven," "Zeal for God's House," and "The Daily Sacrifice" and they are peculiarly valuable in that they enter so fully into that Theory of Christian worship, of which ecclesiology is nothing else than the practical exhibition, and without which no material ecclesiological perfection would be worth a moment's consideration. It is merely ignorance and prejudice that hinder so many well-disposed persons from following the dictates of their own common sense, and religious feelings, in making the house of GoD and the details of His worship as worthy as our finite powers can make them of Him to whom they are offered. And it has often struck us as surprising, that in the teeth of so much scriptural authority as there is for great magnificence in the externals of Divine worship, Puritanism should have been able to persuade so many people that its own meagre and heartless "theory of Christian worship" was in any way consistent with the will of God, as discoverable in Holy Scripture alone. Mr. Chamberlain's sermons are calculated to diffuse better views on the real theory of worship as revealed in Holy Writ, and we welcome him as a most useful colleague in a most important part of our labours-a part too, in its highest aspects, less suitable for our own pages than for the pulpit. A few extracts will best illustrate the value of this volume, which will meet (we hope) with extensive circulation in quarters where these truer views, of what Christian worship is, have yet to make good their way. Our first quotation shall be from Sermon I., "The Ritual of Heaven." "We now pass on to the consideration of what we gather also from this insight vouchsafed to us, into heavenly things, should be the character of the Church's worship while she is militant here in earth. The material building which we set apart to God's service corresponds of course to that glorious temple in which the Apostle witnessed the throne to be set. And here we have authority certainly for every decoration and adornment which nature or art ever supplies. The same sanction is indeed derived from the richly wrought hangings of the tabernacle, made expressly after the pattern showed by GoD to Moses in the mount,' as well as from that still more magnifical fabric raised subsequently by Solomon under the same Divine guidance. But to both these examples, it might be replied, (as it often has been) that we |