may be possible, as Mr. Richardson proved in his masterly handling of the Romanesque styles, to clothe the constructive elements of Gothic, the pointed arch, the intricate vaulting, and the flying buttress with modern detail and to handle the masses in a way to bring them into harmony with modern impulses and requirements, and this is the hope and faith of those who still advocate the use of Gothic forms. They feel that the Renaissance style is worldly, with strong tendency toward splendor and sumptuousness, forgetting the simplicity and severity even, of many of its buildings, and also, that the lack of what they call "structural truth" makes it unsuited for church architecture, Henry Ives Cobb, Architect. PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH AT LAKE FOREST, ILL. a slavish copying of old forms is a movement at variance with all progress. If the principles of construction of mediæval churches is to be retained as being adapted in many instances to church buildings, and as having for it the force of tradition, association of ideas and sentiment, why slavishly reproduce the grotesques and the mystic symbolisms, which meant a great deal to both workmen and worshipper in the Middle Ages, but are not now significant to either, and lacking any vitalizing inspiration cannot be successfully executed. The conditions that made Gothic architecture beautiful, and a sincere expression of the men who developed it, have changed and cannot be brought to life again. It Rotch&Tilden, Architects. CHURCH OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, MATTAPAN, MASS. while the Gothic, they claim, with an obvious and direct purpose in every abutment and line of its exterior, is by nature and tradition the best suited for religious structures, and this argument against the Renaissance in church edifices they assert, applies with particular force against its use in small country churches, where simplicity and directness should particularly prevail. These considerations of the past and present of country churcharchitecture lead up to a few practical suggestions for congregations who contemplate erecting new buildings: Cass Gilbert, Architect. BETHLEHEM PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH AT ST. PAUL, MINN. When a congregation in a small town decides that it wants a church building, the first thing that is usually agreed upon is the total amount of money it can afford to spend. This is on recommendation from the Board of Trustees, or other similar body that has to do with church finances. A building committee is then chosen, into which more or less church politics occasionally enters. In a majority of cases the building committee represents a fair average of business acuteness and native shrewdness, but no knowledge of architectA leading merchant, a local banker, a prosperous farmer, and a country lawyer may find themselves acting together on such a committee, and each with the very best intentions to do their full duty toward the congregation. They will easily agree that they want the most for their money, and that every cent shall be honestly spent. The committee are probably the best people in the congregation to carry out these ure. economic purposes, but they are confronted with a very different problem, in which their business success counts for nothing. This problem is an artistic one--the æsthetic adaptation of a building to the worship of God. The committee no doubt have strong preconceived ideas as to what a church ought to be, just as every man has "notions" founded on some association of his boyhood or passing glimpse of a building seen in travel, but of architecture as an art they have no conception. Any building committee that realizes from the start that it has no more right to get its architecture at haphazard than a layman has to pick up medical and legal advice at haphazard has made a good beginning. A shrewd business man always consults the best lawyer or doctor he knows for advice, because the mistakes of beginners are too costly; so a shrewd building committee will immediately seek the advice of the best architect available. There is a widespread misconception on this point. People very generally believe, that leading architects are not available for small jobs in country towns, and this is in a measure true, but if a good architect with a large practice cannot give sufficient time to a small work, he will frankly say so, and he can, better than any one else, pick out amongst the promising younger men, whose practice is not so large, the one likely to give honest service, and perhaps the ideal solution of the problem. The mistake that committees frequently make is to send to some man advertised in a church paper, who agrees to submit plans for a church of any named price on appli'cation, and these machine - made plans, often modified by a local builder, may thus decorate the most prominent village corner for half a century an ever present eyesore, and a blot. Another and perhaps more frequent mistake is to send to the nearest large town for some builder who is locally known as "a good hand at building churches," and the whole thing is turned over to him at a contract price, which enables him to work off some stereotyped old plan that he has developed through years of experiment in church building. Now, it is perfectly feasible for the committee to employ expert and approved talent in architecture at a well-known fixed fee, which has been approved by the "American Institute of Architects," and has become recognized by the courts as the proper and usual remuneration of the architect in the absence of any definite agreement to the contrary. This upon buildings costing more than $10,000 is five per cent. of the cost of the work. If it is proposed to build a church costing $20,ooo, the committee can for one-twentieth of that amount secure complete original plans, adapted to the special site and needs of the congregation, with the general supervision by the architect of the work of the builder, which means "such inspection by the architect or his deputy of a building or other work in process of erection, completion, or alteration as he finds necessary to ascertain whether it is being executed in conformity with his designs and specifications or directions, and to enable him to decide when the successive instalments or payments provided for in the contract or agreement are due or payable." Surely this is a reasonable sum to pay, if thereby the congregation can secure a guarantee of good taste, good workmanship, and good accommodations. Suppose they do not employ an architect, hoping to save his fee? Then they will not only surely fail of beauty and æsthetic success, but in all probability the practical blunders made, things which must either be endured or well paid for to remedy them, will far outweigh the small economy that saved an architect's fee. The wise committee, having selected an able architect will turn the matter over to him as completely as they would a critical case of disease to a physician. Nothing is to be gained by employing a good architect and then insisting on your own modifications of his plan. It is not unusual for a committee to unwisely restrict an archi tect by giving him an extremely limited site to work upon with an insufficient sum to be expended on it, and then insist that his plans shall include church, chapel, rectory, deep chancel, spacious organ - loft, etc. Given a certain site and a certain sum of money, there is a well-defined limit of possibilities beyond which no architect can go, and every committee will do wisely to weigh well and carefully consider the advice of their architect on these points. The site is usually fixed by certain conditions over which a committee have little control. Congregations frequently prefer to rebuild on their old site, either for association's sake, or because they are tied to it perpetually by some deed of gift, or by the desirability of being in a given locality. A good architect will make the best of a bad site, as well as of a good site. He will take into consideration the surrounding buildings, which may be poor things architecturally, and atrocious in color and design, but the architect will so design his church that it will be a constant rebuke to the bad taste of its surroundings. A. Page Brown, Architect. INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR OF SWEDENBORGIAN CHURCH AT SAN FRANCISCO, CAL. A committee is often confronted with the problem of spending part of its fund in buying more land or putting it all into the new building without enlarging the site. On this point the architect's advice should be given very great weight. On two points the committee have a right to consider their own judgment final-the number of people who are to be seated in the church, and the total cost. Given these fixed quantities, the rest should be left to the architect. A well-known architect recently said that he would make many sacrifices of time and convenience to build a church, because it gave him a chance at both an artistic exterior and interior. In most buildings, the architect is chiefly concerned from the ar |