Mr. URBAN,

L'

Jan. 1. INDISFARN, or the Holy Island, in the county of Durham, two miles from the N. E. coast of Northumberland, is about eight miles in circumference, two miles and a quarter long, and one mile and a half broad. It has a town, consisting of a few scattered houses, a church, and formerly a castle of considerable strength. Un der the antient castle is a commodious harbour, defended by a battery. Here is a life-boat, for the preservation of shipwrecked mariners, which, on a sigual made from Bamburgh castle, instantly puts off, in every weather, and has been the means of rescuing many from a watery grave. The island consists of one continued plain, the town standing on the most elevated ground on the South point. It was antiently the See of the Bishop of Lindisfarn, of whom there were twenty-two successively, till the See was translated to Durham. Considerable remains of the old Abbey, subsequently founded, still remain; of the ruins of which you have given a view in Vol. LXXVIII, p. 1137.

The antient Church was in the form of a cross, the body and chancel of which are yet standing; the other parts greatly ruined, and in some places level with the ground.

The inside view (See Plate 1.) is taken on entering the West doorway, and looks direct East; and was communicated by Mr. Wilson, the present excellent Rector, who has a family of twelve children. The architecture is plain; the columns and arches on the left, by their circular turn, are Saxon. On the right, octangular columns and pointed arches; a later work, and not improbably of the fifteenth century. Above the arches plain brackets. The windows in the ailes pointed, agreeing in style with the masonry on the right side, abovenoted. There is also a similar taste in the font, which is octangular. The same method is observable in the pointed arch entering into the chancel, where, in the Eastern window, are three small pointed windows united. The roof is plain, being entirely devoid of tracery.

AN OBSERVER.

and figurative acceptation of words, when their obvious and literal meaning affords a sense which is apposite and unexceptionable. And this rule, as it appears to me, is applicable to the subject, on which I have been desired, with so much civility, by two of your Correspondents (pp. 115. 208.) to say something more; namely, "Whether our blessed Saviour ever used irony in his discourses." It is a question of fact; did he, or did he not? But what fact can be established, if we allow ourselves to explain it away by figure or allegory?

Irony is of two sorts, the grave and the jocular. Of the former there are, I conceive, many instances in holy Scripture; and perhaps we may now and then discern something which approximates to the latter. The Almighty threatens, by the voice of the Preacher, that because, when he stretched out his hand, no man regarded, therefore "I also will laugh at your calamity, I will mock when your fear cometh." Prov. i. 24. 26. If he ever did what he here denounces, who shall call him to account, and say, What doest thou? When Elijah "mocked" the priests of Baal, and said, "Cry aloud; for he is a god, either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked" (1 Kings xviii. 27.); what was this but sarcastic irony?

But the grave irony, which bids a man do a thing, meaning to deter him from it, is more common. The Lord says to the House of Israel by Ezekiel, "Go ye, serve ye every one his idols" (xx. 39); on which Mr. Lowth remarks, that it is "an ironical permission, full of indignation and rebuke." The Lord says by the prophet Amos, "Come to Bethel, and transgress; at Gilgal multiply transgression," iv. 4. "But did it then ever enter into his heart to command, or even to give licence to, any man to sin? Assuredly not, the meaning is the same, as when he says in the next chapter, "Seek not Bethel, nor enter into Gilgal."

To the blessed Jesus "the Spirit was not" indeed " given by measure;" but it was the same Spirit, by which the Prophets also spake; and the same Almighty Spirit speaking in both, why might not the language and forms of expression often be the sam❤

or

or similar? When our Lord says, "Fill ye up the measure of your fathers," what is this but the prohibitory permission of the Prophet, "Go to Bethel," that is, "Go not to Bethel! go at your peril; go if ye are resolved to incur wrath and destruction." And though in the other pas sage, "Full well ye reject the commandment of God," there is not the keen taunt of Elijah's "Cry aloud," yet surely there is a similar, but more gentle, rebuke or upbraiding.

Walton's Polyglott, I am sorry to say, I have not at hand, nor Whitby on the New Testament, to which your Correspondent W. W. refers as authorities for translating the passage interrogatively, which he seems to prefer to the common version. But, with all deference to your learned Correspondent, I cannot bring myself to approve of this translation, "Do ye well reject?" Does this, like the question put to the Prophet, "Dost thou well to be angry?" (Jonah iv. 4.) equally admit, in different circumstances, of Yes or No? Is there any good rejection of God's commandments, as there is, sometimes, justifiable anger? If there is not, then xas is either superfluous, or else we are driven again to the ironical sense, which we are so anxious to avoid. Besides, what coherence is there in this way?"Do ye well reject?-For Moses said." Is not this the introduction of an argument on some preceding position or fact?

S. R. refers me (p. 115) to another learned work, which, alas! I do not possess-Bishop Pearce's Commentary. He has also another expedient in G. Wakefield's "Entirely." In all the passages (and there are 36 of them) where xxλs occurs, its customary acceptation, "well," yields a commodious sense. There is perhaps an instance or two, which will bear the sense of "entirely," but Mark vii. 7. is not one of them. If "entirely" means "universally," it is not true; for the Pharisees did not "reject" all God's commandments, but only such as interfered with their prejudices, or thwarted their covetousIf καλως is rendered “evidenter,” or “clearly," it is a super*W. W. translates it, "Do ye well to reject?" But that rather requires a different reading: καλώς ποιείτε αθετωντες, as 2 Pet. i. 19. καλως ποιείτε προσεχονίες.

ness.

fluous adjunct, it being sufficient to assert the fact simply, and without emphasis, and then to prove it, as our Lord does, by alleging an instance. I conclude, therefore, on the whole, that we cannot without violence depart from what I conceive to be the common punctuation and generally admitted sense of these passages. Yours, &c.

I

Mr. URBAN,

R. C.

April 13. FIND the observations you did me the honour to insert on the Strand Bridge have brought upon me the anger of R. G. "Millwright.” Upon reading his letter, I could not forbear exclaiming, "What sudden anger's this? How have I reaped it ?” (Shakspeare's Henry VIIIth.) Why should a "Millwright" feel himself hurt? Does R. G. consider the construction of a centre as a piece of millwrightery; and, therefore, feel sore for the credit of his craft? If so, make yourself happy, good Mr. Millwright, for no blame can attach to you. It is no part of your profes sion to build a bridge, or to compose or construct the centering thereof. The whole of the business properly appertains to Architecture, which is equally a Science, as well as one of the Fine Arts. And let any man of science look at the truss of the external dome of St. Paul's, at the centre on which the painted dome of the same building was turned; and many other ingenious pieces of carpentry, which will readily occur to the experienced Architect; and even (notwithstanding their faults) at the trusses of Blackfriars and Westminster Bridges; and then turn to view the centre of the Strand Bridge. The difference must immediately strike the observer. If, indeed, the latter was designed by a Millwright," the difference is easily accounted for; as his previous study and experience could not be expected to afford the information of the mode of action in the centre from the progressive weighting; or of the requisile strength or combination to counteract that action, so as to effect the desired purpose with simplicity, safety, and decent economy. Such a person would naturally be led to copy some precedent, and the last he would probably take for granted to be the best; and, not accurately comprehending the principle, he would (under the impression

66

impression of an ignorant fear, and unrestrained by any attention to economy) be induced to make every part as strong as materials could make them. But here, as in most cases, fear would defeat its own purpose; and I think I have pointed out instances where the attempt at strength actual ly introduces weakness.

I fully agree with R. G. that no man is to be blamed for copying a "good precedent." I had gone further than R. G. in my former letter; for I quoted with approbation the remark, that " Happy appropriation is equal to originality." And herein lies all the question: first, is it a good precedent? and, secondly, is it copied and applied with judgment?

I will beg leave to add a few words more in illustration of the trusses used at Blackfriars and Westminster Bridges. Although I pointed out some defects, I was not blind to their merit, but gave them the due praise of ingenuity. The truss for Westminster was invented by Mr. King the carpenter, whose abilities are well known by other specimens of carpentry, as the tower of York Water-works, &c. The truss for Blackfriars was composed by Mr. Mylne, architect; and his design, I have no doubt, was founded on that previous example. But he viewed it with the eye of a master; and, în adapting it, he improved upon it in many respects, so as to be fully entitled to the praise of a happy appropriation." And the best possible proof of the truth and firmness with which Mr. Mylne felt his powers on the subject, is, that his design will bear an advantageous comparison with the former in point of economy.

R. G. charges me with "misunderstanding the subject, and with "partial reasoning.' However deficient in understanding I may be, and however partial my reasoning, R. G. has not succeeded in his attempt to fix that charge upon me. Let us see if he is himself free. Premising that, from the respect I bear to your va luable pages, I shall be as concise as possible; and to the curious Reader, who may desire a further elucidation, I would recommend the perusal of the article Curpentry, in the Edinburgh Encyclopædia, in which he will find the subject treated with great clearness, elegance, and precision. He will there find the principles I have quoted bet

ter expressed, I admit, as well as more fully; yet I thought my language sufficiently clear to be understood by Architects or Carpenters, although apparently not by a Millwright." He will there find that "the science of Carpentry consists in reducing all strains to one; viz. that of compres sion endways; in which case it is difficult to perceive any limit to the strength of the timber." Now, in the Strand Bridge centre, the truss is not so framed as to reduce the strains to this one. To point out wherein it is deficient, would be to repeat the greatest part of my former letter. To your scientific readers must be left the decision.

R. G. says, "there is scarcely any angular motion, further than the elas ticity of the timber ; of course little tendency to rise at the crown." Now. the actual rising of Blackfriars Bridge centre is a fact which is well remembered, as I before stated; and R. G. does not deny it. The qualifying terms scarcely and little are very convenient for blinking an argument. But, in a truss properly constructed to turn an arch on, there should be No tendency to 'rise.

There are some parts of R. G.'s paper of which I must confess my, want of understanding; such as, "The struts are equally strong, provided the intersections be well made," &c. He says, "there is little tendency to break at the intersections;" if so,, why so much strapping and bolting?

The improvement by the three cast-iron cases, distributing the force in three different places on the butment" (in Blackfriars on two only) is not quite clear. Does he mean the iron plate, or shoe, immediately on the striking plate? If so, I see no great improvement. There are at the Strand Bridge six long timbers to bear on the striking plate; at Blackfriars, only four. It would have puzzled even a "Millwright" to bring those six timbers to bear on two places only. Perhaps he means the three enormous iron radiating plates, which I admit are a novelty, and such a novelty, that I am at a loss to find a descriptive name for them; but that they are a

great improvement" I doubt. They appear to have been an after-thought, and applied from a sense of weakness,

"Besides, they shorten the timbers." The main timbers of the truss at Blackfriars