eminence by the Phoenicians; the Parthenon on the Acropolis at Athens; the temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline hill at Rome, a hill which the Arcadians of old Evander did scarcely dare to approach. In new settlements the temple was commonly included within the fortifications of the acropolis. The temple at Jerusalem was also on a hill, so placed in compliance with the prejudices of the times: but it opposed the usages of the idolaters, for the entrance was at the east ; so that the sons of Abraham, when they sought the Lord, turned from the sun, the general symbol of the Deity with the Gentile nations.

The idea of a near approach to the god, which had led to the construction of altars and temples on the summits of hills, became at length the reason for building them in every variety of place. It being supposed that gods frequented groves, they came to be regarded as proper sites for temples. When fountains and rivers were worshipped, the altar or temple was placed near the issue of the water, or on the banks of the stream. The same principle induced men to worship in caverns, and even to form caverns for religious worship. Thus did the desire of a near approach to the god weaken, and ultimately overthrow, the principle which had for many ages influenced practice; and at length it came that any site was deemed equally efficient, and sacred structures were built in any situation, as convenience might determine or caprice invite. In the present times, and especially since the establishment of the religion of the Gospel, the site of the sacred structure, whether high or low, public or private, is held to be a matter of perfect indifference; for it is universally admitted that sincere worship will be heard and accepted wherever it may be offered. Perhaps a retired situation, when sufficiently commodious, may be most desirable, as being most conducive to solemn thought, and somewhat removed from ostentation. The symbolist will not consider these remarks altogether

foreign to the present subject, or the question of locality of site one that might have been omitted in an inquiry concerning the origin, progress, and figurative import of sacred structures. To these the following remarks are subjoined, as being equally entitled to notice.

The symbolism of the spire will be the subject of subsequent consideration, and therefore it needs not any farther notice at present; but lest it should appear strange that any part of a Christian church should have been constructed in imitation of a heathen structure, it may be proper to repeat the observation made in a former page," that other religionists, equally abhorrent with the Christian of the observances of idolatry, have not hesitated to imitate idolatrous structures in the architecture of their buildings regarded by them as sacred. The tomb of the Mussulman saint, and the tomb of the emperor Acbar, described in former pages, may be cited as instances. The tomb of the saint is, in all its parts, the form perhaps excepted, a funeral barrow, surmounted by a pillar, of which India and other countries afford many examples. The worship paid to the saint can only be rendered on idolatrous principles. This is evident from the concurrence of the disciples of the Brahmens, who eagerly availed themselves of the opportunity of seeking the patronage of the Mussulman saint. This concurrence in the practice of the same rites shews the influence of the religion of the Brahmens over the zealots of the Koran, and that these may be led by example to practise the same religious rites as well as imitate the sacred structures of a religion which they hold themselves bound by the most solemn engagements to suppress and even exterminate.

Of the tomb of Acbar, it may be observed, that it is an exact imitation of the Hindù pagoda. The inclosure, the gates, the plantations or groves, are such as accord most exactly with the heathen temples of the most eminent nations

See page 110.

of Gangetic and Eastern Asia. The high pyramidal structure in the centre is such as is seen in the most magnificent temples of all ages and countries,-it is a mausoleum, like the pyramids of Jizeh; the stages or stories of its structure resemble those of the temple of Belus at Babylon; the tomb on the platform of the summit corresponds with the chapels or shrines which were set up to that god, and also those in similar situations by the Mexicans. The tomb, placed deep below the base of the pyramid, holds a situation in the structure similar to that occupied by the bones of the Thacur in the temples of Buddha, or by the relics deposited in the earth near the sar-natha of Benares.

Had Acbar been a Hindù, it might have been suspected that he had claimed the birth of an avatara, and the character of a personification of the preserver Vishnu. But this is known to be impossible: he was a disciple of the Koran. The resemblance of his tomb to the sacred pagodas of his idolatrous subjects can only be ascribed to an approval, perhaps an admiration, of their sacred architecture, and even to an assent to its symbolical import. This will appear the more probable from his worship at the tomb of the Mussulman saint, and the still continued worship at that tomb by Mussulmen, although such worship is evidently founded upon idolatrous principles. The emperor might desire reverence like that paid to the saint: the form and magnificence of his tomb invited it.

If the Mussulmans of India could thus imitate the sacred structures and religious observances of their Hindù subjects, whom they affect to hold in scorn and contempt, other Mussulmans of other countries may be supposed to have had less repugnance to the adoption of the style of Indian architecture and Indian symbols. What their brethren of the Koran had done in India, the Mussulmans of other countries might imitate. It may however be with greater reason affirmed, that the Christians of Western Asia had already adopted the

architecture of India, before the cross was compelled to bow before the crescent, and the armies of the Caliphs of Bagdad had overwhelmed the populous provinces inhabited by degenerate Christians. The form of the Round Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem rather advocates the opinion that the Christians anticipated the Mussulmans in the adoption of Indian sacred architecture, for the Round Church greatly resembles in form the Indian pagoda, or rather, perhaps, the primeval barrow, surmounted by its tower. Whether Christians or Mussulmans had been the builders, it is certain that sacred structures such as had existed long in India, were found in Palestine by the Christian Crusaders. Like the Saracens against whom they fought, they admired the boldness of design, the substantial lightness, the tall magnificence of the churches of the East: they almost abhorred the low, clumsy, barbarous, semi-Roman form of the churches of the British, the Saxon, and first Norman ages. On the return from the Crusades, they adopted with zealous taste the gothicism of Palestine, which afforded models for all the ecclesiastical structures of Western Europe. There the Gothic architecture of Palestine had been cultivated and improved, till it may be said to have sometimes rivalled, but it never has surpassed, the splendid magnificence of its parent in India.

CHAPTER IV.

ON SACRED TOWERS.

A TOWER is a column or pillar of dimensions so enlarged as to admit of apartments within, available to a variety of purposes. The term is equally applicable to all structures, even when destitute of a roof, provided the diameter does not greatly exceed the height. Being such, towers must be regarded as an improvement of the pillar; and they have been substituted for pillars in many instances, serving for the same purposes, and adopted upon the same principles. The English name, tower, the Greek Tuρois, tursis, and also the Latin turris, are evidently derived from the Celtic tor,-it may be, from the Hebrew tur, also-words which signify an eminence of any kind whatever. It may be understood to denote either a single fabric of masonry, or such fabric surmounting or standing upon a natural or artificial eminence, consisting of materials of any kind whatsoever. When such structures form fortifications, they are not properly sacred, even though, as often in India, the names receive in the