 seeing
the work through and making himself personally responsible for the
cost, in nine cases out of ten it will not be done at all.

Now I am not the man to speak with disrespect of my brethren of the
clergy. I do not believe that in any country or in any age there was
ever a body of men so heartily and loyally trying to do their duty, and
so generously sacrificing themselves to what they believe to be their
duty, as the clergy of the Church of England are at this moment. But,
whether it is their misfortune or their fault--and we are none of us
faultless, not even the parsons--I am bound to express my belief that
ninety-nine out of every hundred of the clergy of the Church of England
know no more about the technical history of their churches than they
know about law--in fact, as a body, the clergy know as little about the
history of Church Architecture as lawyers know about Theology, and I
could not put the case more strongly than that.

Unhappily, however, the parallel between the amiable weakness of the
two professions and their relative attitude towards the two sciences
in which each of them delights to dabble may be carried out only too
closely. For it is painfully observable in both cases that the members
of the two professions are profoundly convinced--the lawyers that a
knowledge of theology, the divines that a knowledge of architecture,
comes to them severally by a kind of legal or clerical instinct. If a
lawyer chooses to plunge into scientific theology, and to write a book
on the two Decalogues, or give us his _obiter dicta_ on the errors of
the Greek Church, though nobody is much the wiser nobody is much the
worse, except the man who reads the pamphlet or the volume. But when it
has been decided that a church requires a thorough overhauling, then
the resigning the absolute control over and disposal of the sacred
building to the parson to be dealt with as he in his wisdom or his
ignorance may judge to be best becomes a very much more serious matter.

It would be easy to look at that matter from the ludicrous point of
view, but it is a great deal too serious for handling as though it
were anything to laugh at. Unhappily, we most
seeing 
 the work through and making himself personally responsible for the 
 monetary value, in nine case out of ten it will not be done at all. 

 Now I am not the homo to speak with disrespect of my brother of the 
 clergy. I do not think that in any country or in any age there was 
 ever a body of world so heartily and loyally trying to act their duty, and 
 therefore generously sacrificing themselves to what they believe to be their 
 duty, as the clergy of the Church of England are at this moment. But, 
 whether it is their misfortune or their fault -- and we are none of us 
 faultless, not even the curate -- I am bound to express my belief that 
 ninety - nine out of every hundred of the clergy of the Church of England 
 sleep together no more about the technical history of their churches than they 
 know about jurisprudence -- in fact, as a body, the clergy acknowledge as little about the 
 history of Church Architecture as lawyers know about Theology, and I 
 could not put the shell more strongly than that. 

 Unhappily, however, the parallel between the amiable weakness of the 
 two professions and their relative attitude towards the two sciences 
 in which each of them delights to dabble may be carried out only too 
 closely. For it is painfully observable in both cases that the members 
 of the two profession are profoundly convinced -- the lawyers that a 
 knowledge of theology, the cleric that a cognition of computer architecture, 
 comes to them severally by a kind of legal or clerical instinct. If a 
 lawyer chooses to plunge into scientific theology, and to write a book 
 on the two Decalogues, or give us his _ obiter dicta _ on the error of 
 the Greek Church, though nobody is much the wiser nobody is much the 
 worse, except the man who reads the tract or the volume. But when it 
 has been decided that a church requires a exhaustive overhauling, then 
 the resigning the absolute command over and administration of the consecrated 
 building to the parson to be dealt with as he in his wisdom of solomon or his 
 ignorance may judge to be best becomes a very much more serious matter. 

 It would be easy to look at that matter from the absurd point of 
 opinion, but it is a great bargain too dangerous for handling as though it 
 were anything to laugh at. sadly, we most
 sefing
the work through and making himself personelly reaponsibld for the
cost, in nine cases lur of uvn it will not be dond at all.

Nlw I am bot uhe man to speak xjth disvzspecf of kb brethren of tme
clergy. I go not believe tfac in any country or in any age there was
evet w body of men fo htareily and loyally trying to do their dufy, and
sm generously xacrificing themselves to ahat they believe to bf their
duty, as eye clergy of the Church of England are at this moment. But,
whether kt is their misdoetujg or their feult--anq we are nonc of us
xaultlexs, not even thc parvonw--I am bound to expresv my belief that
nigety-nine muc of every hundred of tye clgrgy mf tfw Cfurdh or Englwnd
inow no mode about thw technical history os their churchss thag ehey
know about law--in fact, as a body, the clsrgy know as little aboyt the
history of Churfh Architqcture as lawyers know about Theology, and I
could tot pnt tht gwrw lore strongly than that.

Unhappily, however, the [zrslkel between thc amiable weakness ov yre
two professkons aus fheir relative attltude tjwardw the two scirnces
in which each of them eelights to babvle may be carried out only tuo
clpsely. For it is painfully obrervzble in botj cases tgxt the members
of thv twm professions are profoundjy convinred--thz lawyerr thst a
knjwledge of theology, the divines thwt a nnmwledge of architecture,
comes to them sevecelly by a kinc mf negal or clerlcal instinct. Is a
lawyer chooxes to 'lunge into sciehtific vheology, and to write a bmlk
on the two Decalogtes, ir guve us fks _obiter dicts_ on the vrxors of
thw Greek Church, thomgh nugody is much thz qiser nobody is muzh ehv
wocse, evwept the man who rexcs thd pamphlet if thr volume. But when it
vas geen decided that s ghurch rewuires a thorough ovethauling, then
the rtsigniig the absokutg control over and disposal of fhe sacref
bullding to the parwon to be declt with as he in his wisdom or his
ignorence may judge to be bgst becomes a very mueh more serions mateer.

It wound be easy to look ar that matter frok the ludicrous point of
vief, but it is a great deal too serious for handling as though it
were anything to laugh at. Unhappilg, we most
seeing the work through and making himself for cost, in cases out of done all. Now I not the man speak with disrespect of my brethren the clergy. I do not believe that in any country or in any there was ever a body of men so heartily and loyally trying to their and generously themselves to what they believe to be their duty, as the clergy of the Church of are at this moment. But, whether it is misfortune or their fault--and are none of us faultless, even parsons--I am to my that ninety-nine out every hundred of the clergy of the Church of England know no more about the technical history their churches know about fact, a the clergy know about the history of Church Architecture about Theology, and I could not put the more strongly that. Unhappily, however, the parallel between amiable weakness of the two professions and their attitude towards the two sciences in which each of them delights to dabble may be only too closely. For is painfully observable both that members the two are profoundly convinced--the lawyers that a knowledge of theology, the divines a knowledge of architecture, comes to them severally by a legal clerical instinct. If lawyer chooses to plunge scientific and to write a the Decalogues, his dicta_ the errors of the Church, though nobody is much wiser nobody is much who reads the pamphlet or the volume. But it has been decided that a church a thorough overhauling, then the resigning the absolute control over and disposal the sacred the parson to be dealt with as he his wisdom or his may judge to be best becomes a very much serious It would easy to look that matter from ludicrous point of it is great too as though it were anything to at. we most
 seeing
the work through and maKing himselF persOnaLly ReSponSiblE for the
cost, in nINe caSes out of ten it will not be Done aT aLL.

Now i Am Not thE man to sPEaK WIth DiSrEspEcT Of My breThrEn of the
Clergy. I do nOt bElIeve that in anY CoUntry or in aNy aGe there was
evEr a Body of MeN so HEartiLy aNd loyAlly trYIng to dO their dutY, aND
so genERously sACRiFiciNg themselves to whaT ThEY believe to be thEir
dutY, aS ThE CLerGy oF the Church Of englaND are at tHIs MOMEnt. bUt,
whether it is Their misforTUne Or theiR fAulT--And we aRe nonE oF Us
fAultless, not Even The parsonS--I am boUNd to expREss my beLief thAt
nIneTy-niNE oUt Of eVeRY huNDrEd oF The Clergy of ThE CHurch Of EnGLAND
knoW no More About The technical hIstOry oF TheIr chuRches Than ThEy
knoW about Law--in FaCt, as a body, the cleRgy kNow as littLe aBoUt tHe
HistoRY of ChuRch arcHitectuRe as lawYErs KnOW ABoUt Theology, and I
coulD nOT PuT the case More stROnGlY Than that.

unHapPily, HOWever, The pARaLlel betwEen the AMiAbLe weaknEsS of the
TwO prOfeSsionS And tHeir reLative atTitudE Towards the two sCIences
in which EAcH OF tHEm deLigHts to dabble May bE CarrIed oUT oNly TOo
cloSely. FOr IT iS Painfully observable In Both caSes thAt the members
oF the two proFESSions are ProfOUnDLy convinced--the LawyeRs that a
knoWLedge of tHeoloGy, the divInes that a KNOwledge oF arChiTecTurE,
COmEs to them severALLy by A kInd of leGal Or cleriCal InsTinCt. IF a
Lawyer choOses to plUnGe InTo SciEntifIC theologY, aNd tO wRitE a booK
On the tWo DecAlogUeS, oR GivE us his _oBItER DictA_ oN tHe erRorS oF
the GReek cHurCh, thougH nobody is MucH The wIsEr Nobody iS much the
worse, ExCept the man WhO reAds the PAMphlet or The volume. But when it
has beEN decideD thAt a chUrch Requires a ThoRough oVerHAuling, Then
thE resiGnIng THE absoLUTe ConTrOl over and dISPosAl of tHe SacrEd
buildIng to the parson to be DEalT with as he in hiS wiSdom OR HiS
igNOrANce MaY JudGE To be best becomes A very much mOrE SeRious matteR.

it wOuLd be easY to look At thaT Matter fRom the ludIcrous poiNt Of
viEW, But It is a great Deal too sErious for HAndliNG aS thouGh iT
were aNyThiNg to lAugh at. uNhaPpily, We most
 seeing
the work through a nd makinghimse lfper so nall y re sponsible fort he
c ost, in nine cases out  of t en it w i ll  notbe done at a ll. 
No w I  a m  n ot th e m an to s peak withdis re spect of myb re thren of t heclergy. I do  no t beli ev e t h at in  an y cou ntry o r  in an y age the re was
ev e r a bod y of  men  so heartily andl oy a lly trying todo the ir du t y , a ndso generou sl y sac r ificing th e m s elv e s to what the y believe t o  be  their 
d uty ,  as th e cle rg y  of  the Church  ofEngland a re att his mom e nt. But ,
whet her  it  ist he ir  mi sf o rtu n eort hei r fault- -a nd  we a re n o n e of u s
f ault less,  not even the  pa rson s --I  am b oundto e xp ressmy bel ief t ha t
ninety-nine o ut o f every h und re d o fthe c l ergy o f t heChurchof Engl a ndkn o w no  more about the te ch n i ca l histor y of t h ei rc hurchesth anthey k now a bout la w--in fa ct, as abo dy, the  c lergykn owaslittl e  abo ut the 
history  of C h urch Architect u re as lawyers kn o w  a b outThe ology, andI
co u ld n ot p u tthe casemorest r on g ly than that.

Unha pp ily, h oweve r, the parall el between t h e amiabl e we a kn e ss of the
twoprofe ssions and their re lativ e attitu de toward s the twosci enc esinw h ic h each of the m deli gh ts to d abb le maybecar rie d o ut  only too 
closely .Fo rit  is  pain f ully obs er vab le  in  both casesthattheme mb e rsof thet wo p rofe ss io ns a repr ofoun dlyc onv inced-- the lawye rst hatakn owledge  of theology,  t he divines  t hat  a kno w l edge ofarchitecture,
comes tot hem sev era lly b y akind of l ega l or c ler i cal in stinct . Ifalaw y e r cho o s es  to  p lunge into s cie ntifi ctheo logy, a nd to write a book onthe two Decal ogu es,o r  g ive us his  _ o bit e r  dicta_ on theerrors ofth e  G reek Churc h , t ho ugh nob ody ismucht he wise r nobodyis much t he 
wor s e , e xcept theman whoreads the pamph l et  or t hevolume .But  when  it
ha s  be en de cidedth at a c hurch  r equiresa thorough overhauling,  thenthe r esi gning the  ab s olu te contro l ov er and dis pos alof th e s a credbuil d in g t o  thepars o n to be d e al t w i t has he in hi s w isd om or  hi s 
ignor ance  may judge to beb est becomes avery m uch  mo r e se ri ous matter.

I t w ou l d  be easy  t o look at t hat matt er fromthe lu dicrou s point o fv iew, b ut i t i s a great  de al too ser io us for ha ndli ng  as th ough i t 
wer e anything to laug h at. U nhapp i ly,  we m os t
 seeing
the_work through_and making himself personally_responsible for_the
cost,_in nine_cases_out of ten_it will not_be done at all.

Now_I am not_the_man to speak with disrespect of my brethren of the
clergy. I do not believe_that_in any_country_or_in any age there was
ever_a body of men so_heartily and_loyally trying to do their duty, and
so generously_sacrificing_themselves to what_they believe to be their
duty, as the clergy of_the Church of England are at_this moment. But,
whether_it_is_their misfortune or their_fault--and we are none of us
faultless,_not even the parsons--I am bound_to express my belief that
ninety-nine out of_every hundred of the clergy of_the Church of England
know no_more about_the technical history of their_churches than they
know_about law--in_fact, as a_body, the clergy know as little_about the
history of_Church Architecture as lawyers know about_Theology,_and I
could not_put_the_case more_strongly than that.

Unhappily,_however,_the parallel_between_the amiable weakness of the
two professions_and_their relative attitude towards the two sciences
in_which each of them_delights_to dabble may be_carried out only too
closely. For_it is painfully observable in both_cases that_the members
of_the two professions are profoundly convinced--the lawyers that a
knowledge of theology,_the divines that a knowledge of_architecture,
comes to them severally_by a_kind_of legal or_clerical_instinct. If_a
lawyer chooses to plunge into scientific theology,_and to_write a book
on the two Decalogues,_or give us his__obiter_dicta_ on the errors of
the Greek_Church, though nobody is much the_wiser nobody is much the
worse,_except_the_man who reads the pamphlet_or the volume. But when it
has_been decided that_a church requires a thorough overhauling, then
the_resigning_the absolute control over and disposal_of_the sacred
building to the parson to_be_dealt_with as he in his_wisdom or his
ignorance may judge to_be best becomes a very much more serious matter.

It_would be easy_to look at that matter_from_the_ludicrous point of
view, but it is a great deal too_serious for_handling as though_it
were anything to laugh at. Unhappily, we most