the rood screen, the barrier between it and the Church Triumphant, and therein shadowing forth the death of the faithful. High above it hangs, on His triumphal cross, the image of Him Who by His death hath overcome death; on it are portrayed saints and martyrs, His warriors, who fighting under their Lord have entered into rest and inherit a tearless eternity. They are to be our examples, and the seven lamps above them typify those graces of the Spirit, by Whom alone we can tread in their steps. The screen itself glows with gold and crimson: with gold, for they have on their heads golden crowns: with crimson, for they passed the Red Sea of martyrdom to obtain them. And through the delicate net-work, and the unfolding holy doors, we catch faint glimpses of the chancel beyond. There are the massy stalls; for in heaven is everlasting rest: there are the sedilia, emblems of the seats of the elders round the throne: there is the piscina; for they have washed their robes and made them white: and there, heart and soul and life of all, the altar with its unquenched lights, and golden carvings, and mystic steps, and sparkling jewels: even Christ Himself, by Whose only merits we find admission to our heavenly inheritance. Verily, as we think on the oneness of its design, we may say: _Jerusalem edificatur ut civitas cujus participatio ejus in idipsum_. {cxxxiii} POSTSCRIPTUM On concluding their work, which from circumstances that need not be specified has been a year in the press, the writers must apologise for the numerous typographical errors which have been allowed to remain. Their separation from each other, and distance from the printer, must plead in excuse. They take this opportunity of expressing their thanks to the Reverend Dr. Mill, Christian Advocate of the University of Cambridge, and to F. A. Paley, Esq., M.A., of S. John's College, Cambridge, Honorary Secretary of the Cambridge Camden Society, for their advice and assistance. It remains to say that some doubt has been felt by persons who have read the Introductory Essay in proofs, whether the writers have given Mr. Pugin sufficient credit for several passages in his works which seem to _involve_ the principle now contended for. We had thought that no misapprehension could be feared on this head. It was enough to know that the principle in question, even though _felt_ (as we indeed allowed) by this architect, had not been _expressed in terms_. In short, we took this fact for our ground: that whereas Mr. Pugin's book professed to assert the _true principles_ of Christian architecture, yet reality, according to his definition, was not at least so accurately a 'true principle' as sacramentality. The principles themselves, as enunciated by Mr. Pugin, apply as well to any secular building as to a church: they are true for _construction_, but not adequate in themselves to form a rule for ecclesiastical design. Kemerton, _August_ 16, 1843. {cxxxiv}