SOME OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED
Several objections to the symbolical system have been noticed and
answered in the course of this treatise. We shall, however, devote a
greater space to the consideration of one difficulty which has often
been raised by opponents, and has often been felt even by such as have
adopted the theory. It is said, for example, that to assert the nave
and two aisles, or a triplet of lancets, to be symbolical of the Most
Holy Trinity, is both false and profane, when, as is almost always the
case, the aisles are much less broad than the nave, and the three
lancets are unequal both in height and breadth: whereas in the Trinity
none is afore or after other, none is greater or less than another.
But the difficulty seems only to arise from carrying the similitude
too far: the point of resemblance is in these cases a single one: the
mere trinity of the arrangement is the only particular which gives
rise to the symbol. 'Three mystic lines approach the shrine,' sings
the poet of the Christian year for Trinity Sunday. The number alone is
answerable for the emblem. We do not deny that an equilateral triangle
is a more perfect symbol of the Blessed Trinity: but even here a
captious man might object to the emblem, because the angles gain
greater or less prominence according to the position in which the
triangle is placed. {cxiv} The Catholic monogram of the Trinity, for
example, assigns to the Father and the Son the upper angles of a
triangle standing on the third point. On the other hand the modern
triangle, generally charged with the Hebrew word Jehovah, has the
third angle uppermost. We can quite conceive these differences being
thought objectionable. The case is not so strong indeed as when the
three members are unequal, but still it is the same in kind and in
reality.
It is a condition of emblems that the points of similitude must not be
pressed too far. The material Sun indeed typifies the Sun of
Righteousness: but in what particulars? in its being _created_, in its
rising on the dark world _every_ day, in its being matter? Surely not:
but in this one point, that it brings light and heat to the earth. _I
am the Door_, said our Lord. In what particulars, we may again ask? It
would be profane to show by examples that it is only in this point:
that a door is for entrance into a material house just as we enter
into the Church through Christ. The ark, our Church teaches us, was an
emblem of the Church: not in its human building, nor in its final
perishing; but in that it saved souls by water. Did the Paschal Lamb
typify the Immaculate Victim in any thing more than its comparative
purity and its bloody death? We need not multiply such examples.
But there is another consideration to be adduced. Our Lord's own
parables must not be pressed too far. The history of the five wise and
five foolish virgins, must not be adduced to prove that the number of
the lost will equal that of the saved. This may be dangerous ground,
but the assertion is true. Every parable is figurative to a certain
point, and no further. Not that there is much danger of persons not
knowing where the line is to be drawn: any more than there would be in
the case of { cxv} one of a reverent mind, who was told that the
triplicity of aisles and windows typified a great doctrine. The
_British Critic_ made a very just observation on this point, that it
argued a great blindness of spiritual vision to deny such an emblem,
because the similitude was not complete in all points. Indeed if all
points answered so closely and exactly to each other, it is not clear
how a similitude would differ from a fac-simile. The very notion of a
thing being like another involves the fact that the two are not
identical. Nothing more is found or expected, than a similarity, an
analogy, in certain qualities. For in all symbolism it is quality and
not essence in which resemblance is sought.
Which leads us to consider another objection sometimes urged to the
effect that if a thing mean one thing it cannot mean another. For
example, if the nave and aisles represent the Holy Trinity, they
cannot also represent the Church Militant here on earth, or in another
point of view the true fold. Again, if the piers and arches set forth
the foundation of the apostles and prophets, they must not bear a part
in the representation of the Trinity together with the cleristory and
triforium. But this difficulty vanishes if we remember that the
resemblance, for the most part, is derived from grouping independent
things together and viewing them in a particular light. We do not deny
the _real_ essential symbolism of a material result: but this its
particular significancy need not obtrude itself at all times: the
thing itself in other combinations, and viewed under other aspects,
may acquire an additional and occasional meaning. For example, it is
the union of the rose, thistle, and shamrock, which is the emblem of
our United Empire: they have each their own figurative sense; in
combination they acquire a new meaning. The harp is not less the
emblem of Ireland, because it must primarily represent music. {cxvi}
Leaven was of old the symbol of wickedness: our Lord spake of the
leaven of the Scribes and Pharisees: yet we hear from His own lips,
The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven. [Footnote 77]
[Footnote 77: We have the highest authority for believing that one
type can symbolise two things quite independent of each other, in
that the Jewish Sabbath, commanded from Sinai to be observed in
commemoration of the Rest after the Creation, is enforced in
Deuteronomy as the representation of the rest of the children of
Israel from Egyptian bondage. 'Remember,' says Moses, 'that thou
wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God
brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out
arm: _therefore_ the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath
day.'--Deut. v, 15.]
Another objection is as follows: If this theory be true, how will you
account for churches with nothing but a nave, or with only one aisle;
how for churches with neither cleristory nor triforio; or, on the
other hand, for those with double triforia, or with four or five
aisles? Now we never asserted that it was necessary that all, or
indeed any, given things should be intentionally symbolised. We have
pointed out that some things are essentially symbolical; others
accidentally and occasionally. We might attempt to classify what
_must_ be symbolised in church building, and what _may_ be. But we
decline to do so because we do not think that the principles of
symbolism are yet sufficiently investigated or apprehended. However,
in a general way, _every_ building must, from the nature of things,
have some accidents, as of material, of parts, of plan; every
particular building must have particular accidents, as of use and
purpose. These accidents _must_ be symbolical, from their nature, in a
general way: they may derive, from purpose added to their nature, a
further or modified symbolism in a particular way. With the first sort
it is that Durandus chiefly concerns himself A building must have
walls, must have roof, piers, windows, corners, and floor. For each
then he finds a meaning. {cxvii} He does not quite neglect the second
sort. Early English windows must have a splay: the spire may have a
weathercock: for these then there is an appropriate signification. So
we do not mean to insist that certain things _shall_ be symbolised, we
say they _may_ be symbolised. Perhaps when more is known, we shall be
able to criticise ancient buildings, to show their faults or their
shortcomings in this particular. As it is, we have framed a sort of
_beau ideal_ of a church, fully formed and developed, which we should
propose as a perfect model. We are not qualified as yet to blame the
ancient churches which do not come up to this ideal, but we cannot be
wrong in praising such as do.
In discussing Mr. Lewis's illustrations of Kilpeck church, we touched
upon the Basilican origin of churches considered as an argument
against the reception of the symbolical theory. Our last remarks will
apply to the same question. It has been thought quite sufficient
ground for turning into ridicule the whole principle, that the Roman
justice halls had three or more aisles, or that a barn or banquetting
room may have three longitudinal divisions. But what if mechanical
convenience suggested the arrangement? (though we do not grant this).
It is clear that many churches, many barns, and many refectories have
never had a triple arrangement. It has never been asserted that every
church shall have nave and aisles: but if a church has nave and aisles
it will be symbolical of a great doctrine; and for this reason it is
better for a church to have nave and aisles. Why do not such writers
argue that the cross form is not symbolical, because many barns are
cruciform? Now it is instructive to observe that there is a great and
obvious utilitarian advantage in this shape for a barn: but not in the
case of churches as _anciently arranged_; in which the transepts were
utterly useless for the {cxviii} accommodation of worshippers; and in
which there is a mechanical evil (as before mentioned) from the
lateral pressure on the lantern piers. Yet it is undeniable that the
cross form was chosen for its symbolical meaning: and this in spite of
mechanical disadvantages. A mechanical reason fails here, as in the
former case, in accounting for the fact. How will they account for the
cross form? Their own argument tells against them. We may still
further remark that in modern times we have had some curious practical
lessons upon this cross form. Messrs Britton and Hosking, in their
atrocious plan for rearranging S. Mary Redcliffe church, unwittingly
testified to the inconvenience, and want of any utilitarian end, of
this plan by placing the pulpit under the lantern, and ranging the
congregation in the four arms so as to face it. On the other hand,
some modern architects confessedly employ the cross form because it
allows of people arranged as in the last case, all seeing the
preacher. But why do they not look deeper into things? Why have the
cross at all? Why not have an amphitheatre, an octagon, an
accoustically designed Mechanic's Institute Lecture Room? Then all
could hear, all could see much better, and the building would not cost
half so much. They may think that they are designing on utilitarian
principles. In truth they are unknowingly, unwillingly, symbolising
the Cross.
{cxix}