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.