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} CHAPTER X DEVELOPMENT OF SYMBOLISM