•CALIFO^ 
 
 lEllMVLKV^ .^clUSANGtUj. 
 
 nmrn- 
 
 fTtl 
 
 lOSANGEifx 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 \\^EUNTv'ER.\
 
 J>- 
 
 ,| ^Vf^ 
 
 
 
 i^3^ 
 
 
 , ill 
 
 iw.^m^ 
 
 
 <rt: 
 
 :lbl\Mli 10
 
 n
 
 THE TESTIMONY OF THE ~ 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 AND OF OTHER 
 
 MONUMENTS OF CHRISTIAN ART, 
 
 From the Second to the Eighteenth Century, 
 
 CONCERNING QUESTIONS OF DOCTRINE NOW 
 DISPUTED IN THE CHURCH. 
 
 BY the 
 
 REV. WHARTON B. MARRIOTT, B.D. F.S.A. 
 
 SOMETIME FELLOW OF EXETER COLLEGE, OXFORD, AND ASSISTANT 
 MASTER AT ETON ; SELECT PREACHER, ETC. 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 LONDON: 
 HATCHARDS, 187 PICCADILLY. 
 
 MDCCCLXX. 
 A// Rights are reserved.
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Strangeways and Walden, Printers, 
 Castle St. Leicester Sq.
 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 Monuments of Christian Art, from the Second to the 
 Eighteenth Century, illustrating the gradual De- 
 velopment OF THE CULTUS OF THE ViRGIN MaRY . . Pp. I -63 
 
 PART II. 
 
 Monuments of Christian Art having reference to the 
 
 Supremacy claimed for the See of Rome . . . 65-1 1 1 
 
 PART III. 
 
 The Autun Inscription, having reference tg the Sacra- 
 ments OF Baptism and of Holy Communion, and to 
 the State of the Faithful after Death . . 113-1! 
 
 Appendix 189-223 

 
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 p. 13. [Woodcut.] Figure of an Orante (male). From the Cemetery of 
 SS. Marcellinus and Petrus. (Aringhi R. S. tom. ii. p. in.) 
 
 P. 14. [Woodcut.] Ornamented Glass, with Male and Female Oranti. 
 
 P. 22. [Woodcut] The Adoration of our Lord by the Magi. From the 
 Cemetery of SS. Marcellinus and Petrus. (Aringhi R. S. t. ii. 
 p. 117. 
 
 P. 24. [Woodcut.] The Holy Family. [For another interpretation of the 
 Picture see p. 25.] From the Cemetery of S. Priscilla. 
 
 P. 37. The Adoration of the Magi. From a Mosaic in the Church of 
 S. Maria Maggiore at Rome, in its original state, circ. 438 a.d. 
 From a Drawing in a Collection formed for Pope Clement XI, 
 hitherto unpublished. 
 
 Plate I. The Ascension. From a Syriac MS. of the Gospels written 
 A.D. 586. (See ' Vestiarium Christianum,' p. 238.) 
 
 Plate II. The Assumption of the Virgin Mary. From the Church 
 of St. Clement at Rome, circ. 850 a.d. 
 
 Plate III. The Virgin Mary as Queen of Heaven : Popes Ca- 
 lixtus II. and Anastasius IV. kneeling at her feet. (12th 
 century.) 
 P. 63. [Woodcut.] The ancient Mosaic of Xystus III. in the Church of 
 S. Maria Maggiore at Rome, as altered in the i8th century to 
 suit modern Roman ideas. 
 
 Plate IV. The Diptych of St. Paul. [The more important of the 
 two leaves of this Diptych is more perfectly reproduced, as a 
 photograph, in the frontispiece to ' Vestiarium Christianum.'
 
 vi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 The Book of the Gospels in the hands of the Bishop (supposed 
 to be such) is there clearly seen. In the photolithograph of 
 this volume it has been accidentally obscured.] 
 
 Plate V. Fresco representing St. Cornelius Papa and St. Cyprian. 
 
 Plate VI. The Frescoes of the Triclinium Lateranum. 
 1'. 96. [Woodcut.] St. Peter bestowing the Pallium on Leo III. and the 
 Vexillum of the Empire upon Charlemagne. From the Col- 
 lection of Pope Clement XI. 
 
 Plate VII. The Donation of Constantine, and his (supposed) Bap- 
 tism by Sylvester, Bishop of Rome. 
 
 Plates VII. and VIII. The Coronation of the Emperor Sigismund. 
 The Council of Florence. From the Alti Relievi on the Gates 
 of St. Peter's at Rome, executed by command of Pope 
 Eugenius IV. 
 
 Plate IX. The Autun Inscription. 
 
 P. 123. [Woodcut.] The Episcopal Ring of St. Arnulph, Bishop of Metz. 
 (6th century.) The basket (containing a fish) there repre- 
 sented closely resembles some still used by labourers in central 
 France. 
 
 P. 143. [Woodcut.] Capital of a Column in the Baptistery of the Church 
 of St. Germain des Pres at Paris. The original church dated 
 from the 6th century. The present church, the oldest in Paris, 
 is mainly of the 12th century; but many of the capitals and 
 shafts belonging to the earlier church have been used in the 
 construction. ^ 
 
 P. 144. [Woodcut.] The Fish-God. From an ancient Gem. 
 
 P. 147. [Woodcut.] Phcenician and Cyzicene Coins, presenting the type 
 from which the Ichthyography of Autun, and of St. Germain 
 des Pres, appears to have been derived. 
 
 P. 149. [Woodcut.] Small Figure (nth century) of (? a Priest or Bishop) 
 one holding in his hands a Chalice, on which rests a Fish. 
 Found at Autun.
 
 PART I 
 
 THE 
 
 CULTUS OF THE VIRGIN MARY, 
 
 Jtsi '$h([ imd IJnognn'iS; 
 
 AS EXHIBITED 
 
 IN MONUMENTS OF ART FROM THE SECOND TO THE 
 EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.
 
 THE 
 
 CULTUS OF THE VIRGIN MARY, 
 
 &c. &c. 
 
 From various causes, upon which we need not now dwell, 
 a great impulse has been given of late years to the study 
 of primitive Christian Art. Early monuments are still in 
 existence, many but recently discovered, not a few of them 
 either all but unknown or known only in disguise, which 
 are of the highest importance for their bearing upon dis- 
 puted questions of doctrine or of discipline. And of all 
 the fields for such research open to the student, none is 
 more rich in hidden treasure than ' Subterranean Rome ; ' 
 no records of Primitive Christendom more suggestive than 
 the rude frescoes depicted on the walls of the Catacombs, 
 or the simple inscriptions there to be read. 
 
 The history of these ' Catacombs,' to use the name'"'' by 
 
 * This name properly applies only and visited at a time when all the 
 
 to one particular cemetery beneath others had passed into oblivion, 
 
 the church of St. Sebastian, which Hence it was that, when tlie older 
 
 from early times was known as 'Ad cemeteries were discovered in the 
 
 Catacumbas ' (this last probably a sixteenth century, the special desig- 
 
 barbarous corruption of a Greek nation of that one cemetery be- 
 
 word). This particular cemetery was came a generic term applied to 
 
 easily accessible, and was still known them all. 
 
 B
 
 2 THK CUI.TUS OI'- TlIK VIRGIN MARY. 
 
 which tlicy are popularly known, abounds with an interest 
 all its own, quite apart from any reference to the contro- 
 verted questions of these our own days ; though upon 
 these also, as we have already intimated, their evidence 
 is of the highest value. We speak of their history abso- 
 lutely ; but we should rather say their history as far as at 
 present it admits of being written. For all that as yet has 
 been determined concerning them, is confessedly imperfect. 
 And though there is much that may now be regarded as 
 conclusively established, there is also much that still is, and 
 probably will yet remain, subject for conjecture, rather than 
 for well-grounded and certain conclusion. 
 
 The ' Roma Sotterranea,''" edited by Dr. Northcote and 
 Mr. Brownlow, is a compendium of what has been written 
 on the subject by Cavaliere De Rossi of Rome, more par- 
 ticularly of a work, as yet incomplete, the title of which 
 they have preserved in their own volume. No one living 
 is so fitted to be the historian of the Catacombs, as the 
 distinguished Roman antiquary we have just named. But 
 the language (Italian) in which his book is written, and 
 in these days of ' short and cheap ' publications, we fear 
 we must add its size and cost, nay, even the exactness 
 of its research and great learning, — all these combine to 
 deter many English readers from making acquaintance with 
 its contents. And this being so, we think that the com- 
 pilers of the volume before us have done good service, in 
 
 * Roma Sotterranea ; or, Some Northcote, D.D., President of St. 
 
 Account of the Roman Catacombs. Mary's College, Oscott, and Rev. 
 
 Compiled from the works of Com- W. R. Brownlow, M.A. Longmans, 
 
 mendatore de Rossi, with the con- 1867. 
 sent of the Author. By Rev. J. S.
 
 EVIDENCE OF THE CATACOMBS. 3 
 
 laying before the English public a summary of the results 
 of De Rossi's investigations. Their book would have 
 been more valuable if they had adhered more religiously 
 than they have done to his guidance. For in spite of the 
 deep importance to doctrinal questions, now controverted, 
 of the monuments with which De Rossi has to deal, yet 
 has he, as far as we have observed, the rare merit of stating | 
 his facts exactly and impartially, precisely as he finds them, 
 and drawing theological conclusions (when he does so at 
 all, which is not often) upon a statement of all the facts, 
 not of a few such out of many, and these selected and 
 arranged, so as to suit a predetermined conclusion. 
 
 We greatly regret, on many grounds, that we cannot 
 extend the same praise to the compilers of the volume now 
 before us. Had they confined themselves to questions of 
 archaeological research, as does, for the most part, the 
 learned writer whose works they have epitomised ; or if, 
 embarking on questions of theology, they had treated of 
 them with the exactness of statement and representation, 
 the fulness of research, the strictness of logical inference, 
 of which his archaeological writings at least present an 
 admirable example, — had they made it their one end and 
 aim to present fully and impartially to their readers all 
 the facts, within their knowledge, which were of importance 
 to the questions they discussed, — had this been so, we at 
 least should have welcomed heartily the great addition 
 which they might have made to the limited knowledge, that 
 most of us have, of the true history of the early Roman 
 Church. But, as things are, it is impossible to read through 
 their volume, after studying those of De Rossi, without 
 beincr reminded aeain and aoain of the loss we have sus-
 
 4 THE CULTUS OF THE VIRGIN MARY. 
 
 tained, in excllan^i^L: the oruidancc of a ocnuinc Roman 
 archajolooist for that of an EngHsh (and Roman) divine. 
 
 In sa\in^- this, let us not be misunderstood. The book 
 echted by Dr. Northcote may be regarded as made up of 
 two parts, and presenting two distinct characters. The 
 greater part of the vokmie is devoted to questions of 
 historical and antiquarian research, concerning the con- 
 struction of the Catacombs, their relative dates, their 
 pictorial ornamentation, and the like. And In this portion 
 of their work, in which theological questions are only very 
 indirectly and remotely involved, the editors have trodden 
 carefully in De Rossi's steps ; and have done their own 
 part, in translation and arrangement, extremely well. And 
 in spite of the defects upon which we are about to dwell, 
 we gladly commend this first part of their book as the best 
 available summary of the facts of chief importance in the 
 history of the Roman Catacombs. It is in the later part 
 of their book, where their subjects are such as to command 
 the interest of a far wider circle of readers, that the present 
 editors have conspicuously failed. How, indeed, being 
 what they are, should they have done otherwise than fail, ? 
 For in these later chapters (their Book IV.), they deal with 
 controversial questions, which for many centuries past have 
 been, as they still are, at issue in Christendom. And these 
 are questions upon which (as we shall shortly see) the 
 monuments of primitive Christianity bear a testimony 
 the very reverse of that which a Roman controversialist 
 would desire. And, accordingly, if men enter upon the 
 study of the Catacombs, as these editors seem to have 
 done, with a primary view to find there testimony in behalf 
 of modern Romanism, they set themselves to a task in-
 
 EVIDENCE OF THE CATACOMBS. 5 
 
 volving one of two alternatives. Either they must shut up 
 their books, and lay aside their pen, as soon as they have 
 attained to anything like an accurate knowledge of their 
 subject ; or they must acquire (as indeed they seem to have 
 done) that peculiar faculty, which was pithily described by 
 one of old time. They must combine two seemingly in- 
 consistent powers — that of being blind to what all other 
 men see, and that of seeing what to all but themselves is 
 invisible. They have to deal with facts of Christian anti- 
 quity. But a constraining necessity is upon them that 
 those facts shall be Romanised. Unconsciously therefore 
 (of intentional misrepresentation, it is unnecessary to say, 
 we do not for a moment accuse them), they conceal both 
 from themselves, and from others, all that is out of har- 
 mony with Roman prejudices, and they import into what 
 is before them ideas utterly unknown '"" to the ages with 
 which they have to deal. 
 
 One of two alternatives, we said. But we were wrong. 
 For yet a third course is possible, and this was actually 
 followed — to his credit be it said — by another author 
 (Mr. Hemans), whose workt is now before us. We have 
 no personal knowledge of the writer, and we repeat only 
 what we have heard stated as matter of notoriety, when 
 we say, that at one time, like Dr. Northcote, be became a 
 'convert' (so called) to Romanism. Having done so, he 
 
 * An amusing instance of tliis reigning at Rome in the year 252 
 
 (a matter trifling in itself, but like a.d. 
 
 a floating straw indicative of the t A History of Ancient Christi- 
 
 set of the stream) will be found anity and Sacred Art in Italy. By 
 
 at p. 138, where the writer speaks C. J. Hemans. Williams and Nor- 
 
 of St. Lucius (Bishop of Rome) as gate, London. 1866.
 
 6 THE CUI.TUS OF THE VH-IGIN MARV. 
 
 devoted years of study to the literature and tlie art monu- 
 ments of antiquity, particularly of those at Rome itself, 
 with a \'ie\v to strengthening himself in the new position 
 which he had been led to take up. And he studied with 
 such thoroughness of research (of this his book gives 
 evidence, in spite of many minor defects), and to such un- 
 expected results, that he found himself compelled, by the 
 force of evidence which he could not resist, to recall the 
 verdict which he had already practically pronounced, and 
 ' to retrace the steps which, when less well informed, he had 
 taken. And this is the more notable, because one cannot 
 read his book without seeing, that all his sentiment, poetical 
 and artistic, is still strongly enlisted on the side of the 
 Roman Church, in many features of her system by which 
 most English Churchmen would be repelled. He con- 
 demns upon historical and monumental evidence, but he 
 condemns unwillingly. And the very sympathy he shows 
 for the system which he condemns, proves the more con- 
 clusively the strength of the conviction on which his ad- 
 verse judgment is based. 
 
 Returning now to the 'Roma Sotterranea' of Dr. 
 Northcote, it may be well to say, that the more con- 
 troversial part of the work is that, which will be of the 
 highest interest to our own readers. And, for ourselves, 
 we wish it to be understood, that we intend now to devote 
 our Inquiry to such matters only, arising out of our present 
 subject, as have a direct bearing upon questions of Christian 
 doctrine or of discipline. Purely antiquarian subjects may 
 best be discussed from a purely antiquarian point of view. 
 And upon these we shall not now enter. But we shall 
 endeavour to carry with us, in our theological inquiries,
 
 EVIDENCE OF THE CATACOMBS. 7 
 
 that Spirit of impartial investigation, that scrupulous exact- 
 ness of statement and representation, in which antiquaries 
 too often carry the palm over theologians. And while we 
 fully admit, that, in dealing controversially with the facts of 
 antiquity, we approach them with the expectation of finding 
 very different conclusions warranted from those to which 
 Dr. Northcote would lead his readers, we shall in all cases 
 be careful to bring forward full authority for every fact 
 alleged. And so, even if by any we shall be supposed to 
 write as advocates, rather than in a spirit of dispassionate 
 judgment, our readers may at any rate have, between 
 Dr. Northcote and ourselves, the evidence that on both 
 sides is available, and upon that evidence base their own 
 conclusions. 
 
 Yet, before embarking upon our own immediate subject, 
 it will be well to give here a brief description of the special 
 sources of testimony to which we are about to appeal, these 
 being of a kind which, up to this time, have attracted far 
 less attention than they deserve. 
 
 In the principal cities of Italy, in Southern France, and 
 here and there in parts of Africa and of the East, there have 
 been preserved to our own time monuments of primitive 
 Christian art, which reflect in a most remarkable manner 
 the prevailing tone, and the distinguishing characteristics, 
 of the successive centuries from which they date. The 
 earliest of these (some few of those in the Roman Cata- 
 combs) date, in all probability, from a time but little later 
 than that of the Apostles. And, from that time onward, 
 we possess a series of monuments of the most varied kind, 
 frescoes, mosaic pictures, sepulchral inscriptions, sculptured 
 sarcophagi, carvings in ivory, ornamented glass, illuminated
 
 8 THE CULTUS OF TITF. VIRGIN MARY. 
 
 books, coins, medals, works in bronze and other metals, 
 which constitute a pictorial history of Western Christendom, 
 from the earliest ages to the close of the fourteenth century/" 
 Specimens of these will be set before our readers, few in 
 number, but sufficient to indicate their importance as bear- 
 ing upon questions of the greatest interest to all religious 
 men at the present time. 
 
 Of the many and varied works of art of which we speak, 
 
 none are of greater interest to ourselves than the series of 
 
 monuments, either above ground or below it, which are still 
 
 ' to be found at Rome. These are of various kinds. But 
 
 those with which mainly we are now concerned, are the 
 
 1 rude frescoes upon the walls of tlie Catacombs, and the 
 
 j mosaic pictures, dating from the close of the fourth century 
 
 onwards, which cover the walls of some of the oldest 
 
 churches at Rome and Ravenna. 
 
 Tpie Catacombs. 
 
 And first it may be well to say luhat the Catacombs are, 
 \ — viz., places of Christian sepulture. That, in very excep- 
 tional cases, particular chambers in the Catacombs were 
 either constructed, or adapted, so as to make them available 
 for Divine worship, we have clear evidence. But if we 
 would interpret the earlier pictures of the Catacombs aright, 
 we must constantly bear in mind, what apparently never 
 
 "' From this period onward, Chris- Monuments of modern art lose in 
 
 tian art in the AVest has followed its historical value, as direct expressions 
 
 own rules, instead of being subordi- of contemporary belief, in proportion 
 
 nated wholly (as in the East it still to what they have gained in cesthe- 
 
 is) to the direct reproduction of re- tic beauty, 
 ligious ideas after traditionary forms.
 
 EVIDENCE OF THE CATACOMBS. g 
 
 occurs to Dr. Northcote, that we are contemplating expres- 
 sions of Christian faith, by primitive believers committing 
 their loved ones to the grave, not entering churches or chapels 
 prepared for modern Roman worship, and therefore {inter 
 alia) for the worship of the Virgin Mary. Judging from 
 the way in which Dr. Northcote interprets monuments, it is 
 evident that, in his view, the one thing of which the faithful 
 would think in the hour of their bereavement, was the 
 jurisdiction over other cJuirches implied by the Papal 
 pallinm ! '"' Or again, that, in the eyes of believers then, 
 Christ, our Blessed Lord, the Resurrection and the Life, 
 was of such small esteem. His virgin Mother in such sense 
 all in all, that if she and her Divine Infant appear in the 
 same representation, we may assume that He is represented 
 * simply with a viezu to showing zuho she is.' 
 
 The actual construction of the Catacombs (or rather the 
 commencement of their construction) dates, in some cases, 
 from the very earliest period of the Roman Church. One 
 consular date (in an inscription which was removed from 
 its place, and whose locality therefore cannot now be deter- 
 mined) is of the year 72 a.d., the third year of Vespasian. 
 And in the cemetery known generally as that of S. Lucina, 
 there are two inscriptions with consular dates, belonging to 
 
 "' This seems scarcely credible 565), a scene in which Christian 
 
 even in a Roman controversialist. mourners would see a pledge of the 
 
 But the reader may judge for him- sure and certain hope of that new 
 
 self by referring to p. 310. Dr. N. life, of which their own loved ones 
 
 there refers to a representation of were inheritors. His comment is, 
 
 the ascent of Elias to heaven on a ' // would certainly Iiave reminded 
 
 sarcophagus (it may be seen also Roman C/iristia?is of the pallium, 
 
 among the frescoes of the Cata- the symbol of jurisdiction worn by 
 
 combs, see Aringhi R. S. torn. i. p. the bishops of Rome,' &c. (S:c.
 
 lo THE cui/rus of tiik virgin mary. 
 
 I the years 107 and 110 a.d. These older cemeteries were 
 enlarged, and new ones were constructed, as time went on. 
 But, with a few exceptions only, the main construction of 
 
 I the Catacombs dates from the three first centuries ; their 
 partial enlargement, and alterations in detail, extend to 
 a further period of about 500 years {circa 850 a.d.), soon 
 after which time they were closed up and forgotten, till the 
 time of their re-discovery in the year 1578. 
 
 A separate question altogether, and for our present 
 purpose a more important one, is involved, when we have 
 to assign dates to the various pictures (for the most part 
 very rude, but from their subjects exceedingly interesting) 
 with which the walls, in portions of these cemeteries, are 
 covered. F'or it is scarcely necessary to say, that, in 
 determining the time when some subterranean chamber was 
 first constructed, it by no means follows that we determine 
 also the date of the pictures, or of the inscriptions, which 
 now may appear upon the walls. This question of date 
 can generally be determined only by internal evidence, 
 leaving room for considerable difference of opinion, within 
 certain limits. But there are some general conclusions.^ 
 upon which all investigators are practically agreed, and 
 these we shall take as our guides in investigating such 
 questions as those now before us. 
 
 All are, as far as we know, agreed in saying, that what 
 De Rossi calls the ' Ciclo Biblico,' i.e., the definite series 
 
 { of purely Scriptural subjects represented in many of- the 
 Roman Catacombs, belong to an earlier period of Chris- 
 tian art than those of special saints, martyrs. Bishops of 
 Rome, and of other Sees, which are also there to be found. 
 And there are many reasons for thinkin<r, with Sienor
 
 EVIDENCE OF THE CATACOMBS. I i 
 
 De Rossi, that the pictures of this ' Scriptural Cycle ' are, ' 
 with few exceptions, to be referred to a period not later 
 than the third century of our era. 
 
 The more special marks, however, whereby relative 
 date may be determined, may best be illustrated by actual 
 examples, such as will shortly come before our readers. 
 Yet we may say, speaking generally, that the latest date 
 to any of the pictures in the Roman Catacombs, is the 
 middle of the ninth century, whereas, in the mosaics and 
 frescoes of churches above ground, we have a series, 
 which commences indeed shortly after the close '" of the 
 fourth century, but which, in the form that they now 
 pi^esent, may belong to any period between the fourth 
 century and the present time. The two series, that of 
 the Catacombs, and that of the churches above ground, 
 mutually illustrate each other ; and it is only by such 
 comparison that their true history can be determined, and 
 their great historical importance be appreciated. 
 
 With these few data to start with, we will, without 
 further preface, join issue with Dr. Northcote upon one 
 of the three controverted questions for which he invokes 
 the evidence of these early monuments. Those questions 
 are, — the worship due (according to the Roman Church) 
 to the Mother of our Lord ; the divinely ordained pre-emi- 
 nence of the Roman See,t as being the See of St. Peter ; 
 and the doctrine of the Sacraments, J particularly that of 
 the ' Mass.' One of these questions, the first, will more 
 than suffice for our present consideration. We may 
 
 * Exception is to be made, probably, for some few remains dating from 
 the time of Constantine. 
 
 t See Part II. of this volume. X See Part 111. ibid.
 
 12 THE CULTUS OF THE VH^GIN I^IARY. 
 
 possibly deal with other questions at some future oppor- 
 tunity. 
 
 Writers who had preceded Dr. Northcote in speaking 
 of the doctrinal evidence of the Catacombs, had noted the 
 marked contrast between primitive and modern Rome, in all 
 that relates to the blessed Mother of our Lord. One of these 
 writers, after personal examination of the Catacombs (such 
 of them as are now shown), stated, that he ' had only seen a 
 single certain specimen of a painting of the blessed Virgin 
 in all the Catacombs, that this was of a comparatively late 
 date, and that it was idle to attach much importance to so 
 singular an exception.' Upon this Dr. Northcote says, in 
 effect, that the writer in question evidently knows nothing 
 about the matter, as such paintings are ' very immerotts! 
 And, in justification of his remark, he refers to two facts. 
 He speaks first of the frequent occurrence of ' Oranti,' 
 figures standing with outstretched hands, in what was of old 
 the ordinary attihide of prayer. Among these he says, is a 
 figure of a woman, which is frequently'" found as a com- 
 panion to the Good Shepherd, and which ' a multitude of 
 
 * '■ A figure of a tvoman'' (the Vir- figure of the Shepherd occupies the ^ 
 
 gin Mary, according to Dr. North- centre of the decorated roof of a 
 
 cote) '■frequently found as a coin- sepulchral chamber, and there are 
 
 panion to the Good Shepherd' As four figures of Oranti in the sur- 
 
 a comment upon these words, we rounding compartments. In two 
 
 append the following analysis of out of these five exam])les, half of 
 
 twenty examples {all that are figured the Oranti are nu^n, and the others 
 
 by Aringhus) in the Catacombs, in women. 
 
 which the ' Good Shepherd ' is so In yet five more cases, there are 
 
 represented as /;/ a?iy sefise to be two Oranti, one on each side of Our 
 
 described as accompanied by an Lord (as the Good Shepherd). And 
 
 Orante. in these five, either both are women 
 
 In five of these instances, this or one of them a man, the other a
 
 EVIDENCE OF THE CATACOMBS. 
 
 13 
 
 considerations ' leads him to believe was ' intended for our 
 
 blessed Lady, or else for the Church, the Bride of Christ, 
 
 whose life upon earth is a life of prayer, even as His holy 
 
 Mother is similarly employed in Heaven.' Of the two 
 
 interpretations, he rather inclines to the first. His reasons 
 
 for doing so he gives at some length. We need not examine 
 
 them in detail, the simple facts being these : — 
 
 These figures, of which examples are here 
 
 given, are of frequent occurrence, as Dr. 
 
 Northcote states, and represents sometimes 
 
 men, sometimes and more commonly women, 
 
 ill an attitude ofprayer^' Not unfrequently 
 
 these ' Oranti ' are found (dressed as men, as 
 
 women, or as children, as the case may be) 
 
 upon the actual loculiis, the stone that encloses the grave. 
 
 Is a Caianus,t or a Respectus,| taken to his rest in early 
 
 boyhood? — a youthful 'Orante' is seen upon his tomb, a 
 
 bird§ beside him, and on the other side, yet another bird, 
 
 woman (in one case evidently man 
 and wife, see Aringhi R. S. tom. ii. 
 p. 209). 
 
 In yet nine instances more, the 
 figure of the Good Shepherd is seen, 
 where /// some part or otJier of tlic 
 same cliamber occurs an Orante, per- 
 haps as one out of many figures on 
 a ceihng, or in part of the same 
 ArcosoHum. [In one at least of 
 these {ibid. ii. p. 257) the Orante is 
 a man.'] And in one only example 
 do we find one female Orante side 
 by side with a figure of the Good 
 Shepherd, such as will answer to 
 Dr. Northcote's description. As to 
 
 this exceptional instance, which is 
 certainly not a figure of the Virgin 
 Mary, see below, p. 17. 
 
 * There was a special reason for 
 tJiis attitude of prayer, rather than 
 that of kneeling, should be repre- 
 sented in a place of sepulture, viz. 
 that this 'standing' to pray was spe- 
 cially connected with the thought of 
 Resurrection. — Justin, ' Resp. ad 
 Orth.' c. 6. 
 
 t Aringhi R. S. tom. i. p. 606. 
 
 X Ibid. tom. ii. p. 259. 
 
 § Typical, probably, of the soul 
 of the departed. ' The two birds are 
 on the tomb of Caianus.
 
 H 
 
 THE CULTUS OF THE VIRGIN MARY. 
 
 bearing an olive branch, pledge of peace and of new life to 
 one escaped from the troubled waves of the world. Or does 
 
 Ornamented Glass* tviih Male and Female Oranti. 
 
 a wife, bereft of her husband, now ' in peace,' commemorate t 
 her tender love for her own ' Leo,' and his approved worth ? 
 
 ■'' For fuller particulars see de- male Oxd.w'Cx, see tom. ii. pp. 63, 105 
 
 scription in my ' Vestiarium Chris- (four men, two of them named^see 
 
 tianum,' p. 247. Marriott's ' Vest. Christ.' PI. vi.), 
 
 t ' Leoni dulcissimo marito cojux pp. 109, 183, 257. And for the 
 
 Urso se biba (i. e. viva) beneme- woodcut above, see ' Vest. Christ.' 
 
 renti in pace.' (Aringhi R. S. tom. p. Ixxxiv. and p. 247. 
 ii. p. 135.) For other examples of
 
 EVIDENCE OF THE CATACOMBS. I 5 
 
 — once more a male Orante is figured upon his tomb. Is 
 it again a Fautina,'" a Decia,t or a MarcellaJ who is com- 
 memorated } — the veil upon the head of the Orante on 
 each tomb would mark clearly, even if the inscription were 
 wanting, that it is wife, or mother, or daughter, whose 
 memory is here fondly cherished. In a multitude of other 
 instances, where sepulchral chambers {cubicula), or portions 
 of them, have been set apart for special use, one or more 
 Oranti, male or female, or both together, form part of the 
 decoration of the chamber. With these facts before them, 
 few reasonable persons, I suppose, would come to any 
 other conclusion than that to which Bosio, Aringhus, and 
 others, constantly give expression, viz., that these Oranti 
 serve to commemorate the faithful departed. 
 
 This interpretation, however, finds no favour with 
 Dr. Northcote. He speaks of it as a supposition which 
 ' some have entertained', — one that 'possibly may be sometimes 
 correct.' But ' in the majority of instances,' he ' feels certain 
 that it is inadmissible.' He is apparently not aware that 
 there are such things as male Oranti (he never, as far as we 
 have observed, alludes to their existence). And accord- 
 ingly, his only doubt is, whether these figures are intended 
 ' for our blessed Lady, or else for the Church, the Bride of 
 Christ.' 
 
 We ourselves, after a careful examination, can find but 
 
 1' one Orante, properly so called, in all the Catacombs, which 
 
 can, with any probability, be interpreted as referring to the 
 
 Virgin Mary. But while we state this without any hesitation 
 
 as our own opinion, we will add, that for any controversial 
 
 * Aringhi torn. ii. p. 262. t Ibid. p. 262. % Ibid. p. 258.
 
 1 6 THE CULTUS OF THE VIRGIN MARY. 
 
 results dependent on the question, there is no reason what- 
 ever that we should wish to impugn the very different 
 opinion of Dr. Northcote. The very contrary. A figure 
 
 , of the Virgin Mary, inidistinguished by any conventional 
 attribiUes fi^om other women, herself standing in the attitude 
 of prayer^^' — let this be contrasted with the same subject as 
 we shall see it represented six centuries later — the Virgin 
 Mother then crowned as a queen, seated upon a heavenly 
 throne, which she shares with our blessed Lord, or uplifted 
 by Seraphim and Cherubim, as the Queen of Heaven, and 
 
 , herself the object ofmaiis luorship ; this it is precisely (as we 
 shall shortly see) which constitutes the difference between 
 Christian art (and Christian belief) in the first five centuries, 
 and Roman Mariolatry in the ninth, in the twelfth, or the 
 eighteenth century. 
 
 We purposely confine ourselves as far as possible, in the 
 present paper, to matters strictly pertinent to the special sub- 
 ject now under consideration. We, therefore, do not now 
 enter at greater length upon the subject of these Oranti. 
 But in connexion with this question, we have to point out, 
 by a remarkable instance, how very slight a change, by even 
 
 "■ Such a representation does latest ; but, as far as we can ascer- 
 
 occur in several examples of the tain, they have very little reason to 
 
 Vetri Antichi, or ornamented glasses show for their opinion. But there 
 
 figured by Garrucci (' Vetri Ornati,' are very strong reasons (of a techni- 
 
 &c. PI. ix. 6, 7, lo, ii), and after cal kind, in reference to the use of 
 
 him by Northcote, R. S. PL xviii. the nimbus) for assigning many of 
 
 These glasses, with few exceptions, them to the fifth, if not to the sixth, 
 
 belong to a period of very degraded century. [Dr. Littledale, however, 
 
 art. Those now in question we assures us that the art of making 
 
 should assign to the fifth century. these glasses tuas lost at the end of 
 
 Roman antiquaries generally speak the fourth century. How he knows 
 
 of them as of the fourth century at that we are not informed.]
 
 EVIDENCE OF THE CATACOMBS. I 7 
 
 a slight omission, will entirely alter the character of a 
 monument; and how entirely writers, such as Dr. Northcote, . 
 may (though quite unintentionally) mislead their readers, 
 when they deal with archaeological evidence, but do so at 
 second hand, without competent archaeological knowledge 
 of their own. 
 
 Our readers will have observed, that in the words 
 already quoted (above, p. 1 2) from Dr. Northcote, he lays 
 stress upon the fact, that an Orante is frequently found as a 
 companion to the Good Shepherd ; and he adds an expression 
 of his strong belief, founded on a ' multitude of reasons,' 
 that this is intended for the blessed Mother of our Lord. 
 If our readers will turn to his Plate viii., reproduced, as he 
 states it is, from Bosio, they will find what is apparently the 
 strongest confirmation of the statement that he had made. 
 They will see an Orante represented side by side with our 
 Lord (symbolised as the Good Shepherd), and forming with 
 Him one composition, in which the juxta-position of the two 
 figures was evidently designed. The picture, as given, is 
 just what Dr. Northcote could most wish to prove his point. 
 We ourselves came upon it accidentally, just after a careful 
 examination of all the pictures in the Catacombs, as given 
 by Bosio and Aringhus. Almost the last sentence that we 
 had written, in summing up the results of the investigation, 
 was this : ' In one only example do we find a single figure 
 of a female so placed side by side with the " Good Shep- 
 herd," as to form with Him what was evidently intended to 
 be a studied and significant juxta-position, and to make up, 
 between the two, a complete picture. Ajid in this one 
 exceptional instance, the Orante is clearly marked out as a 
 Christian martyr by the " attribute " of an instrument of 
 
 c
 
 iS THE CULTUS OF THE VIRGIN MARY. 
 
 /orhire, a scourge loaded with lead or iron^'' which is painted 
 on a large scale beside her! Our astonishment may be ima- 
 gined, when, on turning to Dr. Northcote's Plates, the 
 moment after writing this, we found this very fresco referred 
 to (in the catalogue) as the Virgin Mary and the Good 
 Shepherd ; and the one fcatiwe which ivas specially character- 
 istic of it, serving at once to deternmie its meaning, had been 
 removed from the picture, and not the slightest reference made 
 anywhei^e to its existence. Had this remarkable feature in 
 the picture been preserved, any skilled antiquary would at 
 once have seen, that the picture could not possibly be in- 
 tended for the Virgin Mary. And even ordinary observers 
 could scarce have failed to feel, as it were by intuition, that 
 Dr. Northcote's interpretation could hardly be the true one. 
 But in Dr. Northcote's work the picture appears catalogued 
 as ' The Good Shepherd and the blessed Virgin,' and a 
 reference is made to Boslo, p. 387. We ourselves felt 
 pretty certain, on seeing this reference, that Bosio would 
 not bear out this description. We turned to his pages, and 
 found exactly what we had anticipated. ' Una Donna 
 orante,' says that writer, ' a woman in the act of prayer,' 
 without one word as to any even possible reference to the 
 Virgin Mary. 
 
 What do our readers suppose to be the explanation 
 of this extraordinary misrepresentation '^ It is one, we are 
 glad to be able to say it, which explains entirely how 
 Dr. Northcote came to be himself deceived as to the^ real 
 facts of the case, while the Roman artist employed (pro- 
 
 * ' Flagellum quoddam ad corpus excruciandum,' is the description of 
 Aringhus. .
 
 EVIDENCE OF THE CATACOMBS 
 
 19 
 
 bably not an archseologist at all) was, of course, equally 
 guiltless of any intentional misrepresentation. The answer 
 may best be given in Dr. Northcote's own"" words : ' It is 
 no news to those who received our prospectus, inviting 
 them to subscribe to the work before publication, but it is a 
 fact which was unaccountably omitted in our Preface to the 
 volume itself when published, and therefore is new to your 
 Reviewer, that all the twenty Plates, as well as the Map, 
 were prepared for us by De Rossi himself, executed under 
 his own eye at the Cromolitografia Pontificia in Rome, and 
 the impressions sent to us from that city exactly as they 
 
 now are Eighteen of the drawings for these Plates 
 
 were taken from the originals. For Plates VIII. and XL, 
 he had an order from us to provide a specimen of Noah 
 in his Ark ; the Three Children in the Fiery Furnace ; 
 the Raising of Lazarus ; and an Orante. [I have the cor- 
 respondence before me as I write.] When sending me the 
 proofs of the impressions, he apologised for the different 
 and inferior style of these ; but said he did not understand 
 us to want any special instances of these subjects, and 
 therefore he had not hesitated to spare himself trouble by 
 taking them from books instead of going to the Catacombs 
 
 * In a letter to the Editor of the not have used had I been aware of 
 
 'Christian Observer' (No. 384, Dec. the facts subsequently stated by Dr. 
 
 1869, p. 942). I take this oppor- Northcote. I should perhaps add, 
 
 tunity of renewing the expression of what I learn from the same letter, 
 
 my regret, that in the first edition of that Dr. Northcote did not himself 
 
 this paper (which was a review of draw up the Catalogue of Plates in 
 
 Dr. Northcote's book) I spoke in which this fresco is described as 
 
 language of strong condemnation in ' The Good Shepherd and the Blessed 
 
 reference to the misrepresentation Virs,in^ 
 here pointed out, which I should
 
 20 THE CULTUS OF THE VIRGIN MARY. 
 
 for them ; and he wrote on the back of the proofs the 
 references to Bosio which we printed. I neither looked 
 into Bosio myself, nor was at all aware, until I read the 
 article in the " Christian Observer," that the necessity of 
 getting into the same Plate a representation of Noah and 
 his Ark as well as an Orante, had caused De Rossi's artist 
 to omit a single line of the drawing which he copied.' 
 
 We dwell upon this point the rather, because it will 
 suggest a very important lesson for those who are obliged 
 to take, their knowledge of antiquity for the most part at 
 second-hand, on the authority, It may be, of controversialists 
 engaged In maintaining a particular thesis. The ' scourge ' 
 at the side of this picture is what context is in a quotation 
 from an ancient author. This context, so to call it, is 
 omitted, first, by the copyist in ignorance of its Importance, 
 and then left unnoticed by Dr. Northcote, who knows 
 nothing of its existence. And, accordingly, he publishes 
 the picture in question, in perfect good faith, but in a shape 
 zvhich entirely misrepresents its trtte meaning. This is 
 precisely what may be seen illustrated In almost every page 
 of much of the controversial Divinity that is put forth now, 
 and, for that matter, in the controversial Divinity of every 
 age, as far as we have observed. Sentences, or half-sen- 
 tences, as the case may be, can be quoted with the greatest 
 ease from Fathers in East and West, from Inscriptions and 
 the like, to prove conclusions the most diametrically con- 
 tradictory the one of the other, when they are adopted 
 (as controversial writers constantly do adopt them) at 
 second-hand, and without stating, probably without know- 
 ing, the context in which they occur. The omission of a 
 concluding clause, the slight colouring of a difficult expres-
 
 EVIDENCE OF THE CATACOMBS. 2 1 
 
 sion, which is given with unconscious bias in the course 
 of translation from ancient into modern laneuacres. the 
 sHght variations of expression introduced by late (and often 
 ignorant) copyists, and the various readings of MSS. 
 thence resulting, the introduction, into the text of an 
 ancient author, of marginal annotations, expressive of the 
 changed ideas which had possession of later students — 
 these, or any one of these (to say nothing now of inten- 
 tional omissions, or conscious falsifications), are often quite 
 sufficient to make an ancient author, as quoted^ appear to 
 affirm the very contrary of what, on fuller examination of 
 the original (where the true texts can be determined), we 
 shall find that he actually does say. We shall have to 
 notice many examples of this in the present treatise. Fla- 
 grant examples of such carelessness (we use too light a 
 term) abound in the ' Catenae of Patristic Testimonies,' 
 and of the earlier English Divines, which have been 
 produced of late years among ourselves in reference to the 
 controverted questions of the day. 
 
 We are glad to return to the point from which we have 
 digressed, and to resume our investigation of the subject 
 upon which we are engaged. Quitting the discussion of these 
 Oranti, Dr. Northcote proceeds to say, that whatever may 
 be thought of the cogency of his arguments on this first 
 head, ' the question of Our Lady's position in the most 
 ancient field of Christian art by no means depends upon 
 them. If these paintings do not rejDresent her, yet she 
 certainly appears in vioi^e than a score of other scenes, where 
 her identity cannot be questioned! We are sorry to find 
 ourselves continually finding fault, but again we are obliged 
 to say, that Dr. Northcote evidently forgets the right
 
 22 
 
 TIFK CUr.TUS OF THK VIRGIN MARV 
 
 meaning of words. This imposing phrase of ' moi'c than a 
 score of other sccnesl means only that the purely Scriptural 
 subject of the adoration of our blessed Lord by the Magi 
 is represented more than twenty times (as he states shortly 
 afterwards) in various parts of the Catacombs. One scene 
 it is, and not twenty, though that one again and again 
 represented with slight variations of treatment. One'" of 
 them may be seen below. 
 
 And what is the scene thus repeatedly dwelt on by the. 
 Church of Rome as once she was ? Is it one, which, like 
 those shortly to be set before our readers, exhibits the 
 mother of our Lord as herself an object of worship to the 
 faithful ? The very contrary. Among the various Scrip- 
 tural subjects on which these early Christians loved to 
 dwell, this of the adoration of the Magi was prominent, as 
 an emphatic testimony to the Divinity of our blessed Lord, 
 
 From the Cemetery of SS. Marcellinus and Petrus. Aringhi t. ii. 
 
 p. 117.
 
 EVIDENCE OF THE CATACOMBb. 23 
 
 and as the earnest of the coming in of the Gentiles into 
 the one fold of Christ. In this picture they were re- 
 minded''^ how these Magi, the first-fruits of the Gentile 
 Church, when they saw the young child and His mother, 
 fell doivn and ivoi^shippcd Him. A later monument will 
 show us what Roman art taught in the twelfth century. 
 Our readers will there see two Popes, who, like those Magi 
 of old, are represented as in the presence of that young 
 Child and His Mother, and they, as will be seen, fall down 
 and worship her. 
 
 Such are the facts in regard of the ' more than a score of 
 scenes' referred to by Dr. Northcote. But, besides this one 
 scene thus marvellously multiplied by our author, there are 
 really two or three other ' scenes,' represented in the Cata- 
 combs, in which the blessed Virgin is depicted. 
 
 * We do not say this without di- c. xix. ; St. Ambrose in Evang. Luc. 
 rect evidence of what really was the lib. ii. ; St. Augustine (his Epiphany 
 feeling of early Christendom in this Sermons, passim). We need not 
 matter. Our readers may refer to refer to writers in the West, extend- 
 any or all of the following passages, ing beyond the fourth century, such 
 and they will see (what but for Dr. as Leo the Great, Petrus Chryso- 
 Northcote's mode of arguing might logus, and Fulgentius, though they 
 well be deemed scarcely to need too all hold similar language. Among 
 proof) that the teachers of early Eastern writers, it is sufficient to 
 days dwelt with one voice upon this name Clement Alex. (Pged. ii. 8) ; 
 j subject of the adoration of the Magi, Origen (lib. i. c. Celsum, p. 46); 
 as a proof of the Divinity of our Chrysostom in his Homilies on St. 
 Lord., without any the slightest re- Matthew (Migne, vol. i. p. 609 sqq.)^ 
 ference to any worship or adoration and St. Basil the Great, Homil. in 
 due to the blessed Virgin herself Sanctam Christi Generationem, pj). 
 See Justin Martyr, Dial, cum Tryph. 600, 601, ed. Bened. vol. ii. [This 
 Migne, P. C. C. tom. vi. p. 654, al. Homily, however, is probably not 
 174; St. Irensei contr. Hter. lib. iii. St. Basil's, though of early date.] 
 c. ii. ; St. Jerome in Esaiam, lib. vii.
 
 24 
 
 TIIK CUI/rUS f)F TIIK VIRGIN MARY 
 
 In one of these" (not described by Dr. Northcotc) is 
 probably represented the Anniintiation, in which the angel 
 Gabriel (a human figure, without wings or other attributes, 
 such as were assigned at a later period to the angels,) is 
 seen standing before a seated female figure, and, with 
 extended hand, addressing her. Perhaps the oldest of all 
 these representations, however (De Rossi believes it to be 
 almost of the Apostolic age), is that which is represented 
 below. The natural, and, as we incline to believe, the 
 
 true, interpretation of this picture, recognises in it the Holy 
 Family, Joseph on the left hand (spectator's left), the Holy 
 Child, and His Mother; while the Star that is seen above 
 
 * In the Cemetery of S. Priscilla. with absohite certainty, the true one. 
 The interpretation above given is See Bottari, Sculture e Pitture sagre, 
 
 that commonly received by anticjiia- 
 ries, and is probably, though not 
 
 etc. Tav. clxxvi.
 
 evidp:nce of the catacombs. 25 
 
 (to which Joseph, if such he be, is pointing) serves to deter- 
 mine the general subject of the picture beyond all possi- 
 bility of mistake. Roman Catholic writers, however (for 
 reasons on which we need not here dwell), generally 
 modify this explanation in one particular, De Rossi sug- 
 gests that the figure, of which we now speak, may be the 
 impersonation of one of the Prophets of the old Covenant 
 (probably of Isaiah), pointing onward to the Star of 
 Bethlehem, and the Virgin Mother with her Holy Child, 
 as the great subject of prophetic witness. [' The spirit of 
 prophecy is the testimony of Jesus.'] For ourselves, we 
 see no necessity for this explanation. But if any prefer 
 it to the other and simpler interpretation, we are in no way 
 concerned, for any controversial reasons, to quarrel with 
 his judgment. Here, however, as in other cases. Dr. 
 Northcote contrives to put himself in the wrong, simply 
 because he is bent upon improving the occasion for his 
 own special purposes. He calls special attention to the 
 fact that the Blessed Virorin does not enter here into the 
 
 O 
 
 composition of an historical or allegorical scene as a secondary 
 personage^ bttt herself stipplies the motive, so to speak, of the 
 whole painting. This criticism will probably appear to our 
 readers to be true in a certain sense, at any rate intelli- 
 gible, when they view the picture as given by Dr. North- 
 cote, or as it is here sketched in our own woodcut. One 
 who only knew the picture from such representations, 
 might naturally imagine it to be complete in itself; a 
 picture, probably, of considerable size, and occupying the 
 most conspicuous place upon the wall of some sepulchral 
 chamber in the Catacombs. But in all these expectations 
 he would be wholly mistaken. These figures, in their
 
 26 TllK CUI/rUS OF liu: virgin MARY. 
 
 original position, form a very small portion of a piece of 
 decorative work, which, with the single exception of this 
 group, might have been found in the tomb of the Nasos, 
 or any other purely Pagan building. [The figure of the 
 Good Shepherd there traced was classical before it became 
 Christian.] But the criticism in question will be very 
 differently judged by one who views the picture with its 
 actual surroundings, as it is given '" by De Rossi. For the 
 three figures which, as here given, at once arrest attention, 
 as might a large picture of the same subject by Raphael, 
 in any modern collection, are, in the original, obscurely 
 placed, so as not even to face the spectator ; as we look 
 at them, their position is horizontal, not perpendicular. 
 And these circumstances, combined with that of the small 
 scale on which they are drawn, give them the appearance of 
 forming a subordinate part of a merely ornamental design ; 
 and that to such a degree, that none but an accurate 
 observer would be likely to notice their real character. 
 And these particulars, to one who has studied the subject 
 with any accuracy, will constitute a strong argument for 
 the extreme antiquity of the work in question. For it is 
 notable, that in the very earliest period of Christian art in, 
 the Catacombs, there is little or nothing that has an exclu- 
 sively Christian character ; but the older pagan forms of 
 decoration are adhered to, sometimes, as the subjects indi- 
 cate, by way of decoration, and nothing more ; while in other 
 cases, as in figures of a Shepherd, or of Orpheus charming 
 
 * ' Imagines Selects Deiparae Vir- J. H. Parker, a careful observer, 
 ginis,' PI. iv. (in which the context is and experienced antiquary, assigns 
 given), compared with PI. i. [Mr. this picture to the year 523 a.d.]
 
 EVIDENCE OF THE CATACOMBS. 27 
 
 I wild beasts by the sweet tones of his lyre, a symbohcal 
 reference was conveyed. 
 
 Let the reader turn from this criticism of Dr. North- 
 cote's to the actual drawings, as they are reproduced, with 
 the greatest care, by De Rossi," and he will see for himself 
 by what toitrs de foi^ce of imagination modern Romanism is 
 discovered, by such as are determined to find it, among 
 the records of primitive antiquity. 
 
 To sum up briefly this portion of our subject, the 
 facts, as even Dr. Northcote himself would have to admit, 
 are these. In those earliest decorations of the Catacombs, 
 which De Rossi and other Roman Antiquaries believe 
 (and probably with good reason) to be before the age of 
 Constantine, representations of the Virgin Mary occur only 
 in such connexion as is directly suggested by Holy Scripture. 
 One picture there is of the Holy Family at Bethlehem 
 (that already represented) ; one (probably) of the Annun- 
 tiation ; and there are upwards of twenty (we here follow 
 De Rossi) of the Adoration of the holy Child by the 
 Magi, in all of which, of course, the blessed Mother of 
 our Lord is one of the persons represented. If, in deference 
 to Dr. Northcote's opinion, or upon any other grounds, 
 any should be inclined to think that some of the Oranti 
 figures may have reference to her, even then the state- 
 ment that follows will be in no way invalidated. With that 
 statement we sum up our investigation of the subject as 
 regards the Christian art of the first three centuries. In 
 no one picture of those which even Dr. Northcote himself 
 could claim as antecedent in date to the age of Constan- 
 
 * See n-ote in preceding page.
 
 28 TIIK CULTUS OF THE VIRGIN MARY. 
 
 tine, is there anything which would appear strange or out 
 of place, on doctrinal grounds, in an illustrated Bible, put 
 forth, let us say, for the use of English Sunday Schools 
 by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. And 
 this being so, our readers may judge what amount of 
 evidence, in favour of modern ' Marianism,' is to be ob- 
 tained from the witness of really primitive Christendom at 
 Rome. 
 
 Fourth Cenhtry. 
 
 One picture there is in the Catacombs, not yet described, 
 which may perhaps be as early as the fourth century. 
 We ourselves believe that it should be assigned rather to 
 the fifth century than the fourth. But as we wish to meet 
 upon common ground of fact, as far as may be, those from 
 whom we differ in our conclusions from those facts, we will 
 assume that it belongs to the century immediately succeed- 
 ing the three already examined. 
 
 The picture of which we speak,"' is a fresco in the Ceme- 
 tery of St. Agnes on the Via Nomentana. It is a picture 
 of the Virgin Mary and Holy Child ; the picture here, for 
 the first time, being in the character of 2i portrait of the two," 
 as distinct from the suggestion of a historical (and Scriptural) 
 subject. In point of style, it departs widely from the older 
 type, and is of Byzantine character, probably painted (as 
 most of the later work at Rome was) by a Byzantine artist. 
 Neither the Holy Child, nor the Virgin, have the nimbus ; 
 the latter is in the attitude of prayer (like that of the Oranti 
 
 * De Rossi, ' Imagines Selectae, observe the surroundings of the pic- 
 etc' Tab. vi. Northcote, p. 257. ture as shown by Bosio, p. 451 ; 
 Students of antiiiuity should further Aringhi t. ii. p. 209.
 
 EVIDENCE OF THE CATACOMBS. 29 
 
 already described). A growing taste for costly ornament is 
 indicated in the addition (here first seen) of a necklace of 
 jewels about the neck of the Virgin. On either side is the 
 sacred monogram, which spoke to early Christians at once 
 of Christ, and of Christ crucified. 
 
 Here again, though there is great degradation, in point 
 of taste, in the figure of the Virgin Mary as compared with 
 that seen in the Holy Family at Bethlehem above figured 
 (p. 24), yet there is nothing to which, on doctrinal grounds, 
 any English Churchmen need for a moment object. 
 
 What do our readers suppose to be Dr. Northcote's 
 comment upon this fresco ? It is scarcely credible that a 
 man of real piety, as we doubt not he is (though of super- 
 stitious piety), should bring himself so to write. He says, 
 seriously, that the Divine Infant *■ is placed in front of his 
 virgin mother simply to show who she is.' And he evidently 
 thinks that there is a strong argument in proof of Mary 
 worship in the fourth century, in the fact to which he calls 
 special attention, viz., that 'The Christian monogram on 
 either side is turned towards her!''' What a picture is 
 here of the kind of comment which passes current for con- 
 clusive argument, when men go to antiquity with their heads 
 full of modern Romanism, and come away again, bringing 
 back precisely what they had taken with them I 
 
 For ourselves, we need not dwell further upon this 
 picture, though it is one of considerable interest as bearing 
 upon the history of art at Rome. In respect of our own 
 theological inquiry, we have only to note, that in this picture 
 
 * As the Holy Child is standing placed than it is. Being ' turned 
 before the Virgin Mary, the mono- towards ' our Lord, it is also turned 
 gram could not well be otherwise towards the Virgin.
 
 30 THE CULTUS OF THE VH^GIN MARY. 
 
 (whatever be its real date) we pass, from the representation 
 of Scriptural Jiistory, to the representation of Scriptural per- 
 sonages as such. This transition is one wliich is not without 
 I significance as bearing upon the gradual development of 
 \ I mage- worship in the Church, l^ut in itself, this picture, 
 like those earlier frescoes already considered, presents 
 nothing that on doctrinal grounds can be objected to. Far 
 from this being the case, if we place ourselves in the same 
 position as those earlier Christians, all unwitting as they 
 must have been of the ages of gross ignorance and super- 
 
 { stition which were approaching, we can enter into and share 
 the feeling of devotion, and of true Christian faith, with 
 which they, in committing their departed ones to the grave, 
 would find their one comfort in the thought, recalled to 
 them by pictures such as these, of the unfailing love, and 
 ever present power, of Him who was born of Mary. It 
 was the truth of the Incarnation which they embodied in 
 their pictures of the Virgin mother and her holy Child. 
 
 * ' Christ crucified,' they recalled, even in the emblematic 
 
 } letters inscribed beside Him ; Christ the Good Physician, 
 of body and of soul, in their oft-repeated pictures of the 
 healing of the sick, or the giving sight to the blind ; Christ" 
 
 \ the Bread from Heaven, in the miracle of the loaves ; Christ 
 
 f the Prince of Life, in the raising of Lazarus from the grave ; 
 
 ' Christ the Star risen out of Jacob, and the Desire of all 
 nations, in the star-led Magi, laying their offering at His 
 feet in Bethlehem ; Christ, above all, under that form which 
 to Christian hearts is the tenderest and most lovinof embodi- 
 
 I ment of their Lord, the Good Shepherd, bearing back upon 
 His shoulders the lamb, that, but for Him, had been lost. 
 We pass now from these memorials of primitive faith in
 
 CHARACTER OF THE LATER MONUMENTS. 3 I 
 
 the Catacombs to a new series of monuments, and of far 
 other character, in the Churches above ground, from the 
 fifth century of our era to the present time. 
 
 Character of ike Later Monuments. 
 
 We have been occupied hitherto with monuments the 
 date of which can only be approximately determined, but of 
 which (with the exception, perhaps, of the last described) 
 there are the strongest reasons for believing that they are, 
 at any rate, antecedent"" to the year 400 a.d. We 
 proceed now to consider some later works, the date of 
 which can be determined much more exactly. And as in- 
 troductory to this part of our subject, we will quote a very 
 significant sentence from Dr. Northcote himself. Speak- 
 ing of the difference between the earlier and the later 
 representations of ' St. Joseph,' he states that the later 
 artists (from the fifth century t onwards) probably followed 
 
 * In saying this, we state what is wards.' We know of no works of 
 
 our own behef upon a disputed ques- art in the West, embodying unmis- 
 
 tion ; and we do so the more rea- takably these Apocryphal legends, 
 
 dily, because it places us in accord, which can with any probability be 
 
 as to questions of fact, with those assigned to a date earlier than 500 
 
 Roman controversialists whose de- a.d. The earliest example known 
 
 ductions from those facts we im- is the Diptych of Milan, figured and 
 
 pugn. We are glad to be able thus fully described in Bugati, ' Memorie 
 
 far to meet them on common ground, di S. Celso Martire,' App. Tav. i. ii. 
 
 But some antiquaries, of consider- There is little doubt that this dates 
 
 able repute, attribute to the fourth from the sixth century. The An- 
 
 and fifth centuries frescoes which De nuntiation is there represented just 
 
 Rossi (followed by Dr. Northcote) as it is described in the Apocryphal 
 
 considers to be of the second and Gospel of St. James (Fabricii Codex 
 
 third. Apocr. Nov. Test. tom. i. p. 91). 
 
 t ' From the fifth centur)^ on- Another early example (probably
 
 32 
 
 THE CULTUS OF THE VIRGIN MARY. 
 
 ' legends concerning liim zvhicJi occur in the Apocryphal 
 Gospels, especially that which bears the name of St. James 
 the Less, and those on the birth of Mary and infancy of 
 our Saviour. ' These legends had been quoted by St. 
 Epiphanius, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and other writers of 
 the fourth century ; and allusions to them, or even whole 
 scenes taken from them, occur in the artistic monuments of 
 the fifth and succeeding centuries. Before this time Chris- 
 tian artists seem strictly to have been kept ivithin the limits 
 of the CanonicaV'' Books of holy Sciaptiu^e. Afterwards it 
 .was probably considered that there was no longer any 
 danger to the integrity of the faith, and greater license was 
 given both to poets and artists.' Thus far Dr. Northcote. 
 Whether this assumed consideration of probabilities was 
 verified in the course of time, our readers will shortly be 
 able to judge. 
 
 With this much of preface, we may now proceed. We 
 are now to emerge from the Catacombs, and leave 
 unnoticed those later t pictures, there existing, whose date 
 can only be approximately determined, J and we proceed 
 
 not earlier than the sixth century) 
 is to be seen in the Church of S. 
 Giovannino at S. Maximin in Pro- 
 vence. The Virgin Mary is there 
 described as Menester (Minister) 
 Ecclesige Hierusalem. 
 
 * ' Canonical ' from the Roman 
 point of view, Dr. Northcote, of 
 course, means. He is speaking of 
 Canonical Scriptures of the New 
 Testament, to the exclusion of the 
 .1 Apocryphal Gospels, and such-like 
 books, which found circulation in 
 
 the West during the fifth century, 
 and were formally condemned by 
 Gelasius, Bishop of Rome, a.d. 495. 
 
 t ' Later pictures.' See particu- 
 larly Aringhi R. S. t. ii. p. 354-5 
 (very interesting on archaeological 
 grounds, but of no doctrinal import- 
 ance), and the latest of the pictures 
 figured by De Rossi in his ' Imagines 
 Selectae Deiparse Virginis.' 
 
 X Together with these we pass 
 over also the ' Vetri antichi,' the 
 ornamented glasses found here and
 
 CHARACTER OF THE LATER MONUMENTS. 33 
 
 to speak of some other monuments, whose date admits 
 of being closely fixed. The objects, of which we now 
 speak, are the mosaic decorations of churches at Rome 
 and Ravenna, the frescoes on the long-buried walls below 
 the Church of St. Clement at Rome, and one or two 
 others that are less well known. 
 
 Of these monuments there are some few, which date 
 from the early part of the fifth century. And these 
 mosaics, executed, as we know them to have been, under 
 the immediate superintendence of the highest ecclesiastical 
 authorities, in Rome or Ravenna, as the case might be, are, 
 from that circumstance, of especial value as indications of 
 received doctrine. The simple records of family affection, 
 which abound in the Catacombs, picture to us, in their few 
 touching words of love, and faith, and hope, how in very 
 truth, to the humblest Christian, death had been robbed 
 of its sting ; how the grave had become the gate of 
 peaceful "" rest ; and death, as men deem death, only a 
 blessed sleep t to them that rest in the Lord. But the 
 elaborate mosaics with which, from the close of the fourth 
 century onwards, so many churches, both of East and West, 
 
 there in the Catacombs. Of their ' Heth in peace,' ' rests in peace,' — 
 
 date we have already said a few these are recurrent forms in the in- 
 
 words. A full treatment of the sub- scriptions of the Catacombs. And 
 
 ject would require a treatise in itself ; here and there, but much less com- 
 
 But when all were said that could monly, are such expressions as ' In 
 
 be, on either side, the main argu- pace requiescat.' (Aringhi R. S. 
 
 ment of our present paper would be torn. ii. p. 140.) 
 
 in no way dependent on, or affected t The day of death is often ' dor- 
 
 by, the conclusion reached. initio^ ' a falling to sleep.' The 
 
 * 'In peace,' 'received into peace,' same word is often used of the place 
 
 ' committed to the ground in peace,' of burial. 
 
 D
 
 34 THE CULTUS OF THE VIRGIN MARY. 
 
 were decorated, though they lack this personal interest, 
 have a value all their own, as being deliberate expressions 
 of theological belief. They are little less than embodied 
 Creeds, reflecting from century to century the prevailing 
 tone of opinion on the part of those of highest authority 
 in the Church. Bearing this in mind, we may proceed now 
 to consider what are the facts presented to us, on examina- 
 
 i tion of the series of monuments of the fifth and later cen- 
 turies, which immediately succeed, in historical order, those 
 
 I earlier frescoes, of the ' Biblical Cycle,' in the Catacombs. 
 
 Mosaics at Rome and Ravenna from 400 a.d, to 600 a.d. 
 
 The character of the elaborate mosaics which date from 
 this period is well described by Seroux d'Agincourt in his 
 ' HIstoire de I'Art par ses Monuments.' [In this case, 
 as in other citations from modern authors, we purposely 
 quote from Roman Catholic writers, as being free from 
 any suspicion of ' Protestant prejudice ' in what they write.] 
 Describing"" some of the more important mosaics dating 
 from the fifth century, he writes as follows : — ' In the 
 mosaics before us, what most deserves praise is the earnest-, 
 ness with which the Christians of that age sought to make 
 
 art subservient to the greater honour of God All 
 
 the pomp of a heavenly triumph is displayed in the com- 
 position of a mosaic in the Church of St. Paul "extra 
 muros." It adorns that portion of the interior which was 
 known to Christians as the "Triumphal Arch." This -was 
 situated, in this instance, as in most of the Basilicas and 
 
 * Peinture, Decadence, torn. ii.p. 30. For fuller details, and ancient 
 authorities, see Ciampini V. M. t. i. p. 199.
 
 FIFTH AND SIXTH CENTURIES. 35 
 
 more important churches, above the principal altar, and 
 formed a majestic termination to the great nave, and was 
 immediately followed by the Arch of the Tribune."" These 
 two arches, enriched on both sides, both the one and the 
 other, with mosaics, were generally full in view of the 
 faithful as they entered. The Saviour appeared on the 
 Triumphal Arch of this Church in all His glory, seated 
 upon His throne, and receiving the homage and adoration 
 of the inhabitants of heaven. Solio niedms consedit avito. 
 It was after such a manner that emperors of Rome, after 
 victories won, found the representation of them reproduced 
 on the triumphal arches erected in their honour by the 
 gratitude of their people.' 
 
 We would ask our readers to bear these particulars 
 in mind, while noticing the list that follows. It com- 
 prises all the mosaics of importance to our present 
 subject, dating from the years 400 to 600 a.d., in the 
 collections of Ciampinus and Seroux D'Agincourt, and in 
 another, consisting of original drawings (once the property 
 of a Pope), to which we have access. 
 
 The earliest in point of date are the original t mosaics 
 in the Church of St. Maria Major, dating from the year 
 433 A.D., or shortly after. Those of which we now speak 
 are on the upper walls of what we should call the chancel 
 
 * By the Arch of the Tribune is once meet the eye of worshippers 
 
 meant the apse-Uke termination of on entering the church, as D'Agin- 
 
 the Roman BasiUcas, at what would court observes, 
 
 correspond to the ' East end ' of one f They are now intermixed with 
 
 of our own churches. Accordingly, many, of much later date, in other 
 
 this arch, and the 'Triumphal Arch' parts of the church. 
 abo\'e described, are wliat would at
 
 36 THE CULTUS OF THE VIRGIN MARY. 
 
 arch, the ' Arcus Triumphalis ' just described. We find 
 here a series of Scriptural subjects '" bearing upon the truth 
 of the Incarnation and of the Divine nature of our Lord, 
 which cuhninate (over the centre of the arch) in a 
 symboHcal designation of our Lord, as the Lamb, derived 
 from Revelation, cap. iv., v. There is here no suggestion 
 whatever of the Virgin Mary being an object of adoration, 
 still less of her sharing the heavenly throne of Christ. Not 
 only so, but, in the picture of the Adoration of the Magi, 
 what may be called the natural arrangement of the picture 
 is sacrificed, for the sake of more clearly expressing divine 
 truth. The Holy Child, with angels in attendance on 
 Him, is seated alone upon a throne of state; His own 
 higher dignity, and that of the angels, being marked also 
 by a nimbus upon their heads. The Virgin Mary has a 
 subordinate, though honourable, place at one side of the 
 principal group ; and neither here, nor in any other of the 
 scenes represented. Is the nimbus, or any such mark, 
 assigned to her. We have engraved this particular group, 
 and we invite especial attention to It, as of the highest 
 value to the historian of primitive doctrine. For the mosaic 
 was given to the Church by XYSTVS EPISCOPVS t (so 
 
 * Very imperfectly represented illustration is taken. The Annun- 
 
 by Ciampini V. M. i. p. 200. One ciations made both to Zacharias and 
 
 of the groups (the Annunciation) is to the Virgin Mary, the Adoration 
 
 well figured by D'Agincourt, ' Pein- of the Magi, the Presentation in the 
 
 ture,' PL xvi. No. 4. But this group, Temple, the Murder of the Innocents, 
 
 and others of the same composition, the Questioning with the Doctors, 
 
 are very exactly represented in the and the Death of John the Baptist; 
 
 private collection above spoken of such are the subjects represented, 
 once the property of Pope Clement t Sixtus III. Bishop of Rome from 
 
 XI. It is from this that our own 432 to 440 a.d.
 
 FIFTH CENTURY. 
 
 37
 
 38 THE CULTUS OF THE VIRGIN MARY. 
 
 named in the mosaic itself) ivilhiu two or three years of the 
 acts of the Coimcil of Ephesus being promulgated. In that 
 Council the title of ' Theotokos'"' was vindicated for the 
 Virgin Mary, as a protest against the heresy of Nestorius. 
 The entire composition of the mosaic had direct reference 
 to the doctrinal questions which then agitated the Church. 
 And the group now before our readers, more forcibly than 
 any other evidence that could be produced, proves what 
 was the mind of the Roman Church, in the middle of the 
 fifth century, concerning the honour due to our Lord, 
 and to the Virgin Mary, respectively. It is evident that, 
 as in the Acts t of that Council, so In this picture, as it was 
 originally arranged (how it was afterzvards treated we shall 
 yet have occasion to say), the object proposed was that of 
 vindicating the Divinity of the Son of Mary against those 
 who by implication denied it, and was not, what later 
 perversions have made it to be, that of exalting the Virgin 
 
 * Theotokos, /. e. one of whom according to the words which S. 
 
 \ God was born. See following note. Cyril either puts into their mouth, 
 
 t The opinion that was to be con- or actually quotes, that He who was 
 demned is most simply expressed by born of Mary was not Himself God, 
 Cyril Alex, himself (Nestorius' prin- but that God the Son took up His 
 cipal opponent). He represents the dwelling in the man that of Mary 
 Nestorians as using the following had been horn. In direct contradic- 
 language : — ' He who by the nature tion to this heretical statement, the 
 of His own Being, and in very truth, title Theotokos served to assert, that 
 was the Son, and as such was free, He to whom Mary gave birth was 
 He, the Word of God the Father. God^ not a mere man in whom the 
 who was subsisting in the form of Godhead might afterwards abide. 
 Him who begat Him, and was equal [For the words above quoted see 
 unto Him, took up His diucUing in a Labbe', Concil. tom. iii. p. 32. They 
 man born of a woman.' In other occur in the Letter of Cyril, ad- 
 words, the Nestorians maintained, dressed to the Egyptian Monks, § 14.]
 
 FIFTH AND SIXTH CENTURIES. 39 
 
 Mary herself to all but coequal dignity with her Divine Son. 
 And accordingly, in the original mosaic, here depicted, not 
 the * glories of Mary,' but the glory of our Lord, is evidently 
 the central aim of the whole. Notice, as bearing upon this, 
 the arrangement of the group before us. In every other re- 
 presentation of this particular subject, with which we are ac- 
 quainted, the Holy Child is, as naturally might be expected, 
 held in the arms of His mother. To the simple faith of an 
 earlier age, merely human pictures such as those already 
 delineated,'" sufficed to recall at once all that to the faith of 
 a Christian was implied in the thought of the star of Beth- 
 lehem, and of that Holy Family to which it points. But in 
 the fifth century, at the period of which we now speak, more 
 than this was thought to be required, as a protest against 
 heretical teaching. What was desired now was, that art 
 itself should minister to the assertion of the Divinity of 
 Him who was born of Mary. And accordingly the Holy 
 Child is now seated alone (apart from His mother) upon a 
 throne, angels being in attendance upon Him, as though 
 waiting to do His bidding. The Virgin Mary shares not 
 this His throne, but is in a subordinate position t at one 
 
 * See pp. 12 and 14. description by Ciampinus, and the 
 t The accurate drawings here re- drawing which we now pubHsh for 
 produced enable us to correct a the first time, will enable antiquaries 
 mistake shared by Ciampinus and to arrive at a true conclusion con- 
 Mr. Heraans. They speak of the cerning the whole. More jiarticu- 
 Virgin Mary as standing. This is larly we would call attention to the 
 not so. She is seated, but on a fact mentioned by Ciampinus, that 
 chair of some kind, as far as one there was originally yet another figure 
 can judge, and in a subordinate po- on the extreme left of the picture 
 sition, while the Holy Child is seated (probably the third of the Magi), 
 on a spacious throne. The detailed which had all but disappeared, even
 
 40 THE CULTUS OF THE Vn<GIN MARY. 
 
 side ; Joseph (probably) on llic otlier. And while the 
 angels, and our Lord, have the nimbus about the head, the 
 Virgin herself is without it. What makes this absence 
 of the nimbus from the head of the Virgin the more signi- 
 licant, is the fact, that, in other portions of the mosaic here 
 described, Herod, as being a King, has the nimbus. This 
 attribute had been a designation of royalty, and of divinity 
 (under the Empire the two ideas were not very accurately 
 distinguished) before it was adopted into Christian use, 
 and in the earliest Christian monuments this meaning was 
 still preserved. And from this monument that appears 
 clear, which from the evidence of contemporary literature we 
 might also infer, viz. that to the Virgin Mary neither 
 queenly nor divine honours were assigned, even as late as 
 the fifth century of Christendom. And the later evidence, 
 which follows, shows that even this period must be consi- 
 derably extended, before we shall find traces, in Roman 
 churches, of either of those two ideas. 
 
 A few years later in date than the mosaics last de- 
 scribed, are those in the Church of SS. Nazarius and 
 Celsus" at Ravenna, originally constructed as a mausoleum.. 
 There are here repeated representations, symbolical or 
 personal, of our Lord ; none zvhatever of the Virgin Mary. 
 
 All but, if not quite, contemporary with the last, are the 
 
 in his time, in consequence of alter- been, that he interpreted this figure 
 
 ations in the building. I should add as representing the third of the Magi, 
 
 that the seated figure {spectator's right and the standing figure (which is 
 
 of the throne), which is evidently really that of a man) on our Lord's 
 
 that intended for the Virgin Mary, right hand he assumes to be in- 
 
 so little corresponded with what tended for the Virgin Mother. 
 Ciampinus, as a Roman Catholic, * See Ciampini V. M. tom. i. c. 
 
 would naturally expect it to have xxiii.
 
 FIFTH AND SIXTH CENTURIES. 
 
 41 
 
 mosaics, again on the ' Arcus Triumphalis,' of the Church of 
 St. Paul on the Via Ostiensis,""'^ presented by Leo the Great 
 (a.u. 441). Here, again, it is the 'Triumph' of the as- 
 cended Saviour that is represented, according to the de- 
 scription given in the Revelation of St. John (cap. iv., v.). 
 The four living creatures, t the four-and-twenty Elders, 
 holding crowns {i.e. victors' garlands) in their hands, SS. 
 Peter and Paul — all these are represented, but in no way 
 whatever does the Virgin Mary appear. 
 
 The same remarks will apply, mutatis mutandis, to other 
 mosaics|at Ravenna, of the years 451 and 462 respectively. 
 There is much here to recall our Lord and His Apostles to 
 the minds of the faithful. The Virgin Alary is nowhere 
 represented. 
 
 Not even in the sixth century, a period of rapidly in- 
 creasing barbarism in Italy, is any change yet to be found in 
 the prevailing character of these more public § monuments 
 of the Church. To this period belong numerous mosaics, 
 both in Ravenna and at Rome. Among the former we may 
 
 * See Ciampini V. M. t. i. c. xxiv. their execution, whatever that was, 
 
 A good representation of these will there was among private persons at 
 
 be found in D'Agincourt, ' Peinture,' Rome a considerable development 
 
 PL xvi. No. 6. in the ' cultus ' both of the Virgin 
 
 f Identified in the mosaic with Mary, and of martyrs such as St. 
 
 the symbolic designations of the Agnes. There is nothing more of 
 
 four Evangelists. honour traceable in the representa- 
 
 X See Ciampini V. M. torn. i. cc. tions of the Virgin Mary than in 
 
 xxv. and xxvi., and Plates Ixx. to those of St. Agnes and St. Lawrence. 
 
 Ixxv. But both one and the other, in these 
 
 § The later Vetri Antichi, on the more individual expressions of de- 
 other hand, whether they be as- votional feeling, present a marked 
 signed to the fourth, fifth, or sixth contrast to the public monuments 
 century, indicate that at the time of we have to describe.
 
 42 THE CULTUS OF THE VIRGIN MARY. 
 
 enumerate those'"' of the Church of St. VitaHs {circ. 550 a.d.), 
 of St. Maria t in Cosmedin (a.d. 553), of St. ApohinarisJ; 
 (a.d. 570). At Rome itself we have mosaics of about the 
 same date, in the Church of SS. Cosmas and Damianus§ 
 (a.d. 530), and in that of St. Laurentius|| (a.d. 578). Among 
 a mukitude of Scriptural subjects, or Scriptural personages, 
 there represented (none others occur, in these more public 
 monuments, till late in the sixth century), there is but onell 
 instance, to our knowledge, of the Virgin Mary being 
 figured at all, and then only in the scene of the Adoration 
 of the Magi. And it is very noteworthy, that in every 
 instance*"' of mosaic decorations, of this or of earlier cen- 
 turies, placed on the ' Arcus Triumphalis,' or on the ' Arch 
 of the Tribune,' it is our blessed Lord, in every case, who, 
 either by symbolic tt designation or by direct representation, 
 is set forth as at once God and Man, and, as such, as the 
 object of religious worship to the faithful ; and, with the one 
 exception of the historical [scriptural] representations of the 
 
 * Ciampini V. M. torn. ii. c. ix. linus, Bishop of Nola {flor. circ. 420 
 
 Pll. xix. XX. xxi. A.D.) and St. Nilus of Egypt {flor. 
 
 t Ibid. c. X. Pll. xxiii. xxiv. circ. 440) will answer as well as any 
 
 X Ibid. c. xii. Pll. xxv. xxvi. could for the feeling of the Church 
 
 § Ibid. c. vii. Pll. xv. xvi. xvii. in these matters of sacred art, in 
 
 II Ibid. PI. xxvii. i. West and East, early in the fifth 
 
 ^ S. Apollinaris, at Ravenna. Ci- century. Students of early art should 
 
 ampini, t. ii. PI. xxvii. The ' one compare the Epist. xii. (ad Severum) 
 
 only ' of which we speak, is exclu- and Poema xxvii. of Paulinus, with 
 
 sive of those mosaics of Sixtus III. the letter of St. Nilus to the Prefect 
 
 A.D. c. 435) already described. Olympiodorus. (Lib. iv. Epist. Ixiii. 
 
 ** See Ciampini, t. i. Tab. xlvi. Romce, fol. 1668.) Both letters are 
 
 Ixviii. ; t. ii. Tab. xv. xvi. xvii. xix. of great interest, as on other grounds, 
 
 xxiv. xxviii. so more particularly for their bearing 
 
 tt ' Symbolic designation.' Pau- on the history of Christian art ; and
 
 MONUMENTS OF SEVENTH CENTURY. 43 
 
 St. Maggiore already described, in no one of these instances 
 is the Virgin Mary in any way represented. 
 
 And thus we are brought to the close of the sixth 
 century, a period at which, in art, as in literature, we find 
 proofs of rapid deterioration from the higher standard of 
 earlier times, but in which the public monuments of the 
 Church were as yet primitive and Scriptural in character, and 
 without any the slightest trace of idolatrous worship offered 
 to any creature, in derogation of that due to the three 
 persons of the blessed Trinity, 
 
 We shall find manifest traces of a change in the 
 character of these monuments in the century that follows. 
 But before proceeding to speak of these, we may briefly 
 notice one, which in character, as well as in date, belongs to 
 the transitional period which we have now reached, though 
 not locally connected with the other monuments above 
 described. 
 
 The picture which our readers have before them is from 
 a Syriac Book of the Gospels, written and illuminated at 
 Zagba, in Mesopotamia, at the close of the sixth century 
 (a,d, 586), and purchased nine centuries later by an agent 
 of the Medici for their library at Florence. Of this library 
 
 we regret that space will not allow sented, and that not personally (in 
 
 of our quoting them. But we may His form as man), but symbolically, 
 
 state one conclusion to which they by the figure of a lamb, or by a 
 
 point, viz. that while the nave of a cross. [This last is the only deco- 
 
 church was decorated with stories ration St. Nilus will have in the Hie- 
 
 from the Old and New Testaments rateion, the Sacrarium of Western 
 
 (for the instruction, says St. Nilus, writers.] This cross, as described 
 
 of those ivJio cannot read Scripture), by Paulinus, was surrounded by a 
 
 yet in the chancel (as we should corona, or victor's chaplet, just as we 
 
 now call it) Christ alone was repre- see it in numerous early sarcophagi.
 
 44 THE CULTUS OF THE VH'ICIN MARY. 
 
 it Still forms one of the most cherished treasures. The 
 middle and upper part of the picture before us, with which 
 alone''' we are here concerned, contains a representation of 
 the Ascension. And it will be seen, that here, as in almost 
 all the later mediaeval representations of the same scene, 
 whether in East or West, the Virgin Mary is made the 
 central personage in the picture, although in Holy Scripture 
 we have not the slightest intimation of her having been 
 present. And after what has been already said on the 
 subject of the nimbus, our readers will see what is implied 
 by a fact, trivial indeed in itself, but suggestive of the 
 tendencies of the time from which this picture dates. We 
 find that, in this picture, our Lord, the Angels, and the 
 Virgin Maiy, have the nimbus, while the Apostles are 
 without it. In all other respects, the older traditions of 
 Christian art are still observed. The Virgin is in an 
 attitude of adoration, standing as in prayer, not seated on 
 a throne of glory, and herself (as in later pictures we shall 
 see her) the object of adoration to others. Though she 
 occupies the central place, with the Eleven on either side 
 of her, and is marked out as distinguished above them by 
 the nimbus about her head, yet do we find as yet no traces 
 of those apocryphal stories concerning her, which had 
 already come into existence, and which, in some parts of 
 
 * In the lower compartments of andria (engraved in 'Vest. Christ.' 
 
 the picture are reproduced, on a PL xxvii.). For further particulars 
 
 much smaller scale, two other illus- concerning this INIS. see ' Assemani 
 
 trations from the same ancient source. Bibliotheca Medicea,' Florentise, fol. 
 
 One is of the Crucifixion, in the 1742, where the illustrations are 
 
 other are figured Eusebius, Bishop engraved and described, 
 of Ccesarea. and Ammonius of Alex-
 
 : : -- • /. s c E N s I c \ 
 
 -rem a S\;'.5.c M S writ.ten A 2 :;6£
 
 i
 
 MONUMENTS OF SEVENTH CENTURY. 45 
 
 the West, about this time, found expression in Christian art. 
 Still less do we find anything approaching to those blasphe- 
 mous representations of which Western art has been prolific 
 
 m later aofes. 
 
 From 600 A.D. to 800 a.d. 
 
 In proceeding now to speak of the monuments of the 
 two centuries immediately following, we will quote, as being 
 exceedingly apposite to our purpose, the words of a foreign 
 writer, to whose authority we have already made appeal. 
 Seroux d'Agincourt, describing"" the gradual degradation 
 of art in the successive centuries of our Christian era, writes 
 as follows of the seventh : — 'In the seventh century . . . . 
 the custom was introduced of representing in churches 
 persons who were the objects of a special " cultus " \d'un 
 ctUte particidier, of a special worship or reverence other 
 than that paid to God Himself].' He then refcis to 
 particular mosaics in which occur figures of St. Agnes, 
 St. Sebastian, and St. Euphemia. And then describing 
 another, in which was a figure of our Lord, he writes : 
 * Christ is here seen as if in act of blessing, but the figure, 
 which is but a half-length, is without dignity, and is lost as 
 it ivere in the crowd of images produced by emblematic 
 representations of the Evangelists a7td of saintly personages 
 who fill the principal space! What a comment is here 
 unconsciously given upon the tendencies of the age of 
 which the writer speaks ! 
 
 Numerous mosaics dating from this seventh century are 
 figured by Ciampinus and others. The earliest in date is 
 
 * F^or these quotations see vol. ii. p. 37, of the ' Histoire de I'Art,' &c.
 
 46 THE CULTUS OF THE VIRGIN MARY. 
 
 of the year 623 a.d., in the church of St. Agnes, restored 
 and decorated by the Roman Popes Symmachiis and 
 Honorius I. Here, for the first time, the arch of the 
 tribune is found to be occupied, not by our Lord, but by 
 saints (St. Agnes, and the two bishops to whom was due 
 the restoration of the Church). And tJiese figiwes take the 
 place, ivhich in earlier times wonld have been occtipied by the 
 Saviour, zvith angels and apostles on either hand. The 
 barbarism of the inscription forms an instructive comment 
 upon the picture itself Some twenty years before this, 
 St. Gregory the Great had told us, that he himself knew 
 nothing of Greek, and that at Constantinople there was no 
 one who could make sense out of a Latin letter requiring 
 translation into Greek. And by the inscription now before 
 us we may judge what was now that ' pnrity of Latin 
 speech' boasted " of, as this at least had been, at Rome in 
 St. Gregory's time.t 
 
 * Joannes Diaconus 'Vita D. Gre- Martyrum e bustis hinc reppulit ille 
 gorii,' lib. ii. c. 13. chaos. 
 
 t We give the description exactly Sursum versa nutu quod cunctis cer- 
 as we find it in Ciampinus, V. M. nitur usque, 
 
 t, ii. p. 105 : — ■ Prffisul Honorius hsec vota dicata 
 ' Aurea concisis surgit Pictura me- dedit. 
 
 tallis, Vestibus et factis signantur illius ora 
 
 Et complexa simul clauditur ipsa dies. Excitat aspectu lucida corda gerens.' 
 Fontibus e nibeis [/. e. niveis] crcdas The Pontifical inscriptions of the 
 
 aurora subire fifth and sixth centuries are some of 
 
 Correptas nubes ruribus aura rigans. them bad enough, in all conscience. 
 
 Vel qualem inter sidera lucem pro- But what can be said, what thought, 
 
 ferat Irim of Latin such as this, at the very 
 
 Purpureusque pavo ipse colore ni- centre, and in the Patriarchal See, 
 
 tens. of Latin Christendom ? Archbishop 
 
 Qui posuit [potuit ?] noctis vel lucis Manning will no doubt tell us that 
 
 reddere finem it was not written ' civ cathedra'
 
 MONUMENTS OF SEVENTH CENTURY. 47 
 
 With such evidence before us of the barbarism of the 
 Roman Church at this time, we shall not be surprised 
 at finding-, even in the public monuments of this century, 
 proof of a marked change in the feeling of the Church in 
 reference to doctrinal questions, and of declension from the 
 purity of primitive faith. In the Chapel of St. Venantius,'"' 
 the mosaic decorations of which date from 642 a.d. or 
 thereabouts, the one figure which is so placed as at once to 
 catch the eye of worshippers thoughout the Church, is that 
 of the Virgin Mary, She appears here as the central 
 figure, with six Apostles on either side of her. Both she 
 and the Apostles have a nimbus exactly resembling that 
 assio-ned to our Lord and the two anofels who attend on 
 Him. It is, however, with a view, probably, to mark the 
 greater dignity of these celestial personages, that they have 
 been drawn on a much larger scale than the Virgin Mary 
 and the Apostles, who occupy the lower, and more generally 
 visible, part of the composition. 
 
 Once more we quote D'Agincourt. It is thus that he 
 describes the characteristics of Christian art in the period 
 that immediately followed. ' In the eighth century,' so 
 he writes (' Peinture,' vol. ii. p. 38), ' the carelessness and 
 ignorance of the times often mixed up in the same com- 
 position subjects utterly alien the one from the other .... 
 At this period the fervour of Christian people for the wor- 
 ship [" culte ") of the Mother of God was continually in- 
 creasing. T/ie homage paid to her zuas no longer distin- 
 guished from that rendered to the Lord of all! So writes 
 the Roman Catholic historian of Christian art. But we are 
 
 * See Ciampini V. M. torn. ii. c. xv. Tab. xxxi.
 
 48 THE CULTUS OF THE VIRGIN MARY. 
 
 bound to say that we do not ourselves know of any monu- 
 ments '" of the cio-Jith century, which bear out this very 
 strong language, which, however, is strictly applicable, as 
 we shall see, to the centuries that follow. 
 
 The Ninth and three follozuing Centuries . 
 
 The period at which we have now arrived is one which 
 well deserves attentive study, as on other grounds, so es- 
 pecially upon this, that in the four centuries which elapsed 
 between the age of Leo III. and Charlemagne (a.d. 800), 
 and that of Pope Innocent III. {sed. 1198-1216), the doc- 
 trine and ritual of the Roman Church were gradually 
 elaborated and stereotyped by a series of councils, to whose 
 decrees the divines assembled at Trent in the sixteenth 
 century appealed t as being nothing less than the teaching 
 of ' the Church of God.' 
 
 The first of the monuments we have now to notice 
 dates from an early period of the ninth century. It is a 
 mosaic I in the Church of St. Cecilia, restored and decor- 
 ated by Pope Paschalis the First (817-824). Here we find 
 a marked evidence of the advance made (if advance w^ 
 
 * A point of transition towards the beginning of the eighth cen- 
 
 the more pronounced representa- tury. 
 
 tions of the ninth century will be t Catechismus ad Parochos, pp. 
 
 found figured in Ciampini ' De Sacris 139, 140, Romae, fol. 1566. 
 
 ^dificiis,' Tab. xxiii. Pope John % Figured and described in Ciam- 
 
 VII. is there represented approach- pini V. M. t. ii. c. xxiii. Tab. xliv. 
 
 ing the Virgin Mary, ' venerabiliter By Seroux D'Agincourt, PI. xvii. 
 
 curvus.' The Virgin herself has the No. 15, and also in the Collection 
 
 nimbus, and has a royal diadem; but of original Drawings once belonging 
 
 she is still standing, and in the atti- to Pope Clement XL, already spoken 
 
 tude of prayer. These date from of
 
 NINTH AND FOLLOWING CENTURIES. 49 
 
 can bear to call it) in the publicly recognised worship of the 
 Virgin Mary. The arch of the tribune is occupied by a 
 gigantic figure of the Virgin, seated on a gorgeous throne. 
 She holds the Infant Saviour in her arms. But the Pope 
 [Paschalis himself, as the 'square nimbtis' about his head 
 indicates], who kneels before the two, directs his worship, 
 not to the Infant Saviotir, but to the Virgin Mary. He is 
 embracing her feet, as he kneels in an attitude of adoration. 
 The Pontifical Latin is here again significant — Virgo 
 Maria tibi Paschalis PrcesiU honestus condidit hanc aulam 
 Icetus per scccla manendam. Another church, that of St. 
 Cecilia, also owed its mosaic decoration to the same Pope 
 Paschal {circ. 820 a.d.)."" And here we may note some 
 significant changes made in the traditionary representations 
 of the worship of Christ on the Arcus Triumphalis. The 
 four-and-twenty elders, with their white robes, and crowns in 
 their hands, are still in their wonted place. But above, and 
 in the very centre of the whole, instead of a figure of our 
 Lord alone, personally or symbolically represented, the 
 Virgin Mary, wearing a royal crozun, is seated as a Qtteeny 
 upon a throne, bearing the Holy Infant on her knees. 
 
 With this may be compared two other mosaics of nearly 
 the same date ; one in the Cathedral Church of Capua ;t one 
 in the Church of St. Maria Nova at Rome, in which \ the 
 Virgin Mary, with all the insignia of a Queen, is set forth as 
 the most conspicuous object for the worship of the faithful. 
 
 * Ciampini V. M. torn. ii. c. xxvii. % Ibid. Tab. Ivii. (Photographed, 
 
 Tab. xi. ; D'Agincourt, ' Peinture,' from a drawing of Pope Clement's, in 
 PI. xvii. No. 14; and a drawing in 'VestiariumChristianmn,'Pl.xxxviii.) 
 the collection of Pope Clement XI. Compare D'Agincourt, ' Peinture,' 
 
 t Ciampini ubi sup. Tab. liv. PI. xvii. No. 13. 
 
 E
 
 50 THE CULTUS OF THE VIRGIN MARY. 
 
 But we pass hastily over these, in order to dwell in 
 more detail upon a picture, somewhat differing from these 
 in character, which was only discovered a few years ago, 
 and which since then has often been the subject of keen 
 controversy. 
 
 There is a special interest attaching to this picture, 
 because, like so many other monuments of both the art and 
 the literature of antiquity, it has been grossly misrepre- 
 sented, and is even now employed, we believe, to serve the 
 purposes of Roman controversy. 
 
 This picture of ' the Assumption ' (for such it probably 
 is) was discovered only a few years ago, on the buried walls 
 of perhaps the oldest church in Rome, that of St. Clement. 
 A church so named has long been shown, as many of our 
 readers doubtless know, and has been reputed among the 
 most ancient buildings of Christian Rome. But in the 
 course of some repairs that were found necessary in the 
 year 1858, a crypt was discovered below the floor of the 
 church, this crypt being no other than the primitive Church 
 of St. Clement, half burled and half destroyed. On the 
 ruins of this, a comparatively modern church had been 
 constructed, in (we believe) the twelfth century. On th^ 
 walls of this buried church, frescoes were found, one of 
 which is now presented to our readers. The subject is the 
 ' Assumption,' as we have already observed ; and though 
 Roman antiquaries, such as De Rossi, have at once 
 recognised the true date of the fresco, which is actually in- 
 scribed upon it, as we shall see, yet proselytising ecclesi- 
 astics at Rome long remained in ignorance (so we are 
 bound in charity to suppose) of this date, and displayed this 
 fresco again and again to English visitors as giving proof
 
 THE. ASSUMPTION 
 A Fresco of the T* JeA'oir/ from the liypogene Church of S Qemenleat Romfe
 
 THE ASSUMPTION. 
 
 51 
 
 that the Roman doctrine concerning the Virgin Mary, and 
 especially concerning her Assumption, had been recognised 
 in the primitive Church from all but Apostolic times. 
 ' The Church of St. Clement, even as known hitherto,' (so 
 it was '" argued,) ' was one of the oldest Christian Churches 
 at Rome. Here is a church more ancient still, — so ancient 
 as to have been buried beneath the ground, and altogether 
 lost to sight and knowledge for hundreds of years. The 
 very construction of the walls gives proof of an all but 
 Apostolic antiquity ; and here, upon those walls, pro- 
 videntially preserved for the conviction of Protestants, and 
 for the establishment of the faith of Catholics, — here are 
 proofs of what was the belief of the Church while, it may 
 be, the voices of the two princes of the Apostles were still 
 sounding in the ears of their surviving disciples.' 
 
 This ingenious statement, like many another similar 
 argument that has been set in currency of late years among 
 ourselves, can only be acquitted of far graver fault on the 
 ground of a scarcely excusable ignorance. For what are 
 the facts of the case — facts which at Rome, the very centre 
 of archaeological study, might have been ascertained at once 
 from persons competent to give an opinion ? Our readers 
 have before them the opportunity of judging these facts for 
 themselves, and that upon evidence furnished by the very 
 persons t whose opinions we are now combating. And first, 
 
 * It is right to add, that the pre- edition of this paper I have seen, 
 
 sent writer is not a personal witness by a description of these mosaics 
 
 as to this. He is only retailing at published not long since by the cus- 
 
 second-hand the general purport of todians of the church, that they do 
 
 what he has heard stated by others. now recognise their true date.] 
 
 [I will add, also, that since the first t Our illustration is reproduced
 
 52 THE CULTUS OF THE VH^GIN MARY. 
 
 let it be noted, that the figure on the left-hand {spectators 
 left) occupies the place which, in pictures of this kind, was 
 conventionally assigned to the ^iver of the mosaic, or of the 
 fresco, as the case might be. Observe, further, the contrast 
 between the ' nimbus ' about the head of this figure (it is 
 shaped like a square piece of board), and the ordinary cir- 
 cular nimbus of the figure on the spectator's right. This 
 ' square nimbus,' as it is sometimes called, was, in the 
 middle ages, a conventional mode of marking out a distin- I 
 guished personage while still living^^ whereas the circular 
 nimbus was reserved as a mark of honour after death. 
 
 Now let us note, before going further, how many clear 
 indications of date there are before us, even independently 
 of the inscriptions which we have yet to consider. The 
 shaveit crowns of ' St. Vitus,' and of the corresponding 
 figure on the left, would have been regarded, even as late 
 as St. Jerome's time (close of fourth t century), as a mark 
 proper to the priesthood of some heathen superstition. 
 
 mechanically, and with mechanical on a head (mosaic) of John VII., 
 
 accuracy, from a photograph pub- dating from the beginning of the 
 
 lished by the custodians of the eighth century. (Ciampini ' De Sacr. 
 
 church. yEdif.' Tab. xxiii.) 
 
 * John the Deacon, writing in the •(• S. Hieron. in Ezek. xliv. (0pp. 
 
 ninth century, at the very time from t. iii. p. 1029. See 'Vest. Christ' 
 
 which this picture dates, is the first p. 30.) 'By this it is clear that we 
 
 writer who notices this custom. De- ought not to have shaven heads, 
 
 scribing a picture of St. Gregory the like the priests and worshippers of 
 
 Great which was extant in his time, Isis and Serapis ; nor yet, on the 
 
 he says, — ' Circa verticem tabulcz other hand, to wear long flowing 
 
 similihidinem, quod viveiitis iiisigtie hair, which is for the luxurious only, 
 
 est, praeferens, non coronam.' The for barbarians, or men of the sword.' 
 
 earliest existing monument, known ' " • And again, ' Heathen super- 
 
 to the writer, in which, it occurs, is stition has its shaven heads.'
 
 TIIK ASSUMPTION. 
 
 53 
 
 The earliest known examples in art of the bare crown, by- 
 way of tonsure, are of the sixth century. Again, the use of 
 the circular nimbus in representing a personage such as 
 St. Vitus, and the square nimbus seen in the same picture, 
 point to the sixth century as the very earliest to which the 
 picture could with any probability be referred. And on 
 all these grounds any one even moderately acquainted with 
 the data of Christian archaeology would at once say, that 
 the first glance of the picture, independently of its inscrip- 
 tions and of its subject, marked it as being at any rate later 
 than the year 500 a.d. 
 
 But this is not all. There are two inscriptions on the 
 fresco before us, which, if this picture is to be trusted, fix 
 the date, beyond all posssibility of mistake, to the middle of 
 the ninth century. The first of the two inscriptions is thus 
 worded : 
 
 QVOD H/EC PR^ CVNCTIS SPLENDET PICTVRA DECORE 
 COMPONERE HANC STVDVIT PRESBITER ECCE LEO. 
 
 It is not as a specimen of mediaeval Latinity that we quote 
 these lines, but as an introduction to a second and some- 
 what later inscription, about the head of this same ' Presbiter 
 Leo.' Represented here as the giver of the fresco, at a 
 time when he was 'Presbyter Urbis' (a 'Cardinal,' he 
 would now be styled), this second inscription speaks of him 
 by his later title as Sanctissimtcs Domtnus'^ Leo Quartiis 
 
 * This title of ' Dominus,' as an pears in art monuments for the first 
 
 official designation for the occupant time in the mosaics of the famous 
 
 of the Roman See, was first assumed, ' TricHnium Lateranum.' See ' Ves- 
 
 we beHeve, by Leo III., at the be- tiarium Christianum,' p. hi. and Pll. 
 
 ginning of the ninth century. It ap- xxxii. xxxiii. ; and PI. vi. below.
 
 54 THE CULTUS OK TllK VIRGIN MAKV. 
 
 Papa Ronianns. And we arc thus able to fix the date 
 of this picture to the middle of the ninth century, to 
 a period shortly preceding the Pontificate of Leo IV. 
 
 («45-855)- 
 
 We give this date upon the evidence (professedly /y^^?/^- 
 
 graphic) furnished by Roman authorities. But the photo- 
 graphic picture (reproduced in these pages) was taken, not 
 from the actual fresco, but from a drawing intended to re- 
 present as exactly as possible its true state. And we 
 observe that Mr. J. H. Parker of Oxford, who has devoted 
 himself of late more especially to Roman archaeology, both 
 Christian and classical, has photographed the fresco itself 
 by means of lime light, and he believes the inscription to 
 refer to Leo IX. (1048- 105 4). He gives (in his printed 
 description) the inscription about the head of Leo as 
 follows : — 
 
 DOM. LEO p. M. ROMANVS, 
 
 and an inscription below, which, he says, is only partly le- 
 gible, thus : — 
 
 PARCVS Q. paries) IIS SPLENDET PICTA DECORE LEO 
 PONTIFEX HANC STVDVIT PRESBYTER ECCLESIAM FIERI. 
 
 In the photograph (published at Rome) which we our- 
 selves have reproduced, the abbreviated inscription is 
 ss. DOM. LEO QRS. PP. ROM. {i. e. Sanctissimus Dominus Leo 
 Quartus Papa Romanus). If Mr. Parker's date be the 
 correct one, our own case is even strono-er than before. But 
 here, as throughout, we have preferred taking the Roman 
 controversialists on their ozvn ground, for the saving of un- 
 necessary argument.
 
 - tL 
 
 < il
 
 THE ASSUMPTION. 55 
 
 And thus we find that this picture of the ' Assumption,' 
 appealed to with such confidence, by Roman controver- 
 siaHsts, as an evidence of all but Apostolic antiquity for the 
 doctrine in question, proves nothing more than that (at the 
 earliest) after a lapse of 800 years, and 300 years or more 
 after the utter decay of primitive learning in Italy, this 
 doctrine'" had at length obtained public recognition upon 
 the walls of a Roman church. 
 
 Twelfth Ce7ittiry. 
 
 If anything were wanting to complete the contrast be- 
 tween the Christian Rome that once was, and the Marian 
 Rome of mediaeval and of modern times, the want might be 
 supplied by mosaics of the twelfth century, such as those of 
 which a specimen t is here given. Let our readers contrast 
 this with earlier pictures, such as those figured above, pp. 
 22 and 24. 
 
 The mosaic picture here reproduced (see opposite) was 
 commenced by Pope Calixtus II. (11 19 to 11 24), and com- 
 pleted by Anastasius IV, (1153, 1154). And these two 
 Popes are represented kneeling at the feet of this ' Queen 
 of Heaven,' and embracing them in an attitude of adoration. 
 
 And thus by successive steps, such as have now been 
 placed before our readers, the contradiction is made com- 
 plete, between the teaching of Holy Scripture and that of 
 mediaeval Rome. In Holy Scripture we are told, and in the 
 earlier pictures of the Catacombs we are again and again 
 
 * For the literary evidence bear- tenth to the fourteenth centuries see 
 
 ing upon this subject see Appendix Seroux d'Agincourt, ' Peinture,' vol. 
 
 (C) at the end of this volume. v. PI. xviii. ; and ' Vestiarium Chris- 
 
 t For other examples from the tianum,' PI. xlv.
 
 56 THE CULTUS OF THE VIRGIN MARY. 
 
 reminded, how the Magi, divinely guided, came where were 
 the young Child and His mother ; and how, so coming, 
 they fell down and worshipped Him. In this crowning 
 monument of Roman superstition we see two'"' Popes repre- 
 sented as coming, like those Magi, into that holy presence ; 
 and they, so coming, fall down and worship her. 
 
 Fifteenth Century. 
 
 One example must suffice, out of the many to which we 
 might refer, in connexion with our present subject, in the 
 fifteenth century. It will bring before us, at a single glance 
 (and a single glance upon a subject so repulsive is all that 
 we will venture upon), the horrible depravity which, in the 
 very centre of Roman Christendom, and on the very throne, 
 as Romanists hold, of St. Peter, could coexist with extra- 
 vagant devotion to the so-called * honours of Mary.' We 
 will not trust ourselves to use words of our own here, but 
 will rather quote the description of one who writes simply 
 
 * Our readers will ask how two of Calixtus. He also expresses his 
 Popes come to be represented as belief that the large figure (iiow that 
 each having the 'square nimbus,' of the Virgin) was originally intended 
 indicating that the person repre- for our Lord by Calixtus, but that 
 sented was then living. The an- Anastasius made considerable alter- 
 swer is suggested in what we have ations in it, and so substituted the 
 above stated, therein following Pape- Virgin Mary for the Saviour. [A 
 brochius (' Acta Sanctorum,' Maius^ significant change !] The mosaic is 
 Propylseum, p. 320), who accounts also figured in Muratori, ' Rerum 
 for this peculiarity by the fact (whe- Italicarum Scriptores,' t. ii. p.'4i7. 
 ther known or presumed I do not Our own representation is repro- 
 feel sure) that Calixtus began the duced, by photography, from a draw- 
 mosaic, and represented himself, but ing in the collection of Pope Cle- 
 that Anastasius completed it, and ment XI. 
 put his own eifigy opposite to that
 
 A REMARKABLE MONUMENT AT ROME. 57 
 
 as an historian of art : — ' 07ie of the frescoes in the Vatican 
 represents Giulia Fariiese in the character of the Madonna, 
 and Pope Alexander VI. (the infaniotcs Borgia) kneeling at 
 her feet in the character of a votary! The same writer goes 
 on to say, * Under the influence of the Medici, the churches 
 of Florence were filled with pictures of the Virgin, in which 
 the only thing aimed at was an alluring, and even mere- 
 tricious beauty. Savonarola thundered from his pulpit, in 
 the garden of S. Marco, against these impieties. He ex- 
 claimed against the profaneness of those who represented 
 the meek mother of Christ in gorgeous apparel, with head 
 unveiled, and under the features of women too well and 
 publicly known. He emphatically declared, that if painters 
 knew, as well as he did, the influence of such pictures in 
 perverting simple minds, they would hold their own works 
 in horror and detestation, Savonarola yielded to none in 
 orthodox reverence for the Madonna, but he desired that 
 she should be represented in an orthodox manner. He pe- 
 rished at the stake, but not till after he had made a bonfire 
 in the Piazza at Florence of the offensive effigies : he pe- 
 rished — persecuted to death by the Borgia family.'* 
 
 Eighteenth Century. 
 
 Before we conclude, we are bound to take notice of a 
 remarkable monument at Rome, which may well be thought 
 
 * Jameson's 'Legends of the Ma- in literature, how baneful was the 
 
 donna,' 2nd edit. (Longmans, 1857), fruit of the classical revival, where 
 
 Introduction, p. xxxi. The whole there was no better Christianity to 
 
 passage is well worth consulting, as deal with it than that which pre- 
 
 showing, by the evidence of art, that vailed in Italy in the fifteenth cen- 
 
 of which there is abundant evidence tury.
 
 5^ THE CULTUS OF THE VIRGIN MARY. 
 
 entirely subversive of the conclusions to which the facts, 
 above stated, all point. A series of mosaics is shown at 
 Rome as dating from the fifth century. One who saw them 
 for the first time would be struck with the remarkable 
 confirmation of modern Roman doctrine which they afford. 
 In a picture of the Worship of the Magi, in one of the 
 oldest churches now remaining, there is to be seen now, 
 what we have at this moment in exact facsimile before us 
 — the Virgin Mary marked out by 2. golden nimbus (peculiar 
 to our blessed Lord and to herself), and so exalted in 
 celestial honour above the four angels (probably archangels) 
 who are behind the throne of Him, who was at once Son of 
 Man and Son of God. For the angels have a nimbus, it is 
 true, but it is of a bluish white, suggestive of light ; but it 
 is not of gold, as is that of the Virgin, Not only so, but 
 the dress of the Virgin herself is such as was only assigned 
 to a Queen ; viz. a golden tunic and scarlet shoes (with 
 these, however, a large black 'palla,' suggestive of altogether 
 other ideas). 
 
 What do our readers suppose to be the real worth of 
 this seeming testimony to the antiqidty of the doctrine now 
 inculcated at Rome ? After reading what has been already 
 before them, they will probably anticipate the reply. This 
 mosaic, so eloquent in its testimony to the catholicity of 
 modern Romanism, is nothing less than the mosaic of 
 Xystus III. already described and figured (see pp. 36, 37), 
 not as it originally was drawn, but as it was rearranged m 
 the time of Boniface XIV., so as to bring into conformity 
 with modern teaching what had, up to that time, borate un- 
 mistakable testimony against it. 
 
 Our readers will naturally ask, on what evidence we can
 
 A REMARKABLE MONUMENT TN ROME. 59 
 
 prove that the representation given above (p. 37) really 
 represents more truly the older state of the mosaic, than the 
 mosaic itself, as it may now be seen at Rome ? We reply, 
 that we have two nearly contemporary, but independent and 
 unimpeachable, witnesses of what the mosaic was some 200 
 years ago : one being Ciampinus, a Roman archaeologist of 
 acknowledged authority ; the other being no less a person 
 than Pope Clement XI. The former of the two, Ciampinus, 
 in his ' Monumenta Vetera ' (t. i. p. 200), gives an engraving 
 of the whole series of mosaics, of which this of the Worship 
 of the Magi forms a part. This, however, is so barbarously 
 executed, that we could not have appealed to it with any 
 confidence had it stood alone. Fortunately, however, he 
 has given us an elaborate verbal description of the whole ; 
 and his description, coupled with his engraving, entirely 
 bears out, in every point of importance, the exactness of the 
 drawing supplied by Pope Clement. The latter, when Car- 
 dinal Albano, formed a large archaeological collection, and 
 among them some twelve large volumes of drawings, two of 
 which consist exclusively of ecclesiastical monuments. After 
 the lapse of a century or more this collection was purchased, 
 at Rome, for an English monarch ; and from this source 
 now comes to light, yet half a century later, the drawing 
 which we have exactly reproduced above. To make this 
 subject complete, we lay before our readers an exact repre- 
 sentation (p. 63) of the present state of the mosaic. It will 
 be instructive to the student of antiquity to observe how 
 slight a modification of an ancient monument will suffice to 
 give it a meaning the exact opposite of that which the original 
 was calculated to convey. (See above, pp. 36 to 40.)
 
 6o THE CULTUS OF THE VIRGIN MARY. 
 
 Recapitulatio7i. 
 
 Our historical survey has already occupied so much 
 space, that it may be well briefly to recapitulate that, which, 
 in greater detail, and with all necessary reference to autho- 
 rities, has now been brought under review, 
 
 1. First four Cent2Lrics. — Of all the pictures in the 
 Catacombs, the date of which can be referred to the first 
 four centuries of our era, there is not one, in which the 
 Virgin Mary is represented, which is not purely Scriptural 
 in its character. Even if (which is doubtful) some of the 
 figures known as ' Oranti ' had reference to her, these figures 
 precisely resemble others in which ordinary persons, recently 
 deceased, were represented, whether men or women. Chris- 
 tian art at this time, to use Dr. Northcote's own expression, 
 was kept strictly ivithin the limits of the canonical books of 
 Holy Scripture. (See pp. ii to 32.) 
 
 2. Fifth and Sixth Centuries. — In the more public mo- 
 numents of Rome and Ravenna, which date from 400 to 
 600 A.D., there is nothing inconsistent with those earlier 
 pictures of the Catacombs. On the contrary, in the one 
 monument of them all which was evidently intended for- 
 mally to embody the faith of the Church, as proclaimed in 
 the Council of Ephesus just previously, the natural arrange- 
 ment of the scene, in the Adoration of the Magi, is pur- 
 posely departed from, in such a way as to mark that the 
 Virgin Mary, however near to our Lord in respect of His 
 incarnation, had no place upon the throne which belongs to 
 Him and to Him alone. (See pp. 32 to 45.) 
 
 In less important works of art, such as might be dictated 
 rather by private fancy than by the deliberate judgment of
 
 RECAPITULATION. 6 1 
 
 the chief representatives of the Church, we find at this time, 
 in one or two instances here and there, traces of legendary- 
 fables concerning the Virgin Mary, and in others (as the 
 ' Vetri Ornati,' or ornamented glasses) indications of con- 
 siderable advance, on the part of some, in the honours paid 
 to her, as to other Saints. (See n. §, p. 41.) 
 
 3. Seventh and Eighth Centuries. — Side by side with con- 
 vincing proof s of a rapidly progressing barbarism in Italy at 
 this time, we find now, even in public monuments, figures of 
 saints, and of the Virgin Mary, intruded into those portions 
 of the older churches, which had hitherto been exclusively 
 devoted to proclaiming the glory of the risen Saviour. 
 Now first, according to the chief historian ''" of Chris- 
 tian art, the homage paid to the Virgin Mary was not 
 to be distinguished from that rendered to the Lord of 
 all. (See pp. 45 to 48.) 
 
 4. Ninth and later Centtiries. — In the ninth century, for 
 the first time — a period of the greatest barbarism in Italy, 
 though of a brief revival, under the auspices of Charle- 
 magne, in France and parts of Germany — there appear 
 upon the walls of churches, at Capua and at Rome, re- 
 presentations of the Virgin Mary enthroned, and in all the 
 splendours of royal estate, in dress of purple and gold, a 
 golden crown upon her head, and scarlet shoes upon her 
 feet. 
 
 Now for the first time is the apocryphal legend of the 
 Assumption embodied in representation upon the same 
 walls. 
 
 And from this ninth century onwards, in an age which 
 
 * See above, pp. 47, 48.
 
 62 THE CULTUS OF THE VIRGIN MARY. 
 
 Roman Catholic'"' historians of the greatest repute have 
 denounced as the most horribly corrupt, and the most 
 barbarously ignorant, of all which a Roman annalist has, 
 with shame and confusion of face, to describe, — in this age 
 we find one step of advance after another made in the 
 exaltation of the Virgin to heavenly and divine honours. 
 And the whole series culminates in mosaics such as those of 
 the twelfth century, in which the worship, that of old had 
 been offered to God alone, is diverted from our Lord to be 
 bestowed upon Mary ; or, worse yet, in a picture yet 300 
 years later in date, in which, upon the walls of the Vatican 
 Palace itself, and by the orders of a Pope, the worship of 
 Christendom is embodied under the guise of an Alex- 
 ander Borgia kneeling as a votary at the feet of a Giulia 
 Farnese. (See pp. 48 to 59.) 
 
 Contrast these with the beautiful and purely Scriptural 
 
 * See the passage quoted from a Johanne scilicet viii ad 
 
 Cardinal Baronius in ' Vestiarium Leonem ix. usque, qui primus a 
 Christianum,' Introduction, p. Ixxxiii. Deo vocatus velut alter Aaron anti- 
 note. I add here a passage, less quam pontificum integritatem e coelo 
 generally known, from the ' Chrono- in sedem apostolicam revocavit, a 
 graphia' of Genebrardus, Archbishop virtute majorum prorsus defecerunt 
 of Aix (lib. iv. p. 553): — ' Infelix apostatse apotacticive, potius quam 
 dicitur hoc sseculum, exhaustis ho- apostolici.' This language was too 
 minibus ingenio et doctrina claris, truthful to be acceptable at Rome, 
 sive etiam claris principibus, et pon- and it brought both the Archbishop 
 tificibus, in quo nihil fere dignum and his book into disgrace. In all 
 memonaposteritatisgestumsit;unde the later editions of the ' Chrono- 
 ferunt tunc repertum fuisse quoddam graphia' (an abridgment of Universg.! 
 monstrum capite canino et cseteris History) a Church History by Ar- 
 membris humanis, quod statum illius naldus Pontacus (a somewhat un- 
 temporis mirifice referret.' And scrupulous Romanist) is substituted 
 again : — ' Hoc quidem infelix quod for that of Genebrardus. 
 per annos cl., Pontifices circiter l.,
 
 RECAPITULATION. 63 
 
 picture, which De Rossi, in common with ourselves, places 
 first in the whole series of these monuments {supra, p. 24), 
 and our readers will be able to judge of the gulf which 
 separates the Marian Rome of the ninth and all later 
 centuries, from the Christian Rome of the second. 
 
 The conclusions which, we venture to think, any un- 
 prejudiced reader would draw from the evidence hitherto 
 produced, will be found confirmed by the literary evidence, 
 alleged more in detail in the Appendices (A to C) at the 
 end of this volume. 
 
 THE MOSAIC OF XYSTUS III. (above, p. 371, as altered in the Eighteenth Century. 
 
 [The nimbus of our Lord, and of the Virgin Mary, is of gold : that of the angels white, or light blue. The 
 dress of our Lord is white with a black stripe ; that of the Virgin, cloth of gold, with scarlet shoes. 
 The outer mantle black. None of these colours, in the dress of the Virgin, are found in the original 
 mosaic, as described by Ciampinus, and as drawn in the Collection of Pope Clement XI.]
 
 ■iT
 
 PART II. 
 
 MONUMENTS OF CHRISTIAN ART, 
 
 HAVING REFERENCE TO THE SUPREMACY 
 
 CLAIMED FOR 
 
 ^\\\ ^i[\ 4 |[ijmt[.
 
 NOTICE. 
 
 The two Papers which folloiv were written as an Exereise to be 
 read iti the Divinity School at Oxford. I have added some 
 additional matter since that time, but the pressure of other 
 duties, to which I was bound to give precedence, has prevented 
 my recasting them entirely, as I could have wished to do, before 
 publication. I mention this in order to account for some pecu- 
 liarities in the form of these Essays, for zvhich I must ask 
 the indulgence of my Readers. 
 
 Eton, Feb. 19, 1870.
 
 THE SUPREMACY CLAIMED FOR 
 THE SEE OF ROME. 
 
 The literary monuments bearing upon questions now and 
 for some time past disputed within the Church, have been 
 under the examination of Divines and Historians ever since 
 the revival of learning'. But there is another larore class of 
 monuments, those of early Christian and Mediaeval art, to 
 which, in this country at least, as far as I have observed, very 
 little attention has been given. There is, however, scarcely 
 one, if one, of the many questions now most prominent as 
 matter of discussion among Churchmen, upon which these 
 monuments of art have not important evidence to give. 
 What that evidence is upon one such question, that of the 
 Supremacy claimed for the See of Rome, it will be my 
 object to show in the present paper. 
 
 I propose to set before you, in their historical order, a 
 series of monuments bearing upon this question, either in 
 representation the most exact that can be obtained, or by 
 description where that cannot be. 
 
 The Diptych of St. Paul. 
 
 First in the whole series is an Ivory Diptych (see PI. iv. 
 the * Dipt}'ch of St. Paul '), to which I venture to think that
 
 68 SUPREMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE. 
 
 a very great historical interest attaches, while it may claim a 
 hifh place, on artistic grounds, among the monuments of 
 primitive Christendom. 
 
 This ' Diptych,' technically so called, is formed upon the 
 model of those Imperial and Consular'" Diptychs, of both old 
 and new Rome, many of which, dating from the third century 
 onwards, are preserved in the principal Museums and 
 Cathedral Treasuries of Europe. That now before you has 
 been known hitherto only to a very limited number of 
 persons interested in archaeological study, and by them 
 under the title of 'The Naming of the Beasts in Paradise.' 
 In the only published work, that of A. Duval, in which it is 
 figured (one leaf only), it is described (quite wrongly, as you 
 will see), as a Consular Diptych. Its date may be deter- 
 mined with great confidence, as at any rate not later than 
 the year 400 a.d., even if we have regard only to the beauty 
 of its execution. And on grounds of historical probability, 
 we may reasonably doubt whether after that time St. Peter 
 would have been represented (as here in all probability he 
 is), as in a position secondary to that of St. Paul. Before 
 proceeding further, I may mention all that I have been able 
 to learn as to the history of this monument. I find it first 
 noticed as forming part of the collection of Baron Denon, 
 who was one of the savans employed by Napoleon I. from 
 time to time in carrying off treasures from Museums and 
 Libraries, in countries subjected to his power. And amongst 
 other places, I find evidence that he was at Rome with the 
 
 * Specimens of these Consular tianum / and many more in Gorius 
 Diptychs may be seen in Plates xxii. (' Thesaurus Veterum Diptychorum,' 
 and xxiii. of my ' Vestiarium Chris- 3 vols. fol. Florence, 1759-)
 
 Vincent Brooks J)ayfcSon.M 
 THE TWO LEAVES OV THE DIPTYCH OE -^An^T PA HE
 
 THE DIPTYCH OF ST. PAUL. 69 
 
 revolutionary armies, and interesting himself (whether on 
 public or on private account, or on both), with its archaeo- 
 lo""ical treasures. And I think I shall not be wrone in 
 thinking, that it was there and then that he became 
 possessed of this Diptych, whose true character, however, he 
 does not seem to have perceived. After his death it was 
 figured as forming part of his collection by Amaury Duval/"' 
 It is now in the hands of M. Carrand of Lyons, and has 
 been reproduced in facsimile by the Arundel Society, from 
 a cast taken from the original by Mr. Nisbet. I shall be 
 very glad of any assistance in tracing its earlier history. 
 Such works as these were almost, if not altogether, confined 
 to the two cities of Rome and Byzantium, in early times. 
 And this, from its representing an incident in St. Paul's 
 voyage to Rome, and the two Apostles, SS. Peter and Paul, 
 who were specially connected with the Roman church, was 
 originally produced, we may feel sure, at Rome, probably 
 as an offering for the church of St. Paul. (See Ciampini 
 De S. ALd. cap. vi.) 
 
 Its true character you will, I think, have no difficulty in 
 determining. On the more important of the two sides of 
 the Diptych (that on the spectator s right), three scenes are 
 represented, having reference, each of them, to events in 
 the life of St. Paul. In the centre is the scene described 
 in Acts, xxviii. i-6. You may see the fire of dried 
 wood burning near the Apostle's feet (St. Paul himself is 
 seen standing at the spectators left) ; the viper is falling 
 from his hand ; and in the centre of the group is seen 
 Publius, the chief officer of the island, holding up his hands 
 
 * Monuments des Arts du Dessin, 4 vols. fol. Paris, 1S29.
 
 70 SUPREMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE. 
 
 in astonishment at what he sees. A soldier is in attendance 
 on him, who occupies the last place on the spectators 
 right. 
 
 Below this group is yet another, having reference to 
 what is recorded somewhat later in the same chapter of the 
 Acts (ver. 9). Two out of those ' many which had in- 
 firmities in the island,' are there represented. And the 
 same soldier who had appeared above as in attendance 
 upon Publius, is seen here again, evidently bidding these 
 sick persons go to St. Paul, to whom he points, for the 
 healing that they need. 
 
 Postponing for a moment any reference to the upper- 
 most of the three groups, I will ask you to observe, in pass- 
 ing, the other leaf of the Diptych. If that had stood alone, as 
 an isolated picture, we might perhaps accept the interpreta- 
 tion implied in the title, ' Adam naming the Beasts.' But, 
 as it is, we may with good reason assume, that this side of 
 the Diptych has an intended reference to the other. And, 
 if we regard the two as mutually related, we shall probably 
 be led to the conclusion, that in the one picture we see 
 placed before us Man, and the lower animals, as they were' 
 before the Fall, brought about as this was through the guile 
 of that serpent, who, with malice concentrated in his features, 
 is here entering the peaceful Paradise before him. In the 
 other we may see suggested the restoration of humanity 
 through the power of the kingdom of God, whose triumph 
 over that of the serpent is embodied in the miracle of Melita. 
 In two words. Paradise lost through the malice of the serpent, 
 and Paradise ^'-eopened throngh Him who crnshed the serpent's 
 pozver — these appear to be the leading ideas traceable in 
 those parts of the Diptych which have been noticed hitherto.
 
 THE DIPTYCH OF ST. PAUL. 7 1 
 
 But I proceed now, from this more general description, 
 to speak in more detail of that upper group of the right- 
 hand leaf, wherein lies, for our present purpose, the special 
 interest of the monument now before you. 
 
 No detailed argument will be needed to show that it is 
 no Roman Consul who occupies the middle place in this 
 group, but the same Paul whose features we have already 
 seen pourtrayed among those of the central picture already 
 described. A moment's comparison of the two faces will 
 serve to show their absolute, and evidently designed, 
 identity. The same high, bald head,'" and peculiar pointed 
 beard, are seen in both groups. And as no one, not even 
 that one foreign Editor already mentioned (A. Duval), has 
 any doubt as to the person intended, when figured on the 
 spectator s left in that central group (the person who is 
 shaking off the serpent from his hand), it follows, as matter 
 of certainty, that St. Paul also is the person represented 
 above, as occupying what may be described as an apostolic 
 throne, or chair of state. 
 
 * Compare the description of St. Apostle and beheaded in his stead, 
 
 Paul's personal appearance in the that he, too, was bald : koX avroc 
 
 * Philopatris ' generally attributed to apafaXav^oe vTrdpxt>iy- (Northcote's 
 
 Lucian. The Apostle is there scoff- R. S., p. 285.) Compare Hieron. 
 
 ingly described as TaXiXalog, avafa- Comment, in Ep. ad Gal. i. 18. Dr. 
 
 Xarrme, ETrippipoQ, eg rpiTov ovpavov Northcote has published a bronze 
 
 aepoftariicrag — 'the bald-headed ^x\^ medal, now in the Vatican Library, 
 
 long-nosed Galilaean, who mounted found by Boldetti in the Cemetery 
 
 through the air into the third hea- of Domitella, and attributed to the 
 
 ven.' And in the Apocryphal Acts era of the Flavian emperors at Rome, 
 
 of the Apostles, edited by Tischen- In this the busts of the two Apostles 
 
 dorf, it is said of Dioscorus the ship- are represented, and they bear a 
 
 master, who had followed St. Paul considerable resemblance to those 
 
 to Rome, and was mistaken for the of the Diptych before us.
 
 72 SUPREMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE. 
 
 One of the three figures, and that the most important, 
 is thus at once determined, as being that of St. Paul. But 
 a question still remains, Who are the other two ? To this 
 question also an answer can be given ; but I willingly 
 allow that, with such evidence as alone is open to us at 
 present, we cannot claim any absolute assent to the solution 
 I propose. 
 
 And first for the personage on St. Paul's right, to whom 
 the Apostle appears to be giving Benediction. We have 
 at once a clue to his identification, in the fact of his hold- 
 ing in his left hand a Codex, or bound book, which is no 
 other than the book of the Gospels. This book was, as we 
 know from authorities '''" of early date, laid on the head of 
 a Bishop at the time of his consecration, as being ' the true 
 Tiara of the Gospel.' Such a book, held in the left hand, 
 as in the monument before you, was, in almost all the early 
 monuments of Christian art, the traditionary attribute of a 
 Bishop, while that of an Apostle t was the older form of a 
 
 * The Sermon ' De Uno Legis- know that he then receives the true 
 
 latore,' attributed to St. Chrysostom, tiara of the Gospel ; and may learn 
 
 and quoted at length in ' Vestiarium this also, that though he be head of 
 
 Christianum/ p. 53, notes 89 and 90. all, yet doth he act in subjection to 
 
 * It is cornma,nded that the head of God's laws ; though he be ruler of 
 
 the Priest ' [here the High-Priest, all, yet is he, too, under rule to the 
 
 according to what follows] ' be not law ; though in all things a setter 
 
 bare but covered, in order that he forth of the Word, yet himself to 
 
 who is head of the people may learn that Word in subjection.' 
 that he, too, hath a Head in hea- t See further 'Vest. Christ.' p. 
 
 ven. For this cause in the Church xli. For examples of the two in- 
 
 also, at the consecration of Bishops signia here spoken of, as proper to 
 
 ('Vest. Christ.' notes 61 and 90), Apostles and to Bishops respectively, 
 
 the gospel of Christ is laid upon their see ibid., PH. xxv. (St. Gregory the 
 
 heads, that he who is ordained may Great) ; xxx. St. Cornelius (of Rome)
 
 THE DIPTYCH OF ST. PAUL. "J T^ 
 
 ' Scroll ' or ' Roll ' of a book {vohimcn), associated in idea 
 with the Scriptures in their original form. This attribute 
 served to designate them as charged on Christ's behalf with 
 messages of the divine Word to man. It is in accordance 
 with this, that, in the Diptych before you, St. Paul holds in 
 his hand a ' Volumen,' or ' roll ' of a book, while the Bishop 
 (as I venture now to call him) holds a Codex of more 
 modern form, much such as those still in use.'"' 
 
 Thus far I do not anticipate much difference of opinion 
 as to the interpretations hitherto proposed. But there is 
 yet another personage to be identified ; and at this point 
 agreement can no longer be anticipated. As to this, then, 
 let me begin by saying, that if any one were to examine for 
 himself the language of Holy Scripture t (more particularly 
 the Epistle to the Romans and the Book of the Acts), and 
 that of St. Clement's first Epistle, the conclusion he would 
 draw would probably be, that the actual Founder (under 
 
 and St. Cyprian ; xxxi. St. Xystus Gospels, though it has been dis- 
 
 and St. Optatus ; xxxviii. (four Apo- placed in favour of the mitre, from 
 
 sties) ; xl. Leo IV. ; xli. Tarasius its traditionary pre-eminence, is still 
 
 and other Eastern Patriarchs at the laid (and held by an assistant) at 
 
 Seventh Council ; and other later the back of the head, and on the 
 
 illustrations. neck, of the ' consecrandus.' [Pon- 
 
 * The following fact is mentioned tificale Romanum Clementis VIII., 
 
 here as a curious illustration of the &c. Paris, fol. 1664, pp. 66, 71, 76, 
 
 way in which mediaeval usage, at et sqq?^ I need hardly remind the 
 
 Rome more especially, has preserved reader of the delivery of the Bible, 
 
 some of the most ancient features as an appointed part of the rite of 
 
 of primitive Christianity, even while Ordination to the Priesthood, and 
 
 overlaying and all but concealing of the Consecration of Bishops, in 
 
 them under the accretions of later our own Church, 
 ages. In the Consecration of Bi- t See the evidence on this point 
 
 shops, as prescribed in the ' Ponti- in Appendix (D) at the end of this 
 
 ficale Romanum.' the Book of the volume.
 
 74 SUPREMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE. 
 
 Christ) of the Roman Church, was St. Paul ; that this 
 Apostle both wrote his Epistle, and arrived at Rome as a 
 prisoner, before St. Peter was in any way connected with 
 the Church that was there ; that St. Peter's connection 
 with that Church was mainly through his martyrdom ; St. 
 Paul's through a residence there of considerable, though 
 interrupted, duration, before the time of that martyrdom 
 which he shared with St, Peter. He would conclude, that 
 St. Paul would be at Rome not only an Apostle, as were 
 others of the twelve, but in a special sense the''' Apostle 
 of the Roman Church, as being its Founder ; but that 
 St. Peter when at Rome was \\v hXkoT^ico zavovi^ within a 
 spiritual domain which already owed a kind of personal 
 allegiance to St. Paul. In a word (if the earliest historical 
 indications are followed rather than late tradition), St, Paul 
 at Rome would be not Apostle only, but Apostle and 
 Bishop, occupying a place such as that held at Jerusalem 
 by James the Brother of the Lord. 
 
 It is, perhaps, not without significance in this regard, that 
 among the frescoes of the catacombs the only figure of an 
 Apostle which is represented separately from the rest of 
 the twelve, is that of St, Paul, described as Pavlvs Pastor 
 ArosTOLVS t side by side with a figure of * the good Shep- 
 herd.' In none of the catacombs is St. Peter specially 
 designated by name or attribute. 
 
 * By ' Apostolus,' when abso- ceftir, si non exprimatur quis apo- 
 
 lutely used, Western writers gene- stolus non intcUigitur nisi Paulas' 
 rally designated St. Paul. So we t The picture of St. Paul above 
 
 learn, among others, from St. Au- mentioned is in the Cemetery of 
 
 gustine, ' Contra duas Epist. Pelag.' St. Priscilla. See Aringhi R. S. t. ii. 
 
 lib. iii. cap. iii., '■Apostolus cum di- p. 273.
 
 THE DIPTYCH OF ST. PAUL. 75 
 
 A conclusion such as this, whicli results from an ex- 
 amination of Holy Scripture, and of the evidence to be 
 derived from the earliest Christian literature, is one which 
 will exactly account for the peculiar phenomena presented 
 in the earliest monuments of Christian art, in which SS. 
 Peter and Paul are figured. One very remarkable 
 peculiarity of' the Roman* monuments is, that, in the 
 numberless instances in which SS. .Peter and Paul are 
 represented on either hand of our Lord, no definite and un- 
 varying rule of precedence is observed. The prevailing 
 rule, to which, in the more public monuments, as the 
 mosaics of churches, there are few, if any, early exceptions, 
 is that St. Paul is placed at the right hand of our Lord^ 
 St. Peter at the left. But this rule has its exceptions. In 
 the Vetri Antichi,'\ so called, or pieces of ornamented glass, 
 found chiefly in the Roman cemeteries, and on Roman 
 Sarcophagi of the fifth | and later centuries (possibly some 
 may be of the fourth), some special attributes are assigned 
 to St. Peter, and marks of precedence over St. Paul 
 indicated ; peculiarities, such as any one acquainted with 
 the claims put forward by the Roman Church from the 
 time of the First Council of Nicaea, might have counted with 
 
 * The types that prevailed at but one) by Dr. Northcote in his 
 
 Rome reappear elsewhere ; as, for ' Roma Sotterranea,' St. Peter is 
 
 example, in the Sarcophagi (fifth represented, instead of Moses, as 
 
 and later century) at Milan, and in striking the rock to draw out re- 
 
 the South of France. But these last freshing streams for the people of 
 
 appear to me to be direct imitations God. 
 
 of the form already stereotyped, so | I am speaking here of those 
 
 to say, at Rome. which are appealed to, for contro- 
 
 f In two of these, preserved in versial reasons, by Roman contro- 
 
 ihe Vatican, anil figured (to name versialists.
 
 76 ■ SUPREMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE. 
 
 some certainty on finding in monuments executed at Rome 
 itself. 
 
 An enumeration of all the known monuments antecedent 
 to the year 800* a.d., in which the two apostles are repre- 
 sented together, would show that, in a very large majority 
 of cases, the place at our Lord's right hand is assigned to 
 St. Pant. And the fact, urged by some Roman archaeo- 
 logists, that in some instances, at least, this place is occu- 
 pied by St. Peter, is precisely what clenches the argument 
 in favour of the historical conclusion of which I speak. 
 If the rule were invariable that St. Paul occupied the one 
 place, St. Peter the other, there would be some show of 
 probability for the assertion, that in these early times the 
 place of honour was not what it now is ; that the spectator s 
 right, not the right hand of the principal personage, in- 
 dicated the place of precedence. But the varying usage 
 in this matter which does, in point of fact, exist, leaves us a 
 choice of only two conclusions. One (which no one at all 
 acquainted with antiquity would be likely to accept), that 
 right and left, in point of precedence of honour, were 
 regarded as matter of indifference ; the other, and, as it 
 appears to me, the true one, that at Rome there was one 
 ground of precedence for St. Paul (in respect of his special 
 relation, as founder, to that Church), another ground of 
 precedence for St. Peter, in respect of the special position 
 which he occupied in the apostolic body. And so, accord- 
 ing to varying circumstances, St. Peter at one time, St. 
 Paul at another, would be represented as standing \x, h^ioiv 
 rov Ky^/of, at the right hand of our Lord. 
 
 * The old traditionaiy usage asserts itself, in many instances, even 
 in much later monuments.
 
 THE DIPTYCH OF ST. PAUL. 
 
 11 
 
 And now, though after a long digression, I may re- 
 turn to the monument of which I first spoke, the Diptych 
 of St. Paul. And I think you will admit that it is, at 
 least, not an improbable supposition, that, in the monument 
 before us, we have a record both of St. Paul's voyage to 
 Rome (in the miracles of Melita), and of his subsequent oc- 
 cupation, at Rome, of one of the 'apostolic Sees ;' that while 
 the apostle who occupies the ' throne ' (the central figure 
 of that upper group) is undoubtedly St. Paul, the bishop, 
 who stands before him, is to be understood as representing 
 Linus, the first Bishop of Rome ; and lastly, that the figure 
 behind the throne of St. Paul, that of one who holds in 
 his hand, as does St. Paul, the ' scroll,' or roll of a book, 
 which is the attribute of an apostle, is to be regarded as 
 representing St. Peter* — sharer of the same apostolic 
 
 * These Essays have been written 
 not without a hope that the evidence 
 they allege upon disputed points 
 may receive a candid consideration 
 from some who may differ, and per- 
 haps very widely, from the conclu- 
 sions in support of which I write. 
 Any such will be inclined to think 
 that St. Peter could not, especially in 
 a Roman monument (assuming that 
 this is such), occupy such a position 
 relatively to St. Paul as is suggested 
 in the text. I will venture, there- 
 fore, to ask them to compare with 
 this plate a representation of the 
 Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity 
 on an ancient sarcophagus, figured 
 and described by an eminent Ro- 
 man antiquary, P. Garrucci. Of the 
 
 Three Persons one only is seated, 
 and this, according to Garrucci's in- 
 terpretation, is the Word of God ; 
 while He, whom G. identifies with 
 the Father, stands behind the seated 
 figure, much as does St. Peter (if 
 such he be) in this diptych. The 
 grounds of Garrucci's interpretation 
 do not admit of being briefly stated. 
 [' Dissertazioni Archeologiche di 
 Raffaelle Garrucci,' vol. ii., Roma, 
 4to. 1865, p. I sqq?\ Antiquaries 
 acquainted with the treatise will have 
 no difficulty in seeing the analogy 
 between the explanation he gives of 
 the peculiarities of that sarcophagus, 
 and that which I have ventured to 
 suggest for the diptych here de- 
 scribed.
 
 78 SUPREMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE. 
 
 office with St. Paul, and united with him in counsel ; but 
 not, like him, the actual founder, under God, of the Roman 
 Church, and the immediate head of its line of apostolic 
 bishops. 
 
 Before passing on to yet another branch of my subject, 
 I may mention, as strongly confirming the view here main- 
 tained as to the relation to the Roman Church of SS. Paul 
 and Peter respectively, that there is a monument (unedited 
 as far as I know), in the Royal Library* at Windsor, the 
 peculiarities of which can only be accounted for, as far as I 
 am able to see, on the hypothesis which I have already 
 suggested. In an ancient mosaic there represented, the two 
 apostles are figured, as usual, St. Paul on the right hand, 
 St. Peter on the left, of our Lord. And while St. Paul 
 holds in his hand the symbol (a roll of a book) which 
 designated him as mi apostle, St. Peter holds the martyr's 
 * crown,' or chaplet, which marked him out as one who had 
 witnessed, by his death, for Christ, Now, as both these 
 were alike apostles, both alike martyrs, what more natural 
 explanation of this difference of designation, than that 
 St. Peter's special claim to recognition at Rome was that 
 
 * In a collection of drawings ori- church of St. Pudentiana, showing 
 
 ginally made for Cardinal Albano, the principal figures as they were 
 
 afterwards Clement XI, While before the lower part of the mosaic 
 
 speaking of this collection I may was blocked out by the ivood-work of 
 
 mention also, what will be of in- the church. The figure on our Lord's 
 
 terest to many archseologists, both right hand (commonly interpreted 
 
 at Rome and elsewhere, that careful of late as being St. Matthew) has 
 
 drawings, on a large scale, are there the title Pavlvs inscribed near the 
 
 preserved of the famous mosaic of feet. That on the left of our Lord, 
 
 our Lord and the Apostles in the Petrvs, in a similar position.
 
 THE DIPTYCH OF ST. PAUL. 79 
 
 of his martyrdom; while, in the case of St. Paul, the 
 thought of his apostolic bishopric, so to call it, over the 
 Church, was more prominent than that of the martyr's death, 
 wherewith his life of labour was crowned. 
 
 I willingly allow, however, that, as against any clear 
 historical notice, or any really primitive, general, and self- 
 consistent tradition, inferences such as these would weigh 
 very little. But when, as in this case, the traditions con- 
 cerning St. Peter as specially the Bishop of Rome, first 
 appear in the heretical compilation known in the ' Clemen- 
 tine Recognitions,' and then with a distinct party purpose 
 in view ; when the later traditions to the same effect (em- 
 bodied* in the lists of Popes preserved by Anastasius) bear 
 upon the face of them the marks of late concoction in 
 support of the claims to primacy first, and afterwards to 
 supremacy, put forth by the Roman Church ; when, as is 
 unhappily notorious, that Church, in support of these claims, 
 had recourse (through ignorance, we may charitably be- 
 lieve) to decrees of the first Nicene Council, as interpolated 
 by Roman hands — a falsification, which was at once exposed 
 almost as soon as it was attempted ; with all these facts in 
 view, we may, without presumption, claim for these monu- 
 ments, in their cumulative evidence, a weight far beyond 
 what would attach to any one of them separately. If they 
 fail to convince opponents pledged to a foregone conclusion 
 (which no doubt they will fail to do), they will at any rate 
 afford interesting and valuable indications of truth to all 
 those (I trust and believe they are an ever-increasing 
 number, both at home and abroad) who search into an- 
 
 * St. Jerome, however, writes to the same effect in one place.
 
 8o SUPREMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE. 
 
 tiquity with minds open to conviction, and with a single eye 
 to the truth, and the truth alone. 
 
 I have dwelt upon these earlier monuments at greater 
 length than I had intended, because of their great intrinsic 
 interest. It may be well, however, to say, before quitting 
 this portion of my subject, that in these arguments on the 
 question, whether St. Paul or St. Peter were really the 
 first ' Bishop and Apostle ' of Rome, we, who argue against 
 the claims of the Roman Church, occupy a position of 
 almost unfair advantage, if we regard the matter as one of 
 mere intellectual fence. For the debate is one in which, if 
 we prove our point, our opponents have no longer a ground 
 to stand upon. For the whole weight of the Roman position 
 rests upon two assumptions ; the first, that St. Peter had 
 not only priority, and in some sense a primacy, of honour 
 and dignity among the Twelve, but had rule over thern 
 as Christ's vicar upon earth ; and secondly, that he was 
 also the first Bishop of Rome, and conveyed (according to 
 Christ's ordinance) his ozun (primacy or) supremacy to his 
 successors in that particular See. If, therefore, we show 
 that there is no proof of St. Peter's having been Bishop of 
 Rome at all, their superstructure falls at once to the ground.* 
 But even if we fail to show this, our opponents are 
 scarcely any nearer than before to the establishing of their 
 own point. For even if it could be conclusively proved 
 that St. Peter, rather than St. Paul, was the true founder 
 of the Roman Church, it does not at all follow that the 
 priority or primacy, which, in some sense, has generally 
 
 * For the early traditions on this subject see Appendix (E) at the end 
 of this vohrnne.
 
 PETRUS, OR PETER. 8 I 
 
 been regarded as attaching to St. Peter, devolves, from 
 him, upon all bishops of the Roman Church. If this pri- 
 macy were hereditary the Bishops of Antioch must have, 
 at least, as much right to primacy (or supremacy) as the 
 Bishops of Rome ; for tradition, which speaks of St. Peter 
 as first Bishop of Rome, speaks of him no less clearly as 
 Bishop of Antioch before he became Bishop of Rome. 
 
 And I may add, that the See of Alexandria claimed 
 (as did Rome and Antioch) succession from St. Peter, 
 through St. Mark. St. Gregory the Great expressly re- 
 cognised this co-ordinate claim of Antioch and Alexandria ; 
 and when addressed by a Bishop of Alexandria (jealous of 
 the encroachments of the 'New Rome' on the Bosporus) 
 as being the true ' Universal Bishop,' he peremptorily re- 
 fused such a title, and declared that any one who presumed 
 to put forward such pretensions would, in so doing, mark 
 himself 02it as Antickrisi. 
 
 Petrus, or Peter, distinguished from ' Petral the Rock. 
 
 But it is time now that we proceed to other monuments 
 which yet await our consideration. 
 
 And, first, I would refer to an interesting example of 
 the way in which ancient monuments serve to Illustrate 
 ancient literature, and to confirm the conclusions to which 
 that literature points. I need not do more than remind 
 those present that, with a very few exceptions, the early 
 Fathers are almost unanimous in interpreting the ' Rock ' of 
 Matt. xvl. 1 8, not of Peter personally, but either of Christ, 
 the true Rock, on whom the Church is built up, or of the 
 faith in Christ, as the Son of God, which Peter had pro- 
 
 G
 
 82 SUPREMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE. 
 
 fessed. The letters of Pauliniis, Bishop of Nola (late in 
 the fourth, or early in the fifth, century), describe the mosaic 
 decorations of his own churches ; and by comparing his 
 descriptions of those mosaics with actually existing works 
 of art (mosaics and sarcophagi), dating from the time at 
 which he wrote, we find that a prevailing type for the de- 
 signation of our Lord was one of symbolic rather than of 
 direct representation. He was represented, for example, 
 in the ' Apse ' of Paulinus' Church under the figure of a 
 Lamb, standing upon a rock, from which rock flowed four 
 streams. This rock is, to Roman archaeologists always (as 
 far as I have observed), a ' mountain,' not a rock ; and to it, 
 and the four streams thence flowing, they give various in- 
 terpretations according to circumstances. ' Mount Zion, and 
 the four streams ivhichflozo thci'cfrom ; ' the four rivers of 
 Paradise flowing from the mountain, zvhich designates the 
 Chui'ch ; ' the foiir streams, which issue from that one head 
 of waters, over zvhich Peter presides ;* such are a few among 
 the many interpretations that we meet with. But among 
 all modern Roman controversialists I have never found 
 any (and I should be greatly surprised to hear that any 
 could be found) who gives the interpretation which Paulinus 
 himself furnishes in his ' Epistola xii. ad Severum.' In that 
 letter, describing a church which he had himself built and 
 decorated, he says, ' that in the Apse (whether to be spelt 
 Absis or Apsis he professes himself unable to say) there 
 was a camera musico illusa, a vaulted roof, decorated 
 with mosaics, and under this mosaic picture (evidently in 
 three compartments, corresponding to the " trichora " of the 
 
 * So Dr. Northcote.
 
 ST. PETERS CHAIR, 83 
 
 east end of his church) the following descriptive lines.' [I 
 omit the two first sets of verses, not immediately to our 
 present purpose.] 
 
 '■ Regnum d triiDiiphinn purpura d pa I ma indicant: 
 Petram superstat ipse Petra Ecdesice, 
 Ex qua sonori quattiior fontes mea7if, 
 PvangelistiE, viva Christi flumina.^ * 
 
 The ' Lamb, standing upon a rock ' of the mosaic 
 picture, is in the descriptive verse Christ Himself, the Rock 
 of the Church, standing upon a rock ; and the four voiceful 
 springs thence flowing are the four Evangelists, the living 
 streams of Christ. 
 
 St. Peter as the ' Moses ' of the Nezv Covcnaiit, and 
 St. Peter s Chair. 
 
 In Dr. Northcote's ' Roma Sotteranea,' a work already- 
 noticed at some length in the earlier pages of this volume, 
 we have the advantage of seeing an epitome of all that the 
 most learned Roman archaeologists (and some of them are 
 men of very great learning) have collected from the whole 
 field of antiquity, in relation to the controverted questions 
 which most concern the Roman Church. And I cannot 
 help thinking it a very remarkable fact, that all the erudition 
 of Padre Garrucci, the exact scholarship and unrivalled 
 archaeological knowledge of De Rossi, the patient and 
 laborious investigations of Cardinal Pitra, should have found 
 
 * ' The Purple and the Pahii are and from this go forth four voiceful 
 
 signs of royal estate and of triumph. streams. Evangelists, the living Ri- 
 
 Standing upon a rock is He who is vers of Christ.' 
 Himself the Rock of the Church ;
 
 84 SUPREMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE. 
 
 SO little in the field of really primitive antiquity (in the first 
 four, or even five, centuries) which will serve in any degree 
 for an even seemingly solid basis on which to rest the 
 pretensions of the Roman See, or to vindicate for Roman 
 doctrine, such as it has now become, the suffrages of the 
 great teachers of the Church in East and West before the 
 decay of primitive learning. 
 
 Some evidence, however, in the field of archaeology they 
 have alleged in reference to the question now under dis- 
 cussion, and that of a kind which, to any who may not 
 have made these questions a subject of special study, will 
 probably appear at first sight entitled to serious consider- 
 ation. 
 
 On fragments of ornamented glass (of uncertain date, 
 and of uncertain locality, most of them), and on sarcophagi, 
 or sculptured stone coffins, chiefly of the fourth and fifth cen- 
 turies, we find, here and there, representations of St. Peter, 
 with attributes which were evidently designed to indicate a 
 special pre-eminence in him as compared with the rest of 
 the Apostolic body. Such, for example, are two ornamented 
 glasses* now in the Vatican, in which a figure, which we. 
 should naturally have interpreted as Moses striking the 
 rock in the desert, is identified with St. Peter by the word 
 Petrvs inscribed beside him ; and again, in the sarcophagi 
 of which I speak, there is this marked difference between 
 the Christian sculptures there seen, and those of the frescoes 
 in the catacombs, of which we have already had occasion 
 to speak, that in many of the sarcophagi St. Peter t is 
 
 * Figured by Northcote, R. S., t See the engravings of these sar- 
 
 Pl. xvii. As to the date of these cophagi in Bosio and Aringhi R. S. 
 glasses, see note p. i6. As regards St. Peter they give the
 
 ST. TETERS CHAIR. 
 
 85 
 
 singled out for representation by unmistakable allusions 
 (such as the cock crowing beside him) ; and in one or two, 
 to Jiiin alone among the Apostles, and in common only with 
 our Lord, is assigned the ' virga potestatis,' the rod or 
 staff, symbolical oi power. ^ 
 
 Nor is this all. This idea of St. Peter being the Moses 
 of the New Covenant, occupying a place towards God's 
 people under the New Dispensation like to that of Moses 
 under the old — this idea finds support, not in the language 
 of Bishops of Rome, in whose mouth it would carry little 
 weight, as being alleged in support of their own claims, but 
 in that of an Egyptian monkt and Presbyter, in no way 
 interested {so many ivonld suppose) in supporting any special 
 claim to pre-eminence on the part of St. Peter. 
 
 following results : — He is repre- 
 sented together with St. Paul six 
 times (but of these some are open 
 to doubt) ; in the scene of the De- 
 nial (symbolised by the cock crow- 
 ing), five times ; his arrest, six times 
 (one or two of these doubtful) ; as 
 holding the rod of power, once. 
 The contrast here presented with 
 the older representations of the 
 ' Scriptural cycle ' in the Catacombs 
 (in none of which is St. Peter spe- 
 cially designated) is very significant. 
 
 * Northcote, R. S., PI. xix. ; Bo- 
 sio, R. S., p. 295. 
 
 f St. Macarius of Egypt, circ. 391 
 A.D. In his tenth Homily he writes : 
 — ' In the times gone by, Moses 
 and Aaron, having the priestly office 
 (T^v lepwcTvyriv e^ojtec), endured 
 many troubles. But Caiaphas occu- 
 
 pying their seat (i:a6ecpa, or seat 
 of authority, comp. Matt, xxiii. 2), 
 himself persecuted and condemned 
 the Lord. Yet did our Lord, out 
 of honour to the priesthood (/. c. to 
 the priestly office of Caiaphas), suffer 
 it to be done [according to his word]. 
 In like manner the prophets were 
 persecuted by the Jewish people. 
 Afterward Peter succeeded Moses, 
 having had entrusted to him the new 
 Church of Christ [in contrast this 
 to the old Church that was in the 
 wilderness] and the true priesthood. 
 For now there is a baptism of fire 
 and of Spirit [in contrast to the bap- 
 tism in the cloud and in the sea 
 " unto Moses "], and a circumcision 
 which is wTOught in the heart.' [S. 
 Macarii ^gyptii Homili^e, ed. J. G. 
 Pritius, Lipsije, i2mo. 1693.]
 
 86 SUPREMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE. 
 
 All this sounds very Roman indeed to our ears when 
 we first hear of it. But in point of fact, it is exactly what 
 any one acquainted with the history of the two Sees of 
 Rome and of Alexandria would have expected antecedently 
 to find, in monuments, whether of art or of literature, dating 
 from tJic fourth and fifth centuries. And the wonder is, 
 not that two or three isolated facts such as these can be 
 alleged, but that • much more of like kind has not been 
 discovered. 
 
 The explanation of the facts now alleged, and of much 
 that would otherwise be inexplicable in the history of the 
 Church from the fourth century onwards, is this. When, at 
 Nicaea, in the year 325 a.d., the whole Church, both 
 Eastern, Greek, and Latin, met together in representation, 
 for the first time, at a General Council, and met again, some 
 fifty years later, at Constantinople, questions of precedence 
 and of privilege between the various ' Apostolic Sees ' 
 naturally arose, which it was necessary to settle. Constanti- 
 nople, the ' New Rome,' had no claims whatever on ground 
 of antiquity, or of Apostolic foundation, to take rank even on 
 the same level with, far less to take precedence of, the ancient 
 Apostolic Sees — Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Ephesus. 
 But if weight and importance in the Christian world, as 
 it then zvas, were to be considered, as well as prescriptive 
 dignity, there were two great cities which held first place 
 in the whole Roman world (the olx,ov^ivri), to which as the 
 seats of empire, in East and West respectively, it was natural 
 for a Council, held under Imperial auspices, to assign first 
 place of precedence in the united Councils of the Church. 
 Rome, as ennobled by the blood of Apostles, and being one 
 of the Apostolic Sees, had a higher title to precedence in
 
 ST. PETER S CHAIR. 
 
 87 
 
 the eyes of Churchmen than any Imperial dignity could 
 bestow; but had the advantage of combining both Imperial 
 and Ecclesiastical claims. And she, therefore, clung to the 
 style of ' Apostolic See,' which, by degrees, became ' T/ie 
 Apostolic See ;' while Constantinople, whose claim to pre- 
 cedence, when first advanced, was really that of her Impa'ial 
 position in the Roman olzovyAurj, assumed after a while the 
 title of the ' Ecumenic See,' — a name which, when its true 
 import was, ere long, forgotten, became a source of bitter 
 strife between that Church on the one hand, and Rome 
 on the other, Rome being siippo7'tcd by those other Apostolic 
 Sees which Constantinople had displaced* 
 
 Bearing all these circumstances in mind we shall better 
 understand the language of the famous Canons of the first 
 and the second General Councils (Nicrea, 325, and Con- 
 stantinople, 381 A.D.). In the first of these the ancient 
 Metropolitan (and Apostolic) Sees were recognised in the 
 
 * This is well illustrated by a aught of that dignity which she at- 
 letter of St. Leo's (Bishop of Rome tained through the holy Evangelist 
 from 440 to 461), written in refer- Mark, the disciple of blessed Peter. 
 ence to the Council of Chalcedon And let Antioch, too, maintain the 
 and its Canons. He makes it mat- rank which by the Fathers was as- 
 ter of complaint that the See of signed to her {in paterme co7istitu- 
 Alexandria should have lost her pri- t ion is or dine perseveret). [Quoted 
 vilege of second place {secundi ho- by Dupin, ' De A. E. D.,' Dissert. 
 noris privilegiiini), and the Church iv.] This standing alliance between 
 of Antioch her dignity as the third Rome and the displaced Sees of Alex- 
 See in Christendom. He adds: — andria and Antioch, is perhaps the 
 ' Let not the rights appertaining to true explanation of a fact which has 
 Provincial Primacy be violently been the puzzle of Roman anliqua- 
 done away ; nor the Metropolitan ries and Ritualists, viz. that at Rome 
 Bishops be defrauded of the privi- was celebrated, for many centuries, 
 leges that of old were established. the Festival of the See of St. Peter 
 Let not the See of Alexandria lose (Cathedra Petri) at Antioch.
 
 88 SUPREMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE. 
 
 following terms (Canon Nic. vi.), — ' Let the ancient customs 
 hold in Egypt, and Libya, and Pentapolis, so that the 
 Bishop of Alexandria have authority (k^ovaiccv — jurisdiction) 
 over all these ; seeing that to the Bishop also that is in 
 Rome this* is of established custom. Li like manner, 
 also, in Antioch, and in the other [eparchies] provinces, the 
 privileges of the several churches shall be preserved.' 
 
 Ta a^yjucc \&ri zpocnircj, ra h KlyvTrco kou A//36y zocl Ylzvra- 
 •TTokzi^ axTTZ rov ' AXs^ccv'hgziug STrtaKOTov vavrcov rovrcov sy^siv r^v 
 lc,ov(riocv' iTTZihyj za,] rto Iv t?} VojiJjrj I'Tricrico'Troo rovro avjridzg lariV 
 6[jjOicog ^s KKi pccira rrjv ^ Kvrioyjiiav zai h rcdg aWaig iTa^yJotig ra 
 x^£<7|3£?a Gco^sadui Tccjg IzzXT^aicctc' Ka0oXou ^s 'Troo'hrjkov IziivOy on 
 Bi rig Xf^^ig yvoo^jrig rov ^i^rPO'jro'kirov yivoiro liridKO'Trog rov roiovrov 
 rj (/jsyccX}^ (Tvvo'hog S^ktz (irj ^s7i> uvcci I'TviGTCO'Trov. 
 
 Such was the lanofuaee of the Church in her first 
 General Council. Little more than fifty years afterwards, 
 the following new arrangement was made, having reference, 
 evidently, to changes which had been brought about, and 
 to dangers which had been experienced, in the meanwhile. 
 The Second Canon of the Council of Constantinople is as 
 follows : ' Bishops having metropolitan jiL^Hsdictioii {rovg 
 y-^g^ hoizTjtjiv I'TTidKOTTovg) shall not interfere with Churches 
 beyond their ozvn border, nor bring confusion upon the 
 Churches! 
 
 * 'This,' /. ^. jurisdiction such as 2. Tuscia et Umbria ; 3. Picenum 
 
 this over the comprovincial Churches, suburbicarium ; 4. Sicilia; 5. ApuHa 
 
 ' the Ecclesise Suburbicarite,' as they et Calabria ; 6. Bruttii et Lucahia ; 
 
 were called {subiirbicaria loca in the 7. Samnium ; 8. Sardinia ; 9. Cor- 
 
 versio Prisca of the Nicene Canon). sicaj 10. Valeria. [See the autho- 
 
 These Churches were those of the rities for this in Gieseler's ' Ecc. 
 
 ten provinces comprised within the Hist.' vol. i. p. 431, note 3.] 
 Dioecesis Romre; viz. i. Campania;
 
 ST. Peter's chair. 89 
 
 Then, after mention of Alexandria, the ' East ' {i.e. 
 the DIoecesis Orientis) with Antioch as its head, ' the 
 Dioceses ' of Asia, of Thrace, and after reference to the 
 Canons of Nicsea already quoted, the Third Canon adds : 
 * Yet the Bishop of Constantinople shall have precedence of 
 honour (rcc '^^s(t(5&7cc T?jg ri^TJg) next after the Bishop of Rome ^ 
 because of its being Nezu Rome! 
 
 Exactly seventy years after this, at the Council of 
 Chalcedon (a.d. 451), being the fourth General Council, a 
 yet further step in advance was made good by the Imperial 
 or 'Ecumenical' See, when (ib-a 'x^ia^ua) equality of privilege 
 and honour was decreed to the two Sees of Rome and 
 Constantinople ; yet with a concession of ' priority ' to the 
 older See.* 
 
 I have been makine a lonof digression, but thus much 
 was necessary in order to explain why it was that in the 
 divisions by which the Eastern Churches were rent asunder, 
 the see of Alexandria is constantly found in deadly feud 
 with that of Constantinople, and as constantly appealing, 
 not without effect, to ' Old Rome ' for succour against her 
 foe ; and again how it is that at Alexandria {deriving 
 Apostolical foundation from Peter through St. Mark) there 
 is to be traced something of the same exaltation of St. 
 Peter's privileges as at Rome itself 
 
 I may add further, that we have clear evidence to show 
 that the language of the Nicene Canon (quoted above, 
 p. 86) was far from satisfying the ideas which the Roman 
 Church even then entertained of their own right to a 
 'primacy' of honour and privilege. They put their own 
 
 * For fuller details concerning the Councils, see Appendix (D).
 
 90 SUPREMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE. 
 
 interpretation upon that Canon, and in their own Latin 
 version headed the Canon itself with the superscription, 
 or perhaps the marginal annotation, ' Ecclesia Romana semper 
 habiiit prhnatuml or ' De priniatu Romance Ecclesics! 
 Before long, however, the Roman Canonists, having nothing 
 but their Latin version of the Canons to refer to, came to 
 think this inscription to be a part of the actual Canon of 
 Nicxa itself, and as such quoted it, both in controversy 
 with the African Churches, and afterwards at the Council 
 of Chalcedon, in support of the Roman claims. 
 
 This falsification (which was probably quite unconscious 
 in the first instance, the result of ignorance not of deliberate 
 fraud, like many of the other falsifications with which the 
 history of the Roman See abounds) was of course at once 
 exposed at Chalcedon by the production of the genuine 
 acts. But what, for our present purpose, it is of importance 
 to note, is, that from the time of the first Council of Nicsea 
 onwards, the Church of Rome was thrown on her defence, 
 as it were, with regard to the position of primacy which 
 she claimed, so that * Peter,' and the ' succession from 
 Peter,' would be constantly in the mouth of her Canonists — 
 more particularly after the Council of Constantinople, and 
 when the seat of Empire had been completely transferred 
 to Constantinople. 
 
 These things being so, we see at once the reason 
 why, at Rome itself, in the glass cups, which on other 
 grounds we have had reason to assign (many of them at 
 least) to the fourth and fifth centuries (some few of them 
 perhaps to the sixth), we should find Peter occupying a 
 very different position to any that was assigned to him 
 in the earlier ' Biblical Cycle ' (dating from before the
 
 ST. PETKRS CHAIR. 9 I 
 
 conversion of Constantine) : and why similar ' Petrine ' 
 developments are manifest in the sarcophagi, which are 
 also, with few exceptions, to be assigned to the same 
 period as these ornamented glasses.* 
 
 Bearing these things in mind we shall see, that the 
 very few facts of archaeology which Roman writers (as e.g. 
 Dr. Northcote) can allege in support of Roman claims, 
 amount to nothing more than proofs of what was already 
 notorious, that the Bishops of Rome from the fourth century 
 onward (even in the third we have traces of the same 
 feeling) ^contended,' to use the words of Firmilianus, that 
 they had succession from Peter, and tried to found a claim 
 thereupon, first to primacy and afterward, as time went on, 
 to supremacy in the Church. How utterly inconsistent 
 with Roman ideas of supremacy by Divine right over the 
 whole Church, is the language of those General Councils 
 which I have quoted, I need scarcely be at pains to point 
 out. 
 
 There is yet another matter to which great importance 
 has been attached by some Roman Catholic writers, viz., 
 the question of the antiquity or otherwise of the so-called 
 ' chair of St. Peter,' preserved with great veneration at 
 Rome. I will not enter upon the question at length, 
 because now that the facts are ascertained (by the removal 
 of its bronze covering, at the Pope's orders, in 1867), it is 
 found to involve matter of purely archaeological interest. 
 It is not an Episcopal ' throne ' or ' Cathedra,' such, for 
 
 * I adopt here, as probably the has suggested, ' De Antiq. Eccles. 
 true explanation of this falsification, Discip.' Dissert, iv. p. 325. 
 what the learned Gallican, Dupin,
 
 92 SUPREMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE. 
 
 example, as that assigned to St. Paul in the Diptych 
 already figured, or in other early ecclesiastical monuments, 
 but is a sella gestatoria, a kind of portable arm-chair, such 
 as was used in old times as a mark of dignity by Roman 
 Senators. 
 
 The original oak chair is very ancient, and it is adorned 
 with ivory plates representing the labours of Hercules, 
 If this be, as Roman archaeologists contend, the material 
 Cathedra Petri sometimes referred to by ancient authors (in 
 some we read of a ' sella gestatoria '), the conclusion would 
 be one singularly in accordance with the view maintained 
 throughout in this paper, viz., that the 'Cathedra' or 
 Apostolic See (Sedes Apostolica) at Rome was really St. 
 Paul's rather than St. Peter's. For in existing monuments 
 we should have one (that lithographed above, PL iv.) show- 
 ing St. Paul seated on an Apostolic throne, in the act of 
 Benediction, and another, this much -talked -of 'Chair of 
 St. Peter' proving to be (even if genuine) nothing more 
 than a Senator's chair (a kind of sedan-chair) suited for 
 out-door use.* 
 
 * A kind of fatality seems to at- qua scderat ipse, locatum Maxima 
 
 tend upon Dr. Northcote and his Roma Linum p^'imum considerejjissit. 
 
 co-editor as soon as they attempt to Mr. B.,with a disregard of quantity, 
 
 make controversial use of the ar- of grammar, and of lexicography, 
 
 chaeological facts before them. Mr. which is quite Pontifical (see above, 
 
 Brownlow, who writes a Dissertation p. 46), renders these words, ' In this 
 
 on this Chair of St. Peter, quotes Chair, in which Peter himself had 
 
 two lines from a Poem against Mar- sat, he 07'dained Linus first to sit with 
 
 cion, 'usually appended to the works him \as Bishop^ established in Great 
 
 of I'ertuUian, and which from inter- Rome.' What will De Rossi say of 
 
 nal evidence clearly belongs to the such scholarship as this, on the 
 
 third century.' Hac Cathedra, Petrus part of his English representative?
 
 SC.S, CORl^ELmS PAPA AWO S.C.S. CLfrxi^.K^_. 
 A Yresco (8'^Centary) aJ.Rome frornDeUossi s Roma Sotterrar.ea.
 
 FRESCO OF CORNELIUS PAPA AND ST. CYPRIAN. 93 
 
 The Fresco of Cor?ielhis Papa and Si. Cyprian. 
 
 Quitting now this portion of my subject, I will ask your 
 attention in the next place to another monument, of 
 considerably later date, which I have had lithographed for 
 the illustration of this paper. 
 
 Its outward appearance I need not describe, for you 
 can judge of this yourselves. I have only therefore to state 
 its history, and point out its subject. Its significance in 
 reference to our present question will then be readily 
 appreciated, without any detailed comment on my part. 
 
 The personages represented are St. Cornelius, ' Pope 
 of Rome,' and his contemporary St. Cyprian ' Pope of 
 Carthage.' I use these terms advisedly, as being at once 
 historical and monumental. The first term, Papa Romanvs, 
 was used officially even at Rome itself, as late as the 
 middle of the ninth century. In the companion picture to 
 this for example [' Vestiarium Christianum,' PI. xxxi. 
 representing S. Xystvs of Rome, and a Bishop (probably 
 ' Optatus ') of some other See], this very title of Papa 
 Romanus '"' is employed. And for other Sees I need hardly 
 
 * The word Papa (in some of Christ.' t. i. p. cxv.) St. Perpetua, 
 
 the earUest inscriptions Pappa or in the Acts of her Martyrdom, ad- 
 
 Pappas) was originally a term of af- dresses Bishop Optatus in the words 
 
 fection, equivalent to Father. So ' Tu es papa noster.' (Ruinart. 'Acta 
 
 Furius Dionisius Filocalus, an artist sincera,' ed. Paris, p. 92.) And in 
 
 employed by Damasus {sed. 366- like manner both St. Urbanus, Bp. 
 
 384), speaks of himself as being of Rome (Laderchi 'Acta S. Cae- 
 
 Damasi stii Pappce alitor atque ama- cilige,' t. i. p. 12), and St. Antony, 
 
 tor. In another inscription (the who was but a Presbyter (Mabillon, 
 
 Deacon Severus) we read of Papa ' Analecta,' t. iv. p. 104), were both 
 
 siiiis Marcelliniis. (De Rossi, ' Insc. known to their own flock as ' Papa
 
 94 SUPREMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE. 
 
 remind you, that the Patriarchs of Alexandria were as 
 commonly designated by this title as the Patriarchs of 
 Rome ; and that the same word ' Papa ' was frequently 
 used in reference to Bishops of other less important Sees, 
 as those of Carthage, Rheims, Lyons, and others. 
 
 But while the personages represented in the fresco 
 before you are Bishops of the third century, the fresco 
 itself (on the walls of the ' Catacomb ' or cemetery of 
 St. Callistus) dates* from the time of Leo IIL, the close of 
 the eighth or early in the ninth century. I may note 
 further, that the picture appears to have been a restoration, 
 or rather if I may use the term, a palimpsest — traces of still 
 earlier frescoes (probably of the same subject) being found 
 by De Rossi under these, which he himself discovered only 
 a few years ago. And with these few facts premised, I 
 need only ask you further to observe, as bearing upon our 
 present subject, that there being four Bishops represented 
 in the two frescoes (' Vest. Christ.' Pll. xxx. and xxxi.), of 
 whom two are Bishops of Rome, one a Bishop of Carthage, 
 and the fourth a Bishop of some unknown See other\ than 
 Rome, precisely the same costtcme and insignia are atti'ibttted 
 to all the fonr. In the monument before us, buried as it 
 was beneath the ground for a thousand years, discovered 
 
 suns' (Quoted by De Rossi, R. S. by De Rossi, and, as I believe, now 
 
 t. ii. p. 200.) St. Germanus, Pa- commonly received, 
 
 triarch of Constantinople (eighth f The first letter of his name [O] 
 
 century), speaks of Leo and of Vi- remains on the fresco, and this, as 
 
 gilius as being ' Popes of Rome' ex- De Rossi observed, is sufficient to 
 
 actly as does the fresco here in show that it is not a Bishop of Rome ; 
 
 question. (Scti. Germani, etc., de for no Bishop of Rome, from first 
 
 Sanctis Synodis, ap. A. Mai, Spicil.) to last, has borne a name of which 
 
 * I adopt the opinion advocated O was the first letter.
 
 MOSAICS OF THE TRICLINIUM LATERANUM. 95 
 
 by a Roman archaeologist, published to the world under the 
 auspices of the present Pope, as one of the first-fruits of 
 the Cromolitografia Pontificia, we find preserved to us the 
 record of a time, when, neither by title* nor by insignia, 
 were Bishops of Rome distinguished from other Bishops, 
 even when figured, as are these four, in a place of burial 
 especially appropriated to the occupants of the Roman 
 See. 
 
 Mosaics of the Triclinium Latermmm. 
 
 The series of Monuments figured next in order to that 
 last described, are of the same, or all but the same, date as 
 the last, in point of actual execution. But in another point 
 of view there is a wide difference between them. For that 
 last reproduced the ideas (probably also reproduced, with 
 slight changes only, the actual artistic work) proper to 
 four or five centuries before. But these that we now 
 see, are a genuine embodiment of the ideas concerning 
 ' Church and State,' the spiritual and the temporal power, 
 which prevailed at Rome at the beginning of the ninth 
 century. 
 
 In the woodcut given on the following page, I have 
 fortunately been able to reproduce the most important por- 
 
 * In the official Cemetery of Maggiore : Ciampini ' Mon. Vet.' 
 
 Bishops of Rome in the third cen- t. i. p. 203], describes himself as 
 
 tury, we find such inscriptions as Xvstvs Episcopvs. For further 
 
 these: — ANTEPWC CnKo-^'OTroc) particulars see ' Vest. Christ.' p. 218, 
 
 KOPNHAIOC €niCK, and the note 448 ; p. 92, note 167 ; and for 
 
 like. And so Xystus III. {sed. 433- the title ' Pontifex Maximus,' n.304, 
 
 440), in an inscription put up by p. 146. 
 himself [in the church of S. Maria
 
 96 
 
 SUPREMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE. 
 
 tion of these mosaics, in a shape more authentic* than 
 any in which it has been pubHshed hitherto. 
 
 These mosaics were originally placed on the walls of the 
 
 Triclinium Lateranum, a great banqueting-hall (used also as 
 a place of meeting for Roman ' Lateran ' Councils) which 
 
 * The woodcut here given is from 
 a coloured drawing in the collection 
 of Vope Clement XL, now in the 
 Royal Library at Windsor. For the 
 history of these mosaics see Nicolai 
 Alemanni De Lateranensibus Parie- 
 tinis Dissertatio Historica, Romse, 
 4to. 1625. To the eye of an archae- 
 
 ologist, one little matter of detail 
 will at once mark out I'oJ'e Clemenfs 
 version (so to call it) as the true one. 
 The pallium worn by Leo III. is 
 arranged /;/ the Greek fashion in the 
 genuine picture, but after a later 
 Roman fashion in the same picture 
 as edited by Alemannus. Note, too,
 
 
 o 
 
 en n:
 
 MOSAICS OF THE TRICLINIUM LATERANUM. 97 
 
 Leo III. built about the time of the Coronation of 
 Charlemagne. Great portion of the building was restored 
 later in the same century by Leo IV. — a small portion of 
 the walls, and fragments (I believe) of these mosaics are 
 still in existence. The general arrangement of the whole 
 apse of the Triclinium is shown in 'Vest. Christ.' PI. xxxii. ; 
 the two most important groups, as represented by Ale- 
 mannus, in PI. vi. of this volume, and one of these again 
 (containing what are probably contemporary representations 
 of Leo III. and Charlemagne) in the woodcut above. The 
 two groups of which I speak (PI. vi.) tell their own tale. 
 That on the spectator s left represents our Lord, bestowing 
 with His right hand the keys on St. Peter (regarded as 
 representative of the Roman Church), and with His left 
 giving the ' Vexillum,' or standard of empire, to Constantino. 
 In the group on the right St. Peter occupies the place 
 corresponding to that of our Lord in the other. He is 
 depicted (in accordance with Roman ideas at that time) as 
 the representative through whom, under Christ, all power, 
 both spiritual and temporal, was derived to the Roman 
 Church ; but whereas, at a later time, we shall find both 
 these powers concentrated in the person of the Pope, we 
 have here their division recognised, the pallium, as the 
 symbol of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and of spiritual power, 
 
 that this last editor has thought it each restorer, sometimes each editor, 
 necessary to put the keys on the lap making slight but significant changes 
 of St. Peter, while nothing of the to suit the ideas prevailing in his 
 kind appears in the other drawing, own day ; and these more often (I 
 Of additions, such as this last, I find fully believe) through inadvertence, 
 conclusive evidence in many of the and want of archaeological know- 
 Roman monuments, restored as they ledge, than from any deliberate or 
 have been from time to time ; and conscious misrepresentation. 
 
 II
 
 98 SUPREMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE. 
 
 he'mcr bestowed on Leo III., the vexillum, as the symbol 
 of Imperial power, bestowed on Charlemagne. And it is in 
 accordance with this distinction, that while the Emperor is 
 here represented as wearing the diadciua imperii, or Im- 
 perial crown, the Pope is content with the corona sacerdotii^'' 
 the tonsure, which he shared in common with other Priests 
 and Bishops of his time. 
 
 Contrast this with the representations of a Pope 
 (Eugenius IV.) in those monuments which stand last in the 
 series before you below (Pll. viii. ix.), and you will see at a 
 glance how rapid were the developments of the intervening 
 centuries — how wide the interval which separates even the 
 successful ambition of a Leo III. from the unbounded 
 pretensions to universal sovereignty in things temporal 
 and spiritual, put forth, and for a time successfully, by the 
 later Popes, and now being claimed once more, to what 
 result God knoweth, and God alone, by Pius IX. and the 
 Roman Curia. 
 
 The Donation of Constantinc. 
 
 The mention of this marked difference between the 
 Papacy of even Leo III. and that of Hildebrand and the 
 later Popes, leads us naturally to the mention of that won- 
 derful instance of successful forgery, pregnant with results 
 of untold importance to Europe, the false Decretals, which 
 
 * There is precisely the same dis- appear together. There are co- 
 
 tinction of insignia in other mosaics loured drawings of these in the 
 
 (believed by Ciampinus and others collection of Pope Clement XL, 
 
 to have been contemporary pictures) photographs from which are in my 
 
 in which Charlemagne and Leo II L i)Ossession.
 
 
 "M 
 
 ^ 
 
 ft. 
 
 
 3 
 
 ^, 
 
 ^ 
 m 
 
 u* 
 ^ 
 -^ 
 
 cs* 
 
 > 
 
 b» 
 
 <^ 
 
 K 
 
 >s 
 
 s 
 
 pq 
 
 B 
 
 
 ft. 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ffj 
 
 
 X 
 w 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 '■y^a^^Ti-^ 
 
 \1 
 
 o 
 
 § 
 
 »-, Si
 
 THE DONATION OF CONSTANTINE. 99 
 
 bridged the intervening space. I have succeeded quite 
 lately in finding, what I believe to be the only representation 
 in mediaeval art of the so-called ' Donation of Constantine ;' 
 and this you will find reproduced, exactly as I found it, 
 among the illustrations'" before you. We are able to de- 
 termine the date of this monument, on archaeological grounds, 
 with certainty, to a time not earlier than the twelfth century. 
 The form of the mitres in the ' Baptism of Constantine ' is 
 alone sufficient to determine this. 
 
 That amonof the innumerable monuments of Roman art 
 dating from the fourth century onwards, some of which, as 
 those of the Triclinium Lateranum just noticed, have direct 
 reference to Constantine — that among these no reference 
 whatever should have been made to a transaction so mo- 
 mentous, if only it had been real — that Anastasius again, 
 who records all the offerings made by Constantine to the 
 various churches in Rome, even to the number of the 
 pounds weight of the candlesticks and other such things — 
 that he, too, should know nothing of this 'Donation' — these 
 two facts would alone constitute the strongest possible evi- 
 dence of the utterly fabulous character of the whole story, even 
 if other evidence were wanting. A work lately published, t 
 and widely circulated both in this country and on the Con- 
 tinent, has entered so fully into the literary history of the 
 forged Decretals, that it is unnecessary for me to enlarge 
 upon that topic. 
 
 I pass on, therefore, to the last in the series of monu- 
 
 * This Plate (vii.) is an exact were upon the ' zophoros,' or frieze, 
 
 copy of that given by Ciampinus in of the Lateran Basihca. 
 
 his ' De Sacris ^dificiis,' Tab. ii. f ' Janus.' 
 figg. 3. 4. The mosaics in (|ucstion
 
 lOO SUPREMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE. 
 
 ments which I have to describe. And these, as they are 
 the latest in date of those here figured, so are they also, 
 to the shame of Western Christendom it must be said, a 
 most conspicuous example of the habitual, and in this case 
 it must be feared, the conscious and deliberate misrepre- 
 sentations, through which, from the fifth century down to 
 this present time, the pretensions of the Roman See have 
 been maintained. 
 
 The Bassi Relievi from the Great Gates of St. Peter's 
 
 AT Rome. 
 
 The Popes Supremacy, temporal and spirihial. 
 
 In describing these monuments I will first state briefly 
 what are the subjects represented, and then point out, as 
 concisely as may be, the gross misrepresentations of histo- 
 rical fact which are there embodied. 
 
 These four plates, then, give an exact picture of some of 
 the principal relievi on the great bronze gates of St. Peter's 
 at Rome. Their immediate subjects are sufficiently indi- 
 cated by the titles printed under each — of one, the Coro- 
 nation of the Emperor Sigismund ; of the others, the prin- 
 cipal events of the Council of Florence (previously of 
 Ferrara), the first session of which was held at Ferrara on 
 Wednesday, January the 8th, in the year 1438."' And the 
 general idea which, evidently, it was intended herein to set 
 forth, is that of the union in the person of the Pope, as 
 God's vicegerent upon earth, of supreme power, both tem- 
 poral and spirittial. 
 
 \ * Raynaldus, e<l. ann. 1438, § 2.
 
 .it 
 
 M 
 
 ■ Wi 
 
 %^' 
 .^j^^ 
 
 pb 
 
 P. 
 
 ■^' 
 
 ^^S^c? 
 
 "n 
 
 :^^£; 
 
 .^^^ 
 
 II 
 
 "Z. 
 
 ID 
 
 >— o 
 
 ^ c 
 <; 
 
 V 
 
 Uh o 
 
 O 55 
 
 ■X 
 
 I 1 
 
 y 
 
 C ;3 
 
 : > 
 
 2 
 
 , , 
 
 n; 
 
 ,— . 
 
 fi 
 
 -— 
 
 U 
 
 ■ 
 
 \^ 
 
 C ) 
 
 
 u 
 
 o
 
 THE CORONATION OF SIGISMUND. IQI 
 
 The Coronation of Sigismund. 
 
 His supremacy of temporal power is indicated in the 
 scene of the Coronation of Sigismund, who kneels humbly, 
 as you see, at the Pope's feet, to receive at his hands the 
 Imperial crown, which it is for the Pope to bestow or to 
 withhold, at his good pleasure. It is probable that this 
 scene may not incorrectly represent'" the submissive attitude 
 to which the German Emperors had in the course of time 
 been reduced. And a suggestive contrast for the ecclesi- 
 astical historian will be found, in comparing the scene here 
 represented with that of the Coronation of Charlemagne by 
 Leo III., as described by contemporary writers. Onet of 
 these tells us how, at the time of the coronation, ' Carolus 
 more antiquorum Principum, a Leone Pontifice adoratus 
 fttit! And this adorare, though we are not to suppose with 
 certain moderns that it expressed, necessarily, in ancient 
 times, all that is implied in our own word to ' adore,' \ does 
 here express the ceremonial kiss of duty, as distinct from 
 the mere oscular i of brotherly affection. Another old 
 writer (quoted as above by Alemannus) has exactly hit the 
 meaning of the term, when, versifying the words I have just 
 quoted, he says : — 
 
 * It is worth noting, however, ating at the coronation of a King of 
 
 that representations such as these France ; and there it is the King 
 
 vary considerably, according to the who sits, while the Pope stands. 
 
 authority from which they proceed. f Auctor Annal. Franc, apud Ale- 
 
 In French monuments, executed, I mannum de Lateran. Pariet. p. 76. 
 
 doubt not, under other than Papal % See further on this word, Appen- 
 
 auspices, a Pope may be seen oftici- dix (A) at the end of this volume.
 
 I02 SUPREMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE. 
 
 ' Post laucles igitur dictas et summus eundem 
 Praesul adoravit, stent mos debitiis oli/n 
 J'ruidpibiis fiiit a lit i qui s.' 
 
 A ' Papa Romanus,' in the ninth century, thought it natural 
 ' ado7^are,' to give the kiss of duly, to the Emperor whom he 
 had just anointed and crowned. Three centuries later, 
 Popes had learnt to require from Emperors the menial 
 services of a o-room. 
 
 t> 
 
 T/ie Coitncil of Florence. 
 
 But I must not linger on this portion of my subject, but 
 go on to speak of the other monuments relating to the 
 Council of Florence. 
 
 The first in the series is that which for our present pur- 
 pose is of chief interest. In the larger portion of it, that on 
 the spectator s left, we see the transit from Constantinople 
 to Venice, and the landing of the Emperor (who wears the 
 xa,(j(,y]Xoivztov, or peculiar shaded helmet of the Byzantine Em- 
 perors), and of the Patriarch Joseph, who is seen, in man- 
 dyas and cowl, immediately behind the Emperor. In this 
 part of the plate there is nothing to call for special remark. 
 But it is scarcely possible to conceive a greater concen- 
 tration of direct misrepresentation of fact, within two or 
 three square inches of space, than we shall find in the small 
 portion of this plate which yet remains to be described. 
 
 The subject here represented is that of the formal 
 reception by the Pope, at Ferrara, of the Greek Emperor 
 and the Patriarch of Constantinople. And if we had no 
 other evidence of what really happened than that which is 
 here given us on the infallible authority of Eugenius IV,
 
 THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE. IO3 
 
 (if anywhere careful of exact truth we might well suppose 
 to be so here, in a matter affecting the whole constitution of 
 the Church and of the Roman See, and the relations of 
 Eastern and Western Christendom), the conclusion we 
 should come to would be this. We should suppose (I have 
 only to appeal oculis fidelibiis for what I say) that the Pope 
 was seated on his throne, wearing the triple crown of 
 sovereignty in things of heaven, things of earth, and things 
 under the earth — that the Greek Emperor then came 
 humbly into his presence, that he left his own Imperial 
 crown in the hands of an attendant, on entering the presence 
 chamber, in token of humility, and in acknowledgment of 
 the supreme sovereignty of God's earthly Vicar — and 
 then bowed himself on one knee at the Pope's feet, as 
 though to sue for the pledge of forgiveness, which the Pope, 
 without rising from his throne, is graciously pleased to 
 bestow. And while the Emperor thus acknowledges his 
 superior in the person of St. Peter's representative, the 
 Ecumenical Patriarch, as Joseph would have styled himself, 
 is seen in attendance, standing humbly and expectantly, at 
 the door of the presence chamber, till it shall please the 
 spiritual monarch of the world to notice the humble Bishop 
 who awaits his pleasure. 
 
 Such is the picture by which Antonio Filarete of 
 Florence, at the command of Eugenius IV., has perpetuated, 
 in unblushing bronze, the fictions of which an infallible 
 Pope is capable. From Roman historians of the time (to 
 say nothing now of the Greeks), we have full details of what 
 really did happen on the occasions referred to ; and these 
 accounts prove conclusively that what actually occurred was 
 the exact opposite of what is here represented, and that in
 
 I04 SUPREMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE. 
 
 every particular, from first to last, almost without a single 
 exception. 
 
 What actually occurred was this. The Emperor reached 
 Ferrara on the 4th of March. We may well imagine the 
 endless questions of ceremonial etiquette which would have 
 arisen, had a formal reception in public audience been given 
 to him on this occasion by the Pope. And it would seem 
 from the conflicting accounts of the Latins and the Greeks, 
 that the diplomatists on either side must have come to the 
 determination of avoiding altogether difficulties which they 
 could not more directly surmount. A Roman Cardinal 
 (Andreas a Santa Cruce) wrote as follows of what occurred :''" 
 ' On the 4th of March the Greek Emperor entered Ferrara 
 with a large train on horseback. All the Cardinals then at 
 Ferrara went to meet him, outside the city, accompanied by 
 a large body of Prelates. The Emperor was conducted 
 under a golden canopy to the Apostolic (Papal) Palace, and 
 went on horseback up to the Pope's chamber, by a way 
 which had been made in the Palace, in old times, by the 
 Marquises of Ferrara. When he had duly paid his respects 
 to the Pontiff {exhibita Romano Pontifici debita t revei^entia) 
 he was conducted in similar state to the Palace (known 
 
 * Raynaldi Annal. ad ann. 1434. both in these matters of ceremony, 
 
 No. 6. and in matters of grave doctrinal 
 
 t This is a conveniently vague importance, than were the Patriarch 
 
 term. Roman and Greek ideas of and the other Greek Bishops. In 
 
 the amount of ceremonial reverence the authentic copy of the final De- 
 
 to be shown by an Emperor to a cree of the Council (now in the 
 
 Pope would differ considerably. British Museum) the Emperor alone 
 
 Pateologus, however, throughout signs on the Greek side, the Pope 
 
 (as was natural under the circum- and a host of Latin ecclesiastics on 
 
 stances) was much more complaisant the other.
 
 :^^ 
 
 i'^fp^s^ 
 
 !^ 
 
 7=:^JJJ 
 
 "^n. 
 
 f! 
 
 
 V 
 
 mm 
 
 
 c^ 
 
 o ■=
 
 THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE. IO5 
 
 as " Paradise ") which had been prepared for his reception.* 
 So speaks the Cardinal, describing, if I mistake not, the 
 intended programme of the ceremonial. The Greek 
 Phrantzes,'" deriving his information from the Emperor's 
 Brother, the ' Despotes ' of the Morea, who was present on 
 the occasion, gives the following account of what actually- 
 occurred : 'When the Pope heard that the Emperor had 
 reached the gate, he rose, and took a walk, and as he was 
 thus walking up and down (spatia facientem, apparently in 
 the grounds attached to the Palace) the Emperor accidentally 
 came upon him ; and when he would have fallen on his knees, 
 the Pope would not permit him to do so, but embraced 
 him, held out to him his right hand, and kissed him, and 
 placed him at his left hand {ad sinisti^am snam collocavit)! 
 All this, as Raynaldus observes, ' nonnihil discrepat ' from 
 the representation on the bronze gates of St. Peter s, that 
 now before you. ' Visitur in seneis valvis basilicae S. Petri, 
 Eugenii jussu conflatis, efformata effigies, qua Pontifex ipse 
 papali thyara redimitus, Imperatori nudo capite altero 
 genu provoluto manum porrigit, a quo nonnihil discrepat 
 Phrantzes.' 
 
 But the contrast between fact and representation of fact, 
 which is not small in this case, is far more flagrant, and far 
 more significant also, in regard of the Patriarch of ' New 
 Rome.' 
 
 It had been arranged, as I have already said, by the 
 Diplomatists on either side, that the Patriarch should make 
 his entry four days after the Emperor. And as the whole 
 question of the relative position of East and West, of Old and 
 
 * Quoted in Latin by Raynaldus, ubi supra.
 
 I06 SUPREMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE. 
 
 New Rome, might have been seriously prejudiced by any 
 unguarded concessions, in the matter of pubHc ceremonial, 
 on an occasion so remarkable as this, it was not only 
 natural, but right, that the whole programme should be 
 made matter of careful arrangement and concert between 
 the two parties, or rather the two Churches, chiefly con- 
 cerned. On all such occasions, as in the East from the 
 remotest antiquity, so in the traditionary public etiquette 
 of Western Courts, both in mediaeval and modern times, 
 one main point of ceremonial observance is that of the 
 goi7ig out to meet persons of great dignity, at specified 
 distances from the place in which they are actually to be 
 received. The distance to which this ' Hypantesis ' 
 extends, and the rank of the high officials who form the 
 procession, vary according to the rank of the person to be 
 received. Hence it will be readily understood, that when 
 an Emperor was to be received, the Roman Cardinals 
 made no difficulty in going out to meet him, because in so 
 doing they did but acknowledge, what even they were not 
 prepared to deny, that an Emperor of Constantinople was a 
 more exalted personage, in point of worldly dignity, than a 
 ' Prince ' of the Roman Church. But when they found them- 
 selves called on to go out to meet the Ecumenical Patriarch, 
 a question of precedence was involved, which, to the 
 Greeks at least, was not a mere matter of personal dignity, 
 but of serious ecclesiastical importance. The view of the 
 Cardinals was, that they were fully the equals of the 
 Patriarch. But the latter, representing, as in some sort he 
 did, the Eastern Churches generally in their relation to 
 those of the West, was far from admitting any such equality. 
 And upon primitive principles he was right in so doing.
 
 THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE. \oj 
 
 Greeks, and other Easterns, who took their stand on the 
 Canons of the 'most holy Ecumenical Synods' of the first 
 
 j eight centuries of Church history, could know nothing of 
 ' Cardinals ' as having any recognised precedence, as such, 
 in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. To their eyes Cardinals 
 were Bishops, Priests, or Deacons, as the case might be, 
 holding various offices in the court of the Patriarch of ' Old 
 Rome.' And it is evident that, at this period at least, at 
 the first opening of the Council, the Greek Patriarch was 
 determined to maintain the position conceded to his See 
 in the Councils of the fourth and fifth centuries. According 
 to Byzantine tradition the two Sees of Old and New Rome 
 were of equal dignity in respect of their Patriarchal rights — 
 and to New Rome in the East, as to Old Rome in the West, 
 a primacy belonged, but with a concession of ceremonial 
 precedence to the older See. To this view we find Joseph 
 and his Churchmen adhering throughout these opening 
 scenes of the Council. And it will be clear to you at once 
 that the Patriarch would seriously have compromised his 
 position, if by any public act he had recognised the 
 
 ■ Cardinals as his own equals. Had he done so, the con- 
 clusion would have been patent, that, in admitting his 
 equality with Cardinals, he must be, by his own confession, 
 greatly the inferior of a Pope. 
 
 These considerations will account for what took place 
 on the occasion which is, I can hardly say represented, in 
 the plate before you. The Patriarch had stipulated that 
 all due formalities should be observed in the details of his 
 reception. The proper officials were to meet him at speci- 
 
 1 fied places ; and more particularly he required that the 
 Cardinals should meet him outside the town, so as to escort
 
 I08 SUPREMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE. 
 
 him with due ceremony to the place where the Pope awaited 
 his arrival. As to the Pope again, it had been arranged 
 that he and the Patriarch should have precisely the same 
 number of officials in attendance on them (they were limited 
 to six each — ' tdtra Cardmalesl however, says Raynaldus). 
 These and other details had been matter of concerted ar- 
 rangement (' conventus ') between the two potentates, and 
 the Pope appears to have carried out his own part of the 
 programme to the satisfaction of all parties. Not so the 
 Cardinals. Their failure to perform their part caused a 
 delay of a whole day in the proceedings. At the time that 
 had been appointed for the Patriarch's solemn entry. Arch- 
 bishops, Bishops, and other Prelates, were present in large 
 numbers to meet him — the Marquis of Ferrara and his son 
 were also in their place — but Cardinals there were none. 
 What excuses, if any, were made for their absence, we are 
 not told. But the Patriarch was determined to hold his 
 own. He knew perfectly well what their absence meant, 
 and he therefore quietly remained in the place he had then 
 reached (the ' portus quo naves Ferrariam applicant '), re- 
 fusing to enter Ferrara unless the programme of the cere- 
 monial were properly carried out. The result was, that the 
 next morning, ' by order of the Pope,' two Cardinals {the 
 tivo juniors, Deacons, Raynaldus adds) were in attendance. 
 They met the procession, but evidently in very ill humour ; 
 for Raynaldus tells us that they rode up, and without either 
 * bending their bonnets ' to the Patriarch, or any other salu- 
 tation of civility, said, ' Reverendissime Pater, DominiLS noster 
 Papa misit nos tU associarcmus paternitatein vestram ; and 
 then, putting themselves on either side of him, rode on into 
 the city. The Pope remained seated, in a private chamber.
 
 THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE. IO9 
 
 till the Patriarch arrived, with the Cardinals placed {consti- 
 ttctis) at his right hand. The Patriarch was seated ifi 
 scabello^'' at the left of the Pope ; and after a brief conver- 
 sation he was escorted, with the same attendance as before, 
 the tiuo Cardinals excepted, to the palace assigned as his 
 residence. 
 
 I have dwelt, in more detail than I could have wished, 
 upon these matters, because I could not otherwise bring 
 out, as clearly as the truth of history requires, the egregious 
 misrepresentations of fact embodied in the monument before 
 you. I need not, however, describe in detail the other 
 plates of this series. What I have already said will be suf- 
 ficient for the purpose now before me. I do not wish to 
 add to the burden of the charges of forgery, interpolation, 
 falsification of every kind, which attach to the history of the 
 Roman See. As Christians ourselves, the shame of these 
 things redounds in a measure upon us. The history of 
 this Council would present only too suggestive a theme 
 for reproach, if such were the object in view. For myself, 
 in the present paper, I purposely confine myself to such 
 points only as are directly suggested by the art-monuments 
 on which I undertook to comment. But I will not conceal 
 my opinion, that the circumstances of these our own days 
 are such, even as regards our own Church, that it does 
 become a duty to examine, without passion and without 
 prejudice, but yet thoroughly, and, as far as may be, exhaus- 
 tively, the grounds on which rest the claims now put forth 
 on behalf of the Roman See. 
 
 * As to this, and other details of interest concerning the Council of 
 Florence, see the original authorities quoted in Appendix (E).
 
 I [O SUPREMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE. 
 
 One great difficulty in doing so is, that the personal 
 history of many of the Popes from the ninth to the fifteenth 
 century (one which is intimately connected with their claim 
 to vice-gerency on God's behalf over the whole Church, 
 and their infallibility), involves details so horrible, that it is 
 impossible to reproduce them for general reading, even 
 under the cover of a learned language. 
 
 But when we find that the more learned among the 
 members of the Roman Church itself find themselves con- 
 strained to lay before the world the utter hollowness of 
 these claims — when the abettors of those claims, instead of 
 appealing, in answer to their opponents, to Scripture, to 
 authentic History, to the text of Councils or of Fathers, can 
 do nothing but declare, through an irresponsible tribunal 
 (the Council of the Index), that the writings of those who 
 question her infallibility or her supremacy are heretical, 
 and to be shunned, under pain of excommunication, by all 
 good Catholics — we have a virtual admission on the part 
 of ' Romanists ' themselves (I purposely use the term in its 
 distinctive sense), that their claims do not admit of support, 
 unless the calm judgments of historical truth can be sup- 
 pressed, and the verdict thence resulting be drowned In the 
 loud acclaims of an excited assembly. It may be that now 
 at Rome, as in another great city 1800 years ago, the voice 
 of Apostolic truth may so be drowned for awhile ; it may 
 be that in this assembly, of which as of that former one we 
 read, that the ' more part know not wherefore they be come 
 together,' all appeal to Scripture, to antiquity, to reason, 
 may be overborne by a cry as false, and soon to be found 
 as false, as that ' Girat is Diana of the Ephcsians !' that 
 was heard of old by the space of two hours. Men may. If
 
 THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE. I I I 
 
 SO they will, stop their own ears against the voice of truth ; 
 but the time is past when falsehoods can be forced upon 
 the belief of Christendom by dint of the acclaiming voices 
 of a packed assembly. Let us pray Him, who is indeed the 
 Head over all to the Church, who worketh out His predes- 
 tined purpose through paths, and by instruments, that we 
 men wot not of, that He will overrule, to the fulfilment of 
 His own will, the counsels of rulers, whereinsoever they are 
 against the Lord, and the blindness of peoples, wherein- 
 soever they are in error ; and that He will bless for good, 
 as He alone can bless, every effort, however humble, for 
 the promoting of His true kingdom upon earth, and for the 
 restoration to a distracted Christendom of ' Peace thro2Lgh 
 the Truth!
 
 PART III. 
 
 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION, 
 
 HAVING REFERENCE TO THE DOCTRINES OF 
 
 Baptism; thi> polg (Buiiltniiist 
 
 AND 
 
 ilm ^tatij of M Jaitltful aftv iqatlr.
 
 NOTICE TO THE READER. 
 
 The Dissertation that folloivs is a eombination of Tiuo Paper's^ 
 one of zvhich {j-elating exclusively to questions of ArcJiceology) 
 was read lately before the Society of Antiquaries ; the other 
 (as already mentioned) ivas ivritten some feiv months ago, as 
 an Exercise for the Divinity School at Oxford.
 
 >ii _ei I iiooks l)a.vt>x)u.]it] 
 
 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION
 
 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 To few, if any, of those now present, need I make any apo- 
 logy for bringing under notice the exact representation, now 
 in your hands, of the Inscription found at Autun thirty 
 years ago. It is of exceptional interest, on many grounds, 
 to the student of Christian antiquity ; and of its important 
 bearing upon theological questions now, as for centuries 
 past, debated in the Church, there have been some remark- 
 able proofs, in quite recent times, among ourselves. If 
 apology were needed at all, it would rather be for my own 
 presumption in entering upon a task which, for the last 
 thirty years, has exercised the ingenuity of some of the first 
 scholars and most learned divines in almost every nation 
 in Europe. 
 
 But in dealing with subjects such as these, the attain- 
 ments of one generation form the starting-point of the 
 generation that follows. And I should not feel that any 
 labour I have bestowed on this particular monument were
 
 I I 6 THE AUTUN INSCKiriTON. 
 
 at all inadequately repaid, even were I able to do no more 
 than to publish it with that perfect accuracy of represent- 
 ation which photography alone makes possible, and to 
 bring under the notice of English students generally the 
 results hitherto reached by those who have devoted them- 
 selves to its elucidation. 
 
 To some present the history of the Inscription itself 
 may be unknown, or only imperfectly known ; and it may 
 be well, therefore, as a first step, very briefly to state what 
 that history is. 
 
 It was found* in the year 1839, buried in the soil of an 
 ancient cemetery, in the immediate vicinity of the town of 
 Autun, once the capital of Gallia ^duensis. The modern 
 name is an abbreviation of Augustodunum,t or ' Augustus 
 Town ;' a name which replaced the older Celtic name 
 Bibracte, by which this place had previously been known. 
 
 The marble, some portions of which have perished 
 altogether, is twenty-one inches in width, and half an inch 
 less in length. The letters are as nearly as possible seven- 
 eighths of an inch in length. There are marks on the back 
 of the block, indicating that it was once fastened with iron 
 clamps to the wall of some building. Dom. Pitra (now 
 Cardinal), who at the time of its discovery was resident 
 close by, in a seminary of which he was the Master, was the 
 first J to make the Inscription known to the world. And 
 
 * For full particulars as to this, if In the ' Ann. de Philos.' 2^ 
 
 see Pitra, ' Spicil. Solesm.' i. p. 554. se'r. t. xix. p. 195, i Sept. 1839, with 
 
 f For the history of the town, an- the initials ' L. T. C For later 
 
 cient and modern, see the article communications from the same pen, 
 
 ' Autun,' in Zidlers ' Universale see ibid. 3- serie, t. i. p. 165 ; t. ii. 
 
 Lexicon,' and the authorities there p. 7 ; t. iii. pp. 7, 85; t. v. p. 165; 
 
 quoted. t. vii. p. 232.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 117 
 
 from that time to this it has served as a subject for scholars, 
 antiquaries, and theologians, and has now quite a liter- 
 ature" of its own, and that of the most varied character; 
 Frenchmen, Italians, Germans, countrymen of our own, 
 descending in succession into the field, whether for careful 
 research, as some, or for the support of some pre-conceived 
 opinion in matter of modern controversy, as others. 
 
 For myself I propose, first, to inquire, with all the exact- 
 ness that I may, into the archaeological history of the monu- 
 ment, and then to consider its bearing upon theological 
 questions. 
 
 And as a first step in the investigation, It may be well 
 to translate the Inscription itself into letters of more or- 
 dinary shape than those seen in the photo-lithograph now in 
 your hands. In doing so, I confine myself to those parts 
 of the Inscription which can with certainty, or all but cer- 
 tainty, be determined. We can better judge of the more 
 doubtful readings, and of the purely conjectural restorations 
 
 * See particularly the ' Spicile- last mentioned) ; Kirchoff, in the 
 
 gium Solesmense ' (edited by Pitra), ' Corpus Inscript. Graec' torn. iv. 
 
 vols.i.-iii.; and to the various writers No. 9890. The Bishop of Lincoln 
 
 there quoted add Garrucci (Rafaele), (Dr. C. Wordsworth), whose Disser- 
 
 ' Monuments d'Epigraphieancienne/ tation on this monument is printed 
 
 Paris, 4to. 1856, 1857; F. Lenor- in the ' Spicil. Solesm.' t. i. p. 562, 
 
 mant, ' Memoire sur ITnscription had not before him at the time an 
 
 d'Autun ' (' Extrait des Melanges accurate representation of the actual 
 
 d'Archeologie '), Paris, 1855; J. P. text. After seeing a photographic 
 
 Rossignol,' Explication et Restitution copy of this, he has seen reason to 
 
 de ITnscription Chretienne d'Autun;' withdraw some of the conjectural 
 
 'Revue Archeologique,' 13'' anne'e readings which he had suggested in 
 
 (I'^serie), Paris, 1856, p. 65 sqq. and writing to Dom. Pitra ; and I hope 
 
 p. 491 sqq. (this last being a bitter to be able to add his last corrections 
 
 attack upon the treatise of Garrucci in the Appendix to this volume.
 
 Il8 THE AUTUN INSCRH'TION. 
 
 proposed for the two last lines, when the whole history of 
 the monument shall have been clearly set before us. 
 
 'I^^yoj o[y^(x,viov cly\iov ykvog rjro^i ai^vu 
 
 Xo^trs"" Xul^oju Zconv {or -Trriy^u) uijj^ootov Iv ^o^orioic, 
 
 "X^ocatv azvdoig 'TrXovrohorov (ro(pirjg, 
 
 'EojTJJ^og ^' uyiajv ybzkiriViot, Xd[/j(iocus (o^cuaiv. 
 
 "Eadis TTivoccov t {/or TTsivdccov) ' ly^ddv ixuv '7ca.\oc[jjaic. 
 
 '\'Y&vi %£ a^a }a\Dtko hea'Troroc 2a;rg^ 
 
 zv (or av) rri^ az XiTa,^o[JA | (pSJg ro &ayovrMV. 
 
 ' K(jyjx.v}ni 'Trdrs^, roj ' [Jjoj 7czyo!,^ia[Avz &vyr2 
 
 GVV (00 § OKTIV i^jCnfflV 
 
 I II (M^aZO YIZKTO^IOV. * 
 
 And the general meaning will be this : — 
 
 ' Offspring of the heavenly Ichthus, see that 
 a heart of holy reverence be thine, now that from 
 Divine waters thou hast received, while yet among 
 mortals, a fount of life that is to immortality. 
 
 * Either for exp'/o-f, or (as Xird- grounds. 
 
 i^ofie for XiTu'Co^iai, in ver. 8) for \ For XiraCojuat, by an 'Itacism' 
 
 Xpt'i'Tui (i aor. imp. mid.). of frequent occurrence in epigraphic 
 
 f First suggested by Gan-ucci Greek, 
 
 (having a photograph of the text § Probably avv fxTfrpl yXv^ep^j kuI 
 
 before him), and approved by Kir- ahe\(peio~iaiy f./dola-ip (Franz), or a. fx. 
 
 choff, on the evidence of the same y. kuI Trdmi' unaif ifioiaiv (Ros- 
 
 photograph. The older restorations signol), or o-. fj.. y. <tvv t olKtLoiaw 
 
 yirlvE XafjMr — x7)'' acqv — irlv vyiav kfioliriv (Pitra). 
 
 — Tr~LVE Ttalv — Tr~ive ^vdlv) are too || Probably 'X^*^'' '^<^'' ^'t'>v /.irijaEO 
 
 long for the space to be filled up, UeKropiov. 
 and arc open to objections on other
 
 INTRODUCTION, 
 
 119 
 
 Quicken thy soul, beloved one, with ever-flowing 
 waters of wealth-giving wisdom, and receive the 
 honey-sweet food of the Saviour of the saints.* 
 Eat with a longing hunger, holding Ichthus in 
 thine hands.' 
 
 'To Ichthus .... Come night unto me, my 
 Lord [and] Saviour [be Thou my Guide] I en- 
 treat Thee, Thou Light of them for whom the 
 hour of death is past.' 
 
 * Aschandius, my Father, dear unto mine 
 heart, and thou [sweet mother, and all] that are 
 mine .... remember Pectorius.' 
 
 With thus much said by way of introduction, we may 
 proceed now to consider some preliminary questions, the 
 solution of which is necessary to a right understanding, and 
 the more complete restoration, of the Inscription before us. 
 
 And first, it will be well to state, in some detail, what 
 were the ideas more particularly associated in the thought 
 of Primitive Christendom with that Ichthus symbol which 
 is so prominent in the monument before us. 
 
 * For ayiwv Wordsworth reads XiXaleo, i. e. literally, ' long thyself 
 
 ay' <w»', a reading which is adopted (to me), and so ' let thine own love 
 
 from him by Kirchoff. bring thee nigh.' See further as to 
 
 f Assuming the reading to be this below, p. 137.
 
 I20 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE SYMBOLISM OF THE WORD 1X6YC. 
 
 There are two ways in which we might seek to determine 
 what this symboHsm was. One, which would be a very 
 interesting, but a very laborious way, that of examining in 
 detail the various monuments of ancient Christian art, in 
 which this symbol is employed. It would be impossible, 
 however, even to attempt this within present limits. The 
 other is that of referring to the statements concerning this 
 symbolism, contained in the literature of antiquity. This 
 latter source of evidence itself extends over an immense 
 field,"" but it admits of being at least summarily stated 
 here. 
 
 In doing so, I will exclude all secondary and more far- 
 fetched symbolisms, of which there are many, and confine 
 myself to those which have a direct bearing upon our 
 present subject. What we are now concerned with, for 
 the elucidation of this Autun Inscription, is the application 
 of this symbol of the Fish, first, to our blessed Lord, and, 
 secondly, to Christian people generally. 
 
 * See more particularly the great ' Spicilegium Solesmense.' But these 
 collection of authorities brought to- require careful verification, as they 
 gcther in the third volume of the are not always accurately cited.
 
 THE SYMBOLISM OF THE WORD IXGYC. I 2 I 
 
 I. The Term IX0TC, or ' Piscis' in reference to our Lord. 
 
 In the language of Christian writers, both in East and 
 West, from the second century onwards, our Lord is spoken 
 of as IX0TC, as ' Piscis,' ' Piscis noster,' and the Hke, and 
 that for a variety of reasons. 
 
 First, in respect that the fish, blessed on more than one 
 occasion to the feeding of great multitudes, or of His own 
 Apostles (John, xxi.), by our Lord while on earth, was 
 regarded as a type of that heavenly food, His body offered 
 on the Cross, which He gave for the life of the world.* 
 And, according to the mystical interpretation of Scripture 
 adopted by many of the Fathers, the ' broiled fish,' to- 
 gether with a piece of honeycomb, of which our Lord 
 partook \vith His Disciples after His resurrection, was 
 regarded as a type of Christ Himself, in regard of His 
 passion, when by the fire of tribulation He was, as it were, 
 ' scorched.' This thought, which we meet with first in 
 Melito of Sardis \Piscis in niensa cum favo mellis positus 
 Ckristus tribulationis igne assatus\ gave rise to the catch- 
 word, so to call it, of this symbolism, ' Piscis assus, Christus 
 passus! t 
 
 * Compare the word spoken by which is shed for you' (ro Ekxi^j'dyufj'oi/ 
 
 our Lord Himself (John, vi. 51), vTrep v^iwj', poured out ou your be- 
 
 ' The bread which I will give (/. e. htilf). 
 
 as the context implies, Avhich I will j St. Augustine in Joan. Evang. 
 
 give to men) is my flesh, which I Tract, cxxiii. ' Fecit prandiuvi Do- 
 
 will give /^r (vTrep, /;/ behalf of) the minus illis septem discipulis suis, de 
 
 life of the world.' And again (Mark, pisce scilicet quern prunis superpositujn 
 
 xiv. 24, coll. Luke, xxii. 20), ' This viderant, huic adjungens ex illis quos 
 
 is my Body, which is given for you ' ceperant, et de pane Piscis 
 
 (vwep vnuiv, on your behalf). 'This assus, Christus passus. Ipse est et 
 
 is my Blood of the New Co\-enant, panis qui de caio descendit.'
 
 122 Tllli AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 
 
 Secondly, inasmuch as fish was, in primitive times, very 
 generally in use as an ordinary article of food, as a savoury'"" 
 accompaniment to the bread, which in some form or other 
 formed the chief staple of food, so under the figure of 
 fish, as well as under that of bread, early writers not un- 
 frequently designated the wholesome doctrine of Christ, 
 and particularly the words of truth contained in Holy 
 Scripture, t 
 
 Thirdly, when the practice of figuratively J designating 
 our Lord as IX0YC, or Piscis, had become established, it 
 was not unnatural to connect this thought with that of 
 birth {i.e. new birth) in water. The earliest example of 
 this is the well-known passage in Tertullian (De Bapt. c. i), 
 ' We smaller fishes, after the example of our Fish, are born 
 in the waters, and it is only by continuing in those waters 
 that we are safe (continue in a state of salvation). A^^^- 
 pisciculi secuudtmi Piscem nostriun in aquis nascivntr, nee 
 
 * Compare St. Augustine, ' Duo fying the Tvpo-n-aiZEia, or preparatory 
 
 pisces qui saporem siiavem pani da- teaching, of Greeks and Jews. And 
 
 bant.' De Div. Qutest. Ixi. St. Cyril Alex. (In Joan. vi. torn. iv. 
 
 f So St. Jerome on Matt. xiv. 17. p. 283), speaks of our Lord as feeding 
 
 (0pp. t. iv. p. 6o)-; and again (ibid. unto life eternal them that believe 
 
 t. vii. p. 119), 'In septem panibus on Him, with divine and heavenly 
 
 et pisciculis Evangelii sacramenta ' teaching, both that of the Law, and 
 
 (/. c. mystical types of the Gospel of that of the Evangelists and Apo- 
 
 Christ). Pseudo-Eusebius Emissenus sties. So St. Ambrose (In Luc. ix. 
 
 (In Domin. vii. post Pentec. ap2ui No. 80, tom. i. p. 1403, ed. Bene- 
 
 Spic. So/.), ' Septem panes, septem diet.), ' Plerique septiformis Spiritus 
 
 libri sunt Veteris Testamenti, quos gratiam in panibus definitam, in 
 
 heptateuchum vocamus ; pauci vero piscibus quoque duplicis testamenti 
 
 pisciculi, pauci libri Novi Testa- figuram intelligendam putant.' 
 menti.' Clemens Alex. ' Strom.' lib. | Comp. Origen in Matt. (0pp. 
 
 vi. (p. 786, ed. Potter.), speaks of ed. Bened. tom. iii. p. 584), Xpiarog 
 
 the fishes and barley-loaves as typi- 6 rpoKiKWi: Xt-yufxeroe 'Ix^vq.
 
 THE SYMBOLISM OF THE WORD IXGlC. 
 
 123 
 
 nisi in aqnis pcnuancndo salvi sntjius. 
 This is curiously illustrated by the Epi- 
 scopal Ring, here engraved (twice the 
 size of the original), which belonged to 
 St. Arnulf, Bishop of Metz, in the sixth 
 century.* 
 
 Lastly,t Christ Himself, in respect 
 both of His divine and of His human 
 nature, was mystically signified in a way that none but 
 Christians could understand ; in reference, not now to fish 
 as mentioned in Holy Scripture, or regarded as a spiritual 
 food, but to the letters, of w^hich the Greek word IX0TC 
 is composed, and which form the initials of the titles spe- 
 cially belonging to our Lord, '\-rtaovg X-gi(TTog Q-sou T-Iog 
 l-MT'/ig, Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour. 
 
 2. T/ic IX0TC Symdo/ applied to Men. 
 
 The second of the symbolic usages for the ' fish ' of 
 early Christian writers, which w^e have to consider, is its 
 application to men generally, — to the faithful for one 
 reason, and through one line of association ; to the unfaithful 
 and unworthy for another. 
 
 * See Pitra, ' Spicil. Solesm.' t. iii. 
 Tab. iii. n. 4. 
 
 t 1 speak of this as last in order, 
 because it appears to me, on exa- 
 mination of all the evidence, that 
 this acrostic symbolism was not the 
 foundation out of which all the others 
 sprung (as some eminent archceolo- 
 
 gists have held, and as theologians, 
 not being archseologists, have com- 
 monly assumed), but was a compa- 
 ratively late invention (probably of 
 the Alexandrian schools), founded 
 upon the older accepted symbolisms 
 already attached to the fish in lite- 
 rature and in art.
 
 124 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 
 
 It will suffice to mention this last, without dwelling 
 upon it in any detail, as this application is one which in 
 no way pertains to the elucidation of the monument before 
 us. 
 
 But with the other we are directly concerned. For in 
 the very opening line of the Inscription, we find that either 
 baptized Christians in general (according to one interpreta- 
 tion), or more particularly the Apostles and other teachers 
 of the Divine Word, are spoken of as ' the [holy] offspring 
 of the heavenly IX0TC ;' in other words, as being them- 
 selves Ix^Ug, or, in the language of Tertullian, ' pisciciUil in 
 respect of the new spiritual life of which, through Christ, 
 they have become partakers. 
 
 The very earliest writer who treats ex professo on the 
 allegorical meaning of Scripture, Melito of Sardis {circ. 
 150 A.D.), furnishes us with an authority for this application 
 of the word, and shows on what passage of Holy Scripture 
 this allegorical application was more especially based. 
 * Fishes,' says Melito,* 'are the holy ones of God : Pisces 
 Sancti. For so it is written, " Traxerimt rete plemim pis- 
 cibiis magiiis." ' John, xxi. 11. 
 
 Some of the Fathers even make the symbol, in this 
 sense, more comprehensive still, applying it to mankind 
 generally, as when St. Gregory of Nazianzum speaks of 
 our Lord as having chosen the fishermen (the Apostles), in 
 order that they might bring forth man, the fish, out of the 
 deep (Jv Iz ^ocdovg rov 'ly^^vv uvivzyKri tov clv&^oj'Trov). And so 
 St. Maximus of Turin : ' Palpitantes pisces vivijicaiidi 
 homines' Sermo xcvi. (Quoted by Pitra.) 
 
 * Melito, ' Clavis,' xl.4 2. Elsewhere (cap. xii. n. 25) he refers to 
 the same : ' Centum quinquaginta tres— c/z/z/a clcctL'
 
 THE SYMBOLISM OF THE WORD IX0YC. I 25 
 
 The language of TertulHan speaking of the baptized 
 as ' pisciculil ' smaller fishes,' in respect of their new birth 
 in the waters of baptism, has been already quoted (p. 122). 
 With this agree some few passages in later writers ; as, for 
 example, St. Hilary,* St. Optatus,t and St. Augustine, J to 
 name no more. 
 
 3. The Symbolism of this Monument. 
 
 The passages now quoted, and the various usages of 
 the IX0TC symbol here enumerated, will suffice for the 
 illustration of the monument before us, in which we have 
 both the acrostic IX0TC in the initial letters of the five 
 first lines ; then, the personal application of the term to 
 our Lord (as in ver. i) ; a similar application to Him 
 considered more particularly as the spiritual food whereon 
 they feed, for the sustaining of the new life, who have 
 
 * Hilarius in Matt. ed. Benedict, cam in imo nomine per singulas li- 
 
 p. 677; a passage which contains teras turbam sanctorum nominum 
 
 the same thought by impHcation. continet, IXGYi:, quod est latinum 
 
 ' Ex hominum arte futuri eorum {sc. Jesus Christiis Dei Films Salvator! 
 apostolorum) officii opus proditur, \ S. Augustini Confessionum Hb. 
 
 ut piscibus e mari, ita hominibus xiii. c. 23 (Migne, tom. i. p. 860). 
 
 deinceps e sceculo, in locum supe- ' Homo .... accepit potestatem 
 
 riorem, id est, in lumen crelestis piscium maris .... approbat quod 
 
 habitaculi protrahendis.' recte, improbat autem quod perpe- 
 
 t S. Optati Milev. de Schism, ram invenerit : sivc in ea sokmnitate 
 
 Donat. lib. iii. cap. 2. ' Hie (sc. sacranicjitorum qnibus initiantur quos 
 
 Christus) est piscis qui in baptismate pervestigat in aqiiis nmltis misericor- 
 
 per invocationem fontalibus imdis dia tna, sive in ea qua ille Piscis ex- 
 
 inseritur, ut, quas aqua fuerat, a pisce hibctur quern la'atuin de prof undo 
 
 etiam piscina vocitetur-. Cujus piscis terra pia coincditJ 
 nomen secundum appellationem Gra;-
 
 126 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 
 
 already, through Him, received new birth of the spirit 
 (so in ver. 6) ; while in the first line either the Apostles 
 (as some think), or the baptized generally (according to the 
 interpretation above followed), are spoken of as ' born of 
 Ichthus,' i.e., as having received new birth from Christ. 
 
 With thus much premised for the explanation of the 
 terms employed in the Inscription before us, we proceed 
 now to further matter which yet remains for discussion. 
 
 CHAPTER HI. 
 
 DATE OF THE INSCRIPTION. 
 
 What has been said hitherto by way of introduction will 
 suffice as a first step towards the determination of some 
 more debatable questions, connected with the monument 
 under our consideration. And among these we may con- 
 sider first that of the date to which it may probably be 
 assigned. 
 
 There are three main sources of evidence to be relied 
 on in determining these : — the surroundings of the monu- 
 ment itself, considered in reference to the history of the 
 place in which it was found ; the palaeography of the 
 Inscription, in other words, the form and arrangement of 
 the letters employed ; and, lastly, the internal evidence 
 afforded by style of composition, and by the symbolical 
 language employed.
 
 DATE OF THE INSCRIPTION. I 2/ 
 
 I. Local History. 
 
 The surroundings, first, of the monument, and the his- 
 tory of the place in which it was found. 
 
 It was discovered, as we have already said, buried in 
 the soil of an ancient cemetery, in the immediate vicinity 
 of Autun, There are some interesting facts connected 
 with the history of this town, which it is of importance 
 to bear in mind in reference to our Inscription. This city 
 was distinguished, I may first say, by a peculiarly Greek 
 culture ; and of this there is proof, even to this day, in the 
 fact that Greek words are still preserved in the local dialect 
 of that town and neighbourhood, which are wholly un- 
 known elsewhere. Of this there is a remarkable instance 
 in regard of the very cemetery of which we are now 
 speaking. This is known, locally, not as a cimetiere, but 
 diS polymidre, i.e. '7Cokvh\iov. 
 
 And to this last fact I would ask your special attention, 
 as it is one out of many concurrent circumstances which 
 serve to the determining of the true date of the Inscription. 
 The fact itself, curiously enough, was commented on some 
 thirteen hundred years ago by St. Gregory of Tours, in 
 a passage which has utterly puzzled both editors and 
 readers. St. Gregory had himself visited this very ceme- 
 tery of which we are now speaking, and in referring to 
 it [' De Gloria Conf c. 73], he says, that this ccemeterijun 
 was called by a Gallic name, because ' the bodies of many 
 men were buried there! ' Coenieteritim Gallica lingtia voci- 
 tavit eo qnod multornm hominitm cadavera ibi funerata 
 sint! People naturally asked themselves, in reading this 
 passage, what this could possible mean. The purpose of
 
 128 TIIK AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 
 
 all cemeteries alike beino-, that 'the bodies of ma7iy men' 
 may be buried in them, it was difficult (nay, more than 
 difficult) to say why a ' Gaulish ' name should have been 
 given to this cemetery, because of this not very surprising 
 fact. But all becomes clear when we find that in the local 
 dialect of this town, even to this day, this particular ceme- 
 tery is known as ' polyandre,' that is, the Greek 'ttoXvuuI^iov, 
 a place, literally, ' 0/ 77iany men! This is interesting in 
 a philological point of view ; but I venture to think that 
 there lies wrapped up in this a valuable historical indication 
 of importance to our present purpose. For what is the dis- 
 tinction between the two words x,oi\jjrirri^iov and '^roXvoivl^tov, 
 between the place of res^, as in sleep, and the 'place of 
 ma7ty (men) bodies f The distinction is significant in 
 itself, and of import to our present purpose. The first, 
 ' the place of peaceful rest,' is the Christia7i ter77i, unknown 
 in this sense to classical writers, while the latter word, 
 itokvavh^iQv, the ' polyandre ' of Autun usage for 1 800 years 
 or more, is a classical term,"^' of which, with this 07ie excep- 
 tio7t, there are no traces to be found in Christian language. 
 And how, then, are we to account for this exceptional 
 occurrence ? Simply by this, that this ground had been 
 the site of a Paga7i\ burial-place long before it was devoted 
 
 * It is interesting to find in the men (aj/f^pec) were buried, 
 
 exact meaning of the word an ex- f This is known to have been the 
 
 planation of the word avl^tq (^nri) case. See Lenormant, ' Memoire,' 
 
 entering into the composition of &c., j). 1, n. i. ' Ce Polyandre, 
 
 ■KoXvavl^inv . ratlier than rlr^pwTrot d'abord occiipe par Ics paiais, etait 
 
 ijiomincs). The Tj-oXvavcpior was not devenu des les premiers siecles du 
 
 an ordinary burial-place, but one in Christianisme un cimitiere chre'tien.' 
 
 which, after a battle, or other the Pagan inscriptions have been found 
 
 like occasion, a number of grown there, testifying to the fact.
 
 DATE OF THE INSCRIPTION. I 29 
 
 to Christian use, and consequently had its Pagan designa- 
 tion ah'eady assigned to it, and sanctioned by long usage, 
 at the time of its transfer to Christian hands. But when 
 can this transfer have taken place ? Surely not till after 
 the public recognition of Christianity by Constantine. True 
 it is, that, even in the three first centuries, Christian com- 
 munities took advantage of Roman law giving facilities for 
 the purchase of land by ' collegia fztneraticia ' (nearly our 
 'Burial Clubs'), and were enabled thus to obtain land of their 
 own for the purposes of Christian burial. But it is scarcely 
 conceivable that a Pagan burial-place should have been 
 transferred to Christian hands till after the public recog- 
 nition of Christianity by Constantine, early in the fourth 
 century. The earliest historical notice of the place, that 
 of Gregory of Tours, in the sixth century, is such as to 
 confirm the conclusion to which these considerations point. 
 For he mentions, almost in the same breath, two Bishops 
 of Autun ; one being Reticius, who was a contemporary 
 of Constantine, and died early in the fourth century ; the 
 other Cassianus, who died at the close of that century. 
 And as he records (* De Gl. Conf.,' 74, 75) the fact of his 
 seeing in this cemetery the tomb of Cassianus, but says no- 
 thing of that of Reticius, we have here again a fact which, at 
 any rate, exactly fits in with what I have already suggested. 
 
 These facts, then, as far as they go, all point to the 
 conclusion that no Christian Inscription, such as that we 
 are now considering, could have been put up in the * poly- 
 andrium ' of Autun before the fourth century, and probably 
 the latter half of it at the earliest. 
 
 This conclusion will be further confirmed by what we 
 know of the fortunes of the Church at Autun before ' the
 
 130 THE AUTUN INSCRIP'J'ION. 
 
 Peace' of Constantine. There is no evidence of the exist- 
 ence of Christianity, either here, or in other parts of Gaul, 
 before the arrival of Irenseus and his companions at Lyons. 
 Cardinal Pitra, indeed, assumes (as Roman traditions, I 
 believe, make it proper for him to assume) that the Gospel 
 was preached there by Roman missionaries before ' Greek 
 Christianity' (as they speak of it) was introduced by Irenaeus 
 and others from Asia Minor. But he gives not a particle 
 of evidence in support of his assertion. And I believe 
 that in point of fact there is no such evidence to be pro- 
 duced. M. Lenormant, who alone has given any special 
 notice of the town and its history, says decidedly, that the 
 Church was established for the first time in the city of 
 Autun subsequently to the preaching of St. Irenaeus and 
 his followers. After the Martyrdom of St. Irenseus, terrible 
 persecutions were directed against the churches of Gaul, 
 during which Christianity was almost extirpated in Gallia 
 yEduensis. In the middle of the third century, however, 
 there was a brief period of peace, during which SS. 
 Saturninus and Dionysius (the St. Denis of the French), 
 and five other Bishops, restored the faith in Gaul. And it 
 was then that Autun received her first Bishop, St. Amator. 
 But this peace was not of long duration. Heathens and 
 Christians alike suffered terribly at Autun in the latter 
 half of the third century, during the peasant wars of the 
 Bagaudas. Tetricus besieged the town, took it after a 
 prolonged resistance, destroyed many of the public build- 
 ings, and inflicted injuries upon the place from which it did 
 not recover for many years. 
 
 With the accession of Constantius Chlorus, in the year 
 292 A.D., to the rank of Caesar, and to the government of
 
 DATE OF THK IXSCRII'TION. I3I 
 
 the provinces of Spain, Gaul, and Britain, a happier era 
 dawned. Autun, the ancient capital of Gallia ^duensis, 
 became a royal residence, and received many and substantial 
 marks of Imperial favour. The wise and merciful policy of 
 Constantius Chlorus averted from Gaul the horrors of the 
 Diocletian Persecution. But up to the very time of the 
 Peace of Constantine, we find conclusive evidence of the 
 public maintenance, at Autun, of the old Pagan worship. 
 
 At this period, just before the conversion of Constantine, 
 while Christianity was protected at Autun, but not formally 
 recognised, M. Lenormant,"" an eminent Prench critic, be- 
 lieves that this monument was erected. 
 
 When you have heard the further evidence yet to be 
 adduced, you will, I think, be of opinion that yet a hundred 
 years more, at the least, should be subducted from the age 
 which he assigns to this Inscription, before we shall arrive 
 at what is probably its true date. 
 
 2. Pala-ooraphical Data. 
 
 In saying this, I refer more particularly to the evidence 
 of date afforded by the palaeography of the Inscription itself, 
 — the conclusions to be drawn from the form, the size, the 
 arrangement, of the letters. 
 
 * Melanges, &c., p. 21. He that the ' disciplina a?raiii etait en- 
 names the year 350 a.d. as the latest core en vigueur et encore neces- 
 to which it can be probably assigned, saire.' For a refutation of this argu- 
 and evidently inclines to the very ment see Rossignol, ' Explication,' 
 beginning of the fourth century as &c., p. loi ; and compare what is 
 its true date {compare p. 24) : his said in the appendix, in the notes on 
 chief reason apparently being this — this paper.
 
 132 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 
 
 The question now mooted is one upon which no one 
 should venture to pronounce an opinion, who has not made 
 Greek epigraphy a special subject of study. For this 
 reason I shall appeal here exclusively to the opinion of 
 experts ; and these I will state in the order in which they 
 became known to myself. 
 
 i. Cardinal Pitra, who with a pardonable enthusiasm 
 for a monument which he may claim as specially his own 
 discovery, has from the first contended* for a very early 
 date, between the years 160 and 202 a.d. And in support 
 of his opinion he alleges Franz, one of the editors of the 
 ' Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum.' He quotes him as 
 saying (what in point of fact he really does say) that the 
 monument dates from the close of the second century, or 
 the beginning of the third. Till I had an opportunity of 
 referring to Franz's own treatise, I attributed great weight 
 to this opinion. But on reading this, I found that Franz 
 expressly says he had not the means of forming any judg- 
 ment upon the question of date on palseographical grounds 
 (the very questions on which he, as presumably an expert 
 
 * ' Tria sunt in primordiis eccle- Romano pontifice novi apostoli, ter- 
 
 siffi Augustodunensis intervalla satis tia quasi vice, Christum in Galliis 
 
 distincta ; primum enim iliac, uti et disseminarunt. Inde liquet medium 
 
 per cgeteras Gallias ignoti quidam tempus totum esse nostrum, neque 
 
 apostoli romani fidei semina jecerunt. aliud quserendum; quod scilicet inter 
 
 Deinde grascorum Patrum Pothini annos CLX. et ecu. continetur. Qua 
 
 et Irensei assecls, prseeuntibus tantis quidem tempestate vix dubium vix- 
 
 ducibus. Divi Johannis disciplinas isse auctorem inscriptionis nostrge, 
 
 ex Asia secum in Galliam attulere ; quem Graecum fuisse, vel ab Asia 
 
 postremo, ineunte saeculo iii., trucu- oriundum ex sermonis elegantia et 
 
 lenta csede Irensei et suorum cum quodam Asiaticse scripture charac- 
 
 immenso jacentis ecclesiae Lugdun- tere, conjicere par est.' 
 ensis luctu patrata, tandem missi a
 
 DATE OF THE INSCRIPTION. I 33 
 
 in such matters, would have spoken with authority), and 
 that he judged solely from the character of ' the little poem,' 
 which, as he truly says, is a remarkable example of the 
 language proper to the ^ disciplina arcaiii! In short, Franz 
 has simply taken for granted the historical data put forward 
 by Cardinal Pitra ; and his opinion has nothing whatever 
 to do with palseographical evidence, as he himself is careful 
 to state.* 
 
 ii. Wishing to obtain the best opinion upon this ques- 
 tion, I sent a photographed copy of the Inscription to 
 Mr. C. T. Newton, the keeper of Greek and Roman 
 antiquities at the British Museum, whose authority in 
 questions of classical epigraphy, at least, no one would 
 dispute. I knew that if he were not as much at home 
 amid these comparatively late Inscriptions of Christian 
 Gaul as he has shown himself to be with those of Cnidus 
 and Halicarnassus, and other Greek cities, he would have 
 at hand in Mr. Franks one whose knowledge of all ques- 
 tions of archaeology is second to none that, in this country 
 at least, could be named. And I asked him to give me 
 his opinion of the date of the Inscription I enclosed, having 
 regard solely to palceograp/iical data. Not long after I 
 received his answer. He told me that he had examined 
 the Inscription very carefully with Mr. Franks, and they 
 believed it to be of the fourth century, or perhaps of the 
 fifth. He added, that after they had formed their own 
 opinion on the question I had put to them, they turned to 
 the fourth volume of the ' Corpus Inscriptionum Grse- 
 carum,' in which this Autun Inscription is edited (No. 
 
 * Christliches Denkmal von Autun. Berlin, 1841.
 
 134 THE AUTUN INSCRirTION. 
 
 9890), and found that an almost exactly similar opi- 
 nion* was there expressed by Kirchoff, the editor of that 
 volume. 
 
 iii. M. Fr. Lenormant, a well-known French antiquary, 
 was the first, as far as I am aware, who entered carefully 
 upon the investigation of the palseographical evidence. 
 And upon this particular question he expresses t himself as 
 follows : ' L'allongement des caracteres onciaux que nous 
 remarquons dans I'inscription de Pectorius, regne partout 
 dans I'etriture grecque soignee du vf siecle ; moins abon- 
 dant au v" il est tres rare au iv", et reste completement 
 etranger au iii'' excepte dans le dernier quart, et cette seule 
 observation suffirait pour ne pas faire monter plus haut le 
 tituhis d'Autun.' Writing in the year 1855, M. Lenormant 
 speaks of his having put forth this expression of his opinion 
 some time previously, adding that his judgment had been 
 endorsed by the most eminent French authorities on ques- 
 
 * ' ^tatem tituli finibus satis sit recentis notse et noviciae \Kirch- 
 
 certis circumscribere licet. Neque off had an accurate pJiotograph before 
 
 enim aut Irenasi temporibus haberi hini\ certum mihi quidem videtur, 
 
 potest antiquior, quibusGraeca Chris- et extra omnem positum dubitationis 
 
 tianorum sacra primum ex Asia illata aleam, titulum referendum esse ad 
 
 sunt Galliae, neque recentior barba- seculorum post Christum quarti vel 
 
 rorum incursionibus, quae factae sunt etiam quinti tempora.' 
 
 saeculo post Christum quinto medio. f Me'langes d'Arche'ologie, t. iv. 
 
 \He refers here, no doubt, to the in- Paris, 1855. The earhest treatise 
 
 vasion of Gaul by the Huns under to which he refers is a ' Note sur 
 
 Atiila, iu 451 a.d., when Autun is un Amulette Chre'tien conserve au 
 
 said to have been sacked. But the Cabinet de Me'dailles,' in torn. iii. of 
 
 victory at Chalons drove back that the ' Me'langes d'Archeologie,' p. 
 
 invading sivarni very shortly after- 156. The palseographical data on 
 
 ii.iards?\ Jam quum litteratura la- which he relies are stated partly 
 
 pidis nullum prorsus servet veteris in the one volume, partly in the 
 
 consuctudinis \estigium, verum tr)ta (Hhcr.
 
 DATE OF THE INSCRIPTION. 
 
 135 
 
 tlons of epigraphy and palaeography. What Kirchoff's 
 opinion was (' tota rcccntis notes et novicice—mdliim prorsits 
 servat veteris consiietiidinis vestigium ') we have already 
 seen (note *, p. 134). 
 
 iv. M. Le Blant, who agrees with M. Lenormant on the 
 question of the date to be assigned to this Inscription, is 
 obliged to admit that it contains the germs of all the 
 deviations from older usage, in point of epigraphy, which 
 characterise the monuments of the fifth and sixth century. 
 
 V. M. Rossignol* is the last writer whom I will cite. 
 He sums up a very able (yet unduly severe) critique on 
 this Inscription, in the following terms : ' Les fautes de tout 
 genre, que nous y avons relevees, et qui accusent a la fois 
 I'ignorance de I'orthographe, de la syntaxe, de la propriete 
 des mots, de la metrique et de la prosodie, obligent sans 
 contredit a le refouler vers un aofe d'extreme decadence. 
 Nous n'hesiterons done pas, et cela sans craindre qu'on 
 nous oppose le moindre des signes qui se tirent de la 
 paleographie, nous n'hesiterons pas a descendre I'inscription 
 chretienne d'Autun, quatre siecles environ plus bas que ne 
 I'a fait Franz, c'est a dire jusqu'a la seconde moitie du vi* 
 siecle ; et nous ajouterons qu'apres etra arrive la, si nous 
 
 -1- Revue Archeologique, 13'' an- my own estimate of the literary and 
 
 nee, 1856, p. 65 sqq. Explication poetical merit of the lines before us. 
 
 et Restitution, &c., par M. Ros- Those who wish to study this par- 
 
 signol, Membre de I'lnstitut. Com- ticular question more fully, cannot 
 
 pare his letter to Padre Garrucci, in do better than refer to the discus- 
 
 the same volume, p. 491 ; and Gar- sion (a very bitter one, unfortu- 
 
 rucci's answer, in his ' Melanges nately, but of great literary merit) 
 
 d'Epigraphie,' already quoted. I between M. Rossignol and Padre 
 
 think it but right to quote this opi- Garrucci, in the treatises already 
 
 nion, although it differs greatly from named.
 
 I ^6 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 
 
 J) 
 
 pouvions eprouver un scrupule, ce serait d'avoir fait tort 
 a I'epoque plutot qua I'inscription.' 
 
 3. Inteinial Evidence of Date. 
 
 Assuming now on the concurrent authority of the emi- 
 nent archaeologists I have quoted, confirmed as their opinion 
 is by historical probabilities, that the true date of this In- 
 scription is about the year 400 a.d., or, at any rate, not 
 earlier than this time, a question will occur to most an- 
 tiquaries, the answer to which will lead us to a field of most 
 interesting inquiry, which I believe to present an almost 
 virgin soil for archaeological investigation. 
 
 The question of which I speak is this. On examining 
 closely the language of this Inscription, and regarding it 
 merely as a specimen of Greek composition, there are three 
 salient facts which at once attract our attention. Two of 
 these we might well expect, but the third is one very diffi- 
 cult to account for at first thought. That the doctrines 
 implied in this Inscription should be identical with those 
 implied in the teaching of our Lord and of His Apostles, 
 this will not surprise the student of Christian antiquity. 
 That those doctrines should be expressed in a form which 
 bears a strong impress of the influence of Irenaeus upon the 
 Christian terminology of the early Gallican Church, this 
 again will excite no surprise to any who have made a study 
 of his great work, the ' Treatise against Heresies,' and 
 who knows with what honour his name was cherished, not 
 in Gaul only, but very widely throughout Christendom, even 
 as early as the fourth century of our era. But what might 
 well excite great surprise is this further remarkable fact,
 
 DATE OF THE INSCRIPTION. I 37 
 
 that while the thought of this Inscription is Scriptural and 
 Patristic, yet that which is most prominent in its language 
 throughout is its thoroughly Homeric character. One half 
 line (the close of the ninth, tojijjSj ;sg)(^a^/o-^ji/g QvybSf) is taken 
 straight from Homer, who uses it in the ' Odyssey ' certainly 
 (^. 71), and, if my memory does not mislead me, in the 
 'Iliad'" also, not unfrequently. Such words, again, as 
 GsffTTiffio; (for the Scriptural 0s7og or ovgccvtog), a,[jb3^orog for 
 addcvarog, [jusXirjh^g, XiXaiofijui, take us at once to Homer. The 
 word ^vriazo too, in the last line, for which there is no gram- 
 matical authority whatever, is formed, evidently, upon the 
 analogy of characteristic forms in Homer, such as o^gzo, 
 ^YjGio^ hv(T£o. But the most interesting proof of familiarity 
 with Homeric diction has yet to be noticed. The happiest 
 conjectural emandation of the text of the Inscription was 
 one to which M. Rossignol was led by his recollection of a 
 very peculiar, and wholly exceptional, use of the word 
 XtXcciOfjbcit in the Eleventh Book of the * Odyssey.' Many 
 who hear me will recollect the passage. It is one in which 
 Ulysses holds converse with the shade of his mother in 
 Hades, and she bids him return to the light of day, (pocogh 
 roir)(jaTa. Xikuko, literally 'long thyself to light' In thought 
 of this, M. Rossignol conjectured that for the form AlAAItO 
 (a mere solcecism) which had been given by all the former 
 Editors, we should read AIAAI€0, after the example of that 
 (pouglz XiXccko {; long thyself to light') of Homer. He had 
 not a photographic copy of the Inscription to refer to at the 
 time, nor had he seen the original ; but on subsequent com- 
 parison with Garrucci's photograph he found this conjecture 
 
 * E. 243, 826 ; K. 234 ; A. 607 ; T. 287.
 
 138 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 
 
 Strongly confirmed. I will not now dwell upon this point in 
 further detail ; but experienced epigraphists will see at once, 
 that the stone (as represented in the photograph before you) 
 presents peculiar indications which strongly confirm this 
 conjecture. What I would rather point to now is the 
 beautiful application thus made of an exceptional Homeric 
 form, for the expression of a wonderfully deep thought. 
 Pectorius, in the Inscription before us, uses this term in 
 addressing our Lord, praying to Him, as in the moment of 
 death, or rather as in the confidence of death already passed. 
 And he invokes His presence beside him with a word 
 which, more beautifully than any that could be named, 
 sueeests that draiuin(r nio;h of Christ, which is but another 
 term for the yearning of His love, and the saving presence 
 of His power, to them that seek for Him in the hour of 
 their need. 
 
 Time will not allow of my dwelling now in detail upon 
 other evidence. The writer of this Inscription, be he who 
 he may, must have had a command of the Greek language 
 far beyond what we should have had reason to expect at a 
 period so late as the beginning, or the middle, of the fifth 
 century. There is an intuitive refinement, for example, in 
 his choice of tenses (as e.g. between the present imperative 
 and the aorist imperative, the present and the aorist parti- 
 ciple), such as could only be expected in one who had either 
 mastered the Greek language by very careful study, or had 
 inherited a knowledge of it, as it were, by birthright. One 
 fault of prosody there is in the third line, which would not 
 pass uncorrected at Eton in our own day, though it did so 
 at Autun some 1 500 years ago. But for two other peculi- 
 arities which would strike most modern scholars as utterly
 
 DATE OF THE INSCRIPTION. I 39 
 
 Strange and wholly indefensible, there is more to be said 
 (in palliation, at least, if nothing more) than would at first 
 thought be supposed. The writing Xird^o(jbs for }jrce,^o(jbut, 
 and making the final syllable short before (poug, would have 
 entailed upon some of us in our boyhood very disagreeable 
 consequences. But those who have made a study of epi- 
 graphic Greek, know that no irregularity is more common 
 than this substitution of a short final s for a short final at — 
 the fact being that in monumental epigraphs, both Greek and 
 Latin, //ic spelling of ivoi'ds zvas determined by their actual 
 soiuid zuhen pronounced, more than by conventional rule, or 
 grammatical precept. In this way the mistakes in spelling 
 (mistakes, when judged by the practice of the professional 
 grammarians, whether of ancient or of modern times) are 
 full of interest to the philologist. And I venture to think 
 that a fault so glaring (from a scholar's point of view) as 
 \iTa.lp[jjZ (^coc TO 6avovrcov, at the end of an hexameter line, is to 
 be taken as an indication that the Greek of the writer of 
 this Inscription came to him through the ear, and not 
 through the eye only ; that he was familiar with Greek as 
 an actually spoken language, as well as with the Greek of 
 the ' Tale of Troy Divine,' and the story of him who 
 ' looked upon the cities of many men, and came to know 
 their mind.' 
 
 But this I will not insist on. The only question to 
 which I am really concerned to furnish an answer is this : 
 How are we to account for Greek so good as this (make 
 what deductions you will from its merit on account of faults) 
 in the centre of Gaul, as late as the fifth century, or even the 
 fourth, of our era ? The answer is a very curious and 
 interesting one, specially interesting to me as an Rton
 
 140 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 
 
 master, and to others present (as I think) who are Eton or 
 pubHc-school men. 
 
 In saying this I allude to the fact that Autun was, in 
 the earlier centuries of our era, a ' French Eton,' to use a 
 phrase which we have lately heard — a place of education 
 for the 'golden youth' of Gallia ^duensis. The topic is 
 a tempting one, but I must not enlarge upon it here. For 
 my present purpose it is enough to say, that we have dis- 
 tinct evidence of the existence of this school, and of its re- 
 storation to new vigour under Imperial auspices, at the 
 beginning of the fourth century. And as from that time the 
 country was at peace till the year 45 1 a.d., when this part of 
 Gaul (and Autun itself) was overwhelmed, for a while at least, 
 by the invading hordes of Attila, we cannot doubt that 
 throughout that period, if not afterwards, this school was still 
 maintained. It had been famous in old times as a school of 
 Greek learning ; and this monument is of itself, I think, a 
 sufficient proof of the continuance of the old studies — of 
 Homer more especially — and of the up-building, upon that 
 basis, of those great truths of the Christian life, which find 
 expression in the monument before us.
 
 EXTERNAL APPEARANCE OF THE MONUMENT. 141 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 EXTERNAL APPEARANCE OF THE MONUMENT. 
 
 There is yet one more particular to be noticed in the 
 monument before us, and this will complete its archaeological 
 history, with which alone we are now concerned. I will 
 ask you to observe for a moment the outward appearance 
 presented by the marble, as far as you can judge of it from 
 the photograph before you. 
 
 One thing will, I think, at once be noticed as worthy of 
 special attention, viz., that at the lower portion of the 
 marble, on the spectator s right, and, to a smaller extent, on 
 the left also, a blank space has been left, and that with 
 evident design, many of the letters being greatly crowded 
 in consequence. For what purpose this space was left, I 
 do not think any one will have much doubt, who has studied 
 the monuments of the first four centuries, and has observed 
 how frequently inscriptions have beside them either an 
 Orante figure, or a '-Good Shepherd,' a bird, a fish, or other 
 symbolical representation. The letters of Paulinus of Nola, 
 written about the close of the fourth, or the beginning of 
 the fifth century, show us, that, both in baptisteries and in 
 churches, in his time, the practice obtained, of combining 
 pictures in fresco or mosaic, with descriptive verses immediately 
 adjoining them (see, for an example, the lines quoted above,
 
 14: 
 
 Till': AUTUN INSCRir'l'IOX. 
 
 p. 83). And the Roman catacombs furnish us with more 
 than one example of a combination of the IX0TC symbol 
 with a sepulchral inscription, much such as that which I 
 believe to have been exhibited on this monument when 
 first put uf) in memory of the young Pectorius. Take, for 
 example, the following, found in the cemetery of St. Pris- 
 cilla.* 
 
 MAPITIMA CEMNH rAYK€PON<t)AOZOYKAT€ AGS'AZ t 
 
 ESXEZ TAPMETAZOY 
 
 nANAGANATONKATAnANT/ 
 
 EYZEBEIAfAPZH HANTOTE CEHPOATEI 
 
 MaeiriiMcc (JiiMTi y\vy.igh <pdog oh zanXzi-^^ar Holy Maritima, thou didst no 
 
 leave the day's sweet light; for thoi 
 
 ZfTVBg yap (MTo, gov TravaOdvdroi^ ^ara iravra hadst with thee Him who knows nc 
 
 death : for thine own godliness eve 
 sv(Ti(oiioc yao gti 'Trdvrors (Ji TTPodyzi. leads thee on. 
 
 In the midst of these words, in the place indicated 
 above, there is an anchor, with a fish on either side, signifi- 
 cant, perhaps, of the presence of Christ, on the right hand 
 and on the left, as our sure and certain hope (anchor) in 
 death as in life. 
 
 But what was the symbol 7^epresented on this Autun 
 marble? Not a fish only, if I mistake not; but a mystical 
 
 * Corpus Inscr. t. iv. No. 9687. 
 f So on the stone. Y^artXti-^ac 
 is, of course, the word intended. In 
 
 the third line, nPOAT€l is writ- 
 ten in like manner, by mistake, for 
 
 npoArei
 
 EXTERNAL ArPKAKANCK OF '1111': MONUM i;\T. 
 
 ■43 
 
 representation, we may at least reasonably conjecture, such 
 as may be seen on this woodcut. For the existence of 
 later monuments, such as those here figured, containing 
 a modification of the ordinary Ichtliyography so very 
 peculiar as this is, can hardly be accounted for, except on 
 the supposition of their being reproductions of still older 
 
 llll I 
 
 ill' ! 
 
 Ik. 
 
 '" ^^;^^ 
 
 •mf/Wf 
 
 monuments, executed at a time when Christian art was still 
 inventive, was adopting and modifying, for the expression 
 of her own ideas, the older types of art which she found 
 ready to her hand. As at Rome the ' Shepherd ' and the 
 Orpheus of earlier Greek art, had been adopted, and with 
 slight modifications made available to Christian symbolism.
 
 144 
 
 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 
 
 SO what more natural than that in these half Greek cities of 
 ' Rhodanusia ' (Rhone land, or the Valley of the Rhone),"" 
 connected as these were, through Marseilles, with the com- 
 merce of the East, an Eastern symbol should be adapted in 
 like manner, and the Fish-orod of the 
 Phoenician and the Syrian coast, such 
 as he is here represented, be modified 
 into a type such as we see exhibited on 
 the columns of St. Germain des Pres, 
 the exact reproduction in artt of the 
 poetical description, and verbal sym- 
 bolism, of the Inscription with which 
 we are at this moment occupied ? 
 
 Thus far I had written, a week ago, when preparing the 
 present paper. But as I wrote it, and compared the Fish- 
 god, such as you see him in the woodcut (No. i) before you, 
 with the descriptive lines of the monument itself, and with the 
 remarkable embodiment of them which you see in yet an- 
 other (No. 2) of those in your hands, I could not help feeling 
 that a link was still wanting for the completion of the chain 
 of presumptive evidence (I could not then claim more for it) 
 for the existence, in the fourth or fifth century of our era, of 
 precisely such a type as that exhibited on those St. Germain 
 pillars. I had a strong conviction that a variation on the 
 ordinary Ichthus type, so absolutely unique as that before 
 
 * So I venture to interpret the 
 Po^ovovaia (? Fo^auovaia) of St. Ire- 
 nseus, adv. Hser. lib. i. c. xi.). Com- 
 pare the article on this word in 
 Smith's 'Diet, of G. and R. Geo- 
 graphy,' in which this reference 
 
 is wanting. 
 
 + Woodcut No. 2 (p. 143) is here 
 given on the authority of Cardinal 
 Pitra, ' Spicil. Solesm.' tom. iii. Tab. 
 iii. No. 6 A.
 
 EXTERNAL APPEARANCE OF THE MONUMENT. I 45 
 
 you, could not have been an invention of Christian art in the 
 interval between the fourth century and the thirteenth, or in- 
 deed an invention of Christian art at all. For, in going back 
 even to the very earliest period to which this can be traced, 
 we find that Christian art was not inventive, but adaptive ; 
 selecting, among the older types of Pagan art, those which 
 were in any way fitted to the expression of Christian ideas, 
 and giving them, if I may be allowed the expression, a 
 baptism of regeneration, in transferring them from their 
 service to the king-dom of this world to a new service in the 
 kingdom of Christ. Thus it was with the Orpheus of the 
 earliest Christian catacombs, gathering around him even the 
 wild beasts of the forest by the constraining attraction of 
 his heaven-taught strains, and so not an unfit representation 
 of Him who spake as never man spake, and whose voice has 
 power, such as sweet music has, to touch even the hardest 
 hearts. And so, again, the Hermes Criophoros, such as 
 Pausanias* describes him at Tanagra, whether personified, 
 as he was, in the yearly festival, by some tall youth, the 
 choicest among many, who bore upon his shoulders the 
 firstling of the year's flock ; or in the marble of Calamis, in 
 which the same type was embodied, never again to be 
 forgotten — the one and the other were regenerated, nay, 
 endowed with immortality, when adopted as the expression 
 of that tenderest word of our Lord, — ' I am the Good 
 Shepherd' (John, x. 14) ; and of that parable which tells of 
 him who, losing one out of a hundred sheep, leaveth the 
 ninety and nine, and goeth after that lost one, until he 
 find it ; and when he hath found it, layeth it on his shoulders 
 rejoicing (Luke, xv. 3-6). 
 
 * Pausaniae Hist. lib. ix. c. 22.
 
 146 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 
 
 With facts such as these in mind, I suppose there are 
 few archeeologists who would not agree with me in thinking, 
 that one might count with some certainty on finding, among 
 the older Pagan types, the counterpart of that, which is 
 implied, indeed, by the Inscription now in your hands; but 
 which survives to our own time in one monument only (I 
 believe) of the whole Christian world, viz., in those pillars 
 from the Baptistery of St. Germain des Pres, one of which 
 is engraved in the woodcut now before us. (See No. 2 
 above.) 
 
 Where then, or in what direction, was one to make 
 search for the symbol in question ? It is unlike anything 
 in the later Greek or Roman art, and at the first glance is 
 suggestive of an Eastern origin — ultimately at least, if not 
 immediately, of the East. But what in common between 
 any cities of the East, and Autun in the centre of Gaul ? 
 A double connexion there was, though, antecedently, one 
 might little have anticipated it. Connexion first, and a 
 direct connexion, with the old course of Phoenician trade. 
 But this is too remote in time to be relied upon with any 
 certainty in relation to our present inquiry. But that line 
 of trade, following the course which the nature of the 
 country had prescribed, was in the fourth century, and is 
 now, what it was in the days when the tin of the Cassi- 
 terides Insulae was carried on the backs of mules down from 
 the Sequana to the Rhone, and thence floated down to 
 Massalia. Remembering this, it was natural to make a step 
 further, and to anticipate, that, upon the coins either of 
 Massalia itself, or of the Greek cities of Asia Minor, with 
 which the Massaliotes traded, would be found the peculiar 
 Ichthus-type of which I was in search. The question was
 
 EXTERNAL APPEARANCE OF THE MONUMENT. 
 
 147 
 
 easily to be answered, or rather an answer was easily to be 
 obtained. I made application at the Coin Room of the 
 British Museum; and though neither the coins of Marseilles, 
 nor those of Phocsea, the mother-city of Marseilles, gave 
 me what I was in search of, yet among those of Cyzlcus, 
 which was the great trading-city of Asia Minor in early 
 Christian times, I found the exact type, dating from five 
 hundred years at the least before the Christian era, which 
 we have already seen reproduced, in Christian symbolism, 
 in the word-painting of our Autun Inscription, and In the 
 pillars of St. Germain, one of which (p. 143) is also before 
 you. 
 
 I said ' the exact type', but spoke somewhat inaccurately 
 in so describing it. For In one very suggestive particular 
 a slight change was made, when the old Pagan type was 
 adapted to Christian use. That type, in its earliest form, 
 was of the East, and an embodiment probably of some form 
 of the ' Dagon' or ' Fish-God ' worship. Possibly, however, 
 it may have been, even in Phoenician hands, what it after- 
 wards became when adopted by the Greek trading cities on 
 the coast of Asia Minor — a symbol (and a very natural one 
 in this last case) of a seafaring people engaged in com-
 
 148 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 
 
 mercial pursuits, and for whom the fish, which the Greeks 
 exported to all parts of the Mediterranean coast, formed 
 an important article of their trade. With this agrees the 
 comment of an ancient writer* as to the virtues and the 
 significance of gems, who says that ' a figure of a woman 
 holding (a bird and) a fish is significant of trading busi- 
 ness.' But the fish so held was a dead fish, as you may 
 see by the Cyzican coins I have engraved (above, p. 147). 
 But the Fish of the Christian monument before you, even 
 as the '1%^:)? of the lines we have been interpreting, is 
 the living Ichthus, in clinging to Whom we are uplifted 
 (see No. 2, p. 143) to light and to new life, when the 
 dark waters have, in all semblance, closed for ever over 
 our heads. 
 
 In view of all these facts I think you will be of opinion, 
 that the monument before us, if we could see it now as 
 once it was, would be found to present a combination of 
 symbolic representations, and of verses having reference to 
 that symbolism. We should see probably, what on the 
 columns of St. Germain, and on those old coins before you, 
 we actually see, a figure represented as combining two 
 nahtres, half Ichthus and half man, and him, raj %2^f«? 
 
 * ' Cethel, aut Veterum Judae- who, however, finds no difficulty in 
 
 orum Physiologomm de Lapidibus describing gems that belonged to 
 
 sententiae.' (Apud ' Spicil. Solesm.' Alexander the Great and Galen, and 
 
 t. iii. p. 335.) This treatise, though who derives his own Hebrew name 
 
 a manifest imposture, is of ancient from a Latin word !] The words 
 
 date, and has preserved, apparently, to which I refer in the text are, 
 
 some tioatmg traditions which might ' Quando invenitur in Chrysolitho 
 
 otherwise not have reached us. [It femina habens in una manu avem, 
 
 professes to have been written by a in altera piscem, valet ad negoti- 
 
 contemporary of Moses and Joshua, andum.'
 
 EXTERNAL APPEARANCE OF THE MONUMENT. 
 
 149 
 
 a^a^oroc^ 'with hands close dinging' to a Hving Ichthus ; 
 
 while on the other side, if I mistake not, 
 
 we should see a figure, some such as 
 
 that in this woodcut* (No. 4), in which 
 
 the combination of an Ichthus and a 
 
 chalice are at once suggestive of yet 
 
 another of those primitive symbolisms 
 
 which I enumerated at the beginning of 
 
 this paper, and to which there is a mani- 
 fest allusion in the sixth line of the In- 
 scription. And if we translate the In- 
 scription before us, not only out of Greek 
 
 into English, but out of the language of 
 
 a now almost forgotten symbolism into 
 
 that of Scripture, to which our own ears 
 
 are more accustomed, this, I think, will 
 
 in some sort give expression to the mind 
 
 of him who wrote them — wrote them, 
 
 there is strong reason for believing, on 
 
 the tomb of a youth nurtured in that great 
 
 Christian school already alluded to, and 
 
 speaking, as in the name of the departed, 
 
 to those whom he had left on earth. 
 
 ' Ye that have received new birth from Christ, and 
 mortal yet yourselves have now, from heavenly waters, 
 a spring of life that is to immortality, see that a heart 
 of holy reverence be yours. Refresh thy soul, beloved 
 
 * A small figure, in metal, pre- 
 served at Autun, and dating, Car- 
 dinal Pitra says, from the eleventh 
 
 century. See ' Spicil. Solesm.' t. iii. 
 Tab. iii. n. 5.
 
 150 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 
 
 one, with ever-flowing waters of enriching wisdom, and 
 receive the honey-sweet food of the Saviour of the 
 saints. Eat, with a longing hunger in thine heart, 
 holdine in thine hands that Food which was criven for 
 the life of the world. 
 
 ' On Christ I have laid hold, to Christ I cling. Let 
 the yearning of Thy love bring Thee nigh unto me, 
 my Saviour and my Lord. Haste Thee unto me, and 
 be my Guide, I beseech Thee, Thou that art the 
 Light of them for whom the hour of death Is passed 
 
 ' And thou, my Father Aschandeius, endeared to 
 my heart (thou, too, sweet mother, and all I love on 
 earth), oft as you look upon yon holy sign of Christ, so 
 often think of me, Pectorius your son.' 
 
 IX0T0C ov^ccvtov olyiov yivog, riro^i aii^vco 
 
 Ssff'Tiffiaji' vhdrojy rrjv a^jv, (piXs, duX'Tno ^^vy^^v 
 "T})ota'iv aivdoig 'TrXovrohorov* 'Eo(pir;g, 
 ^oorrj^og V ayioov pjikiri^ka, "kdybliotvi (o^Sffiv. 
 ''Ec^/s 'Tiivcccov IX0TN 'iy^cov '7rccXu[jjaig. 
 
 * Another rare word occurring come upon them, became, so Zeus- 
 
 in this inscription (viz. TrXovToCorrjc) had willed, ca/yuoi'ff ladXoi — ettj)^- 
 
 takes us to the 'Epya h:al ll/uepai of dovioi, fvXaKec Qvrjrwv ardpojTrwv' o'l 
 
 Hesiod (ver. 125), who employs it pa <pvXa.(7aov(7iv re ciKac xal (Tx^rXia 
 
 in a remarkable passage, to which I epya, yipa Etrcrafieroi, Trarrn (poiTQvTiQ 
 
 can well imagine the iip^i^ihaaKaXoQ lir alav, TcXovToZoraC icai TOVTO yipag 
 
 of the Autun school directing the ftarjLXifiov etrxoy. See the sugges- 
 
 special attention of his boys. The tive Scholia on this word in Gais- 
 
 heroes of the golden age, he says, ford's ' Poetae Min. Grgeci,' t. ii. 
 
 when death, like a sweet sleep, had p. 121.
 
 ITS DOCTRINAL IMPORT. 151 
 
 IX0TI Xii^ag apu^oc' KtXaiio liaTroroc "Eoung 
 Y.vOv* (Jbot ^y^^rr,^, az XtraCpfM, (^oog to Ouvovrco)/. 
 
 'S.vv (jfjyjrfi yXvfcspy %.ui 'Troiaiv TOiatv l[jbo7fftv, 
 IX0TN I'bcov v'iov \jjVYimo Wikto^Iov. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE DOCTRINAL IMPORT OF THE INSCRIPTION. 
 
 I HAVE devoted the main part of this inquiry to the archae- 
 ology of this Inscription, because it is only when this 
 is determined, and the true text (or what remains of it) 
 ascertained, that we can proceed with any certainty to draw 
 conclusions from the evidence before us in reference to 
 disputed questions of theology. 
 
 It is with pain and repugnance that I deal with such 
 a monument in its bearing upon matter of modern con- 
 troversy. It seems to me, I confess, something like dese- 
 cration to put side by side in the same page the beautiful 
 
 * A comparison of my own pho- recalls the XiXaieo 7-a'x<oTa of the 
 
 tograph with that of Garrucci, which Odyssey (see p. 137). Other critics 
 
 was taken (from a cast) fifteen years have fancied the third letter of this 
 
 ago, leads me to think that EY CY line to be a mutilated 0, and I 
 
 (ev (Tv) must have been originally have therefore adopted (though with 
 
 inscribed on the marble. But evdv some hesitation) the reading above 
 
 is better suited to the context, and given.
 
 152 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 
 
 expressions of primitive belief to which we have just been 
 listening, and the comments upon that language (not to 
 say the utter perversions of it) to which some modern 
 theologians have had recourse. But it may be well to 
 show, by a striking example, such as the comments upon 
 this monument will afford, how easy it is for men to import 
 into ancient monuments exactly what they wish to find 
 there. We may thus enforce what is in these days a 
 greatly needed lesson, that of profound distrust of mere 
 assertions made by theological partisans as to what the 
 evidence of antiquity is. For, as you will see, even men 
 of considerable learning begin by deceiving themselves as 
 to the nature of that evidence, and, having done so, it is 
 but natural that they should go on to deceive others, who 
 are content to accept the witness of antiquity on the 
 authority of others, instead of requiring it to be set out 
 in full before their own eyes. 
 
 You have the means of judging what that evidence 
 is as regards the monument now in your hands ; and you 
 will probably be somewhat surprised to hear the enumera- 
 tion of the following points of doctrine, or of ritual observ- 
 ance involving doctrine, for which it is supposed to give 
 the strongest evidence, and that dating from the ' second 
 century ' of our era. M. Le Blant, an eminent French 
 antiquary, quotes Padre Secchi (a Roman Jesuit) as finding 
 here, amongst other things, ' la vtention dii ccsiir* sacrS de 
 Jhus Christ .... la presence r^elle . ... la communion 
 
 * It is painful to write in detail question by controversialists, may 
 
 upon such subjects. Those, how- be referred to Cardinal Perrone, 
 
 ever, who may be inclined to wonder ' Praelect. Theolog.' tom. v. p. 301. 
 why this should be brought into
 
 ITS DOCTRINAL IMPORT. I 53 
 
 sotis tine settle espece . ... la priere des inorts retemis ait 
 ptirgatoire! And to this I may add, that Padre Garrucci 
 finds in the same monument conclusive evidence of prayer 
 offered to the Virgin Mary, and of beHef in Transubstanti- 
 ation. 
 
 I refer to this last writer the rather because he is a well- 
 known antiquary of great repute, and a man of very great 
 erudition. That he is well able to defend himself, if in 
 any respect I shall do him wrong, his correspondence with 
 M. Rossignol gives good proof And if I seem now to 
 invite controversy with him as to the true interpretation of 
 this monument, it is because I will not doubt that he really 
 desires that the truth, and nothing but the truth, should 
 be established ; and because I know that he is capable of 
 conducting even theological controversy without forgetting, 
 as too many do, the respect that is due to the cause of 
 truth in which he is eng-agfed. 
 
 In the eighth line then of this Inscription he reads as 
 follows :— - 
 
 Ey liXd) {or iihu)^ M^r?j^, ai XiTd^o^Lai, (pSJg to Savovrcov, 
 
 and this line he interprets (ict devota tnetite accipiam, Maler, 
 oro te, Iticem morttwrtmt) : ' I pray thee, Mother, that with 
 devout mind I may receive the light of the dead,' i.e. (as 
 appears from his previous'" comment), ' That I may devoutly 
 receive Him [viz. Jesus Christ] who is the Light of the 
 dead.' 
 
 I need hardly be at pains to point out the repeated 
 
 * ' Pectorius prend la parole et dans ses mains ; il prie la Mere du 
 prononce des actes fort tendres dans Sauveur.' 
 le desir de recevoir Je'sus Christ
 
 154 'i'l^l^ AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 
 
 mistakes of erammar in which the writer has here involved 
 himself, simply because, writing- as he does from the point 
 of view of modern Romanism, he expects antecedently to 
 find Mary- worship in every ancient monument. In order 
 to find evidence of this here, he writes ii\oo {or zihoo) as a 
 form of the subjunctive, apparently in entire forgetfulness 
 that if the subjunctive were to be employed here at all 
 it would be 'ilco, or 'iXco, without the augment. And so by 
 assuming, without the slightest authority whatever, that 
 Mt^tti^, ' Mother,' would mean in the second century (to 
 which he refers the monument) the Virgin Mary, addressed 
 simply as ' Mother ' in prayer, he contrives to import into 
 this monument what no one but himself has ever been able 
 to see there ; proposing, with this view, a reading of the 
 text, which no one with the slightest pretence to a know- 
 ledge of Greek ever has endorsed, or ever will. 
 
 What is really instructive in this matter, is the notable 
 instance here before us of the way in which the defence 
 of modern Romanism rests upon inexact scholarship in 
 one, upon defective archaeological knowledge in another. 
 Padre Garrucci's forced introduction of prayers to the 
 Virgin Mary into this monument, at the cost of all exact- 
 ness of grammatical expression, and in direct contradiction 
 to the evidence of antiquity, as to the feeling of the first 
 four centuries in reference to the blessed mother of our 
 Lord, is a fitting pendant to Dr. Northcote's discovery of 
 ' the Virgin Mary' side by side with 'the Good Shepherd' 
 in the cemetery of Priscilla,'"' or Mr. Brownlow's demonstra- 
 
 * As to this see above, p. 17 ; and for Mr. Brownlow's Latin, foot- 
 note, p. 92.
 
 ITS DOCTRINAL IMPORT, 
 
 ^55 
 
 tion of the Petrine succession of the Roman Bishops by 
 an utter perversion of the Latin Hnes which he quotes. 
 All the three write in perfect good faith ; but one in forget- 
 fulness of Greek grammar, another of the most elementary 
 rules of Latin construction, and yet another (Dr. Northcote) 
 under an entire ignorance as to the real appearance of the 
 monument which he edits, and which in editing he un- 
 wittingly misrepresents. 
 
 It would be a waste of time to deal seriously with 
 anything so absurd as the attempt to prove a belief in 
 Transubstantiation from the symbolical language of this 
 Inscription. 
 
 But there will be some real advantage, perhaps, in well 
 weighing another assertion, which is made not only by 
 Roman Catholic writers of all kinds, but by some among 
 ourselves, that this monument presents the most conclusive 
 evidence of the doctrine of the Real Presence, as being 
 held either in the second century (according to the date 
 they assign) or in the fourth or fifth, which, for reasons 
 already given, I myself believe to be its true date. 
 
 If for ' the doctrine of the Real Presence ' we would be 
 content to say ' a doctrine of Real Presence,' we should be 
 so far nearer the truth, that we should recognise a fact, 
 which is plain to all accurate students of theology, that 
 there is more than one doctrine of the Real Presence. 
 But if we would avoid the anachronism of importing into 
 antiquity controversial phrases of comparatively modern 
 theology, utterly unknown to the early Church, what we 
 should rather say would be this, that the monument before 
 us gives expression throughout to those ideas of the 
 Spiritual Presence of Christ, as distinct from a Corporal
 
 156 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 
 
 Presence, upon which the great contemporary teachers 
 of the Church, both in East and West, most strongly 
 uisisted at the time from which this monument dates. 
 
 Let me not be misunderstood in saying this. I freely 
 admit that one expression of the text, ' Eat, hungering, 
 holding Ichthus in thy hands,' is in itself not inconsistent 
 with any doctrine of the Real Presence whatever, even the 
 most carnal and Capernaitic that can be imagined. But 
 I maintain no less strongly, that the evidence already 
 alleged of the very wide application of the symbolism of 
 the word Ichthus, makes it clear that the language of this 
 Inscription is also perfectly consistent with the most 
 spiritual view of the Presence of Christ in this Holy 
 Sacrament that any can hold. And the real question 
 suggested by this monument is not one to be determined 
 by reference to the controversial terms of modern divinity, 
 but by reference to the language of the great teachers of the 
 Church in the first four centuries of our era. 
 
 And it is a strange assertion to make, but yet it is a 
 perfectly true one, as far as my own reading enables me 
 to judge, that while bulky volumes have been written of 
 late years professing to set forth the teaching of the Fathers 
 concerning the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Sacra- 
 ment of His Body and Blood, all that the Fathers really 
 teach concerning the nattire of Christ's Presence is passed 
 over in the 7nost absolute silence. Pages after pages of 
 quotations from the Fathers (and even these often gravely, 
 though of course unintentionally, misrepresented) are 
 brought forward, in which not one word is said about 
 Presence, still less about ' Real Presence,' or ' Real Objec- 
 tive Presence ' (a coinage of the last fifty years) ; and
 
 TEACHING OF THE FATHERS BEFORE 45O A.D. I 57 
 
 the very fact that many of the Fathers, both in East and 
 West, have treated ex pi^ofesso on the subject of Christ's 
 Presence is in no way whatever so much as noticed. And 
 this being so, I think that I may make a real contribution 
 to the Patristic evidence hitherto alleged on this disputed 
 question, if I take this opportunity shortly to state what 
 their doctrine on this particular question of Christ's 
 Presence really is. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 TEACHING OF THE FATHERS BEFORE THE YEAR 45O A.D. 
 CONCERNING THE NATURE OF CHRISt's PRESENCE. 
 
 Before quoting in detail the language of the Fathers, it 
 may be well to say a few words as to the earlier use of 
 terms of Presence, both in classical writers and in Holy 
 Scripture. 
 
 For classical usage it will be enough to say, that words 
 importing Presence were used with every variety of meaning, 
 whether of physical and material, or of figurative and spiritual 
 Presence (in this including the Presence of Power). Thus, 
 on the one hand, Horace speaks of a Roman Emperor 
 being regarded as a present God (/. e. as the context shows, 
 present upon earth), in contradistinction to the Father of the 
 Gods spoken of as reigning in heaven ; while, on the other 
 hand, we hear Cicero speaking of always having been 
 present to Deiotarus zvhen himself absent {absenti Deiotaro
 
 158 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 
 
 semper ad/zii), i. e. of his alvvavs having siipported his 
 interests (been to him a present help) in the Senate and 
 Forum, when he was not on the spot to support his own 
 cause. And the use oi pra:sentia in the sense oi power ^ is 
 famihar to scholars ; as, for example, in that expression of 
 Ovid's, ' tanta est prcesentia veri^ ' such is the pozver of 
 truth.' t 
 
 Passing on to the usage of Holy Scripture, we find in 
 an expression employed by St. Paul a remarkable antici- 
 pation of the Patristic language which I am about to allege. 
 Writing to the Corinthians (i Cor. v. i sqq.) concerning a 
 notorious offender, he speaks of himself as being absent in 
 body from those Corinthians, but present in spirit with them 
 {airoov TOO aoji^iari — va^m rcu TrviviJbccri) ; and again adds, ' When 
 ye are gathered together, with my spirit, together with the 
 poiver [avv ry })vvaiMii) of the Lord Jesus Christ, [I have 
 already determined] to deliver such an one unto Satan,' &c. 
 &c. Presence in spirit is, in St. Paul's mind, not inconsistent 
 with absence in body. 
 
 With thus much premised as to the use of terms of 
 Presence in classical writers and in Scripture, I proceed to 
 the question now more immediately before us, viz. the 
 teaching of the early Fathers, in East and West, concerning 
 the Presence of our blessed Lord. 
 
 And I will begin with the Greek Fathers, seeing that in 
 their language we find most faithfully reflected not only the 
 
 * Comp. Cyril. Hieros. Catech. {more effectual) ullum . . . auxilium 
 
 XV. p. 165 : 6 EtQ kviavTOQ Iv J avUi- venit.' And Pliny, H. N. xxi. 20, 
 
 >/ Tvapovcria avTuv (augebitur ipsius § 86, ' Idem (melissophyllon) prge- 
 
 potcntia : Interpres Lat.). sentissimum est contra ictus earum 
 
 t Comp. Georg. ii. 127, 'Saporem {sc. apmn) vesparumque.' 
 Felicis mali, quo non proesentius
 
 TEACHING OF THE FATHERS BEFORE 450 A.D. I 59 
 
 general doctrine, but the actual terminology, of primitive 
 Christian revelation, as it had originally been taught by the 
 Apostles and Prophets of the New Covenant. 
 
 And this first we may note, that the phrase jj 'noLDovaia. 
 rov Xpiarov, ' the Presence of Christ,' had in the early P^athers 
 a distinct technical meanins: when used without further li- 
 mitation. It was used of the Presence of Christ upon earth 
 — that Presence being either in the period which intervened 
 between the Nativity and the Ascension, a Presence wJiich 
 is past ; or of that Presence zvhicli shall be hereafter, when 
 He who ascended into heaven shall come again in like 
 manner. 
 
 Hence, in the language of the Greek Fathers, there are 
 two ' Presences ' * of our blessed Lord, and two ' comings 
 down ' t from heaven : one at the time of His Incarnation ; 
 the other, yet future, when He shall come in glory. One 
 of these is the former \ Presence (;; 'k^oti^ci Tcu^ovtyicc, Cyr. 
 
 * For illustrations of what is above tion (possibly such) is in lib. i. c. i., 
 
 stated see Justin Mart. 'Dial, cum where he speaks of the a /^ojopooiio-a 
 
 Tryph.' p. 208, 9, Ivo irapovcriai tuv as being healed vtto riig Trapovtrias 
 
 XpioTOu Trpo£(pT]Tivoi'TO yevrjrToi.iei'ai, rod 2wr>7poc. This, however, is but 
 
 fjiia jjikv kv »} iraOrjToc i^al arifioQ kcu a slight modification of the ordinary 
 
 a£iS))g (payt'ia-erai, 7) ^e erepa kv »/ meaning. For further illustrations 
 
 Ev^oi,oq KOI KpiT))Q TravTiov sXeutTETai. of the word see Origen in Joan. t. i. 
 
 And Cyril. Hieros. Catech. xv. (ad p. 8. Constitt. Apost. lib. viii. § 12 
 
 init.), XpifTTOv Trapovfriay KarayyiX- (rfic fj.£X\oviTi]c avrov Sevripag tto- 
 
 XofiEy, oil fiiai' juoi'OJ', liXXa Kcii tev- povcriac). 
 
 ripav rijg ivporipaQ ttoXv KuXXiora. f AnrXaJ a'l mdodoi, fxia ?; arrvix- 
 
 'H ^tv yap inroixoviig f<x^'' vTr6Eeit,ii', <pai'))g i] Mg IttI ttokov' Kal hevTspa >/ 
 
 1] he deiag f3a(nXeiag (pipei tu hiuCTj/xa. e7ri(pa)'t)g, // fiiXXovaa. Cyril. Catech. 
 
 The term Trapovnia is frequently used xv. 
 
 by Irenseus, and, with one exception, X Comp. S. Irenfeus adv. Haer. 
 
 in one or other of the senses indi- iii. c. xii. He says that the Ethi- 
 
 cated in the text above. The excep- opian eunuch was brought to his
 
 l6o THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 
 
 Catech. xv. ad init), the other, the second Presence* 
 
 (^ l&uri^a, }jv Tr^oalozaJiJbzv), for which we are still 
 
 looking, at His coming to judgment. (?j 'Tra^ovaia, rov Ky^/oy yj 
 rov Koaf/jou Gvvrikaa. Ibid, in fin.) 
 
 This mere use of terms constitutes in itself a strong 
 presumption that the doctrine of the Greek Fathers in 
 early times concerning the Presence of our Lord in the 
 Holy Eucharist must have been a very different one from 
 that now taught in the Church of Rome, and by some 
 among ourselves. But let us proceed now to consider 
 something much more definite ; their express teaching con- 
 cerning the nature of Christ's Presence. 
 
 And here we shall find the Fathers, both of East and 
 West, in full accord In teaching, that in the interval between 
 the first and the second Advent (or Presence, Toc^ovaici) of 
 our Lord, there is a manner in which He is present upon 
 earth, and a manner in which He is absent. He is absent, 
 so they expressly teach, in respect of His human nature ; 
 He is present in respect of His divine nature. He is 
 absent in respect of that which is in one place only, viz. 
 in respect of His human Body present now in heaven ; 
 He is present in respect of that which is ubiquitous, viz. 
 His divine nature, wherein He is one with the Father 
 and the Holy Ghost. 
 
 None can speak more clearly upon this point than 
 
 own country to preach there what i. c. ii. : Tj)v (k rihv ohpavwv iv r^ 
 
 he had himself beheved, the One 2o^jj rov IlaT-poe Trapovirlay avTov, 
 
 God who had been proclaimed by k. t. X. In this use of wapovala the 
 
 the Prophets, and that tovtov tov Greek Fathers follow the language 
 
 vlov rriv Kara avQpwirov ij^rj TreiroL- of Holy Scripture, as in 2 Thess. 
 
 ijadai irapovaiav. ii. 8 ; Jam. V. 7 (and 8) ; 2 Pet. 
 
 * Comp. S. Irenaeus adv. Hseres. iii. 4, &c.
 
 TEACHING OF THE FATHERS BEFORE 45O A.D. 161 
 
 St. Augustine. Commenting* on those words of our 
 Lord, ' The poor ye have always with you, but Me ye 
 have not alway' (John, xi.) ; or, as he renders them, 'Me 
 ye zvill not have alway ' {iion semper Jiabebitis), he writes 
 as follows : — 
 
 * Let o^ood men crlve ear unto that He saith, but let 
 them not thereby be troubled. For it is of bodily Pre- 
 sence that He spake this (" Me ye will not have alway"). 
 For in respect of His majesty, in respect of His provi- 
 dential care, in respect of His unspeakable and invisible 
 grace, in respect of all these is that fulfilled which He 
 spake, saying, " Behold, I am with with you alway, unto 
 the end of the world." But in respect of the Flesh which 
 the Word took on Him, in respect of that (Humanity) 
 whereby He was born of a Virgin, seized by the hands 
 of Jews, fastened to a tree, taken down from a cross, 
 wrapped in linen cloths, laid in a tomb, and manifested 
 in His rising therefrom,— in respect of all these, " Me ye 
 shall not have alway." And wherefore this ? Because, 
 in respect of bodily Presence {secundtun prcescntiam cor- 
 poris), He went in and out with His Disciples during 
 the space of forty days, and then, while they followed 
 Him in sight, though not in person. He ascended into 
 heaven. And He is not here, for He is there : He sitteth 
 
 * Tractat. in Joan. L. With this erat.' And with a further distinction 
 
 compare Tractat. Ixviii. : ' A quibus still, Sermo ccclxi. cap. vii. : ' Se- 
 
 Homo abcedebat, Deus non dere- cundum prajsentiam pulchritudinis 
 
 linquebat : et idem ipse Homo ac et divinitatis sure semper cum Patre 
 
 Deus. Ergo et ibat per id quod est : secundum prcesentiam corpo- 
 
 Homo erat, et manebat per id quod ralem jam supra crelos ad dexterani 
 
 Deus erat : ibat per id quod uno loco Patris est : scciuidum prascntiam vcro 
 
 erat, manebat per id quod ubicjue fidei in omnibus Christianis est.' 
 
 M
 
 l62 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 
 
 at the right hand of God, — and He is here, for by the 
 Presence of Divine majesty He hath not departed from 
 us. Or, again, we may give answer thus : — In regard of 
 the Presence of Divine majesty we have Christ alway 
 with us ; in respect of the Presence of the Flesh (secnndzcm 
 p. carnis) rightly was it said unto His Disciples, "■ Btit me 
 ye will not have alway!' For the Church possessed Him 
 but a few days in respect of the Presence of (His) Flesh ; 
 now by Faith she holdeth Him, with the eyes she seeth 
 Him not' 
 
 Precisely to the same effect are his comments * upon 
 yet another passage of the same Gospel, on the words 
 (John, xiv. 28), 'I go away, and I come again unto you.' 
 
 ' As God He was not to leave those whom, as Man, 
 He was to leave; and in Him, the one Christ, God and 
 Man are united. Therefore was He to go away in regard 
 that He was Man, and abide in regard that He was God. 
 He was to go away by that \iiatnre\ zuhich zvas in one 
 place [only~] ; He zoas to remain by that which was in every 
 placei 
 
 It may be objected, that in this that he here says there 
 is no special reference to the Holy Eucharist, and that he 
 is speaking only in general terms of the laws of Christ's 
 Presence generally, and that he would have used very 
 different language had this subject been in question. To 
 this I would reply (to the first objection), that His language, 
 even if it proved nothing more, would at least suffice to 
 show this, that St. Augustine's dogmatic language con- 
 cerning the general law of Christ's Presence is the very 
 
 * Tractat. in Joan. Ixviii. See note in preceding page.
 
 TEACHING OF TIIK FATHERS BEFORE 450 A.D. 1 63 
 
 reverse of that which a Roman Divine would naturally use 
 now, and which certain aniong ourselves actually do 
 use. That any such, when confronted with the lanuuaee 
 I have quoted, would be able to explain it away, and to 
 say that in a sense they could adopt it as their own, I 
 do not of course doubt. But that is a very different matter. 
 What I maintain is, that language such as this is perfectly 
 consistent and natural in the mouth of an English Church- 
 man ; and that it would be neither natural nor consistent 
 in the mouth of one who holds the ' Real Presence ' in the 
 sense in which it has been taught for some centuries past 
 in the Roman Church, and by some, of quite late years, 
 among ourselves. 
 
 But I can say more than this. To the second of the 
 two objections above supposed (viz. that St. Augustine 
 would speak very differently if the doctrine of the Holy 
 Eucharist had been prominently before him) I would reply, 
 that we have distinct evidence leading to a directly opposite 
 conclusion. For in another passage,* in immediate con- 
 nection with the thought of the last Supper of our Lord, 
 and of the Institution of the Holy Sacrament, he draws 
 the very same distinction which to our own Divines has 
 long been habitual, between a corporal (or bodily) and a 
 spiritual Presence. ' After the Supper, being close now 
 to His Passion, He spake unto His disciples as about 
 to go away and to leave them in regard of bodily (or 
 " corporal ") Presence, but zuit/i a spiritual Presence to be 
 
 * Tractat. in Joan. xcii. : ' Do- et relicturus eos prresentia corporal! 
 
 minus Jesus in sermone quem lo- cum omnibus autem suis usque in 
 
 cutus est discipulis suis post coenam, consummationeni SKCuli futurus prre- 
 
 proxinius Passioni, tancjuam iturus sentia spirituali.'
 
 164 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION, 
 
 with all them that are His, even to the end of the 
 world.' 
 
 And as showingf further what was the mind of St. 
 Augustine on this matter, I will refer to yet another 
 passage, in the treatise against Faustus. (Lib. xx. cap. 21.) 
 He is there indignantly rejecting the calumny of certain 
 Manichaeans who spoke of Christians as offering sacrifices 
 to martyrs. He says that they offer sacrifice, it is true ; 
 but it is to God, and after that manner of sacrifice which 
 in the manifestation of the New Testament God had pre- 
 scribed. And after quoting Ps. xlix. 23, ' Sacrificium 
 laudis glorificabit me, et illic via est ubi ostendam illi 
 salutare meum,' he adds : ' The Flesh and Blood of this 
 Sacrifice before the coming of Christ was set forth in 
 anticipation by means of victims of resemblance ; in the 
 Passion of Christ it was rendered (unto God) in very 
 reality ; now, after the Ascension of Christ, it is celebrated 
 by a Sacrament of Memorial.' * Hujus sacrificii caro ac 
 sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum 
 promittebatur ; in passione Christi per ipsam veritatein 
 rcddebatiir ; post ascensum Christi per sacramentum me- 
 morise celebratur.'* The reality, or truth (veritas) of that 
 
 * This, like other passages al- The shadow in the Law, the image 
 
 ready alleged, is passed over alto- in the Gospel, the truth in the hea- 
 
 gether in the ' Catense ' of Patristic vens.' [' Umbra in lege, imago in 
 
 authorities which have appeared of cvangelio, Veritas in ca;kstibus.''\ And 
 
 late years. With it compare St. Am- see the rest of the passage con- 
 
 brose, ' De Cain et Abel,' i. 5, § 19 : cerning Christ's offering Himself, 
 
 'Those things we must desire wherein here in image, there in the truth^ 
 
 is perfection, wherein is the truth where He intercedeth for ns as an 
 
 {veritas). Here is the shadow, here Advocate with the Father. [I quote 
 
 the image, there the truth {veritas). this last the rather because it is, as
 
 TEACHING OF THE FATHERS BEFORE 450 A.D. I 65 
 
 Sacrifice is to be found in the Passion of our Lord ; the 
 memorial of it in the Holy Communion. 
 
 It will hardly be said, I think, that these dogmatic 
 distinctions thus made by St. Augustine are such as to 
 harmonise with Tridentine teaching concerning the Real 
 Presence. But let us hear yet another great doctor of 
 the Western Church, who takes up precisely the same 
 thoup-ht concerning the laws of Christ's Presence as that 
 to which St. Augustine gives such pointed expression. 
 
 Leo the Great, in his * Sermo de Ascens. Domini,' c. ii., 
 thus writes on this question : — ' Son of Man, [and also] 
 Son of God, He made Himself known after a more ex- 
 cellent and mystical manner {excellentius et sacratius innottdt) 
 when He returned unto the glory of the Father; and after 
 an ineffable mode began to be more present by His Divine 
 nature, Who, in respect of His humanity, became more 
 distant from us.' ' Ineffabili modo coepit esse divinitate prce- 
 sentior, qid f actus est humanitate longinqtuor! 
 
 And when from the Western Doctors we turn once 
 more to the Greek Fathers, we find precisely the same 
 language used. Hear, for instance, St. Cyril of Alexandria. 
 He is commenting, like St. Augustine, already quoted, on 
 St. John's Gospel, and dwelling, as he had done, upon the 
 difference between our Lord's local Presence, in respect of 
 His humanity, a Presence which is now in heaven, and His 
 
 far as I know, the only passage in immediately follow ; and his con- 
 all the Fathers which speaks of our trast between ' here in image ' (or 
 Lord as 'offering Himself in hea- likeness), 'there in the truth,' is as 
 ven. The sense in which he uses unlike that of modern Roman tlieo- 
 the expression ' offert se ' is, how- logy as possible. 
 ever, indicated by the words that
 
 I 66 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 
 
 Presence of Divinity, or Presence of Power, whereby He is 
 even now present with all them that are His. ' Though* 
 He is absent from us in the flesh, seeing that He hath 
 gone away from us and departed unto God the Father, yet 
 by His divine power He compasseth the whole universe, 
 and is closely present unto those that love Him.' Ei' Kal 
 d-7n(Triv riyucov ry (xa^yJl, r^v -Troog 0sov (7TSiXd[jjivog a7roh]^(jjiocv, uXk' ovv 
 rrj Oiia ^vvcc[Mi 'Trzoii'Tni ra GviJjTTUvra,, Kca (rvi/jTagsan ro7g aydicuxjiv 
 avrov. 
 
 If it be asked how language such as this can be recon- 
 ciled with those many passages in which the Fathers speak, 
 in the same way as Holy Scripture speaks, of the Bread 
 which we break being the Body (or the Flesh) of Christ, 
 and the Wine of which we drink being the Blood of Christ, 
 the answer is not far to seek. They had learnt from the 
 words of the Lord Himself that the Body there partaken 
 of by the Faithful is the Body offci'cd upon the Cross (rovro 
 sari TO (TaJ[jjd [JjOv to "htho^jbivov vttIp vfy^co'/), and the Blood of the 
 New Covenant that Blood which was shed for the forgive- 
 ness of our sins (ro al(j^ci (j^ov to iKyyvo^JAvov). That the power 
 of the Holy Spirit co-operates with the faith of believers 
 to make the Bread of the Eucharist to be to us, after an 
 ineffable manner, the crucified Body, and the cup of the 
 New Covenant to be, after the like manner, the Blood 
 that for us was shed, this with an adoring faith they be- 
 lieved. But while believing this, they had thought also 
 of yet other words of the same Lord in speaking (John, vi.) 
 of the very same truth. The words that He had spoken 
 concerning eating the Flesh, and drinking the Blood, of 
 
 * Comment, in Joan. c. \iii.
 
 TEACHING OF THE FATHERS BEFORE 45O A.D. I 67 
 
 the Son of man, He had declared to be spirit and life ; 
 and the great teachers of the early Church echo their 
 Master's words in terms such as those of St. Augustine : 
 ' What is this that He saith, " Spirit and Life ?" Spiritu- 
 ally His words are to be understood. Hast thou under- 
 stood them spiritually ? Then are they spirit and life. 
 Hast thou understood them carnally ? Even then are 
 they spirit and life : but they are not such to thee.' * 
 
 Such passages as these might be largely added to if 
 need were. But enough has been already said for my 
 present purpose. I do not for a moment maintain that a 
 few passages such as these are sufficient to determine the 
 question of what was the mind of the Fathers upon that 
 mysterious question, which is involved in the Eucharistic 
 controversies of our own day. But thus much I may say. 
 The phrases, ' the Real Presence,' or ' the Real Objective 
 Presence ' (phrases which, whether good or bad in them- 
 selves, are neither Scriptural nor Patristic), are now being 
 made a Shibboleth whereby to divide into two hostile camps 
 those whom God would have to dwell as brethren in mutual 
 love and peace. Those who so use them must surely have 
 forgotten that even the declaration, ' / am of Christ^ is 
 condemned by the voice of an Apostle, when it is used as 
 a symbol of party divisions within the Church. 
 
 And this further I cannot but add. The number of those 
 in our own country who have at once leisure, and power, 
 and opportunity, for original research into the records of 
 
 * In Joan. Evang. Tract, xxvii. sunt. Intellexisti carnaliter? Etiani 
 
 n. 6 : 'Quid est, Spiritus etvita sunt i sic ilia Spiritus d vita sunt, seel tibi 
 
 Spiritualiter intelligenda sunt. Intel- non sunt.' 
 lexisti spiritualiter ? Spiritus d vita
 
 1 68 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 
 
 the Church, is very Hmited. And the greater the personal 
 influence that any such have, the higher their claim to the 
 respect and veneration of others, the greater is their respon- 
 sibility for perfect 'faithfttlness of stewardships when dealing 
 out for the instruction of others that which is laid up in 
 the treasure-house of antiquity. If those to whom, and to 
 whose writings, I now refer, had really laid before the 
 Church in our own days, with perfect accuracy of statement, 
 the whole teaching of Holy Scripture, and of the ancient 
 Fathers, in reference to points now disputed, instead of 
 selecting, and oftentimes, though unconsciously, manipu- 
 lating their authorities, so as to make them accord with pre- 
 determined conclusions, in how different a spirit might the 
 controversy of our own days have been conducted ; how 
 different might now have been the spiritual condition of our 
 Church ! How might men, now sundered in two hostile 
 camps, and turning one against the other all the resources 
 of human law, have still continued in the same path which, 
 till quite late years, so many had followed, and still have 
 been drawing nearer the one to the other, as they made 
 onward progress In ever higher knowledge of the truth 
 as it is in Christ. 
 
 And now from these thoughts of the controversies of 
 our own day, I return, and with a very different feeling, 
 to the beautiful expressions of Chrlstig^n truth which have 
 already been before us In the Inscription Itself.
 
 THE DOCTRINES IMPLIED IN IT. J 69 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE DOCTRINES IMPLIED IN THE INSCRIPTION. 
 
 On looking once more to the Inscription Itself, it will be 
 seen that, it has reference to two main subjects, — the life, 
 and the death, of the Christian man. Of these we will 
 speak in their order. 
 
 I. The New Birth, and Growth in Grace and in 
 Knowledge thereupon follozving. 
 
 Offspring* of the heavenly Ichthus, put forth 
 a heart of holy reverence, now that from divine 
 waters thou hast received, while yet among mor- 
 tals, a spring of life that is to immortality. 
 
 I%^yog ov^aviov Sziov yzi/og, ^ro^i (TS[mco 
 
 QsffTrzfTicov vhdrojv. 
 
 * 'I'^QvoQ ovpaviov\_ayLoi> or Qeiov] SHUiH recipicus pristiuos patrcs, rcge- 
 
 yivoQ. In speaking here of our neravit eos m vitam Dei,^ Compare 
 
 Lord as the Author of the regene- the fuller statement quoted below 
 
 rate life, the writer of this . Inscrip- (p. 170), where he describes the co- 
 
 tion follows (as elsewhere) St. Iren- operation of the Father, the Son, 
 
 ceus. Thus, in lib. iii. cap. xx. the and the Holy Ghost, in the work of 
 
 latter says, ' Primogcnitus eniin inor- the new creation. And again, in 
 
 tiionim natus Do minus et in sinu/ii lib. i. c. xi., he says that the last
 
 I 70 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 
 
 -In the thought here expressed, as in the language of 
 Holy Scripture, the doctrine of our New Birth is regarded 
 as a foundation on which to build up precepts of holy life, 
 and of onward growth at once in grace and in knowledge. 
 
 As St. Peter (2 Pet. i. 3 sqq), to take but a single 
 example, combines* the two thoughts of the grace of God 
 enabling us to spiritual life i^ojri) and godliness, with that 
 of the need of all diligence and earnestness (^raca aToOlyi) 
 on our part in putting forth those powers in onward pro- 
 gress towards ' perfection,' or fulness of growth, so do the 
 great teachers of the early Church — the Greek Fathers 
 more particularly. And among these none with more 
 earnest insistence, or in more exact conformity with the 
 teaching of Holy Scripture, than St. Irenseus, whose 
 influence, as already remarked, may be clearly traced in 
 the language of this monument. Take, for example, the 
 passage that follows (Adv. Heer. iv. cc. 38, 39) : — 
 
 Man (/. e. the ' second Adam ' of Father, and Mother, and Teacher 
 St. Paul) was manifested for the (Trat^aywyoe), and Foster-father (rpo- 
 regeneration of the first man (/. e. ^>evQ). And the same writer speaks 
 of the natural man, the -n-aXawQ of Christians as Xpiaroyovoi, 'Christ- 
 ciydpcjTTOQ of St. Paul) : Toy eaxarou born.' (Pied. iii. c. 12.) 
 avdpwTTOv e\q arayiyin)(TLV Tov TzpijTOv '"' 2 Pet. i. 3, sqq. 'Seeing that 
 avdpwTTov Tre(pi]vevai. It is with the the Divine power kat/i already be- 
 same thought, again, that he speaks stowed itpon us all things that are 
 of ea7ti quce. est ex Virgine per Jidem needed for life and godliness .... 
 regeiierationem [no doubt rtji' Ik rfjc bring ye in (TrapeiaeriyKayrec, a. word 
 TTcipdevov ^la ttLcttewq TraXiyyeveaiav]. implying contribution, as to an united 
 Lib. iv. Potter, p. 358. With the work) all diligence, and furnish forth 
 above agree occasional expressions abundantly (eTrixop-nyiiaare) in your 
 of other Fathers, as that of Clemens faith virtue, in your virtue know- 
 Alexand. (Psedag. i. vi.) : ' The ledge, in your knowledge temper- 
 Word is all things to the infant (/. e. ance' [kyKparuav, self-mastery), and 
 to the infant by new birth), both so the rest that follows.
 
 THE DOCTRINES IMPLIED IN IT. I71 
 
 ' God in all thing-s hath first place, Who alone is un- 
 begotten, and first of all, and the cause of being to all. 
 But all things else abide in subjection to God ; and sub- 
 jection to God is incorruption ; and to abide in incorruption 
 is the glory of Him who is unbegotten. This, then, is the 
 order, and such the harmonious action, and such the onward 
 guidance, by which man, begotten and fashioned by the 
 Creator's hand, cometh to be (y/kra;) after the image and 
 likeness of God the Unbegotten ; the Father so willing 
 and giving command, and the Son acting and fashioning 
 as with a workman's hand {^^daaovrog y,ai ^rjijutovgyovvroc), 
 and the Spirit ministering food and increase {r§s(povrog x.ca 
 av^ovrog), and the man the while making onward advance 
 as with a silent, unobserved growth, and reaching up unto 
 perfection, coming nigh that is, to the Unbegotten ; for 
 perfect is He who is Unbegotten, that is God. For need 
 there was that man should first come into being ; and having 
 come into being that he should make growth ; and having 
 made growth attain matured manhood ; and from matured 
 manhood that he should be multiplied ;* and being multi- 
 plied that he should become strong ; and becoming strong 
 that he be glorified ; and being glorified that he see Him 
 who is his Lord {rov iocvrov haTrorrjv). For it is God that 
 shall be seen of us ; and the vision of God produceth 
 incorruption ; and incorruption maketh nigh unto God.' 
 
 [Then, after speaking of man as having knowledge 
 both of good and evil, and the power (and therefore the 
 responsibility) of choice between the two, he proceeds :] 
 
 * nX7]ftvi'6)~]t'ai. Probably his he speaks, according to that of St. 
 thought is of grace being ' muki- Peter, x"f"c I'/t'Tc TrXijOvyBtiij. (i Pet. 
 phed' to the Christian man of whom i. 2 ; 2 Pet. i. 2.)
 
 I 72 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 
 
 ' How then shall he become [as] God, who hath not 
 yet become man ? Or how attain to fulness of growth, 
 who hath but as now come into being ? Or how shall he 
 become immortal, who while yet in a mortal nature hath 
 not been obedient to his Maker ? For first must thou 
 keep thyself after the order of humanity, that so afterward 
 thou mayest be partaker of the glory of God. For it is 
 not thou that makest God, but God that maketh thee. 
 If therefore thou art God's work, await thou the hand 
 of thy Maker, who doeth all things in fit time ; in fit time 
 as regards thee, who art being formed by Him. But do 
 thou so present thine heart ti7ito Him that it shall be soft 
 and respo}isive to His touch, and keep that likeness whereunto 
 He hath fashioned thee, having moisture in thyself lest being 
 hardened tho2c lose the mark which His fingers have im- 
 pressed.^ But if thou keep that likeness whereunto He 
 hath fashioned thee, thou shalt mount upward to perfection ; 
 for by God's handiwork that clay which is in thine own self 
 is put away out of sight. His hand hath fashioned the 
 substance that is in thee ; He will cover thee, within and 
 without, with a covering of pure gold and silver ; yea. He 
 will so adorn thee that the King Himself shall have plea- 
 sure in thy beauty. But If, being straightway hardened, 
 thou wilt none of His fashioning ;t if thou show thyself 
 unthankful unto Him, being ungrateful unto God because 
 
 ** ' Prsesta autem ei cor tuum '■prcssta cor timm vwUe et tractabile ' 
 
 moUe et tractabile, et custodi figu- is a close approach to the XP*?""^ 
 
 ram qua te figuravit artifex, habens = xp'7'^ai) {jropi aefivo') of the In- 
 
 in temetipso humorem, ne indura- scription. 
 
 tus amittas vestigia digitorum ejus.' f Artcin is the word of the trans- 
 
 [The Greek original is lost.] This lator, but evidently = h)f.ii<)vpykii:
 
 THE DOCTRINES IMPLIED IN IT. I 73 
 
 thyself made man, then wilt thou in the same moment 
 lose both His forming* hand and thine own true life. For 
 it is proper to the goodness of God that He should thus 
 make, and proper to the nature of man that he thus be 
 made. If therefore thou render unto Him that is thine, 
 even faith in Him and subjection, then shalt thou receive 
 His fashioning* power, and shalt be God's perfected 
 work.' 
 
 More briefly, but with thought and expression closely 
 in accord with this, St. Augustine writes as follows : — 
 
 ' Man, to attain to any true being, must turn himself 
 toward Him by whom he was created. For in drawino- 
 back he waxeth cold ; in drawing nigh he waxeth warm. 
 Drawing back he gathereth darkness ; drawing nigh he 
 gathereth light. Wherefore, whosoever would be like 
 unto God, that so he may stand in His presence, and, 
 as it is written, "preserve his strength before Him," let 
 him not draw back from Him ; to Him clinging {cohccrendd) 
 let him take His impress, as wax taketh impress from a 
 seal ; to Him closely joined let him keep His likeness, 
 doing that of which it is written, "It is good for me to 
 hold me fast by God!" let him retain in deed and truth 
 that similitude and likeness after which he hath been 
 made.' (Enarr. in Ps. Ixx. 6.) 
 
 It can hardly be necessary for me to point out to you 
 in detail the close resemblance in thought, and occasion- 
 ally even in expression, between the language I have 
 now quoted and that of the Inscription now in your 
 hands. 
 
 -'■'- See note f in preceding page.
 
 174 
 
 THE AUTUN INSCRirTION. 
 
 2. Of Man s part of Duty in feeding his Soul with 
 Spiritnal Food. 
 
 Quicken thy soul, beloved one, to ever fuller 
 life,* with the unfailing waters of wealth-giving 
 wisdom ; and receive the honey-sweet food of the 
 Saviour of the Saints. Eat, with a longing 
 hunofer, holding Ichthus in thine hands. 
 
 "Ylccffiv cczvdoig 'TrXourohdrou co^/???, 
 
 "E(r0iz 'TTSivcccji', 'ly^dvp 'ixf^y 'Xc/Xd^jaiq. 
 
 That there is a direct reference in the last line to that 
 feeding upon heavenly food which is vouchsafed to us at 
 
 * ' Qidcken . . to ever fuller life' 
 Only by periphrasis can the pregnant 
 meaning of such an expression as 
 BaX-n-Eo be brought out. The word 
 itself, and the tense employed (pre- 
 sent instead of the more usual aorist), 
 are both significant. QaX-n-eiv is, as 
 nearly as may be, the Latin fovere. 
 And as it is nowhere found in clas- 
 sical usage in the middle voice, its 
 use here has been exclaimed against 
 (by M. Rossignol) as a soloecism. 
 But such criticism appears to me to 
 lose sight of an important distinc- 
 tion. Modern scholars, when writing 
 Greek, are bound to adhere to the 
 usage sanctioned by those ancient 
 
 masters whom they professedly imi- 
 tate. But to the educated inhabit- 
 ants of some parts of Gaul in early 
 times, Greek was, it is hardly too 
 much to say, a native language. 
 And they had the power, and with 
 the power the right, to modify the 
 language of Homer and of Hesiod 
 (the former of whom, more particu- 
 larly, was as familiar to them as 
 Shakespeare is to us), and to adapt 
 it, even with slight changes from 
 ordinary usage, to the expression of 
 specially Christian ideas, such as 
 that in the line now under consi- 
 deration.
 
 THE DOCTRINES IMPLIED IN IT. I 75 
 
 the table of our Lord, none can fail to see. But I venture 
 to think that those commentators are mistaken who so 
 interpret the line immediately preceding. Nor has any 
 of these, as far as I have observed, brought out the mean- 
 ing, which, if I do not mistake, is veiled under the figur- 
 ative expressions with which the passage last quoted 
 opens. 
 
 In order to understand the thought of the writer of 
 this Inscription in the three first of the four lines just 
 quoted, we should bear in mind the figurative language, 
 both of Scripture and of early Fathers, in reference to 
 gifts of God's Holy Spirit following upon, and in some 
 sense distinct from, the gift of New Birth in Baptism. 
 
 These are plainly distinguished, first, in Holy Scripture: 
 ' Then the Apostles laid their hands on them (Disciples 
 in Samaria), and they received the Holy Ghost. For as 
 yet He had fallen tLpou none of them, only they had been 
 baptized in the Name of the Lord.' And so our Lord in 
 one passage (John, iii. 3, 5) speaks of New Birth- — Birth 
 of (i^) water and the Spirit— as necessary to our first 
 entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven ; and in yet another 
 (John, vii. 37-39) He compares those ^///i" of the Spirit, 
 which were to be bestowed upon believers after His own 
 Ascension, to rivers of living water, springing (or welling) 
 up, as to another He said, unto everlasting life. And He 
 compares the gifts of the Holy Spirit bestowed upon us 
 by our heavenly Father to the daily giving of food (both 
 bread and fish are named) by parents to their children. 
 
 Such language occurs again and again, under various 
 modifications, in Holy Scripture. And this we find re- 
 echoed by that of early Fathers, both in East and West.
 
 176 THE AUTUN INSCRirTION. 
 
 Thus, for example, St, Irenseus speaks, in more than 
 one place, of the Holy Spirit, imparted to man, as being the 
 Food of Life {(^^^(Jbo, ^&>jjg), or t/ie Bread of Immortality 
 [adv. Haer. lib. iv. cap. 38], and that with express reference 
 to the Holy Spirit as imparted through the laying on of 
 the Apostles' hands. 'O? obv 6 ' K'^oardkog 'buvarog i^v ^ihovui ro 
 ^^aj(jtjDc' oig yao av I'^nri&ovv rag xzioag IXdyj^oci^ov Ylvzv(Jba "Ay/of, 
 lari (3^cj(jba ^coTJg. And so in a passage already quoted, while 
 the Father willeth, and the Son worketh, it is the Spirit 
 who feedeth (rcgipovro?) the new life that is God's gift, and 
 giveth it due increase. To the same effect writes St. 
 Clement of Alexandria, in a very remarkable passage. 
 (Paedag. lib. i. cap. vi.) Referring to the words, ' I fed you 
 with milk' (i Cor. iii. 2), he says, ' The Holy Spirit which 
 was in the Apostle, speaking as with the voice of the Lord 
 {rig rov Kvotov aToy^^cofJusvov (pcov^), saith, " I gave you milk to 
 drink." For if we have been regenerated unto Christ, then 
 He that regenerated us feedeth us with His own milk, 
 even the Word : for whatsoever it be that generateth, that 
 same doth provide food for that which is begotten. And 
 as with the Regeneration^ so zvith t/ie food, by analogy thei'e- 
 with — one and the other are alike spiritjtal. Ka^aVs^ ^g 
 7] avccyevvfjffig ccvaXo'/Mg, outoj zu) ri 7^o(pr] y'zyovz tm civ&^co'tcu 
 
 The ' ever-flowing waters,' then, wherewith the Divine 
 life is to be cherished in the heart, are to be interpreted, 
 so all I think will allow, of those confirming and strength- 
 ening gifts of the Holy Spirit, which, according to the 
 teaching of the Divine Word, follow upon the communica- 
 tion of the first gift of New Life. 
 
 But what is the thought involved in the line that
 
 THE DOCTRINES IMPLIED IN IT. I 77 
 
 follows ? ' Receive (from day to day)* the honey-sweet 
 Food of the Saviour of the Saints :' — 
 
 ^uryj^og ^' ayicov [JbiXitihscc Xcc[Jty(ic6VS (^^ajaiv. 
 
 Without excluding that thought which to most ears 
 will at once be suggested by these words, I cannot but 
 think that the language of Scripture, and the comments 
 of early Fathers, will lead us to see another meaning as 
 at least suggested by the words before us. 
 
 The very word (io^trig takes us at once (as some earlier 
 commentators on this monument have observed) to the 
 Fourth Chapter of St. John : ' I have a meat {(B^ajaig) to 
 eat that ye know not of. My meat (;? Ifirj (5§SJaig) is to do 
 the will of my Father which is in heaven.' 
 
 These words we may in a sense apply to ourselves ; nor 
 should we, I think, in so doing run counter at all to the 
 mind of the writer of this Inscription. But yet the language 
 of the earlier teachers of the Church, and the context of 
 the present passage, would lead us to think that the food 
 here spoken of is the food which the Saviour of the Saints 
 ministers to them that are His. And that special food 
 that in this line is spoken of I believe to be the Word 
 of Truth, ^/le revealed Word, spoken of both in Scripture, 
 and In innumerable passages of early Fathers, as a food 
 whereby the spiritual life is fed. 
 
 In Holy Scripture, first; as when our Lord says that 
 ' man shall not live by bread alone,' bread for the support 
 
 * I add these words in order to the present imperative. See ' Eire- 
 bring out the special connotation nica,' part ii. note 50. 
 (continued or repeated action) of 
 
 N
 
 I 78 THE AUTUN INSCRirTION. 
 
 of his natural life ; but for the nurturing of that new life, 
 which is of the Spirit, ' by every word (p^/ooa) that proceedeth 
 out of the mouth of God.' And so St. Peter bids his Dis- 
 ciples, as newly-born babes {aoTiymf^ra. (i^sp}i), ' i(o long for 
 the Miiadullej^ated* milk of the Word, that tliey may grow 
 thereby! Life they have already received, but they need 
 food for the support of that life. That expression of St. 
 Peter's, however, is not so manifestly limited as is that of 
 St. Paul in another passage ; where, with evident reference 
 to teaching in the revealed word, he speaks of this as being 
 either milk suited for babes only, or as strong meat fitted 
 only for those who have made some advance towards 
 maturity of Christian life. (Heb. v, 12.) 
 
 With all this agrees the language of early Fathers, 
 both in East and West, who speak either of Divine 
 Revelation generally, or more particularly of the Books of 
 the Old and the New Testament, the teaching of Apostles 
 and Evangelists, as being a divine food, wherewith Christ 
 feedeth them that are His. 
 
 To St. Clement of Alexandria, for instance, Christ, 
 the personified t ' Wisdom ' of the Book of Wisdom (the 
 'TrXovrohornt ^o(pioi of this Inscription), is a 'TTT^yT^ (L(x.&rj(i,drm, a 
 Fountain from whose waters we may imbibe what most we 
 need to learn. (' Strom.' lib. vi. p. 786, Potter.) And the 
 same writer interprets the ' milk ' of which St. Paul speaks 
 
 * Ufiadtilterated : " AZoXov, The t It is this personification of 2o(/)m 
 
 expression is well illustrated by a which accounts, probably, for the 
 
 proverb quoted by St. Irenaeus, in use of the masculine form, ttXovto- 
 
 reference to heretical corruptions of dorrjg (for which see note, p. 150), 
 
 the divine word: ^Zade gyj>sum mate rather than, what by analogy we 
 
 miscetur.^ might have expected, TrXovro^oreipa.
 
 THE DOCTRINES IMPLIED IN IT. I 79 
 
 as being r^v yvoJaiv rrjv 1%. zarrf/riGic^t; kvar^ii^ovauv zlg ^ojrjv ai'hov, 
 that true knowledge which, resisting from instruction in the 
 faith, ministers food unto Hfe eternal. (' Psedag.' lib. i. c. vi.) 
 And in the same passage (p. 119, ed. Potter) he speaks of 
 the teaching of St. Paul as being a spiritual food (rvsv^jbariK^ 
 rgo<pri), and of the Apostle himself as instilling such a food 
 by that milk which is of Christ, that milk being the word : 
 
 And, in connexion with this Inscription, there is a spe- 
 cial interest in noting how the ' fish ' and the loaves, with 
 which, on more than one occasion, our Lord fed His dis- 
 ciples, were interpreted by Fathers both of East and West. 
 Passages have been already quoted (p. 122) which may 
 serve as examples of many more that might be alleged. 
 They show that, in the eyes of these earlier teachers of the 
 Church, this food which, with a mystical significance, our 
 Lord distributed, was typical of the Word of God contained 
 in Holy Scripttcres of the Old and of the New Testament. 
 
 And putting together now these two interpretations 
 upon which we have been dwelling — one pointing to the 
 Holy Spirit, or the grace of God, as man's spiritual food ; 
 the other to the word of God, or His revealed truth — we 
 find that the language of this Inscription, in the lines now 
 before us, is an exact reproduction of precepts of Holy 
 Scripture. Such, for example, is that of St. Peter (2 Pet. 
 iii. 18), bidding the young Christian not to fall away from 
 his own 'stay' {(rrri^iy^k), or source of steadfastness, but to 
 grow in grace and in knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ 
 {ccv^dviTi Iv yji^iri xcc} yvcuan rov Kv^iov). And so St. Paul 
 (Col. i. 10) speaks of his prayer for his own children in the 
 faith being this, that they may .... g-row by ever higher
 
 l8o THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 
 
 knowledge of God {av\(ivo[Livoi r^ I'Tnyvooazi rov ©sou' such, 
 probably, is the true reading). 
 
 And, lastly, this thought of needful food wherewith to 
 sustain that new life which is God's gift to the regenerated 
 man, found expression in an usage which was of wide 
 extent, though not of universal occurrence, in the early 
 Church — that of giving honey and milk to the newly bap- 
 tized. To this usage, and to the thought therein embodied, 
 there may probably be an allusion in the- ' honey-sweet ' 
 food spoken of in the text. 
 
 3. Tke Feeding tip on Christ crucified, which is in 
 Holy Communion. 
 
 The line which next follows carries on our thoughts to 
 that feeding upon the Body given for us on the Cross, which 
 is vouchsafed to faithful souls in the act of Communion 
 at the Table of the Lord : 
 
 ' Eat, with a longing htmger, holding Ichthus in thine hands. ' 
 
 There is here exactly the combination of Scriptural 
 thought, and of symbolical expression characteristic of the 
 earlier Church, which, in view of the date assigned to the 
 monument {circ. 400 a.d.), we might antecedently have 
 expected to find. Of Scriptural thought, first ; for that 
 longing hunger of the heart, which is here beautifully ex- 
 pressed in a single word {^ivduv ■=. '?nivdoov), is that which, in 
 Holy Scripture, is again and again set before us as the true 
 preparation of the soul that would be filled with the ' good
 
 THE DOCTRINES IMPLIED IN IT. I 8 I 
 
 things ' of the Lord. ' Blessed are they that hunger ' {pi 
 ■Tzivuvng, the very same word) ' and thirst after rightcotisness, 
 for they shall be filled' ' If any man thirst, let him come 
 unto me and drink! And in close agreement with this is 
 the language of early Fathers in all parts of the Church. 
 ' The Lo7'd fecdeth to the full them that hunger for the 
 word : such is the language of one.* ' We have been taught ! 
 says another,t and he one of the * Apostles ' of central Gaul, 
 ' with hunger to receive that food which is bestowed on us 
 of God! And again, the word 'I^^J?, as we have already 
 seen (p. 123), carried back the thought of the faithful in 
 early times to Christ, and more especially to Christ cruci- 
 fied,;]: in respect that His Body offered for us to God, and 
 His Blood outpoured on our behalf, are the spiritual food 
 given to us of God, whereby believing souls may be fed 
 unto life eternal. 
 
 I am unwilling to quit this portion of my subject without 
 referring, though very briefly, to another Inscription,§ the 
 date of which, however, is uncertain, and its true text, in 
 many parts of it, hopelessly corrupt. But in the symbolical 
 language therein employed in reference to the Holy Eucha- 
 
 * Clement. Alex. Psedag. lib. i. again by Cardinal Pitra (' Spicil. So- 
 
 c. vi. 'O Kupeoc £Kdpi\pei roiig Tret- lesm.' iii. p. 532), after comparison 
 
 vbiyrac rov \6yov. of seven manuscripts in the Imperial 
 
 f S. Irenrei adv. Haeres. lib. v. Library at Paris. Padre Garrucci 
 
 c. xxii. : ' Nos docuit . . esurienter gives an ingenious, but purely con- 
 
 sustinere (? i/Tro^E^eo-Oat) eam quae a jectural, restoration of it, Xkvo. Roman 
 
 Deo datur escam.' authorship of which is, I need hardly 
 
 X ^ Fiscis assus, Christus passus.' say, sufficiently evident. ('Melanges 
 
 § Edited by Halloixius, in his d'Epigraphie ancienne,' p. i. Paris, 
 
 ' Collectio Orientalium Patrum;' and 1856.)
 
 I 82 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 
 
 rist, it presents a curious parallel to that now under our 
 consideration. I refer to the Epitaph of Abercius, Bishop 
 of Hierapolis, in Phrygia. He writes his own epitaph by 
 anticipation ; and after describing his travels in different 
 parts of the world, he speaks of certain as ' gathering 
 together with him,' and then proceeds as follows : — 
 
 riifTTig ^£ "TT^og^ys 
 
 Keel 'Ta^idi^zB r^o(p^v, 'Ix&vv [? 6zia,g or %ccj] k'TCo 'Trriyijg, 
 
 Woifjj^iyi&TI, zccdoi^ov, ov ih^d^ccro Troc^&zvog ayvri' 
 
 Ka< rovrov iTshcozz (piXotg 'i(T0&iv hiKTruvrog, 
 
 OJvov y^^j^fTTOv 'iy^ov(jOi, zsgoc<T(jj(x, hihomoc [Mt agrov. 
 
 ' Faith brought to us, and set before us. Food, 
 a Fish from a [? holy or divine] Fount, great and 
 clean, which the holy Maiden* took in her hand, 
 and gave it to her friends, that they should alway 
 eat thereof, holding goodly wine, giving, with 
 bread, a mingled drink.' 
 
 3. Christ' s Presence in the Honr of Death. 
 
 The next two lines open up an entirely new subject, to 
 which, however, those already quoted lead us up as by 
 natural sequence : — 
 
 * The holy [virgin] Maiden is the eyes of Padre Garrucci and Dr. 
 
 evidently, from the context, Faith, Northcote, the -Kapdkvoc, liyvri can 
 
 personified. The absence of the ar- be no other than the Virgin Mary ; 
 
 tide with irapBeyog cannot be pressed and ' Faith ' to the former of the 
 
 in regard of lines so barbarous as two is not Faith, but ' the Church.' 
 many in this epitaph are. But in
 
 THE DOCTRINES IMPLIED IN IT. I 83 
 
 ' On Ichthus my hands are clasped : in Thy 
 love come nigh unto me, and be my guide, my 
 Lord and Saviour : I intreat Thee, Thou Lieht of 
 them for whom the hour of death is past :' 
 
 ^\x,&vi ^S'fS a^ccgoc' XiXako, hUTTora (raJrz^, 
 YjV^v (/jOi '^y^jryjo, (ts XiTdZ^o[M, (pSjg ro Savovrcov. 
 
 The exact translation of the lines before us cannot be 
 determined with certainty, till it can be ascertained* whether 
 the true reading of the second of these two lines be zvOv or 
 iv av. Whichever this be, the general sense is, I think, clear. 
 From thought of that feeding upon the Bread of Life (John, 
 vi. 51), which is the pledge to us of our not dying eternally, 
 and of our being delivered, not, indeed, from death, but 
 oiU^ ^ death, by the present power of our Lord, the transi- 
 tion is natural to a passage such as this, in which a prayer 
 
 * While these sheets were passing tl av f.101 liyrtTi'ip should be regarded 
 
 through the press I have had an as the actual wording of the original, 
 
 opportunity of examining the ori- [The correction of the workmajis 
 
 ginal Inscription, preserved in the XiXalu) into XiXaleo, a secimda maiiu, 
 
 Musee Lapidaire at Autun. Either is quite clear on the marble.] 
 €Y0Y MO I or CY0I MOI t Compare that which is said 
 
 may be regarded as not improbably (Heb. v. 7) of our Lord praying, in 
 
 the words with which the line be- the hour of His agony, to Him who 
 
 gins. But €Y CY MOI would was able auji^eiv avrov Ik davarov, 
 
 agree still better with the marble and of His prayer being heard (elar]- 
 
 itself. This expression appears a Koverdrj). The thought implied is 
 
 Aveak one, as compared with either that of death, followed by deliver- 
 
 of the two others. But the evidence ance ouf of death. Compare that 
 
 of actual text is of far more im- expression of the psalm, ' Great are 
 
 portance than individual fancy as the troubles of the righteous : but 
 
 to what text ought to be. And I the Lord delivereth him out of 
 
 incline to think that XiXaieo . . . all.'
 
 184 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 
 
 is offered to Christ, as the Light of them that have died, for 
 His guidance through the valley of Death to the bright 
 Paradise of rest and peace which lies beyond. 
 
 The thought here implied, of an intermediate state of 
 rest and peace for the godly, intervening between death 
 and the general resurrection, as again in another somewhat 
 similar inscription already quoted (see p. 142), is one which 
 in Holy Scripture is in many ways suggested, though not 
 drawn out (intentionally this, we may well believe) with any 
 clearness of definition. 
 
 Our Lord says to the penitent robber, ' Thou shalt be 
 with me in Paradise ' (not in heaven), and that not ' here- 
 after,' not 'at the last day,' not 'at my coming' {\v ry Ta^ovffia 
 (ji>ov\ but ' to-day :' ' Verily I say tcnto thee, This day shalt 
 thoic be with me in Paradise! And this thought of a greater 
 nearness to Christ (at least a more conscious nearness) being 
 vouchsafed to His holy servants after their ' departure,' is 
 plainly implied in more than one passage by St. Paul : as, 
 for example, when he says, that ' in a strait between two,' 
 between life and death, his own desire, in regard of himself, 
 was that he might ^depart, and be with Christ' (Phil. i. 23). 
 And very beautifully is a similar thought expressed in an- 
 other epistle, where he speaks of the quitting of our home 
 {k'xohniMuv) in the body being an entering upon our true 
 home with the Lord i^ivhri\x,7iaa.i -Tr^og rov Kvgiov). 2 Cor. v. 8. 
 
 That the truths shadowed out in expressions such as 
 these have been ' developed ' in mediaeval times into the 
 doctrine of Purgatory, with all the gross abuses, both of 
 belief and of practice, which have clustered about this doc- 
 trine ; this, surely, is no reason why we should shut our 
 eyes to that which the Apostles of Christ taught from the
 
 THE DOCTRINES IMPLIED IN IT. I 85 
 
 beginning. But it is doubtless a reason why in this, as in 
 other matters of revealed truth, we should not attempt to 
 lift the veil from that which God, in His wisdom, hath not 
 thought fit to reveal : it is a reason why in this, as in many 
 other matters of doctrine wherein men presumptuously define 
 what God, all-wise, hath left undefined, we should listen to 
 the warnings of great teachers of the early Church, 
 
 not curiously to pry into the secret things of God. For, as 
 the same thought has elsewhere been well expressed (by 
 whom first I know not) : 
 
 * Nescire velle, quoi Magistcr Optimus 
 Docere noji vulf, enedita inscitia est.' 
 
 4. The Farewell, btit not 'for ever', to those beloved 
 on earth. 
 
 Thoughts such as those dwelt on in the last section, and 
 which were familiar to Christian people in those early ages 
 of the Church from which this monument dates, lead on, by 
 natural sequence, to the simple but suggestive expressions 
 of family affection with which this Inscription ends : — 
 
 2yf (Jj\jlT^i yXuKS^y ?coii TToi&iv r~\p7(nv \^o7(nv 
 I[X0TN Ihcuv viov~\ (jjvrjfT&o YlzKTO^iov. 
 
 ' My Father Aschandeius, dear unto mine heart, 
 And thou, sweet Mother, and all I love on earth, 
 Oft as you look upon yon holy Sign of Christ, 
 So often think of me, Pectorius your son.'
 
 1 86 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 
 
 Though we cannot be sure of the exact wording of these 
 conckiding Hues, enough remains of them to guide us, with 
 all but certainty, to their general meaning. The consent 
 (with scarce an exception) of interpreters of all schools, in 
 all but minute points of expression, constitutes a strong pre- 
 sumption that we are not far from the truth, though we can 
 hardly expect exactly to have divined it. Enough remains 
 to enable us to see in this, as in so many other Christian 
 monuments of early Christendom, an evidence of the marked 
 contrast "of feeling between Pagan and Christian thought in 
 regard of death. In a Roman monument, which I had 
 occasion to publish* not long since, a father (Caius Sestius 
 by name) is represented bidding farewell to his daughter ; 
 and two words, ' Vale ^ternom ' — Farewell, for ever, 
 give an expressive utterance to the feeling of blank and 
 hopeless severance with which Greeks and Romans were 
 burdened when the reality of death was before their eyes. 
 But in the lines before us there breathes the assurance of 
 Christian faith, that those we have loved on earth still live, 
 and are still ours, after the hand of death has separated 
 them from us for a while. 
 
 Recapitulation. 
 
 In conclusion, I may briefly sum up the truths, which, 
 under the veil of a symbolism now well-nigh forgotten, come 
 before us in the language of this Inscription. 
 
 Christ is here set forth as the cause of the regenerate 
 life to man. This life, imparted at the first in heavenly 
 
 * Vest. Christ. PI. i.
 
 THE DOCTRINES IMPLIED IN IT. I 87 
 
 waters (ver. 2), is not a gift only, but a gift that entails re- 
 sponsibility — even this, that we cherish that life by drinkino- 
 of the unfailing streams of God's Holy Spirit (ver. 3, 4) ; 
 streams at once of grace and of knowledge. And yet 
 further, Christ, the Healer and Deliverer of His saints (lajrrjo 
 ccylc>jv)y is not only the Source of new life to them that are 
 His, when first admitted into the kingdom of His grace, 
 but the Food and Sustenance of their spiritual life from the 
 beginning even unto the end — ' Christus passtcs,' is in such 
 sense ' Piscis assus' that His Body given for us on the cross 
 is, in a mystery beyond our understanding, but not beyond 
 our faith, the food whereof they eat and drink whom Christ 
 hath made His own. And the same Saviour ceaseth not 
 from His care for us when the short span of our life is at an 
 end : He is our guiding Light through the dark valley 
 to the Paradise of light and rest which lieth beyond, the 
 Light of them that have died in the faith, as He is the 
 Liofht of them that live therein. All these are truths which 
 find expression in the touching memorial of primitive Chris- 
 tian belief, the representation of which is now in your hands. 
 I, for one, cannot but feel, that in tracing, under a symbolism 
 which belonged to an age now long since passed, the truths 
 which are our common inheritance, we are dealing with 
 antiquity more truly, and withal more reverently, than if our 
 first, perhaps our only thought, were to seek support there- 
 from for some modern formula of controversial theology, 
 unknown alike to Scripture and to the primitive Church. 
 If new formulse for the expression of sacramental truths be 
 indeed a necessity, let us seek to make them, as was this 
 IX0TC symbol of old, a watchword of love and peace, 
 and of unity with one and the same Saviour ; not a Shib-
 
 1 88 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 
 
 boleth of division, which shall sunder in two hostile camps 
 those whom God has bidden as brethren to dwell together 
 in unity. 
 
 Yet one lesson more, however, and one much needed 
 in these days, the contemplation of a monument such as 
 this may well teach us. We may see herein an evidence 
 that the same primitive truths, of divine revelation, may be 
 held, in common with ourselves, by men who, from peculi- 
 arities of previous habit, or of outward circumstance, through 
 the diverse influences of varying times and different coun- 
 tries, have learnt to express their belief under very different 
 forms. We may thankfully believe this for our comfort, 
 even in these days, when controversy is so bitter upon this 
 Sacrament of Peace ; believe, and thankfully, that men differ 
 far less in the reality of their own belief, than they differ in 
 respect of the diverse formulae. Scriptural, Patristic, or 
 mediaeval and modern, under which they give expression to 
 that belief
 
 APPENDIX.
 
 A. 
 
 Oti the Terms of Worship, Aar^s/a and n^oT%.vvf^fjic, employed 
 in Scripture and in the early Fathers. 
 
 In the title given to the first paper in this series I have purposely avoided 
 using the term Mariolatry, because, in doing so, I should have assumed as 
 true, at first starting, what Roman writers would earnestly deny, viz. that 
 the worship now paid to the Virgin Mary in the Roman Church is such as 
 can only rightly be rendered unto God. 
 
 I need hardly remind any readers of this volume, that Roman theo- 
 logians distinguish* carefiiUy between the ttrms, Doiileia and Za^rm, and 
 Cultus, answering to our own ' Worship ' in its older and more compre- 
 hensive use. This last is a generic term, embracing various kinds of worship, 
 both that which is proper to God alone, and that which may be rendered 
 to men (as, e. g., to ' worshipful ' magistrates and others in authority). And 
 when they would distinguish accurately, and in technical terms, these two 
 kinds of worship, they make use of the two words, Doulia {^ovXela) and 
 Latria (XarpEia), which they have adopted from the Greek for the purpose. 
 
 Lastly, the word Adoratio (with adofarc), and its equivalent, the Greek 
 TrporrKvi'Tja-iQ, are terms which they regard as properly importing Divine 
 worship, but which are not to be considered as absolutely limited to such 
 use. 
 
 Latria. 
 
 As to Latria, then (as far as the word is concerned), there is no dif- 
 ference between the Roman Church and our own. Both are agreed that 
 there is a kind of worship which should be offered to God, and to God 
 alone. Both are agreed that the term Xarpela is in Holy Scripture, and in 
 ecclesiastical use, used always with reference to such worship. As to this 
 word, therefore, no detailed notice is necessary. 
 
 * See Petavius, 'De Theolog. Dogmat.' lib. xv. c. ii s(/i/.
 
 192 APPENDIX. 
 
 But the two words, TrpoaicuyrjenQ and adoratio {Tz^oaKWEiv and adorare), 
 have an important history attaching to them, and in making this history 
 clear we shall have advanced a long way towards the solution of some 
 difficult theological problems. 
 
 It will be convenient to distinguish the uses of these terms in four 
 periods. 
 
 § I. X\^oaKvvr\aiQ rt';^^ Adoratio in Classical Use. 
 
 In order to understand the use of these words in the earlier writers, 
 before the Christian era, we must bear in mind the strong contrast of feeling 
 between the servile nations of the East, habitually under despotic govern- 
 ment, and the free nations of the West, to whom an absolutely despotic 
 government was wholly exceptional, and utterly repugnant. 
 
 That difference of feeling showed itself among other things in this, that 
 Eastern peoples prostrated themselves with the same attitude of outward 
 adoration (upon their knees, and even with their faces touching the ground) 
 before their kings, as they did before their gods. But to the free Greek, 
 and to the Roman, such abject deference was utterly contemptible, and 
 held unworthy of any true man. They would bow themselves before their 
 gods; they would not bow themselves, in the like attitude of prostrate 
 supplication, before men. 
 
 This feeling is well illustrated by a story told by Herodotus (lib. vii. 
 c. 136). He is speaking of the two Spartans who volunteered to give 
 themselves up to Xerxes, in atonement for the violence done to the envoys 
 from Darius. When they came into the king's presence, the guards in 
 attendance tried to force them to prostrate themselves, in Eastern fashion, 
 before the king : TrpocTKvreeiy ftaanXia Trpofnriri'oyTag. But they said that no 
 force should compel them to do this, for they were not in the habit of pro- 
 strating themselves before any 7?iere vian : ovte yap acpi Iv vo/zw elyai 
 avdpujTroy irpoaKwhiv* With this may be compared Xenophon. Anab. 
 i. 6, § 10. To the same effect are the words of Q. Curtius (' De Rebus 
 Gestis,' &c. lib. viii. c. 5, § 6). Speaking of a time when Alexander the 
 Great claimed to be the son of Jupiter, and to be approached with divine 
 honours, he says, that, in accordance with his wish, the Macedonians 
 ' venerabutidos ipsiwi salutare, more Persarum, prosternentes humi corpora.' 
 
 * Compare Aristotle, ' Rhet.' i. 5, 9. ceremonies, i. e. unknown to Greek usage. 
 
 After defining t/^>5, 'honour,' as being and these are •r^ixrxvt'nirus ku) iKtrraftis, 
 
 ffnfiiiov lui^yiTHiYis So|»f , he enumerates a bodily prostrations, and other such extrava- 
 
 variety of ways in which honour is custom- gancies. 
 arily shown, and then adds ra, fia^fiu^iKx,
 
 TERMS OF WORSIIir. I 93 
 
 But perhaps the most suggestive passage of all, referring to this subject, 
 is that of Plutarch in the life of Themistocles, where he says, that on 
 Themistocles coming to the Persian court he was instructed by Artabanus 
 to prostrate himself, after the Persian fashion, before the king, if admitted 
 into his presence. ' You Greeks,' added the Persian, ' are said to regard 
 liberty and equality more than aught else ; but we Persians have many 
 good customs, and among them all none better than this of honouring the 
 king, and luorshipp'uig him as the image of God^ 7uho is the Saviour of all 
 .... For the customs of our country suffer not that the king should give 
 ear to any who hath not first (worshipped) done him homage.' Bao-tXel 
 ya^ ov Tvarpiov aySpog ciKpodrrBai f.u) TrpoaKvin'jfTai'rcQ. 
 
 § 2. Use of these Terms in Holy Seripture. 
 
 The passages above quoted will suffice to show the marked difference 
 of feeling between East and West in this matter of prostration. And this 
 difference it is important to bear in mind for the due understanding of 
 Holy Scripture. A native of Syria, or of other Eastern lands, might 
 {TrpofTKvvtii') prostrate himself before another, without necessarily implying 
 any greater homage than he would show to a king, or other great personage, 
 far his own superior in rank. But when a Roman centurion irpoarKvyel, 
 prostrates himself before Peter, the latter raises him up, saying, ' Stand up ; 
 I myself also am a man ' (not a God, as the action of Cornelius would 
 import). And even in one brought up in Eastern habits, this irporTKyviqaLQ 
 is an attitude which (except to a king or an absolute master) imports 
 Divine honour. Hence that of the angel to St. John (Apocal. xix. 10), ' I 
 fell at his feet,' says St. John, irpoaKvyfiaai uvtm, ' to zvorship him. But he 
 said unto me, See thou do it not : I am thy felkno-scrvant . . Worship God.' 
 Tw Gew ■KpnrjKvvqrrov. The same words recur, almost verbatim,m ch. xxii. 8, 9. 
 
 From a review, then, of the New Testament usage of this word (which 
 agrees with that of the LXX.), we should infer, that the proper connotation 
 of the term is such a prostration as, even to Eastern idea, belonged primarily 
 to God, or to kings, as being as gods upon earth ; but which a slave might 
 also on occasion use (Matt, xviii. 26) in earnest entreaty to his lord ; or 
 one in grievous need (Matt. xv. 25), or abject misery, towards one whose 
 aid he would implore as being to him ' in the place of God.' 
 
 § 3. Use of Yl^oaKvvnaig ill early Christian Writers. 
 
 The use of the word ivpocrKvvrifnQ, as far as we have traced it hitherto, will 
 be found to be preserved, in ecclesiastical writers, vvithout any innovation, 
 
 O
 
 194 APPENDIX. 
 
 for 450 years; at the close of which tune we find the first indication of any 
 important change. 
 
 That use may best be illustrated, in reference to our present subject 
 (that of the Cultus of the Virgin Mary), by the following remarkable 
 passage of St. Epiphanius, the ' five-tongued ' Bishop of Constantia in 
 Cyprus, circ. 370 a.d. 
 
 He is referring to a sect of heretics in Arabia, known as Collyridians. 
 Rebutting their blasphemous language and idolatrous rites he says, 
 ' Honour'cd let her [Mary] be : but let worship be paid to the Father, the 
 Son, and the Holy Ghost :' 'Ei/ Ti^r\ earrw' aXka IlaT))p Kal Yloe teal 
 "Ayioj' Ui'EVfxa TrpoaKweicrdu). ' Let none worship Mary :' Tt)y Mapiav 
 l^r]^elg TvpoaKvveiru). Similar passages occur again and again throughout 
 this section of his treatise. [Haeres. 79.] 
 
 It may be asked, how it should be that in Epiphanius alone assertions 
 such as these are to be found ? The reply is a very simple one : that in 
 no part of the Church, whether in East or West, had the idea of worshipping 
 the Virgin Mary {or showing her honours which could be regarded as im- 
 porting Divine worship) anywhere been heard of till, in Epiphanius' time, 
 two sects made their appearance in Arabia ; one of which was known as 
 that of the Antidicomariani, because of their denying the virginity of the 
 Mother of our Lord, the other as Collyridians, because of the extravagant 
 honours they paid her, and expressly their bringing offerings of cakes 
 {collyria), possibly with a kind of parody upon the ' oblation ' of bread and 
 wine made in the Holy Eucharist. 
 
 These heresies having arisen (the one probably a reaction against the 
 other), Epiphanius impartially condemns them both, saying again and 
 again (for what concerns our present question) what I have quoted above, 
 though with slight variations of expression. 
 
 But I may add further, that what St. Epiphanius says in direct terms, 
 and unmistakably, is afhrmed again and again, by implication, by other 
 Fathers ; as, for instance, by St. Athanasius and St. Cyril of Alexandria. 
 They carefully define, not Xarpela, '/atria,' only, but TrpoaKvi'rjtnQ, as due to 
 God alone. So much so, that, even as regards our blessed Lord, they 
 affirm that worship {■n-poaKvvrjaig) is due to Him in respect of His divine 
 nature, not in respect of His human nature, immediately and directly, and 
 regarded as ideally (though not truly) separable from His Divinity. Thus, 
 St. Athanasius, for example (quoted by Suicer), writes,* ' T/ie creature 
 worships tiot the creature; but the servant worships his master, and the 
 
 * Orat. III. contr. Arianos, torn. i. p. 394.
 
 TERMS OF WORSHIP. I 95 
 
 creature worships God :' Kr/ir^o KTiafxa nv TrpoaKvrel, ciXXo i)oii\or hmrurrji', 
 Kai KTiaixa Qeuy. Then, after allusion to the 'worship' of the centurion 
 rejected by St. Peter (Acts, x. 25), and that of St. John rejected by the 
 angel, he adds, Ovkovv Qeov Ian fiovov to Trpoa-KvpElerdai' ' To God al07ie, 
 therefore^ is worship due.' 
 
 § 4. Change in the Usage of UpoaKvv^aig, circ. 450 A.D. 
 
 The very earliest Avriter (as far as I have observed) who innovates upon 
 this older use of TrpoaKvrrja-iQ, 'adoration,' is St. Proclus, Patriarch of Con- 
 stantinople circ. 450 A.D., a highly rhetorical writer, who, in direct contra- 
 diction (as far as words are concerned) to St. Epiphanius, already quoted, 
 asserts that TrpoaKvvrjeTLQ* or ' adoration,' is rendered to the Virgin Mary. 
 After enumerating the noble and saintly women of earlier times, and saying 
 that praise is given to one, admiration to another, and the like, he ends by 
 saying that ' to Mary also worship is given ' (TrpoarKwelTcn ical 1) Mapla), 
 because she has become Mother, and Handmaid, and Cloud, and Bridal 
 Chamber (daXa/doc), and the Ark of Him who ruleth over all. 
 
 It is not difficult to account for this change, and Constantinople is the 
 place of all others in which we might expect to find the first indications of 
 it. For in the four hundred years, or more, which had already elapsed 
 since the establishment of Imperialism at Rome (and later at Constanti- 
 nople), a complete change had been effected in the habits of Western 
 nations in that matter of outward prostrations before men. 
 
 The etiquette and ceremonial of the Imperial court, at Rome first, and 
 afterward more fully at Constantinople, were modelled in great part upon 
 the traditions of the despotic courts of the East. And that servile adulation 
 of the Emperors, as gods upon earth, of which we find traces even in 
 Horace, found expression, habitually, at a later time, in ' adoration ' at 
 Rome, and in TrpoaKvyijanc, or abject bodily prostration, at Byzantium, such 
 as the free Greeks and Romans of earlier times would have regarded as fit 
 only for slaves and barbarians. f These extravagant honours were paid not 
 only to thre Emperors themselves, when actually present, but to their 
 images, and even to letters purporting to contain their ' celestial words,' 
 or the expression of their ' sacred will.' 
 
 This outward homage, adopted first while the Empire was in open 
 opposition to Christianity, was aftenvard continued in the case of Christian 
 
 * S. Procli Laudatio Deiparae Virginis, iv. p. 343. Combefis Auctarium Bibl. Patt. 
 Fol. Paris. 1648. + See note above, p. 192.
 
 1 96 APPENDIX. 
 
 Emperors. And thus the old notion common to classical antiquity, and to 
 Holy Scripture, o( TrpoaKvyrjaiQ, or 'adoration,' being due to God alone, 
 became more and more weakened ; and abject servility towards earthly 
 princes paved the way for a worship which, by degrees, became idolatrous 
 (in practice, though not in theory), of angels, of saints, and among these 
 more especially of the Virgin Mary. 
 
 And the lax use of words importing worship, and the breaking down of the 
 older ecclesiastical distinctions, already traced, between n/jdy and irporrKvyelv, 
 between co/ere and adorare, which takes its first beginning from the close of 
 the fifth century, or thereabouts, is the natural expression of this change in 
 actual practice. In mediaeval usage, as we have already seen, adorare is 
 the word . used of the homage paid to an Emperor by the Pope who had 
 just crowned him (above, p. loi). And at a later period still (early in the 
 fifteenth century), of which we have also had occasion to speak in con- 
 nexion with the Council of Florence, we find the word T^poaKwtlv used by 
 the Greeks from Constantinople (Syropylus and others) of every kind of 
 formal salutation, from the most abject prostration to a simple inclination 
 of the head, or kissing of the hand. 
 
 B. 
 
 The Teaching of the early Fathers cojicerning the 
 Virgin Mary, 
 
 The evidence of Christian art already summed up in the earlier pages (pp. 
 60, 61) of this volume is such as to show that, in the more public monu- 
 ments expressive of the deliberate belief of the Church, no change was 
 made for upwards of five hundred years in the representations of the Virgin 
 Mary, such as would support, in any way, the later developments of doctrine 
 concerning her, both in the Roman Church and, in a much less degree, in 
 the various Churches of the East. 
 
 But towards the close of that period, as we have seen reason to think, 
 traces may be found in less important works of Christian art, such as the 
 Vetri Antichi, of a change having already begun, coincident in time with 
 that utter decay of primitive learning which followed closely after the 
 invasions of barbarians in all the countries of Europe, of Africa, and of the
 
 TEACHING OF i:arly fathers. 197 
 
 East, which they successively overran. The conclusions to wliich these 
 facts point are strongly confirmed by literary evidence. 
 
 For four hundred and fifty years, or more, the language of the greatest 
 teachers of the Church, upon this subject, is directly contradictory to 
 modern Roman doctrine. 
 
 Petavius himself* quotes, among others of less note, St. Basil of Caesarea, 
 St. John Chrysostom, and St. Cyril of Alexandria, as using language which 
 he, by no means extreme among Roman theologians, on this subject, can 
 only describe as ' i/ifaiida,' not fit to be uttered. 
 
 The following are the passages which he quotes : — 
 
 I. St. Basil. (379 a.d.) 
 
 S. Basilii Cees. Cappod. Archiepisc. [0pp. Omnia. Ed. Benedict. 3 foil. 
 Fol. Paris, 1730], ep. cclx. ad Jin. [tom. iii. p. 400 d]. Commenting on 
 the words, ' A sword shall go through thine own soul also,' he says, that 
 these words have reference to the time of our Lord's Passion — that when 
 Mary saw the things which were done, and heard the words from the cross 
 — then, albeit she had heard the witness of Gabriel, and had learnt the 
 secret things of the Lord as concerning the divine conception, and had seen 
 Christ manifested in many miracles, yet would her soul then be tossed tipon 
 waves of doubt : ■yevijrTerai (prjai rig Kal Trepi t)jv a))i' \pv)(^i)v (tciXoc. 'For 
 need there was,' he proceeds, ' that the Lord should taste of death for every 
 man, and having become a propitiation for the world, that He should justify 
 all men in His own blood. Therefore shall something of doubt (that is, 
 the sword) affect thee also, though thou hast been taught from above the 
 things concerning the Lord, that so thoughts' (ctaXoytrrjuo/* literally, dis- 
 putings, and so doubts) ' out of many hearts may be revealed. In this he 
 intimateth to us, that after the offence, both to the disciples and to Mary, that 
 was caused by the cross of Christ, a speedy healing should follow from, the 
 Lord, confirnii?ig their hearts to faith in Him.' 
 
 The language of St. Chrysostom, which follows, is much stronger. 
 
 2. St. Chrysostom. (407 a.d.) 
 
 Hom. in Matt. xliv. al. xlv. [Migne, t. vii. p. 525.] Referring to the 
 words, ' Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking to speak 
 unto thee,' and to our Lord's reply, ' Who is my mother?' &c., St. Chrysostom 
 writes as follows : — 'This He spake, not as one ashamed of his mother, 
 
 * Theolog. Dogm. de Incarnat. lib. xiv. cap. i.
 
 igS APPENDIX. 
 
 nor as denying her that bare Him, for if He had felt such shame He would 
 not have passed through that womb, but in order to show that from this 
 fact [of her giving birth to the Saviour] she will have no benefit, unless in 
 all things she doeth what is right. For what she then took in hand to do 
 gave proof of excessive ambition (0t\ori/im), for she was desirous of showing 
 to the people how she bare rule, at her own will, over her Son ; for as yet 
 she had no exalted thoughts concerning Him. And for this reason her 
 coming was unseasonable. See, for instance, the thoughtlessness (aTrovoia) 
 both of her and them. For whereas they ought to have entered in with 
 the multitude, and have listened, or, if they would not do this, to have 
 waited till the Lord had closed His discourse, and then have approached 
 Him, yet do they summon Him out ; and they do this in the sight of all, 
 therein showing great ambition, and wishing to prove that with great au- 
 thority they lay their commands upon Him. And the Evangelist showeth 
 that He chargeth this upon them ' . . . And so on, more to the same 
 effect. With this compare his Hom. xxi. on St. John [Migne, t. viii. p. 141], 
 where he uses similar language, saying that she wished both to gratify His 
 brethren and to make herself more distinguished by means of her Son. So 
 again his Hom. iv. in Matt, i., where, speaking of the Annunciation, he 
 mentions her asking, ' How shall these things, be ?' &c., as a proof of 
 human frailty [want of faith] on her part. 
 
 3. St. Cyril of Alexandria. (444 a.d.) 
 
 This writer, who was regarded by his contemporaries in the fifth century 
 as the great champion of the true faith, uses language concerning the Virgin 
 Mary closely resembling that of St. Chrysostom, and which is, in some 
 respects, even more disparaging ; as when, for example, he says that none 
 can wonder that she, as a mere woman, should have given proof of a want 
 of faith, such as even Peter was not exempt from. {0pp. torn. iv. pp. 
 1064, 1065.) 
 
 Such is the language of the Fathers for the first five hundred years ; and 
 what can a writer so learned as Petavius allege in reply ? First, that in his 
 opinion the reasons are very weak on which these various Fathers ground 
 their statements. It is strange that he, and that others who follow in his 
 wake, should not see, that, whether those reasons be strong or weak, is a 
 question which in no way invalidates the conclusion that no such doctrine as 
 the Ro77ian CMp'ch now holds coidd have been ever dreamed of at the time 
 when St. Chrysostom, St. Basil, St. Cyril, and the rest whom he quotes, 
 wrote and spoke in the terms they did.
 
 TEACHING OF EARLY FATHERS. 1 99 
 
 Language of St. Augistine. 
 
 But he has another answer to make, which requires somewhat fuller 
 consideration. He appeals (as writers of his school always do) to a well- 
 known passage of St. Augustine, which he describes as a testimony in proof 
 that the Virgin Mary was never guilty of any act of sin (' nwiquam actuate 
 pcccatum ad/nisisse'). How far this holds good my readers may best judge 
 by examining the passage itself. Before doing so, however, it may be well 
 to remind ourselves what was the teaching of St. Augustine in other passages 
 concerning ' Christ alone without sin.' 
 
 The following passages will serve to show what this was : — 
 
 ' De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione,' lib. i. c. 29. — ' One only was 
 born toiihout sin, whom a Virgin conceived.' ' Solus sine peccato natus 
 est, quem sine virili complexu, non concupiscentia carnis, sed obedientia 
 mentis, virgo concepit.' 
 
 Ibid. lib. xi. c. i. — He states the subject of his present inquiry to be, 
 whether any one was either then living, or had lived in time past, or ever 
 would live, while the world lasted, without any sin whatsoever (' sine tdlo 
 onuiino peccato'), 'with the exception of the one Mediator between God and 
 men, the man Christ Jesus.' 
 
 Ibid. c. 20. — In this chapter he answers the question by saying, that, 
 with the one exception named, it is most certain that no such person either 
 had been or ever would be. ' Hunc [/. e. one free from all sin] prorsus 
 nisi unum mediatorem . . . nullum vel esse, vel fuisse, vel futurum esse.' 
 
 Ibid. c. 24. — Like many other passages relating to the Virgin Mary, 
 this, for obvious reasons, has been corrupted by the later copyists. In a 
 very remarkable passage, St. Augustine is speaking of the points at once of 
 likeness and of unlikeness between human nature as it is in us, and that 
 same human nature as it is in Christ ; between that divine nature which is 
 inherent in Him, and that divine nature of which we are made ' partakers.' 
 He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, whereas we are born in sinful 
 flesh. And he concludes, ' Solus ergo ille etiam homo f actus, manens Deiis, 
 peccatum indium habuit unquam, nee sumpsit carnem peccati quamvis de 
 materna came peccati.^ He, therefore, and He only, remaining God even 
 when He became man, had never sin at any time ; nor did He take upon 
 Him a flesh that was of sin [sinful], albeit the flesh of His mother, whence 
 He derived His, was of sin [sinful]. ^ 
 
 The reading ' materna came peccati ' (which is that of the Benedictines) 
 rests on the authority of the ' Vetustissimus Codex Corbeiensis,' and all the 
 other Galilean MSS. (two only excepted), and of all that were examined by
 
 200 APPENDIX* 
 
 the Louvain editors. Two of the Sorbonne MSS. and one at Monte Casale 
 read ' de materia carnis peccati f but printed editions earlier than the Bene- 
 dictine commonly altered the text, and read ^ de natura earnis peccati' 
 
 Ibid. c. 35. — He repeats his strong assertion in a yet stronger form : — 
 ' Teneamus ergo indeclinabilem fidei confessionem. Solus unus est qui 
 sine peccato natus est in similitudine carnis peccati, sine peccato vixit 
 inter aliena peccata, sine peccato mortuus est propter nostra peccata.' 
 
 Such is the formal teaching of St. Augustine upon the question thus 
 formally proposed, and dogmatically answered. We may now consider the 
 only passage which Roman theologians, and those who think with them, 
 can quote with satisfaction upon this particular question from the Fathers, 
 whether in East or West, for upwards of four hundred years from the first 
 beginning of the Church. 
 
 It occurs in the treatise ' De Natura et Gratia' [Migne, t. x. p. 267,] 
 c. 36. Pelagius, while maintaining his own heretical opinions, had asserted 
 that ' Abel, Enoch, Melchisedec, Abraham, Isaac .... Simeon, Joseph, 
 John' (the Baptist) — and not man only but woman also — 'Deborah, 
 Anna, mother of Samuel, Judith, Esther, the other Anna, daughter of 
 Phanuel, Elizabeth, and also Mary, the very mother of our Lord and 
 Saviour ;' — that these had not only not sinned, but had lived righteously : 
 adding, as to the last of those enumerated above, that ' piety required us to 
 allow that she was without sin ' (' quam sine peccato esse confiteri necesse esse 
 pictati'). Referring to this St. Augustine writes as follows: — 'With the 
 exception, then, of the holy Virgin Mary, luhom, out of honour to the Lord, 
 I do not choose to have brought into question when we are speaking about acts 
 of sin .... with this exception, if we could gather together all those holy 
 men and women (for holy when living here on earth they were), and ask 
 them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose they would have 
 answered ? As Pelagius did, or as did John the Apostle [in saying, ' If we 
 have no sin,' &c.] ?' 
 
 Between the first and the second parts of the above there intervenes, as 
 I have indicated, a parenthesis, which I have reserved for separate notice. 
 The Benedictines read as follows : — 
 
 ' Unde eni77i scimus quid ei plus gratice collatum fuerit ad vincendum omni 
 ex parte peccattmi, qucB concipere ac par ere meruit quern constat mdhuji habuisse 
 peccatum V But out of sixteen manuscripts which they examined, two (two 
 of the five in the Vatican Library) gave the reading adopted by Thomas 
 Aquinas (p. iii, qu. 27, a. 4), '■ Inde enim scimus quod ei plus gratice collatum 
 fuerit ad inncendum 0. e. p. p. quod concipere et parere,' &c. 
 
 According to the first reading of the parenthesis (which is that oi all the
 
 TEACHING OF EARLY FATHERS. 20I 
 
 Gallican MSS. consulted by the Benedictines, and of three out of five of those 
 in the Vatican), the words Hterally translated mean, ' For hoiu do we knoia 
 7vhat more of grace, for the over coining of sin in every respect, 7vas bestotved 
 upon her, who tvas found worthy to conceive, and to give birth to, Him of 
 whom we know that He had no sin ?' According to the other, 'For it is 
 from this we hnoza that more grace 7aas bestotved upon her for the complete 
 conquering of sin, because she was found worthy to conceive, and to bear, Him 
 of zi' horn it is certaiji that He was without sin.' 
 
 Now let us consider what would result from this passage even if taken 
 in this latter form, which a Roman controversialist would naturally prefer. 
 We should have, first of all, the plainest possible condemnation from 
 St. Augustine of the doctrine now taught on the authority of the Roman 
 Church, viz. that the Virgin Mary was born free from all sin, original as 
 well as actual. For if, by greater measures of grace she was enabled com- 
 pletely to conquer sin, it follows that ' sin ' (not necessarily developed in 
 act, but yet existing as a power) was in her (so the context implies) to be 
 conquered. We should have, on the other hand, an assertion made by 
 St. Augustine, that ' we know that more grace was given her for the com- 
 plete conquest of sin, because she was deemed worthy to give birth unto 
 Him of whom it is certain that He was without sin.' That St. Augustine 
 ever rested a dogmatic assertion so momentous upon an inference so illo- 
 gical as this, it would require more than the authority of two Vatican MSS. 
 to convince me. But assuming, for argument's sake, that he ^\Tote it, the 
 utmost result would be this, — that St. Augustine, in so saying, asserts, as 
 an inference from our Lord's sinlessness, that the Virgin Mother completely 
 conquered sin. But if St. Augustine really said this, it would follow 
 further, first, that St. Augustine was, for once at least, an exceedingly illo- 
 gical reasoner ; and, secondly, that he was, in this special opinion of his, 
 in direct opposition to the greatest authorities of the early Church, such as 
 those already quoted. 
 
 All these grounds considered, there are few, I suppose, who would not 
 agree with the Benedictines, and other editors, in rejecting the reading 
 adopted by Aquinas, and found in two MSS. only. But if we fall back on 
 the reading of the Benedictines, we have a sentence which (under the form 
 of a question, ' Whence do we know?' &:c.) plainly imphes that we have no 
 knowledge whether the Virgin Mary did or did not completely conquer 
 sin ; and that, this being so, he will not have her brought into question in 
 such a matter, out of regard to the honour of the Lord. This want of 
 knowledge, in her case, is contrasted with the certainty that our Lord 
 Himself was without sin.
 
 202 APPENDIX. 
 
 Whichever reading* be the true one, there is clearly here a direct con- 
 tradiction to those very dogmas of modern Rome in support of which 
 the passage is alleged. 
 
 c. 
 
 Literary Evidence concerning the Bodily Asstmiption 
 of the Virgin Mary. 
 
 Upon this subject, as upon so many others, one Roman writer has copied 
 what he found asserted by others before him, apparently without ever veri- 
 fying the references given, and rarely adding anything to the statements 
 which they found ready to their hand. 
 
 I may refer, for an example of this, to Pelliccia (' De Christianse Ec- 
 clesije Politia,' libri sex. Neapoli, 1777). His statements are copied, 
 almost verbatim^ by the Abbe Martigni, in his recent ' Dictionary of Chris- 
 tian Antiquities ;' and certain writers among ourselves quote the book as 
 if its authority were unimpeachable. 
 
 He states (tom. ii. p. 69 sqq.), by way of proof of the very early date of 
 the Feast of the Assumption, that St. Gregory of Tours speaks of its being 
 observed in Gaul ; that Constantinus, Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, 
 refers to the same festival at the Seventh CEcumenical Council (i.e. Nicrea II. 
 in the eighth century) ; and, lastly, he appeals to what Anastasius the 
 Librarian records concerning Pojijc Sergius I., who lived in the seventh 
 century. 
 
 He does not quote the words of either one of those three, but he affirms 
 that they manifestly convict of error those who had pretended that the 
 festival in honour of the Assumption was not instituted before the ninth 
 century. [The Assumption itself being, as he had already stated, tJie ascent 
 of the Virgin Mary into heaven, body and soul together. ' Ecclesia enim 
 Mariam cselos petiisse anima pariter atque corpore docet.'] 
 
 Thus we have, according to Pelliccia, St. Gregory of Tours, in the sixth 
 
 * Mere conjectural readings are of little place of ^/^/V/ would make better Latin and 
 worth in the absence of MS. evidence; better sense of the passage, 
 otherwise I would suggest that (piin in
 
 ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN MARY. 2O3 
 
 century, Pope Sergius in the seventh, Constantinus in the eighth, all testi- 
 fying to the existence of this primitive belief, and of the festival by which 
 the event was commemorated. 
 
 Nothing can be more utterly untrue (though I have no doubt the 
 worthy Archbishop was not aware of his untruth) in respect of two out of 
 three references: the third I have been unable to verify — that of Constan- 
 tinus of Cyprus. 
 
 Gregory of Tours, to take him first, says not a word of the ' Festival of 
 the Assumption ' being held in Gaul. In the ' De Gloria Martynim,' lib. i. 
 c. 9, he refers to a festival {fcstivitas) in memory of the Virgin, celebrated 
 'mediante mense undecimo ;' i.e. (probably) on the i8th of January.* 
 Had he named the Feast, he would probably have called it the ' Dormitio,' 
 or ' falling asleep ;' i. e. the Death of the Virgin Mary. But even had he 
 used the word ' Assumptio,' it would not the least follow that he meant 
 what is nozv meant by ' the Assumption.'! For in those days, nay, even 
 two centuries earlier, as the language of Paulinus of Nola shows, this word 
 ' Assumptio ' was used in speaking of God ' taking to Himself ' any of His 
 saints : so that the- word, as such., would prove nothing at all, even if it had 
 been used. 
 
 But from another passage we learn what particular form of the many 
 stories current about the death of the Virgin St. Gregory had received. In 
 the fourth chapter of the ' Gloria Martyrum,' lib. i., he repeats the story 
 contained in the spurious ' Transitus Marise Virginis,' falsely ascribed to 
 Melito of Sardis. He says, that when the Virgin was about to be taken 
 from the world, the Apostles assembled from various countries, and came 
 to her house, and watched with her. ' And lo ! the Lord Jesus came with 
 His angels, and receiving her soul, delivered it to the Archangel Michael, 
 and so departed. At dawn the Apostles lifted up her body, with the couch 
 on which it lay, and laid it in a tomb, and kept watch over it, expecting 
 the coming of the Lord. And lo ! a second time He stood by them, and 
 receiving the holy body in a cloud, bade that it should be conveyed to 
 Paradise ; where now, her soul being reunited to the body, exulting, to- 
 gether with His elect, she enjoys the blessings of eternity, which shall 
 never end.' Her soul is in Paradise (not in heaven) according to St. Gre- 
 gory, as are the souls of God's elect departed this life. She differs from 
 
 • He generally speaks of the year as of St. Martin (' De Mir. S. Martini,' c. 32). 
 
 beginning with March. Bcde, and other Latin writers, use the 
 
 t Thus he speaks of the ' Assumptio ' of word in the same way in speaking of the 
 
 St. Andrew ('De G. M.' lib. i. c. 31) and 'departure' of the faithful.
 
 204 APPENDIX. 
 
 them, as it would seem, in St. Gregory's belief, in this only, that her 
 body is in Paradise as well as her soul. 
 
 But where is the ' ccelos pdiissc,' the ascending into heaven, both body 
 and soul, of which Pelliccia so confidently speaks ? Not one word of this 
 does St. Gregory say, from the beginning of his book to the end. 
 
 Failing this, what shall we say of Anastasius and Sergius I. ? The 
 passage referred to is this: — Sergius, anno Christi 687 (p. 164), 'Hie 
 statuit . . . . ut diebus Annuntiationis Domini, Nativitatis, et Dormitiojiis 
 Sanctce Del Genitricis .... litania exeat a Sancto Adriano^ &c. In other 
 words, he alludes to a festival known as the ' Dormitio,' or ' Falling asleep,' 
 of the Virgin Mary — the very same word which is constantly used in the 
 Catacombs, and elsewhere, of the death of the faithful generally ; and 
 Avhich, therefore, like the Greek title of this festival, the Koiixrjtne, proves 
 nothing at all as to any belief of her ' Assumption into Heaven.' 
 
 If the passage in the ' Actio Quarta ' of the Seventh General Council 
 could be found, I have little doubt that Constantinus would be found 
 speaking in like manner of the ' Koifi-qmg of the holy Theotokos ;' a phrase 
 which simply proves nothing as to the acceptance t/ie/i of a doctrine like 
 that of modern Rome. 
 
 The above will serve as examples of what Roman writers say. The 
 following will give some idea of what they leave wisaid. 
 
 One Adamanus (or Adamnanus) was abbot of a monastery ' in insula 
 Hye7isi^ off the coast of Scotland, and died, when nearly eighty years old, 
 in the year 704 a.d. He received in hospitality St. Arculfus, who had 
 been a traveller in the Holy Land, and took down from his lips a de- 
 scription of the holy places his visitor had seen.* 
 
 Upon the subject of the supposed Tomb of the Virgin Mary in the 
 Valley of Jehoshaphat he writes as follows :f — ' Sanctorum locorum sedulus 
 frequentator Sanctus Arculphus Sanctse Marias ecclesiamj in valle Josaphat 
 frequentabat cujus . . . . in orientali parte altarium habetur : ad dextram 
 vero ejus partem Sanctae Marise inest saxeum cavum sepulchrum, in quo 
 aliquando sepulta pausavit. Sed de eodem sepulchro quomodo, vel quo 
 tempore, vel a quibus personis, sanctum corpusculum ejus sit sublatum, 
 vel quo loco resurrectionem expect at nullus, 7 it fertur, pro certo scire potest. 
 . . . Ita nobis frater Arculphus pronuntiavit, sanctorum visitator locorum, 
 qui haec quae nos describimus propriis conspexit oculis.' 
 
 * De Locis Sanctis. Migne, P. C. C. J For details as to this church see Qua- 
 
 torn. Ixxxviii. p. 722 si/i/. resmius, ' Terra; Sanctii; Ehicidatio,' Ant- 
 
 t Ibid. lib. i. c. xiii. werp, fol. 1 639, torn. ii. pp. 23S, 248, &c.
 
 ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN MARY, 205 
 
 Such was the account given by Arculphus, coming fresh from the very 
 spot, even as late as the eighth century. He had seen tliere an empty 
 sepulchre, which, as he was told, and as he evidently believed, was that of 
 the Virgin Mary. But when, or by whom, the body had beeti removed, or in 
 what place it was awaiting the resurrection ; of this, he said, no one could say 
 anything for certain. 
 
 Gradual Development of the Apocryphal Story of the Assumption. 
 
 As an example of the way in which apocryphal legends of this kind 
 (since sanctioned as integral portions of the Christian faith by the Roman 
 Church) grew up and took shape in mediaeval times, it may be well to trace 
 this somewhat more carefully in its successive stages. 
 
 1. The first germ of it may be detected in an expression used by Epi- 
 phanius in the latter half of the fourth century. In his book on Heresies 
 (Hser. 78) he says, in speaking of the Virgin Mary, that Scripture is wholly 
 silent as to her later life : ' whether or no she went with St. John to Ephesus 
 — nay, whether she be dead or no, we know not :' Kav re olv ridrriKev ohic 
 eyvw^ev. Then he refers to two passages of Holy Scripture, which he 
 thinks may possibly contain traces of the truth concerning her. One is 
 that in the Revelation of St. John concerning the Dragon and the Woman, 
 to whom were given the wings of an eagle, that she fled away into the 
 wilderness, &:c. Of this he says, ' Perhaps this may be fulfilled in her [the 
 Virgin Mary] : yet do I not by any means so determine. And I say not 
 that she abode without death, but neither, on the other hand, do I afiirm 
 that she is dead.' 
 
 This ' not knowing ' and ' not affirming ' is the more notable, because 
 Epiphanius had been at Jerusalem among other places, and it is evident 
 that he knew nothing, either by tradition or otherwise, of a tomb of the 
 Virgin Mary in the Valley of Jehoshaphat. 
 
 2. This last remark applies equally to other Greek writers. Eusebius 
 (' In Vita Constantini '), Socrates (' Hist.' lib. i. c. xiii.), Sozomen (lib. i. 
 c. i.), speak of the holy places found in the time of Constantine, and none 
 of them make any mention of this. 
 
 3. Cardinal Baronius (ad ami. 48) quotes, as from the 'Chronicon' of 
 Eusebius, words (which I have been unable to find) to this effect. Writing 
 of the year 48 a.d. he represents him as saying, ^ Maria Virgo Christ i 
 Mater ad Filium in ccelum assumitur, ut quidam fiiisse sibi revelation 
 scribunt.''
 
 206 ArPENDIX. 
 
 If the passage be genuine (much of his ' Chronicon ' is not), it is indi- 
 cative of an early date (fourth century at the latest) for the first appearance 
 of the story, put out first (as this passage implies) by some private persons 
 on the faith of a supposed 'revelation' on the subject. Of these reve- 
 lations we shall hear more as we go on. 
 
 4. St. Jerome had lived many years at Bethlehem and at Jerusalem, 
 and often describes the holy places (as in his Epist. xxvii. and in the ' Liber 
 de Locis Hebraicis '), and nowhere makes any mention of this : nor does 
 he know anything of the Assumption into heaven of the Virgin Mary 
 herself [For the letter of the pseudo-Jerome see No. 8 below.] 
 
 But shortly after his time (so the evidence now to be adduced, if 
 genuine, would seem to prove) the discovery of an empty sepulchre, supposed 
 to be that of the Virgin Mary, must have taken place. According to Nice- 
 phorus (writing in the eleventh century), the Empress Pulcheria (who died 
 A.D. 453) asked the then Patriarch of Jerusalem (Juvenalis, sed. 429-457) 
 to send the relics of the Blessed Virgin to Constantinople, to be a pro- 
 tection to the Imperial city. The Patriarch replied (according to Nice- 
 phorus, ' Ecc. Hist.' lib. xv. c. xiv.) by telling her, on the authority of ' an 
 ancient and most true tradition,^ the story of the Assumption, much as we 
 find it in later authors. Nicephorus seems to have taken his details from 
 Dionysius the (so called) Areopagite.* 
 
 5. The apocryphal book known as the ' Transitus beatae Marige Vir- 
 ginis,' must have become known in the West in the course of the fifth cen- 
 tury, as it was formally condemned in a Roman Council under Gelasius in 
 the year 496 a.d. It was from this book, evidently, that Gregory of Tours 
 derived the account we have already quoted (above, p. 203). 
 
 6. Dionysius the Areopagite (so called), in the fourth or fifth century 
 probably, in his treatise ' De Divinis Nominibus,' lib. i. c. iii. (Migne, 
 Series Graeca, tom. iii. p. 681), speaks as if he had been present with the 
 Apostles and others, and had seen the body of the Virgin after her death. 
 He says not a word here of her 'Assumption into Heaven.' But Michael 
 Syngelus, in his Life of Dionysius (ibid. tom. iv. p. 683), makes this addi- 
 tion, saying of the Virgin Mary, that after she had been placed in the tomb 
 etc TTiv virepovpaviov areXijcpdj] \iJL,iy )/ Trai'Ttor twp ovpat'iwv vireprepa Svva- 
 
 7. Of uncertain date, and unknown authorship, are two spurious docu- 
 
 * Baronius, ad ann. 48, allows that he sa'ws to suggest (what, no doubt, he would 
 
 can find no trace of the story of the As- have not admitted) that the discovery 
 
 sumption before the discovery of the empty gave rise to the story. Nothing more 
 
 sepulchre spoken of by Juvenalis. He even probable.
 
 ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN MARY 
 
 207 
 
 ments concerning the Assumption (condemned as sucli by Baronius and 
 other Romans, as well as by writers of our own), one of which is attributed 
 to St. Jerome, the other to St. Augustine. This latter (Migne, torn. vi. 
 p. 1 142) is believed to be of the eighth century by the Roman editors. 
 The writer treats the question as one in which there is no authority for our 
 guidance. He argues, on cl priori grounds, that God could raise the Virgin 
 to heaven — that it was fitting He should do so; whence we may conclude 
 (so the author thinks) that He did do so. 
 
 8. The letter attributed to St. Jerome has quite a history of its own. 
 It is addressed ad Paulam et Eustochiutn, ' De Assumptionc beatce Maricn.' 
 It is a manifest forgery, as Baronius is at pains to prove, and does prove ; 
 but it was not known to be so in the Middle Ages, and the results were 
 curious. The pseudo-Jerome refers to the story of the Assumption, but 
 says (0pp. ed. BB. tom. v. p. 83), ' Quomodo vel quo tempore aut a quibus 
 personis sanctissimum corpus ejus inde [a sepulchro] ablatum fuerit, vel 
 ubi transpositum ; utrumne resurrexit {sic), nescitur, quamvis nonnuUi as- 
 truere velint eam jam resuscitatam, et beata cum Christo immortalitate in 
 cgelestibus vestiri.' These are questions, he admirably adds, about which 
 ' propter cautelam (salva fide) pio magis desiderio opinari oporteat, quain 
 incofisulte definire quod sine periculo 7iescitur.' 
 
 This language (supposed to be that of St. Jerome) was read on certain 
 festivals in some churches in the Middle Ages. St. Anthony of Padua 
 could not bear to hear these doubts thrown on the truth of the Assumption, 
 and would not go to matins (so the story* is told) for fear of hearing this 
 read. Thereupon an angel appeared to him, and said, ' Why will you not 
 go to matins, Anthony?' He replied, that he could not bear to hear the 
 aforesaid ' lection.' * On his so saying, straightway the Blessed Virgin ap- 
 peared before him, attended by a great company of angels ; and Anthony 
 fell at her feet, and earnestly begged to know the certainty of this mystery. 
 The Blessed Virgin replied, " Fear not, Anthony, both to believe and to 
 teach this truth." ' ' Secure, Antoni, veritatem hanc et credere et praedicare 
 potes.' 
 
 But, says Quaresmius, in relating all this, 'Quid de beato Hieronymo?' 
 What is to be said of St. Jerome, when the Virgin Mary herself says that 
 what he doubts is certainly true ? He is able to give a satisfactory answer. 
 In the 'Revelations of St. Bridget,' lib. vi. c. Ix., 'Dixit Mater Dei ad 
 Brigettam, Hieronymum non dubitasse de ejus Adsumptione, sed quia 
 
 * Auctor Pomerii Sermonem de Beata Virgine, lib. x. pt. i. art. 3, apud Qua- 
 resmium.
 
 208 APPENDIX. 
 
 determinate non fuerat revelata noluisse definire. " Quia Hieronymus non 
 dubitavit de Assumptione mea, sed quia Deus non revelavit aperte hujus- 
 modi veritatem, ideo Hieronymus maluit pie dubitare quam definire non 
 ostensa a Deo." ' 
 
 A further 'revelation' on the same subject will be found in lib. vii. 
 c. xxvi. of the ' Revelations ' of the same saint. ' Ego postquam Filius 
 mens ascendit ad cselos vixi in mundo xv annos, et tanto tempore plus 
 quantum est de Festo Ascensionis ejusdem Filii mei usque ad mortem 
 meam, et tunc mortua jacui in isto sepulchre' 
 
 9. Modestus, Patriarch of Jerusalem early in the seventh century, 
 alludes to the traditions about the death of the Virgin Mary, as being what 
 none of his predecessors had been in the habit of discoursing upon, and 
 takes occasion to do so himself Photius, in his ' Bibliotheca,' No. cclxxv. 
 ad fin., seems to doubt the authenticity of this 'Encomion.'* He does 
 not give the details of the story as they are given by later writers, but says 
 that 'she was translated /.lerwKia-dri h' t7j avu) 'Iepov(Ta\i]fx — to the Jerusalem 
 that is above . . . and she has been made higher than cherubim and sera- 
 phim in the kingdom of heaven, being set forth in truth as the mother of 
 their Lord.' 
 
 10. Andreas Cretensis, in the middle of the seventh century, hints at 
 the Story of the Assumption, but does not state it in detail, f 
 
 11. The language of Arculphus, quoted by Adamnanus, ' De Locis 
 Sanctis,' which is a little later in date than the last referred to, has been 
 already quoted (p. 204). 
 
 12. John Damascene (arc. 756 a.d.) gives the story in full detail. And 
 this reappears three centuries later in Nicephorus, ' Hist. Feci.' xi. c. xxi., 
 and XV. c. xiv. 
 
 13. Returning to the West, a variety of concurrent evidence, too minute 
 to be given here in detail, leads to the conclusion that it was in the time 
 of Charlemagne that the ^ Dormitio'' of the Virgin Mary, in other words 
 the anniversary of her death, became changed into the Festival of the 
 Assumption. One fact out of many may be mentioned. In the ' Capitu- 
 laries ' of Charlemagne (lib. i. c. clviii.), after enumeration of the principal 
 festivals (Natalis Domini, S. Stephani, Epiphania, &c.), the words are 
 added, ' De Adsiiinptione S. Alar ice ifdcrrogandum relinqiiimus .•' implying 
 that the question of the general observance of this festival had not yet 
 been definitely settled. 
 
 * Photii Myriobiblon. Rothomag. fol. 1653, p. 1528. 
 t Homil. in Dormitionem Marice apud Galland. xiii. 147.
 
 ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN MARY. 2O9 
 
 14. In the Council of Mayence in the year 813 a.d. (Mansi, xiv. 73), 
 the thirty-sixth canon is as follows :— 'Festos dies in anno celebrare san- 
 cimus. Hoc est, diem dominicum Paschae .... nativitatem S. Johannis 
 Baptistse, Assumptioncm S. Marice .... dedicationem S. Michaelis,' &c. 
 
 This, as contrasted with No. 13 above, marks the close of the eighth 
 century, or the beginning of the ninth, as probably the time when the 
 Festival of the Assumption (as distinct from the ' Dormitio ') was authori- 
 tatively recognised in the Western Church. Leo IV. (middle of the ninth 
 century) had a special zeal for the honour of this festival ; and it is to him, 
 as we have already seen {supra, p. 53), that the Church of St. Clement at 
 Rome owed that fresco of the ' Assumption ' which Roman divines so long 
 vaunted as being a work of the second or third century. 
 
 At this point, at which the evidence of early literary monuments is 
 found exactly coincident with those of Christian art already considered 
 in this volume, this brief summary may be brought to a close. 
 
 Additional Note. 
 
 As affording an additional note of time as to the development of this 
 and other doctrines concerning the Virgin Mary, I add the following from 
 a treatise attributed to S. Ildephonsus, Archbishop of Toledo, 667 a.d.* 
 
 ' Sermo de Assumptione Beatce Marice. — Hodie, fratres charissimi, glo- 
 riosa et perpetua Virgo Maria caelos ascendit : hodie de terris et de prae- 
 senti saeculo nequam erepta, secura de immarcessibili gloria ad caeli pervenit 
 palatia. Hac inquam die meruit exaltari super choros angelorum : quoniam 
 ut credimus in dextera Patris sublevata in caelis, regni solio, post Christum 
 gloriosa resedit.' 
 
 And at the end : — 
 
 ' Jam ego \leg. ergo] ad eam de qua loquimur preces et vota vertamus, 
 opem intercessionis ejus poscamus singuli, poscamus omnes. Oremus ut 
 sit protectrix in prosperis, submoveat noxia, suggerat profutura, admittat 
 preces supplicantium intra sacrarium divinitatis.' 
 
 Of this St. Ildephonsus we are told by Joannes de Trettenhem, Abbas 
 Spanhemensis ('Lib. de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis'), that the B. V. M. was 
 so pleased with his book ' De Virgin.' &c., that she appeared to him with 
 the book in her hand, and thanked him '■pro tali servitio^ And he, wishing 
 
 * B. Hildephonsi Archiepiscopi Toletani de Virginitate S. Mariae Liber. Ed. 
 Peuendartius. Parisiis, i2mo. 1576. 
 
 P
 
 2IO APPENDIX. 
 
 to lionour her still more highly, ' coiistitidt ut celebraretur sollennitas ejus 
 singulis minis octava die ante Natalem Domini ; quce sollennitas jam obtinuit 
 nt per iiniversam jideliiim Ecclesiam in honore purissimce Conceptionis ejus 
 celebretur vi. Idus Decembrist 
 
 D. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 Indications in Holy Scripture of the Relation of St. Paul 
 to the Church of Rome. 
 
 The Epistle addressed by St. Paul to the Romans is one which he could 
 not have written in the same terms had he regarded them as being already, 
 or had through revelation known that they were shortly about to be, under 
 the immediate jurisdiction of St. Peter. 
 
 He begins (chap. i. i, 5) by assertion of his own apostleship — an apo- 
 stleship having special reference to all the Gentiles : Iv wdaL toIq 'idyeaiv 
 (ver. 5), ' among wAom,' he adds, 'are ye also.' 
 
 He, on whom Apostleship to the Gentiles had been specially conferred, 
 while that to the Jews ('the Circumcision') had been specially delegated 
 to St. Peter, had often purposed (ver. 15) to come to Rome, that he might 
 have some fruit among them, as among other Gentiles. Though prevented 
 hitherto, he is even now ready and willing to proclaim the glad tidings 
 (ver. 15) to them also that are at Rome. 
 
 At the end of his Epistle he recurs to the thought of his special claim 
 to be heard of them, as being the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles 
 (xv. 16) ; and his language throughout the two concluding chapters is that 
 of one who, in the providence of God, has a special right, such as no other 
 had, to be regarded as being to them the Apostle of Jesus Christ. 
 
 With all this compare what we read (in Acts, xxviii.) of what occurred 
 when this contemplated visit to Rome was actually made. He first, as his 
 wont was, gathered about him such of his own countrymen as were there 
 (ver. 17) ; and the language in which his teaching, addressing to them, is 
 described (vv. 23, 24), is such as plainly implies that to them the word of
 
 THE SEE OF ROME. 2 I I 
 
 the Gospel was for the first tune directly and authoritatively addressed. 
 Afterward he turned to the Gentiles (ver. 28), and for two whole years 
 continued to receive in his own hired house all that came unto him, 
 ' preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern 
 the Lord Jesus Christ.' 
 
 No unprejudiced person can doubt that this was the first visit of any 
 Apostle to the Roman Church. None, save in maintenance at all costs of 
 a preconceived conclusion, could suppose that St. Paul could have used 
 language such as that above quoted, or have acted as there described, in 
 reference to a Church which by Divine appointment was already, or was 
 just about to be, under the special jurisdiction of St. Peter. 
 
 2. With the above compare what St. Paul says in writing to the Co- 
 rinthians (2 Cor. X. 16) of his not making his boast (in respect of apostolic 
 work) ty dWorpt'w Karovi, in the field of work allotted to another. 
 
 In face of facts such as these, we need not be surprised to find that the 
 more modern writers on the Roman side are obliged to give up as hopeless 
 the defence of the recognised Roman tradition, that St. Peter was Bishop 
 of Rome for twenty-five years ! How exactly the evidence of Holy 
 Scripture, above alleged, falls in with that of the early monuments edited 
 in this volume, I need not be at pains to point out. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 Canons of Early Councils having Refei^'ence to 
 the Roman See. 
 
 The Canons of Nic^ea (a.d. 325) and of Constantinople (a.d. 381) have 
 already been quoted above, p. 87. 
 
 Between these had intervened the Council of Sardica (a.d. 347). 
 
 This was a Western Council, not a General Council of the whole 
 Church ; and its canons have accordingly a much more Roman character 
 than those which were put forth by the CEcumenical Councils of the fourth 
 and fifth centuries. And as there was no effectual check against their inter- 
 polation, as was the case (see p. 89 sqq.) with the acts of General Councils, 
 there is considerable doubt as to what the original text of the Sardican 
 Canons may have been.* Even as they now stand, however, they can 
 
 * See Gieseler, ' Ecc. Hist.' vol. i. p. 432, note 6. Davidson's Transl.ilion.
 
 2 I 2 APPENDIX. 
 
 easily be reconciled with the language of General Councils before and 
 after, if we bear in mind that the si?igulie qjiczqiie provincice, of which at 
 Sardica there was question, are not all the provinces of the whole Church 
 throughout the world, but those in Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica, which 
 were subject to the Roman See, and constituted the Roman ' Diocese.' 
 This is clearly implied, for instance, in the Synodical Letter of the Council 
 addressed to Julius, Bishop of Rome. (Mansi, iii. p. 41.) ' Tiia autem 
 excellens prudentia disponere debet, ut per tua scripia qui in Sicilia, qui in 
 Sardinia et in Italia, sunt fratres nostri, qua acta sunt et quce deji?iita 
 cognoscant.' 
 
 By the Canons of this Council, if a Bishop were condemned in a 
 council of his own province appeal might be made ' to Julius, Bishop of 
 Rome.' 
 
 'Can. III. Osius Episcopus dixit: Quod si aUquis Episcoporum judi- 
 catus fuerit in aliqua causa et putat se bonam causam habere ut iterum 
 concilium renovetur : si vobis placet sancti Petri Apostoli memoriam hono- 
 remus, ut scribatur ab his qui causam examinarunt Julio Romano episcopo; 
 et si judicaverit renovandum esse judicium, renovetur, et det judices.' 
 
 Compare Canons IV. and VII. (ai. V.) to similar effect. 
 
 Council of Chalcedon. {a.d. 451.) 
 
 The general effect of the Canons of this Council having reference to 
 the precedence of the chief Churches in East and West, has been stated in 
 p. 89 of this volume. 
 
 The full details, which are of great interest and importance, are given 
 by Mansi, in his * Conciliorum CoUectio,' vol. vii. See particularly p. 370 
 (' Observatio Editorum Romanorum') and p. 427. 
 
 After the twenty-seven Canons, recognised by the Western as well as 
 by the Eastern Churches, had been passed, the Greeks seem to have taken 
 an opportunity when the Roman Legates were not present to bring forward 
 a certain schedule (aytlli^wx) of their own. It was brought under the 
 notice of the Council by Aetius, Archdeacon of Constantinople. After an 
 expression of agreement with the definitions of the Council of Constanti- 
 nople, the document goes on to say, that ' to the See of Old Rome, because 
 of its being an Imperial city {iCa to ftaffiXeveip' rrji' iroXiv iKeLvriv), the Fathers 
 had assigned, with good reason, the privileges which that See exercised. 
 And with the same purpose in view, the 150 godly Fathers assigned equal 
 privileges {to. 'iaa TrpEafttia) to the most holy Throne (See) of New Rome,
 
 THE SEE OF ROME. 2 I 3 
 
 reasonably judging that as this city enjoyed ' (the same privileges as Old 
 Rome in political matters, she should be exalted in like manner in things 
 pertaining to the Church), ' seeing* that Constantinople was second in 
 succession to Rome/ [Further details follow about the relations of various 
 Metropolitans to the 'Archbishop' of Constantinople.] This document 
 was signed by all the Bishops, the Roman Legates of course excepted. 
 The latter were extremely indignant at the whole proceeding, and com- 
 plained of it, though without result, to the Imperial Commissioners. It 
 was then that they produced their interpolated version of the sixth Nicene 
 Canon. (See above, p. 90.) Whereupon Archdeacon Aetius produced 
 the true text, and with this the third Canon of Constantinople (quoted at 
 p. 89 above) : Toj' fiii'roi KowaTai'TiyoTroXetiJC ETriaKoirov e'x^"' '"" Tri)e(TJje~i<i 
 Tijg Tifiiig fxtra tuv Pw/xalof tiriaKoirov cdi to avTr]v eiyai viav Pw^tji'. 
 
 E. 
 
 Contemporary Doaunents in Reference to the Coiuicil 
 of Florence. 
 
 Very little of contemporary history of the Council has been preserved 
 (save, possibly, among the secret things of the Vatican Library), -written by 
 any on the Latin side. The only work of the kind known to the present 
 writer is the ' CoUationes ' of the Cardinal Andreas de S. Cruce, and 
 a few other documents, published by Horatius Justinianus, Librarian of 
 the Vatican, in his 'Acta Concilii Florentini.' (Romse, fol. 1638.) 
 
 On the Greek side much more has been written ; and amongst other 
 works, none equals in interest the graphic diary (for such almost it is) 
 written by Syropulus, one of the ecclesiastics in the suite of the Patriarch 
 of Constantinople.! 
 
 Yet another contemporary document, and that, in some respects, the 
 most interesting of all, is still in existence, and among the MSS., strange 
 to say, of the British Museum. Out of five authentic copies which were 
 
 * Or, ' and be : Asursgav fAir Exs/mv ua'aj;j;«w<rai'. 
 
 t Vera Historia Unionis non vera?, etc. Greece scripta per Sylvcstruni Si;uropuliun 
 (Syropulum). Ilagtc-Comitis, fol. 1660.
 
 214 APPENDIX. 
 
 originally made of the Decree of Union, one alone is now (I believe) 
 known to exist, viz. that which was sent by Eugenius IV. to our own king 
 Henry VI. 
 
 I had intended to give quotations from the books I have named in 
 illustration of the second paper of this volume ; but I have already so far 
 exceeded the limits I had originally proposed, that I must content myself 
 with merely indicating the works to my readers. 
 
 F. 
 
 Various Readings of the A^ltun Inscription. 
 
 It may be of interest to the readers of this volume to have before them a 
 conspectus of the principal editions of the text of this Inscription up to 
 the present time. 
 
 I. J. P. SECCHL* 
 
 ^Yy^voc, ovpariov fieiov yevoQ i'jTopi (refivw 
 Xprjae, XaXuiy (pu)y))y ajjiftporoy iv (ipoTioiQ' 
 
 QefTTreaiujv vharuy Tijv (rijv, (j)i\£, Bcnrre \pvx>)t'i 
 "Yhamv aevaoiQ TrXovrodorov (TO<pir}Q. 
 
 'Siuyrripoq 2' ayiwv fie\ir}dia \anf3are ftpCjfxov' 
 "JLadiE, 7r7»'£, ^voTv I-)(6vy ^x^^^ TraXufiaig. 
 
 'I^QyV j^Tjpe/a yaXiXo/w, ciaTTora awrep, 
 
 ILvei^eli' iJ.r]T)']p ae Xirai^e fie, (^wq to dat'OPTwy. 
 
 2i)v fJiV^pi yXvKepr], trvye Kal haKpvoLfriv efiolcriv 
 'IXoirffEtc Y'lov (Tto f^iin'jaen TleKTopioio. 
 
 IXGYC, Patre Deo Deus, immortalia sancto 
 
 Mortales inter corde loquutus ait. 
 Rite sacris anima sepelitor, amice, sub undis : 
 
 Dives ab aeternis mente redibis aquis : 
 Sume cibum, Sanctis quem dat Servator alendis ; 
 
 * Of the Order of Jesuits at Rome.
 
 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 215 
 
 Mande, bibe, amplectens IXGYN utraque manu 
 Orba viro mater galilseo pisce, Redemtor, 
 Cernere te prece me petiit, lux luce carentum. 
 Aschandee pater, vita mihi carior ipsa 
 Tu cum matre mea nato lacrymante piatus 
 Pectorii, Pater, ipse tui memor esto precantis. 
 
 2. J. FRANZ.* 
 
 l')(dvog ovpaviovli ayiov yivog, ijropi (TEfxvw 
 
 Xpijae, \af3u)y Trrjyijy afx(ipOTOv iv ftporioiQ 
 Qe(77re(Tiu)v vSariov' Tijy (Tfjv, (piXe, daXireu xpvx'lt^ 
 
 Ydaariv aavaoiQ ttXovto^otov (ro^irjg. 
 ^wrrjpoQ ^' ayiiou fxeXiri^ea Xa/jfiafe ftpwanv. 
 EufJtf, TrTj'f Xaj3ibp, l^Svy ^X^^ xaXa^atg. 
 I^OvQ tx^*^' y"P yaXiXatu), Ziairora awrep, 
 Ew av ao(T(njrr}p, o-e XiTai^Ofxe, (pwQ to Qavovrwv. 
 Ao'xaJ'caTe Trdrcp, TCjfxio KEXctpurfxeye dv/xdi, 
 "Sivv ^riTpl " " Kal a^EXfeiolcny Efxalcnu, 
 'I^dvy bpCjv vlov fii't'iaEo HeKTopiov. 
 
 Piscis coelestis sancta proles pectore augusto vaticinia edidit, compos 
 fontis immortalis inter mortales aquarum sanctarum. Animam tuam, 
 amice, fove aquis perennibus locupletis sapienti^. Salvatoris sanctorum 
 dulcem sume cibum, sumtum ede et bibe, piscem in manibus tenens. Nam 
 tu, Domine Salvator, piscis es, probe opem [sive auxilium] ferens pisci Ga- 
 lilaso [id est, Christiano] ; tibi supplico, luci mortuorum. Aschandgee, pater 
 mihi charissime, mea cum matre . . . et fratribus meis, piscem aspiciens, 
 filii memento Pectorii. 
 
 3. D. WINDISCHMANN. 
 
 I)(Svog ovpai'iov (xyiov yii'og ijropi (TEjuj'w 
 Xpfjae XaXu)v Trriyijv ajjlyporov iv fiporioiQ 
 
 * One of the Editors of the ' Corpus In- Franz understood the Apostles. ' Voca- 
 
 scriptionum Grascarum.' The text given bulo yivos nunc intelHguntur Apostoli. 
 
 above is that of his second edition, quoted Itaque participium Xa/3iiv refertur aut ad 
 
 by Pitra in the ' Spicil. Solesm.' torn. i. singulos Apostolos (quasi iKaffros Xa(iav) 
 
 p. 560. See above, p. 142. aut ad unum ex iis quern in mente habuit 
 
 t By the ' holy offspring ' of Ichthus auctor.'
 
 2l6 APPENDIX. 
 
 Qetnreariioy vCutoji'' n)y at)i', (j)i\e, duXireo i//wx»)»' 
 
 "Y^aaiv aeyc'ioic TrXovTohorov crofirjg. 
 Sw7->7poc ^' ayiwv ueXirjhea Xajiftave f:)pu>am'' 
 
 "FjaHie, -k'ipe, hvolu 'IX9YN ex^y TraXcifiaic;. 
 'I^flOg i\Qvi ytip yaXtXaio), ^etnrora triSJrep, 
 Su ei ^£nrvT]Tt)p, at Xira'Cofxe., ^wg to davorrwy 
 'Aflovaro)', rrwrep, k, t. X* 
 
 Sag tjcilige ®cj'ci)led)t beg t)inimli[d)en gtfd)e6, werfunbetc mit er{)abcncm ^erjen 
 cine iinjlerblid)e D-UeUe, unter ben ©tevbUd)en, 9ottlid)en fffiaffevg: labe (ober: begrabe) 
 beine ©eclC/ o greunb/ in bem ewig flie^enben ©ewaJTer reid^umgebenber S0Sei6t}eitj 
 nimm bie t)omgfu^e ©peifc beg ^eilanbeS ber ^eiligenj i^ unb trinf/ ben gifd) in bei= 
 ben v^dnbcn t)aUenb. Senn gifd) btjt Su/ o ^err unb @rl5[er/ bem galildiid)en gifd)e= 
 S3ewii-tl}er (cber: sKut)ebnnger) 5 ®id) f(et}e id) m, ber S^u ba§ unfterbUrf)e £id)t ber 
 25erjlorbenen meiner ©eele gefd)en!t i)ajl (ober : S)id) flet)e id) an/ Cid)t ber 23er(ior= 
 benen/ ber ®u meiner ©eele geliebt bift) ! 
 
 Hue usque Windischmann, quern excipiet Franzius : — 
 
 // D 25u Srl6fungS5?0le{fter/ 35u Cabfat meineg ©emuti)c§/ finb Sir 9enet)m SBit- 
 jeugen/ fo fei aud^ gndbig ben 93?einen/ unb gebenfe ber ©eel' un[ereg ^ectorioS." 
 
 4. C. LENORMANT.f 
 
 1 ■)(QvoQ ovpaviov deloy yivoQ ijropi o-fyurw 
 X pfjaai XajSioy i^u)))v ajjif^pOToy kv fiporioig 
 
 Q E(Tiri<Tiwv vCaTwv T7]i' <r))i', 0/Xe, 0a\7rfo xj/vxriv 
 Y caaii' aei'cioiQ irXovToSorov ^ocplrjg 
 
 2 (orijpoQ c ayi(i)v fxeXirjcea Xafij3ay£ fipwa-iy. 
 ' RaOiE Tv'ivE Xa/jwj' l-)(Bvv i'^^wv TraXc'ifiaig. 
 
 ^X^" X^P'^'^'' A* "P«» XtXaiw, IsaTTOTa awrep 
 Ev EvCOL firfT^jp (T£ Xtrc(i^o/xat ((>wg to dapoi'Tioi'. 
 
 A(T')(avh£lE TTc'lTEp T(O^M tCE^^apiOrflEPE dv/JW 
 
 ^vy fitjTpl yXvKEp7] <Tvv T OLicEioicriv e^o'ktlv 
 
 'l^QvOQ Elptjyrj (TEO /J.V)l(TEO IlEKTOplovO. 
 
 O race divine de 1' 'Ixf^vQ celeste, regois avec un coeur plein de respect 
 la vie immortelle parmi les mortels. Rajeunis ton ame, O mon ami, dans 
 les eaux divines par les flots eternels de la Sagesse qui donne la vraie 
 richesse. Re^ois I'aliment delicieux du Sauveur des saints. Prends, mange 
 
 * In what remains of the text, he made no change upon that of Franz. See No. 2. 
 t Melanges d'Archcologie, torn. iv. See above, p. 135, note *.
 
 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 21 7 
 
 et bois, tu tiens 'Ix^vq dans tes mains. 'Ix^i^e, accorde-moi cette grace, je 
 la desire ardemment, maitre et sauveur, que ma mere rdpose en paix, je 
 t'en conjure, lumiere des morts. Aschande'us, mon pere, toi que je che'ris, 
 avec ma tendre mere et tous mes parents dans la paix d' 'Ix^i^c, souviens 
 toi de ton Pectorius. 
 
 5. M. ROSSIGNOL.* 
 
 'l^dvoQ olvpai^iov oy]toj/ yevog, ijTopi tre/xpu 
 Xpfjaai, Xa/3w[j/ ^uJii^y afijiporov kv ftporeuie; 
 Qetnrealwt' v^c'itup' t))p <T))y, (plXe, OdXTreo \pvx>)y 
 
 Ydacriv aevaoiQ irXovrohorov (TO<pir]Cj 
 
 Swrjjpoc ^' ayiwv ixeXirj^ia Xa/x/3a^£ /5p[w(Ttj']' 
 
 E(T0iE, ttIj'Le <tc/3w]i', /'x^vj/ f'xwi' TTaXcijiaig. 
 'iX^Vj x^Lp"'''' "■' ')]pci* XiXaieo, limroTa (7wr[£p], 
 E{/0u ao<T(Tf]rrjp, ae Xira^Ofxaij cpioc to davovruiy. 
 
 AaxayCie [Trarjep, rw \xm K^ya\i^i\rTniyt Ovfioi, 
 ^vy fx\r]Tpt yXvKeprj Kal irdircy T]o\7](Tiy k[xol(Tiy,. 
 
 l\_Kyovp.ai ce, reov] fiyijaEO TLeKTOpiov. 
 
 Race sainte du Poisson celeste, aie un coeur penetre de respect, apres 
 avoir regu dans ce monde mortel la vie immortelle des eaux divines : re- 
 chauffe ton ame, 6 ami, dans les eaux intarissables de la sagesse, source de 
 richesse, et prends I'aliment delicieux que t'ofifre le Sauveur des saints. 
 Mange, bois, saisi d'un respect religieux, en tenant le Poissdn dans tes 
 mains. 
 
 Poisson, je t'ai pris dans mes mains ; hate-toi, maitre Sauveur, sois- 
 moi promptement secourable ; je t'en supplie, toi, la lumiere des morts. 
 Aschandius, mon pere, objet cher a mon cceur, je t'en prie, souviens-toi, 
 avec ma douce mere et tous les miens, de ton Pectorius. 
 
 6. PADRE GARRUCCI.f 
 
 'IxSi'Oc o[ypayiov dejioy yeyog i'jropi asfiyu 
 \piia\^ai] Xafl(o\^y 7rr}y))jy' a.fxj3poTOy Iv flporeoiQ 
 
 * In the ' Revue Archeologique,' Mai, rently been ^vritten before he became ac- 
 
 1856, p. 65. To this and the subsequent quainted with M. Rossignol's. 
 
 letter to Garrucci (ibid. p. 491), Kirchoff f In his 'Melanges d'Epigraphie an- 
 
 refers in his last words, and speaks of M. cienne.' Paris, 1856, 1857. His treatise 
 
 Rossignol as ' interpretum novissimus idem was published some months after that of 
 
 et optimus. ' His own comment had appa- M. Rossignoi.
 
 2 I 8 APPENDIX. 
 
 {Q)eaTr£cri(i)v v^6.[tu)]p' ti}v (Tt)r, (plXe, daXire ^^X'/L*'] 
 
 "XSaaiv aevaoie ttXovto^otov ^oflrjg. 
 
 ^(OTfjpog 2' ayiijjv yueXiTjSea Xafxfiat^e [/Bpwcrij'J 
 
 "E(T0i£ 7r[£]tva'w»' tj((0)i/j' e'xwi' TraXdfxaie. 
 'Ix(0)i', X^'pM «P«P«j XtXa/[o/iai], ^Eo-irora Swr^[jo]. 
 
 E5 f'/Xw, M;7r/;p, (re Xira'4o/x[ai], ^wg ro dapoyrioy. 
 'Ao-X"''^'^ [7ra]rep rw/xw K:£[xo]pt(Tyu£V£ OvfiM, 
 
 2i)v ^[Tjrpt XP^'^^^ ^^^ a^eX(pei\o7(7iy efxolaiv, 
 'l[^dvoQ Iv ^f.iirv(o\ fxv\u)\£o HeKropiov. 
 
 Piscis cselestis divinum genus, vitam honestam vive tinctum cum sis 
 fonte non mortal! inter homines, aquarum a Deo fluentium. Tuam idcirco, 
 dilecte, fove mentem aquis perennibus Sapientiae ditantis, et Salvatoris 
 fidelium suavem accipe cibum, manduca esurienter piscem, quern manu 
 tenes. O piscis, ecce manus paratas, teneani te, Domine Salvator. Ut 
 devota mente accipiam. Mater, oro te, lucem mortuorum. Pater mi, 
 Ascandi, meo animo carissime, cum optima matre, cum fratribus meis, in 
 coena piscis memineris Pectorii. 
 
 7. FRED. DUBNER. 
 
 ^lyBvoQ ovpaviov Oe'iov yevog ?;ropi erefxi'M 
 
 XpijOTE' Aafiijy Trrjytjy cifjif^poToy Iv (iporioiQ, 
 
 QeaTreaicju v^drwy, Tr)r irrjy, (piXe, daXTreo ^pv^W 
 "Yhaaiy aeyaoiQ ttXovtoSotov aocpirjg. 
 
 ^WTTJpog ^' ayiwy ^eXirjBea Xd^fiayE (ipwtnv. 
 "E(r0i£, TT~iy vyiay, 'IX0YN e'xwj^ TraXa/xaig. 
 
 ^lyQvi (^p£tw yap) TaXiXaiw^ EetrTrora awTEp, 
 
 2u0t aocrtrriTtip, (re Xira^OfiE, (f>u>g to Oayoyrwy. 
 
 'AtTKay^alE Trdrep, rthfx^ KE-^^apirrjiiyE Ov/xm, 
 
 [Eu] (tvv fJiWP'- fiioy hidyoig, ical roimv kfxdl(ny, 
 
 'I-)^6vy ^' elffopoujy fj.yt](7E0 TlEKTOplov. 
 
 Piscis coelestis [CAristi] divina proles [Apostoli et Fatres] pectore au- 
 gusto vaticinium edidit : ' Qui acceperis immortalem inter mortales fontem 
 divinorum laticum, tuam, amice, animam fove perennibus aquis ditantis 
 sapientise ; et Salvatoris pie viventium dulcem cape cibum : ede, bibe sani- 
 tatem, piscem tenens manibus.' 
 
 Jam pisci Galilaeo \^Christia?io\ (nam necessitas urget), Domine Salvator, 
 propere adveni auxilium ferens, tibi supplico, qui es lux defunctorum.
 
 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 
 
 219 
 
 Aschandsee pater, meo carissime animo, feliciter vitam agas cum matre et 
 omnibus meis, Piscem autem aspiciens memento Pectorii. 
 
 IXeVZ €IC AEI. 
 
 JESUS CHRISTUS HERI ET HODIE, IPSE ET IN S^CULA. 
 
 8. KIRCHOFF.* 
 
 'I"X"[^]'^oc' o[ypaviov 6ty]iov yifog, ijropi o-[f^]»/w 
 
 XpJjce' \[aj/3w[j/ Trriyrfjv apfipoTov kv ftpoTioL\Q\ 
 BE(TTr\e\(Ti(j)v vla\T(i)\v tijv (Tr]y, (plXe, 0[aJ\7r[E]o i^vx[»)i'l 
 
 {!B[a](Ttv aevdoig TrXovro^orov (To<pir]Q' 
 o-[w7-^Jpoe [^'] ay lu}v ;u[e]\i[>;]^[£aj Xdfxflav\jE. ftpijaiv], 
 
 i[(T\di£ 7rtv[awjj/ l')^vv [eJx*'"' 7r[aXo^ate]. 
 "I\[af^]i, <-X^-["' '^^ y]"? [r]a\t\a/w, SemroTa, ^^[d'/p], 
 ei)[o]ow [(?j]rJ7p* ere Xi-di^Ofie, 0w[e] to dat'oyTWif. 
 ['A<7]xa[»']3t[£ Trajrep, nhfia K\^E-)(^a\pi(rfi[e^v£ Qvfxw, 
 (Tvv n\r]Tp\ yXvKEprj ical dh£X(pEi\o~t(Tii' [ej^uoTo-iv 
 
 l\^dvog iv ^e/ttj/w] yLi»'?/(T[£]o IltKTopiov. 
 
 9. CARDINAL PITRA.t 
 'IXGYOS vvpaviov deJof yivoQ, ijropi trEfivcj 
 
 XpVjITE^ \a/3wj/ ^(i))]U UfJLJjpOTOV EV ftpOTEOLQ 
 
 * The Editor of the last volume of the the r which lie introduces before aXiXa'iM 
 
 'Corpus Inscriptionum Grtecarum.' (See he writes : 'Dilucide apparet P, non r, ut 
 
 No. 9890.) He had before him a photo- visum ei qui Secchio transmisit apogi'a- 
 
 graph (taken from a cast) published by phum. At vero orbiculo litterse ejus semi- 
 
 Garrucci. circulari subjecta conspecta littera minu- 
 
 Vs. I. ' Puncta, quibus septa apparet tissima, qua; videntur vestigia esse litters 
 
 littera X in ectypo, neglecta sunt ab editor- r mimit^e in majuscularum intervallo proe- 
 
 ibus. Significatur iis vox lx,^vo; anagram- script^.' 
 matis loco esse.' Vs. 11. ' Extremo ver.su flCKTO" 
 
 Vs. 2. He intei-prets xi^'^^ as = xf^'^'^h n \/r\ -a . • 1 • 1 . r.. 
 
 an aorist imperative. ^^^^ ^^"^"^ ^^^ i" ^'-^P^^^' ^^ l'"^'-^ 
 
 Vs. 5. 'Non S- iy/^v legendum, ut visum ^"=^1^^ '^'"'^''^ '^^ comparati, ut non cor- 
 
 plerisque, sed V Hy' li.., id quod intellexit ™^^ ^''^^^^''' ^^'^P""'' '"J^^"^' ^^'^ ^^ ^P^° 
 
 Wordsworthius 1. 1.' quadratario deleta consulto. 
 
 Vs. 6. ' Haud dubie vidit Garraccius, For Kirchoff's opinion as to the date of 
 
 qui legit *;va«v, i. e. -7tw«.o,v: the Inscription, see above, p. 134, n. *. 
 
 Vs. 7. He considers the second letter of f This is his final recension, as given in 
 
 this line to be A not X. In reference to the ' Spicil.''Solesm.' i. p. 557.
 
 2 20 APPENDIX. 
 
 QEfTTTEcriwv v^ariov' r})v (T))v, (piXe, 0aXxEO \pv')(})v, 
 
 "YBaariy ciEvaoiq irXovToZoTOv (TO<pir]g. 
 Sw7->7poc ^' Ayioji' fieXirihia Xdfxfiave /3pw(Tn'* 
 
 "E<T0ie, TTtv' ciSrjp 'IX0YN t'x'^v TraXd/JLCUQ. 
 
 'IX0YI yEvoiT^ apa' AiXaiu), Aecnrora Ewrtp, 
 
 ^vdi jjiOL //yjjrjyp, <re Xird^o/iE, (pCJg to dapovrwv ! ■ 
 
 Suv firfTpL yXvKEprj, arvv r' oIkeioIctlv ifxoXaiy, 
 'I')(dvoQ elprjvr], fxyijiTEO UeKTopiov. 
 
 ' Piscis coelestis divinum genus, integerrimi pectoris 
 Esto, assumta vita immortali, inter mortales, 
 Sacratis in lymphis : tuani, amice, confove animam 
 Aquis perennibus munificae sapientiae ; 
 Salvatorisque Sanctorum suavem accipe cibum : 
 Manduca, bibe afifatim, Piscem in manibus habens.' 
 
 Ad Piscem mea efifundatur oratio : ' Te enixe precor, 
 
 Domine Salvator. 
 Sis mihi dux propitius, te quseso, o lux mortuorum ! 
 Aschandee pater, meo carissime animo, 
 Tu cum matre dulcissima simul ac familiaribus meis, 
 Cum pace Piscis, memento Pectorii. 
 
 lo. THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN. 
 
 Joint's coronet opus. I cannot better conclude than with the Letter 
 which I have just received from Dr. Christopher Wordsworth, Bishop of 
 Lincoln, who has kindly given me permission to make it public : — 
 
 Riseholme, Lmcoln, 
 April 1 8, 1870. 
 Dear Mr, Marriott, 
 
 I am much obliged to you for your photographic facsimile 
 of the very interesting ancient Christian Inscription at Autun. 
 
 You ase quite right in thinking, that, after the sight of your accurate 
 copy of it, there are several particulars in which I should wish to modify 
 the remarks that I made on this Inscription, at the request of Cardinal 
 Pitra, twenty-five years ago, before anything had been written upon it by 
 others, as far as I was aware.
 
 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 22 1 
 
 The Inscription, as you well know, is a sepulchral one, in memory of a 
 certain Pectorius, a son of Aschandeius. It seems to have been placed 
 near the baptistery of a church, and to have been designed to be an in- 
 vitation first to receive the Sacrament of Baptism, and to use it aright ; and 
 next to partake, with earnest desire and devout reverence, of the Holy 
 Communion. 
 
 The connexion of this invitation with the sepulchral character of the 
 Inscription is probably to be traced to the belief of the Christian Church, 
 that these two Sacraments are the appointed means for communicating to 
 the faithful the benefits of the Incarnation of the Son of God ; and are 
 pledges and earnests to them of a blessed resurrection from the dead, and 
 of a glorious immortality, by virtue of their mystical union with Christ, 
 Who is 'the Resurrection and Life.' 
 
 I now venture to submit to you what seems to me to be the reading 
 and meaning of the Inscription: — 
 
 I')(dvog ovpaviov dt'rjrov yivog, ijropi crefivui 
 
 Xpyjffe Xaf3wv irrfyijv a^fiporov Iv (iporioiq 
 Qea-KEcriwv vbaTWv' t)}v <t))v, (plXe, BaXirto \l/v)(^i)y 
 
 Ydacrip liEvaoiQ irXovroZoTOv (ro<piT]g. 
 ^wriipOQ 2' riy' iwj/ fXEXitj^ia Xa^fiavE [ipwaiv' 
 ' E(T0ie, TrJye, reaiy l-)(dvv ex**"' TraXctyuatj'. 
 
 The best comment on the Inscription is to be seen in the figures en- 
 graved on your margin (which were not inserted in Cardinal Pitra's copy), 
 namely, that of the priest holding the chalice (referred to in the Greek 
 word TTij'e in the Inscription), and that of the man swimming by the aid of 
 the fish (a symbol of the support given to the Christian carried safely 
 through the deep waters of death by communion with Christ) ; and by the 
 fish in the basket, commemorative of our Lord's miraculous feeding of the 
 multitude, when the fragments of the fishes were taken up in the Apostolic 
 baskets (Matt. xiv. 203 Mark, vi. 43 ; Luke, ix. 17; John, vi. 13) : all of 
 which representations have their groundwork in the Name of Christ, the 
 Divine IX6Y2, /. e. IritrovQ, Xpiarog, Qeov Yioe, ^wrrip (see Optatus, iii. c. 2 ; 
 Bishop Pearson on the Creed, Art. xi. note p. 105), and declare that all 
 the spiritual life of all Christians, who were called from Him Ix'^veg, and 
 who are born anew in the water of Baptism, is derived from the Divine 
 'IX^vc, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Saviour of the world ; according 
 to the saying of Tertullian, ' Nos pisciculi, secundum '\yQvv nostrum, Jesum 
 Christum, in aqua nascimur.' (' De Baptismo,' c. i.)
 
 2 22 APPENDIX. 
 
 The Inscription, as I would propose to read it, may be translated as 
 follows : — 
 
 ' O thou mortal offspring of the heavenly Fish (Christ), use, with a 
 reverent heart, when thou hast received the immortal fountain of divine 
 waters among mortals.' That is to say, 'When thou hast received bap- 
 tismal grace, use that grace well, with a reverent heart. Thy daily life is 
 among mortals, therefore be on thy guard : but thou hast an immortal gift 
 of grace within thee, which thou didst receive in thy baptism ; use it, 
 therefore, with a heart full of reverence for the gift and for the Giver." 
 
 This is explained further by what follows : — ' O my friend ' (who hast 
 been baptized), ' cherish thy soul with the ever-flowing waters of wealth- 
 giving wisdom.' Thou hast been baptized once for all ; but there are ever- 
 flowing waters of wisdom which will give thee eternal wealth : these are 
 the living waters of the Holy Spirit, flowing to thee in the other means of 
 grace, especially in the Word of God, in Prayer, and in Holy Communion. 
 Remember, now that thou hast been baptized, ever to refresh thy soul with 
 these perennial streams of divine wisdom. Neglect not the grace that is in 
 thee, but cherish it continually ; and more grace will be given thee. 
 
 Observe now what follows : — ' Come and receive the food, sweet as 
 honey, of thy Saviour ' (in the Holy Eucharist). ' Eat, drink, holding the 
 Fish ' (/. e. the Body and Blood of Christ) ' in thy hands.' 
 
 In the second line of the Inscription we have x^nat for the imperative 
 aorist xpv^^ai, just as we have in line 8, Xira^ofie for Xira'Coixai. This con- 
 fusion is to be explained from the similarity of the sounds of ai and e (a 
 similarity as old, at least, as the times of Callimachus, who makes e^fi to 
 echo to vaixL (Epigr. xxx.), and continued to this day in Greece ; and also 
 from metrical convenience, the short t being substituted for the long 
 syllable ai. 
 
 Now follows the answer to the above invitation. 
 
 The Inscription is here in a fragmentary condition, and I venture with 
 diffidence to suggest a conjectural reading of it ; following, as nearly as 
 I am able, the traces of the letters : — 
 
 'I^0i5i XOApE ' (Tov dpa XiXaiu), AecnrOTa ^aJrep, 
 Su0' e[j.oi iiyr]rt]p, <re XiTaCo^e-, (ftwQ to BafoyTwy' 
 
 i. e. ' Hail to the Fish ' (xa'P« being used, as in the angelic salutation, Luke, 
 i. 28) ; 'I earnestly long for Thee, O Master and Saviour.' (AtXat'w is 
 used for XiXaiofiai, followed by a genitive, Hom. Od. i. 315, and passim^ 
 The Holy Eucharist was called ' Desiderata,' or ' longed for,' by the
 
 THE AUTUN INSCRIPTION. 223 
 
 ancient Christians. (See Casaubon, ' Exerc. Baronian.' xvi. No. xlv. 
 pp. 500-2.) 
 
 ' Haste to me as my leader, I pray Thee ' {Xira'Co^e for Xira^onai, as 
 XPV(^£ for ■xp^]<Tai, in v. 2), 'O Thou Hght of the dead.' Here, we may 
 observe, is a testimony to the primitive usage of the Church addressing 
 prayers and hymns to Christ as God, ' Christo quasi Deo,' as Phny relates 
 (x. 97) ; and as is represented in the interesting ancient Graffito recently 
 discovered at Rome, and described by me in 'Tour in Italy,' ii. 143-8. 
 Cfr. Euseb. H. E. v. 28. 
 
 The rest of the Inscription consists of words supposed to be spoken by 
 the son, Pectorius, to his surviving father and friends : — 
 
 ^vy fxrjrpi yXvKeprj »cai (ide\(t>£iol(Tif £fj.ol(ny, 
 
 'I^dilV l^U)V VIOV fXP7](T£0 Tl£KTOplOV' 
 
 i. e. ' O my father Aschandeius, dear to my soul, with my dear mother and 
 my brethren, when thou seest the Fish' (engraved on the margin of this 
 epitaph), ' remember thy son Pectorius.' 
 
 Believe me to be, 
 
 My dear Marriott, 
 
 Yours sincerely, 
 
 C. Lincoln. 
 
 The Rev. Wharton B. Marriott. 
 
 LONDON 
 
 Strangewavs and Walden, Printers, Castle St. Leicester Sq.
 
 By the Rev. W. B. MARRIOTT. 
 
 VESTIARIVM CHRISTIANVM : 
 
 The Origin and gradiial Development of the Dress of Holy Ministry in the Church, 
 
 as evidenced by Monuments, both of Literature and of Art, 
 
 from the Apostolic Age to the Present Time. 
 
 Royal 8vo. pp. 340, with Seventy Illustrations. Price 38^-. 
 
 Copious Extracts (with Notes and Translations) are given from the following 
 among other Writers: — Josephus, Philo Judseus, and Hegesippu s ; Eusebius 
 and Epiphanius; St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, §t Celestme, St. I sidore 
 of Pelusium, St. Gregory the Great; St. Isidore of SeviTTe, Veiierable Bede, 
 St. Boniface jRabanus Maurus,,Amalarius^ Walafrid Strabo, the Pseudo-Alcuin, 
 StT7Iv0j^Hugd~3e^ST. "Victor, Honorius of Aiifunj Innocent 111./ DurandifsT' 
 Patriarch Sj'meou of Thessalonica. ' " " 
 
 The Illustrations, chiefly Photographs and Photolithographs, are from Syriac, 
 Greek, Latin, and English Manuscripts, from the sixth to the fifteenth centurj^; 
 from Frescoes and Mosaic Pictures in the Roman Catacombs, or in early Churches 
 at Thessalonica, Rome, Ravenna, and Trebizond \ from Consular and Ecclesi- 
 astical Diptychs ; and from Ecclesiastical Monuments preserved at Moscow and 
 St. Petersburg. Among these are — 
 
 1. Plates I. to IX. — Monuments illustrative of the ordinary Greek and 
 Roman Costume in the Apostolic Age, and of Sacerdotal Dress and Insignia, 
 Greek, Roman, and Jewish. 
 
 2. A Diptych of St. Paul (not later than circ. 400 a.d.) representing the 
 Miracles at Melita, and St. Paul himself seated in an Apostolic Throne, and 
 giving Benediction to a Bishop. 
 
 3. Plates X. to XVII. — From the Roman Catacombs — The Holy Family, 
 the Adoration of the Magi ; Our Lord as the Giver of the Divine Word, and 
 as ' The Good Shepherd ;' Our Lord with Six Apostles, and with the Twelve ; 
 the Celebration of a Passover; the Ordination of a Deacon. 
 
 4 Plates XVIII. to XXI. — From the Church of St. George at Thessalonica 
 — Coloured Drawings (from Mosaics of the fourth century) representing Philip, 
 Bishop of Heraclea, the Presbyter Romanus, SS. Cosmas and Damianus, 
 St. Eucarpion, and others, Martyrs in the Diocletian Persecution. 
 
 5. From a Syriac MS. written a.d. 586 — Our Lord administering the Bread 
 and the Cup to Eleven Apostles ; the Crucifixion and the Ascension ; Euse- 
 bius of C^sarea and Ammonius. 
 
 6. Plates XXXII. & XXXIIL— The Mosaics of the Triclinium Lateranum. 
 
 7. Plates XXX. and XXXI. — Frescoes representing St. Xvstvs of Rome 
 and St. Cyprian, St. Cornelivs of Rome, and another contemporary Bishop. 
 
 8. Plates XXXIV. to XXXVL— A series of Illustrations from the ' Liber 
 Pontificalis ' of Bishop Landulfus (MS. of the ninth century at Rome). These 
 represent the Costume and Insignia, and the Modes of Ordination, regarded 
 as proper to Priests, Deacons, Subdeacons, Exorcists, and the other Minor 
 Orders, at the period in question
 
 2 WORKS BY THE REV. IV. B. MARRIOTT. 
 
 9. Plate XXXVII. — A Bishop administering the Chrism to a newly bap- 
 tized Infant, from a MS. of the ninth century at Rome. 
 
 10. Plates XL. and XLIII. — Frescoes from the hypogene Church of 
 St. Clement, lately discovered. 
 
 11. Plates XXXVIII. to XLVII. — Historical Monuments of the Eastern 
 and the Western Church, from the ninth to the fourteenth century — among 
 them the Session of the Seventh General Council (Greek reckoning), from 
 the Menologium of the Emperor Basil in the Vatican Library. 
 
 12. Plates XLVIII. and XLIX. — The Consecration of Eadulf, Archbishop 
 of Lichfield (see Hook's ' Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury,' vol. i. 
 pp. 243 sqq.) ; and the Investiture of Willegoda, first Abbot of St. Alban's. 
 From a MS. of the thirteenth century. 
 
 13. Plate XLIV. — St. Dunstan, Archbishop of Canterbury, and St. Gre- 
 gory the Great, from a MS. of the eleventh century. 
 
 14. Plate L. — Erie Richard of Warwick, and Robert Halain, Bishop of 
 Salisbury, Ambassadors from Henry V. of England, are received by the Pope 
 and the Emperor at the Council of Constance. 
 
 15. Plate LI. — How Kyng Henry VI., beyng in his tender age, was 
 crowned Kyng of Englond at Westminstre witli great Solempnytie. (This 
 Plate, and that last described, are from a MS. of the fifteenth century, by the 
 antiquary, John Rous.) 
 
 1 6. Plates LII. to LV. — Four Bassi-Relievi, executed by order of Euge- 
 nius IV., illustrative of the principal Events of the Council of Florence. 
 
 Plates LVI. to LX. — Illustrations of Ecclesiastical Costume in the Greek 
 Church. 
 
 Many of the above have been photographed, by gracious permission, from a Collection of colojired 
 Drawings, in which the principal objects of Ecclesiastical Antiquity at Rome are carefully repro- 
 duced, as they existed nearly 200 years ago. The Collection 7aas originally made for Cardinal 
 Albano {aftetioards Clement XI.). It was purchased at Rome, for King George the Third, and 
 is now the property of Her Majesty the Queen. 
 
 Opinions of the Press. 
 
 ' A book which has reference to Art, ReHgious Customs, and Civilisation in all its Christian 
 aspects, as well as to certain fiercely contested questions of the hour .... The testimonies of 
 the pictures in the Roman Catacombs, and those of the mosaics in the early churches of Rome, 
 Ravenna, and Constantinople, are successively and successfully invoked to prove the points which 
 we have thus set forth in brief from this book. The second and third periods of our author's 
 division are examined and illustrated with perspicuity, care, and with learning equal to those 
 which have been bestowed upon the first in order. The progress of changes, which are more 
 important in their significance than in themselves, is chronicled with abundant knowledge, and 
 to a result which will amply repay the student, even if he does not accept Mr. Marriott's con- 
 clusions.' — AthencEum, July II, 1868. 
 
 ' We have dwelt at so much length on the points in which we differ from Mr. Marriott, that 
 we wish again to bear testimony to the excellence, completeness, and learning of the work as a 
 whole . . . Mr. Marriott's theories, right or wrong, never waip his statement of the evidence ; 
 and we know of no other work whatever which gives at length all the principal passages of 
 ancient writers relating to vestments, Levitical and Christian, not barely transcribed, but care- 
 fully translated and explained.' — Contemporary Review, July, 1868. 
 
 ' A really scientific treatise on a perplexed subject .... full of deep learning, sound judg- 
 ment, and wise criticism, rendered especially valuable by the ecclesiastical controversies of our 
 day.' — -London Revicnv, May 16. 
 
 ' Scholarlike, critical, and painstaking .... The illustrations are of great interest and 
 Talue.' — The Churchman, April 23. 
 
 ' We should omit a very pleasant duty if we did not, in closing our remarks, testify to the 
 general care, taste, learning, judgment, and ability, with which this book has been prepared.' — 
 The Church News, May 27.
 
 IVOUKS BY THE REV. IV. B. MARRIOTT. 
 
 ' A most learned antiquarian investigation .... It would be in vain to search elsewhere 
 for such a repertory of original authorities on the subject.' — GentlemaiCs Magazine. 
 
 ' The volume before us is of intense interest, both Archaeological and Dogmatic' — Clerical 
 yourual. 
 
 ' A store of curious learning about a very intricate subject, and also what is in some respects 
 more valuable than even the documentary matter, a copious Appendix of Plates, many of them 
 of great artistic value, and all of exceeding archreological interest . . . Mr. Marriott's valuable 
 and entertaining volume will, henceforth, be simply indispensable to every one who attempts to 
 discuss the subject which he has treated.' — T/ie Church Times, Sept. 26. 
 
 ' Mr. Marriott has carefully and wisely avoided all reference to the passing controversies of 
 these days, and his aim has been simply to collect an infinitely wide range of facts which bear 
 upon his main subject, and to leave them to tell their impartial stoiy to the reader, throughout 
 eveiy chapter of his work. The extreme skill and care with which he has accomplished his 
 difficult task are eminently notable, when it is remembered over what a wide extent his inquiry 
 stretches . . . To make his inquiry complete in all respects, he adds to these careful discussions 
 a series of engravings and photographs taken from ancient MSS., frescoes, paintings, and 
 carvings, of the rarest and most curious kinds. These alone, in fact, form a collection of sin- 
 gular interest to the antiquary and the student of Church history and Church ornament.' — 
 The Standard. 
 
 ' A work of great learning, the result of independent research . . . Mr. Marriott throughout 
 deals with his subject in a very masterly way. His own opinions are in favour of a simple 
 ritual, but he is studiously just . . . His volume is adorned with a number of illustrations, most 
 interesting and admirably executed.' — -The Spectator. 
 
 THE VESTMENTS OF THE CHURCH : 
 
 AN ILLUSTRATED LECTURE. 
 Fifty-two pages, with Thirteen Plates and Four Woodcuts. Price 5^-. 
 
 % Carrcspoitbcitce 
 
 Between the Rev. W. B. MARRIOTT, M.A., Select Preacher, &c. 
 
 AND 
 
 The Rev. T. T. CARTER, M.A., Rector of Clewer, 
 ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST, 
 
 AS RECENTLY SET FORTH BY 
 
 DR. PUSEY, ARCHDEACON DENISON, THE REV. T. T. CARTER, 
 
 AND OTHERS. 
 
 Parts I. and II. Price 2s. each. 
 
 ' Small in size, but of sterling value, and full of interest for the thoughtful student of theology. 
 It is one of those delicious morsels of criticism that one meets with now and then. We can pay 
 it no higher compliment, as to its literary value, than by saying that we shall place it on our 
 shelves next to Professor Newman's reply to Matthew Arnold on Homeric Translation. Yet its 
 literary value is its smallest charm .... No mere review can do justice to it.' — Church Rcz-ieio 
 (on Part I.), October 3, 1868. 
 
 ' The five Letters which remain to be noticed ... are more than equal in interest to their 
 predecessors ; whilst in the Appendices . . . many supplementary matters of high and general 
 import are discussed, and beyond every other the method to be used in the intei-pretation of 
 Holy Scripture . . . This correspondence is as beguiling in its manner as it is valuable for its 
 matter.'— C//;/;r// Reviezu (on Part II.), March 27, 1869. 
 
 ' A calm, earnest, persistent inquiry after truth.' — The Rock.
 
 WORKS BY THE REV. W. B. MARRIOTT. 
 
 EIRENICA: 
 
 THE WHOLESOME WORDS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE CONCERNING 
 QUESTIONS NOW DISPUTED IN THE CHURCH. 
 
 Part I. — The Testimony of Inspired Writers to the Nature of Divine Inspiration, 
 Part II. — Regeneration — Renewal and Renewing Growth — Conversion. 
 
 With Appendices illustrative of the Primitive Usage of these Terms, 
 and of Questions of Greek Criticism. 
 
 In One Vol. 8vo. cloth. Price 4^. dd. 
 
 ' Mr. Wharton Marriott's treatise stands so far in contrast to Dr. Pusey's "Eirenicon," that, 
 with the same charitable intention of reconciling apparent differences in the use of theological 
 definitions, it undertakes rather to explain so-called Evangelical, as the latter Roman Catholic, 
 terms, consistently with Scriptural and Anglican Church teaching. The present part (Part 11.) 
 deals with Regeneration, Renewal and Renewing Growth, and Conversion- — terms, we ne^d 
 hardly say, as rife as any that could be selected, of discord between opposing schools. There is 
 an immense amount of sound and sober instruction on these subjects compressed into the compass 
 of 220 pages, with a most scholarlike arrangement of indices, marginal references, and appen- 
 dices, "illustrative of the primitive usages of these terms, and of cpiestions of Greek criticism." 
 We strongly recommend the work to clergymen and theological students of all schools, and to 
 educated laymen desirous of finding their way among the perplexing labyrinths of discordant 
 schools.' — John Bull. 
 
 ' A careful and elaborate examination of the actual Scriptural usage of all the terms involved.' 
 — Guardian. 
 
 ' Mr. Marriott is a student and a scholar, and in writing wholesome words like these he is 
 indeed in his proper place. This makes us the more wish that he would leave alone questions 
 of Church ornaments and ritual. For students, whether amateur or professional, if we may so 
 speak, the present treatise is invaluable. Mr. Marriott goes to the bottom of his subject, and 
 brings the most careful philology to bear upon it. We sincerely hope that he will be encouraged 
 to go on with his series ; we cannot conceive of a more valuable help to a discriminating exa- 
 mination of the language of Scripture and the early Fathers. The notes teem with learning and 
 information.' — Church Times. 
 
 AND THE FOLLOWING EDUCATIONAL WORKS:— 
 
 THE ADELPHI OF TERENCE, 
 
 WITH ENGLISH NOTES ; 
 
 And an Introduction on the Terentian Metres, as Illustrating the Connexion of the 
 Latin, Italian, Spanish, and French Languages. 
 
 Small 8vo. price y. 6d. 
 ' Would be worth getting for the Introduction alone.' — Saturday Hevieiv. 
 
 SELECTIONS FROM OVID'S METAMORPHOSES, 
 
 WITH ENGLISH NOTES. _^^ 
 
 Second Edition, revised and corrected. Price 4^. 6d. 
 ' Calculated to create an enthusiasm for the Grammar and the Lexicon.' — Guardian. 
 
 I- I
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 
 RECDLS-m*-. 
 
 LP 
 
 JliLl61985 
 
 i!RT5 ID trm 
 " JAN 71 
 
 JAN 03 138b 
 
 h NOV 06 19S9 
 
 %^^/). 
 %%^ 
 
 4.JPS 
 
 :j 
 
 19 
 
 91989 
 
 '0 LcOiSlk 
 \/2B 
 
 DISCHARGE 
 
 I." 
 
 IV Z 7 197? 
 
 1975
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 AA 000 9001 
 
 86 8 
 
 (i^ 
 
 r 
 
 3 1158 00407 2905