Full text of "The testimony of the catacombs and of other monuments of Christian art : from the second to the eighteenth century, concerning questions of doctrine now disupted in the Church"

See other formats

•CALIFO^

lEllMVLKV^ .^clUSANGtUj.

nmrn-

fTtl

lOSANGEifx

^ ^

\\^EUNTv'ER.\

J>-

,| ^Vf^

i^3^

, ill

iw.^m^

<rt:

:lbl\Mli 10

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.

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hitherto unpublished.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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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£

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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-

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.

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.

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

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,

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.

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.

ft.

^
m

u*
^
-^

cs*

b»

ft.

ffj

X
w

'■y^a^^Ti-^

»-, 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

■ Wi

%^'
.^j^^

■^'

^^S^c? 0

:^^£;

.^^^

"Z.

>— o

^ c
<;

Uh o

O 55

■X

I 1

C ;3

: >

, ,

,— .

-—

■

C )

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/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.

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.

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.'

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, 0
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

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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

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'.

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.

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 Hegesippus ; Eusebius
and Epiphanius; St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, §t Celestme, St. Isidore
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*-.

JliLl61985

i!RT5 ID trm
" JAN 71

JAN 03 138b

h NOV 06 19S9

%^^/).
%%^

4.JPS

91989

'0 LcOiSlk
\/2B

DISCHARGE

I."

IV Z 7 197?

1975

UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY

AA 000 9001

86 8

(i^

3 1158 00407 2905

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The testimony of the catacombs and of other monuments of Christian art : from the second to the eighteenth century, concerning questions of doctrine now disupted in the Church"

See other formats