in which he himself afterwards discovered the long-lost entrance into the Catacomb of Callistus, and his researches have invested the Catacombs with fresh interest. A new day appears to be dawning on these extraordinary monuments of antiquity; and it is to be attributed to the learning and enterprise of the Cav. de Rossi, under the patronage of the Pope.

So far we have taken Mr. Burgon as our guide. The author of "Amy Herbert," with fewer details and less learning, gives a similar account of her own visit to the most important of these cities of the dead-the Catacombs of Callistus and St. Agnese. But now for the moral which they teach. The ancient classic authors make, we believe, no reference to them. The first interments, so far as we can gather with any certainty, were not earlier than about the middle of the third century. There is an inscription to Anteros, bishop of Rome, A.D. 235; another to Fabian, who succeeded him, bishop and martyr, in 236; these are the earliest; and the inscriptions contain nothing more than the names of the deceased in Greek letters, and their titles, bishop in the one case, bishop and martyr in the other. But Mr. Burgon does not believe that either these, or three others, in memory of Lucius, Eutychianus, and Cornelius (the correspondent of Cyprian), all bishops of Rome in the third century, and the last a martyr, are really the original epitaphs. His reasons appear to us conclusive; and they bear out his theory, namely, that some later Roman bishop set up the inscriptions when the age of persecution had gone by, and it was thought a pious work to honour the men who slept in unknown or dishonoured graves, or probably in none. The names of four, it is to be noted, are expressed in Greek letters, which were all apparently incised at the same time. It seems incredible that four original inscriptions would all have been worded so exactly alike, or that on the graves of eminent men inscriptions so curt and unceremonious would have been set up by their contemporaries. In the case of Cornelius, the name is written in Roman characters, and is evidently of a much later date. Photographic copies of the five are given, and the reader may judge for himself. These, however, are the earliest inscriptions. They were discovered in 1854.

Thus, then, we have no information from the Catacombs on those deeply-interesting questions,-What was the character of the Christian church in its private life and every-day pursuits in that primitive age in which apostles taught and workers of miracles abounded? Above all, what hold had the Christians of those days, or their children, upon Christian doctrine? And how was the church at Rome influenced by that most wonderful of all his writings, St. Paul's own Epistle to the Romans? The Catacombs are silent here. Their dull echo returns only

the indistinct voices of a much later age,-an age of feeble and degenerate Christianity. We make allowance for the difference of time and nation. It would be preposterous to set up an English churchyard, with its texts and pious hymns, as a standard for other churches. Still we cannot but feel surprised, and, were we disposed to bow down before the shrine of antiquity, we should feel disappointed, too, at the meagreness and vagueness of Catacomb theology. It leads to the conclusion that, in the third and fourth centuries at least, the light had grown dim. The tree was beginning to decay, though the fungus had not yet grown upon the trunk, nor the worm eaten its way underneath the bark.

Mr.

Mr. Burgon has made a large collection of inscriptions. Some of these he places before us in photograph, so that the reader may judge of the probable correctness of his interpretations, for they abound in contractions; the spelling would often satisfy the most ardent disciple of the phonetic school, and the rules of syntax are set at naught with an audacity which might infuse courage into the dullest boy on the lowest form at Eton. We have no texts of Scripture, which, indeed, never occur in the epitaphs of the early Christians. Burgon asks, "When did the usage first come in?" We think not before the Reformation. But neither have we, however expressed, any testimony very clearly conveyed as to the nature of their faith, or the ground of their hope of salvation. The usual formula is: Such an one "sleeps in peace," or simply, "in peace." Once, we observe, a brother "departed in faith" (recessit in fidem). The sister is interred beneath or beside him, and of both it is added, "they departed in peace." The monogram of Christ frequently occurs, as well as the Greek letters Alpha and Omega, showing without a doubt in whom they believed; but beyond this we have little to guide us. The dove frequently appears; in general it carries the olive branch; if this be the emblem of the Holy Spirit, it shows the purity of their creed on the great question of the Trinity: but it may refer to the story of the Deluge. Mr. Burgon's remark is equally just and painful :—

"The record 'in pace,' has quite gone out with us. On the other hand, allusions to the hope of the resurrection abound on English grave-stones, which seldom or never appear on those of ancient Christendom. Peace, in short, is the predominating idea in their epitaphs, Hope in ours. They retain the legal image, we have adopted the evangelical. The present is their subject of contemplation, ours is the future."

We can hardly believe that the word of God dwelt in the Roman Christians of those days in all wisdom, or that Paul's epistles were much read, or, if read, were generally under

stood. And when, at length, we gain from these inscriptions some little insight into the character of the Christianity then prevalent at Rome, we find its piety to be nothing more than the piety of a well-trained infant school. We meet with nothing unscriptural; but it is all conversant with the simplest elements. The decorations on the walls-for there are traces of many such-are precisely those which adorn the walls of an infant school. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, occurs, with a crook in His hand, and a lamb upon His shoulders. Noah's ark is there, with the dove and olive branch; but with a frequent addition of a fish or fishes swimming in the water. This emblem was peculiar to the early church; and we must explain, for the benefit of those who are not versed in ecclesiastical antiquities, that it was what the cross or crucifix became in after times, before superstition had defiled it,―the emblem of allegiance to Christ. It was formed out of the initial letters of the following words: Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Saviour-which form in Greek the word ix0ûs, a fish. We may also add, that the cross, or crucifix, never once appears in the Čatacombs, though Evelyn says he saw it there. Mr. Burgon says expressly, "I saw no crosses; ;" and he explains the mistake of our accomplished countryman: "What he saw was evidently the monogram, or Christ. However, it is delightful to learn that, if the Christianity of Rome in the fourth century was feeble, it was not impure. "If," says Miss Sewell," the Catacombs prove anything of the religious system of primitive Christianity, they prove that we are able to identify ourselves with it without any straining or effort. The frescoes and inscriptions might belong to an English church; and in no place could the words of mingled sorrow and hope of the English burial service fall more fitly or soothingly on the ear than in these early Christian restingplaces."

It is by their silence the Catacombs speak emphatically on the Romish controversy. The contrast between Rome under ground and Rome above ground is complete. There is not a dogma of modern Rome which is not contradicted by the silence of her own Catacombs; and here silence is conclusive. It proves that the doctrines which claim the authority of a primitive antiquity were unknown even to the church of the third century; there is not one of those doctrines which Rome lays claim to in proof of her exclusive apostolicity, which receives the slightest countenance from the Catacombs. Her bishops, down to the fourth century, are simply bishops, and not popes. There are no traces of prayers for the dead; no worship of the blessed Virgin; no allusions to purgatory; no notice whatever of St. Peter, and therefore no reference to his exclusive possession of the keys. Allusions are found to the

two sacraments, and to two only; but there are hints that the cup was received by the laity, and abundant evidence that the clergy were married men, and that their wives were had in estimation in the church. In short, to quote from Mr. Burgon :

"The remains of early Christian art, like the most venerable of the patristic writings, are one loud protest against the corruptions of modern Romanism. The favourite appeal to the Christians of the Catacombs is absolutely fatal. If those primitive believers could revisit the earth, they would walk away with horror from the column of the Piazza di Spagna, which commemorates 'the new dogma.' How shocked would they be to find the Blessed Virgin everywhere, and her adorable SON scarcely anywhere at all! They would be impatient of the many human objects of worship which keep HIM so nearly out of sight. Those huge statues under the dome of St. Peter's, of Veronica, Helena, and Longinus, would confound them. The bronze figure of the Saint (especially if he had his smart robes on) would fill them with consternation. What would they say, when they saw his foot well-nigh kissed away by his many devotees,-the Bishop of Rome himself setting the example?... They would inquire what the inscription over every church door (Indulgentia plenaria pro vivis et mortuis') meant; and when they were told, they would reject the evidence of their senses. How would they testify their indignation at the promise of deliverance to any believer's soul out of purgatorial pain, for whom mass should be celebrated at one particular altar!" (p. 257.)

The Catacombs afford another lesson. They show us by what steps corruption steals into the church of Christ. The first symptom, no doubt, is the want of love, but this is to be traced in private life rather than in public monuments. Then follows the neglect of Scripture, and soon afterwards we trace the absence of a sound and vigorous theology. Doctrines even the most important are dropped out of sight; dogmatic teaching falls into disfavour, it is accounted harsh and dry; and while the conduct is correct, the creed is held to be of slight importance. A church thus weak and languishing invites the enemy. He comes in "like a flood," and bears down all before him. The Christians of the Catacombs were evidently not the men to cope with the giant corruptions which were soon to gather upon the church of Rome. They were men of sincere but feeble piety. Thus, after all, the greatest lesson which these venerable monuments teach seems to be addressed, in our own day, to those evangelical Christians who are in danger of being misled by the fashionable indifference to evangelical doctrines. The voice echoes from the Catacombs, "Hold fast that thou hast, that no man take thy crown:" "Keep the commandment without spot unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ."

ALFORD ON THE REVELATION.

The Greek Testament, with a Critically Revised Text, &c. By Henry Alford, D.D. Vol. IV. Part 2. THE REVELATION. Rivingtons. 1861.

LITTLE attraction as expositions of the Apocalypse have for the generality of readers, it may reasonably be expected that there are few who will be indisposed to make themselves acquainted with the views adopted by so distinguished a writer and scholar as Dr. Alford. And therefore, without thinking it necessary to offer any apology or justification for so doing, we will proceed to lay before our readers the main features of his exposition.

The general impression that we have received from an attentive perusal of this portion of Dr. Alford's great work is, that it is just such a production as might be expected from the pen of an able divine who, with little previous acquaintance with the Revelation, and little time to digest and mature his views, has found it necessary, in order to complete a work which he had taken in hand, to apply himself to a task by no means congenial to his taste, and one which he would never voluntarily have undertaken. Dr. Alford appears to have "crammed" up or consulted, as he proceeded, a great number of works (chiefly German); and he has summarised the various views in his usual clear and concise way. But, if our impression be well founded, it is scarcely to be expected that he should, in the course of perhaps not more than a few months, have unveiled a mystery which many men as able as himself have failed to penetrate in ten or twenty years, nay, in life-long labours. Indeed, it will not be at all surprising if his views should prove to be extremely crude and palpably erroneous.

But, without dwelling on this à priori presumption, we will proceed to examine some of the details in the order in which they occur.

1. Dr. Alford asserts that the angel by whom it is declared, in chap. i. 1, that the revelation was communicated, "first appears in chap. xvii. ;" and that the voice which John heard behind him (i. 10) did not proceed from the High Priest. These assertions have an important bearing on the scheme of interpretation, and hence it will be worth while to examine them; and they are so intimately connected with one another, that they will most conveniently be taken together. Now, the introductory title or description of the book sets forth that the work contains "a revelation of Jesus which God gave to Him; and that He, sending by His angel, communicated by symbols to John whatsoever He saw.' "Whatsoever He saw," must manifestly comprehend the whole; and is clearly inconsistent with