Although sometimes well cut, the inscriptions are often wretchedly executed, presenting a straggling and scarce legible scrawl, as in the following examples, the second of which indicates a transition into the later cursive character.

This ancient epigraphy often betrays extreme ignorance, and sets at defiance all the laws of grammatical construction. The spelling is frequently atrocious, and the general style and character utterly barbarous, rendering the meaning extremely obscure or altogether undecipherable. The language was much corrupted by the foreigners and slaves who formed so large a portion of the population. The later examples are often marked by the absence of terminal inflexions and the use of prepositions instead, and by other indications of the falling to pieces of the stately Latin tongue, which had been the vehicle of such a noble literature and such lofty eloquence, and of its degeneracy from the purity of the Augustan era into the mixed dialect of the Middle Ages, from which the modern Italian has sprung.[675]

The barbarous Latinity of the following indicates the degradation into which the language had fallen:

IIBER QVI VIXI QVAI QVO
PARE IVA ANOIVE I ANORV
M PLVI MINVI XXX I PACE.

Read: Liber, qui vixit cum compare sua annum I. Annorum plus minus XXX. In pace.

Liber, who lived with his wife one year. He lived thirty years, more or less. In peace.

Sometimes the inscription is found upside down, being probably thus placed by one unable to read. In the following example, from the Catacomb of St. Priscilla, a dove was afterward added, to correct in part the mistake of the ignorant fossor. Probably the epitaph may have been scratched on the stone by the dim light struggling through a luminare, but when brought to the grave it was too dark to see which side was uppermost.

In one example in the Lapidarian Gallery, represented in Fig. 126, the inscription is actually written backwards, like Hebrew text. Probably, as Maitland suggests, the stonecutter took the impression on marble from a written copy, and was too ignorant to perceive that it was, of course, reversed.

Most of the early epitaphs are of touching brevity and simplicity. Frequently only a single word, the name given in baptism, is recorded on the tomb, as in Fig. 127, which exhibits also the Christian symbols of the monogram, cross, and palm.

In Fig. 128 the names of three individuals appear on the same slab, which is recognizable as Christian only by the symbol of the Good Shepherd:

Frequently the phrase IN PACE, or DORMIT IN PACE, is added, in attestation of the Christian faith of the deceased, (see Figs. 122-124;) or, more briefly still, the word LOCVS is prefixed, as LOCVS PRIMI—“The place of Primus,”[676] as if descriptive of the last long home, the house appointed for all living.

The later inscriptions are frequently far removed from this naive simplicity, being inflated in style and elaborate in execution, attesting the increased wealth and growing pride of the Christian community. Of these we shall hereafter have frequent examples. One very remarkable series is that executed, under the direction of Pope Damasus, in the latter part of the fourth century. He composed numerous metrical epitaphs in honour of the martyrs, which were engraved in marble in a singularly elegant decorated character, designed by his secretary, Furius Dionysius Filocalus, who was also an accomplished artist. Hence the letters of these Damasine inscriptions are as distinct a characteristic in early Christian epigraphy as the celebrated Aldine type in the bibliography of the revival of learning. There are few of the Catacombs where these inscriptions have not been found; and De Rossi has been enabled thereby to reconstruct some valuable historical monuments from a few fragments, just as a skilful anatomist will reconstruct a skeleton from a portion of the vertebræ. Some of the most important of these have already been given; others will hereafter occur. The Latinity is often of a school-boy mediocrity; but they are of great value as determining the identity and elucidating the history of many important Christian tombs.

Most of the epitaphs, as we might naturally expect, were written in Latin. Nevertheless, a considerable proportion are in Greek, to which circumstance several causes conduced. Although Latin was the language of the mass of the Roman population, yet Greek was also spoken largely by the educated classes. We know, too, from the pages of Juvenal[677] and contemporary writers, that Rome swarmed with numbers of slaves and others from Greece and Asia Minor, who, although they might be able to speak Latin, would find it very difficult to write it. Moreover, Greek seems to have been in the early centuries a sort of ecclesiastical language at Rome, just as Latin is now throughout Roman Catholic Christendom. It was in this language that the glad tidings of the new evangel were first declared, and in it St. Paul wrote his epistle to the Roman church. The new wine of the gospel flowed from that classic chalice which so long had poured libations to the gods. Probably a religious sentiment led to the adoption, even by those to whom it was unfamiliar, of the language in which their holiest teachings and highest hopes had been originally conveyed, and in which the Apostolic Fathers and the greatest apologists, theologians, and historians of the early church had fought the battles of the faith. The responses of the Roman liturgy long continued to be uttered in this tongue, and traces of this practice still remain in the Kyrie, eleeson! Christe, eleeson! of the Order of the Mass. This primitive Greek influence has also left its indelible impression on our language in such words as church, bishop, presbyter, eucharist, baptism, catechism, liturgy, psalm, and hymn.

Sometimes the humble mourner had to be content with recording the Latin words in Greek characters, as in the following examples: ΛΕΙΒΕΡΕ ΜΑΞΙΜΙΛΛΕ ΚΟΙΟΥΓΕ ΑΜΑΝΤΙϹϹΙΜΑΕ ΦΙΚΙΤ ΕΝ ΠΑΚΕ. Read: Liberæ Maximillæ conjugi amantissimæ, vixit in pace—“To Libera Maximilla, a most loving wife. She lived in peace.” ΒΕΝΕ ΜΕΡΕΝΤΙ ΦΙΛΙΕ ΘΕΟΔΩΡΕ ΚΥΕ ΒΙΞΙΤ ΜΗϹΙϹ ΧΙ ΔΙΕΣ ΧVΙΙΙ. Read: Bene merenti filiæ Theodoræ, qui vixit menses XI, dies XVIII—“To our well-deserving daughter Theodora, who lived eleven months and eighteen days.”[678]

In copying Latin inscriptions many errors arose from the mason mistaking the Roman characters for similar Greek ones, as A for Λ, T for Γ, and the Latin H and P for the Greek Eta and Rho. The Greek influence is also seen in the altered inflexion of Latin words, as maritous for maritos, filies for filias, and the like. The proportion of Greek inscriptions among those before the time of Constantine is estimated at one eighth.[679] After that period it is less, indicating the gradual decline of Greek influence. In Gaul and the western provinces the proportion is not so great. At Autun there is only one Greek epitaph.

Of the eleven thousand extant inscriptions only thirteen hundred and seventy-four bear dates. The period of the others can be only approximately determined by a comparison with those whose ages are known; by a careful examination of the execution, language, and general sentiment, those of earlier date being less florid and more classical in style; by the presence or absence of certain symbols, as the sacred monogram, of which no example is known before the period of Constantine; and by the position in the Catacombs, those in the lower piani being of later date.

Judging by these criteria, De Rossi has arrived at the following conclusions: About six thousand of the epitaphs belong to the first four centuries, and are from the Catacombs; the rest were found above ground. Of these six thousand, about four thousand are before the year 324 A. D., when Constantine became sole emperor.

Only one of the dated inscriptions belongs to the first century, (A. D. 71,) two are of the second, (A. D. 107 and 111,) and twenty-three of the third; the fourth century is represented by over five hundred; the fifth by nearly as many; the sixth by about three hundred, principally in its earlier half; and the seventh by only seven.

Of these dated inscriptions, all before the year 313 A. D., when the edict of Milan gave peace to the church, are from the Catacombs. After that event subterranean sepulture rapidly decreased. Of the epitaphs bearing dates between the years 313 A. D. and 337 A. D., two thirds are from the Catacombs, and one third from the basilicas and other places of burial above ground. From A. D. 337 to the time of Julian the proportion of each was about equal. Of the dated inscriptions of the last quarter of this century, about one fourth are subterranean. Of those between the years A. D. 400 and A. D. 410, not one in ten is from the Catacombs, and after that period not one subterranean example occurs.[680] Sometimes, in epitaphs of late date, the name of the church and the position of the tomb are mentioned, as in the following: DEPOSITVS IN BASILICA SANCTORVM NASARI ET NABORIS SECVNDV ARCV IVXTA FENESTRA, (A. D. 404,)—“Buried in the basilica of Sts. Nasarius and Nabor, in the second arch near the window;” DEPOSITA IN CONTRA COLONNA VII, (A. D. 452,)—“Buried in the space opposite the seventh column.”

The Christian era was not adopted as a note of time till after the sixth century. The dates of the Roman inscriptions were therefore indicated by the names of the consuls for the year, generally written in an abbreviated form.[681] Frequently the addition VC., for Vir Clarissimus—“An illustrious man”—or, in the case of imperial consuls, DN., for Dominus Noster—“Our Lord”—also occurs.[682] In one instance the epithet DIVVS—“Divine”—assumed by the emperors, is employed in a Christian epitaph, in unthinking imitation of a heathen formula.

This mode of indicating dates, to which the name hypatic (from ὕπατος, consul) has been applied, continued in vogue till the latter part of the sixth century, and is the last recognition of that venerable institution, the Roman consulate. The year of the emperor, which was enjoined by Justinian, A. D. 537, for the dating of all public acts, appears after that time.

Towards the close of the fourth century the date is sometimes indicated by the name of the presiding bishop of the church at Rome, as SVB LIBERIO EPISCOPO, SVB DAMASO EPISCOPO, or TEMPORIBVS SANCTI INNOCENTII, the last expression used probably after the death of the pope named. The names of the bishops of other dioceses than that of Rome are also used, an indication of the parity of episcopal rank in the primitive ages. Thus we have in the year A. D. 397 the name PASCASIO EPISCOPO, according to De Rossi, probably the bishop of an ancient diocese in the immediate vicinity of the city. In the sixth century the names of certain priests, and even deacons, were used as local marks of time.

In a large number of inscriptions the day of the month is mentioned, although the year is not. Cardinal Wiseman attributes this to the custom of commemorating the anniversary of the death of the departed as that of his birth into a higher life.[683] But a similar usage is observed also in pagan epitaphs; and Dr. McCaul has well remarked[684] that it is the day of burial that is mentioned more frequently than that of death. The date of birth is seldom given,[685] but the length of life is almost invariably indicated, frequently with great minuteness. Not only are the number of years, months, and days mentioned, but often, with loving exactness, the hours, half-hours, and even the “scruples” or twenty-fourths of an hour, as in the following example: BENE MERENTI IN PACE SILVANA QVAE HIC DORMIT VIXIT ANN. XXI. MENS. III. HOR. IV. SCRVPLOS VI.—“To the well-deserving Silvana, who sleeps here in peace. She lived twenty-one years, three months, four hours, and six scruples.” Six scruples are a quarter of an hour.

When the exact number of years was unknown, the expressions PLVS MINVS, ΠΛΕΟΝ ΕΛΑΤΤΟΝ—“more or less”—were used.[686] Frequently the duration of married life is also mentioned with extreme definiteness, as in the following:[687] SILVANA NICIATI MARITO BENE MERENTI CUM QVO VIXIT ANNIS TRIBVS MANSIBVS DVABVS HORIS UNDECIM,—“Silvana to her well-deserving husband Niciatis, with whom she lived three years, two months, eleven hours.”

The day of the month is generally indicated in the ordinary way with reference to the divisions of Calends, Nones, and Ides.[688] The days of the week are mentioned by their usual classical names, as Dies Solis, Sunday; Dies Lunæ, Monday; Dies Martis, Tuesday; Dies Mercurii, Wednesday; Dies Jovis, Thursday; Dies Veneris, Friday; and Dies Saturni, Saturday. Sometimes, however, the first and last days of the week are indicated by the Christian designations Dies Dominica, the day of the Lord, and Dies Sabbati, the day of rest.

The Christian inscriptions also habitually ignore all mention of the birth-place or country of the deceased, as if in recognition that the Christian’s true country is beyond the grave.[689] As if, also, in obedience to the injunction to forsake father and mother in order to follow after Christ, details of family or descent, which are so conspicuous in some heathen inscriptions, almost never occur.

Mr. Burgon has briefly expressed the principal points of contrast between modern epitaphs and those of the early Christians, as follows: “They never mention the date of birth,[690] we seldom omit it. They constantly record the day of burial, we never. They seldom mention the year of death, we never omit it. We never allude to burial, they always. They frequently record the years of married life, we never. In theirs the survivors appear prominently, even by name, and are sometimes mentioned exclusively. With us the dead are always named, the living seldom.”[691]

There are among these inscriptions several examples of opisthographæ, as they are called,[692] that is, Christian epitaphs written on slabs that had originally borne one of pagan character. The latter are generally defaced or obliterated, filled with cement or turned to the wall, or placed upside down or sideways, so as to indicate their rejection by the Christian artist. Sometimes, however, they are still legible, but they have manifestly no connection with Christian sepulture whatever. Some are not funeral epitaphs at all, and some which are commemorate an entire family, though affixed to a single Christian grave. The appropriation of heathen monuments for the reception of Christian inscriptions will appear less strange when we reflect that the very temples of the gods have been the quarries from which many of the churches and palaces of later times were built.

Sometimes, as in the example given in Fig. 59, the heathen formula of consecration to the “Divine Spirits”—D. M., for Dis Manibus—is obliterated, and the sacred monogram gives the slab a Christian character. Occasionally, however, these letters appear in manifestly Christian inscriptions, in which case Fabretti and others have maintained that they were capable of the interpretation Deo Magno or Deo Maximo—“To the Supreme God.” With still less probability M. Rochette renders them Divis Martyribus—“To the divine martyrs,” for which expression no countenance is to be found in the entire range of the Catacombs. Both interpretations are entirely gratuitous suppositions, for which Christian epigraphy furnishes absolutely no warrant. It is more probable that they were careless or conventional imitations of a common heathen formula, which was occasionally adopted by the Christians without thought, or perhaps in ignorance of its meaning, just as they also imitated the winged genii and other classic accessories of pagan art in the ornamentation of the Catacombs. Dr. McCaul has suggested that the Roman mortuary sculptors probably kept sepulchral slabs on sale, as is often done now, with the common formulæ already engraved, which were purchased without regard to their appropriateness, and that in filling up the inscription the Christians sometimes neglected to obliterate the letters of pagan significance. Possibly, also, some lingering remnants of heathen superstition may sometimes be indicated by their use.

[666] It is eight hundred feet in extent, and contains about three thousand inscriptions.

[667] Shakspeare’s Sonnets, No. XXX.

[668] Tableau des Catacombes, p. x.

[669] Cf. Juv., “Gaudent prænomine molles auriculæ.” These are very rare in Christian inscriptions. See postea.

[670] Demolita et horrendum in modum vastata.—Prolegomena to Inscr. Christ. He has often to complain that he is unable to read part of the inscription:—Reliqua legere haud potui. Marangoni tells us that thousands of epigraphs were taken from the Catacombs to the church of St. Maria in Trastevere; seven cartloads to St. Giovanni de Fiorentini; two cartloads to another church of St. Giovanni in Rome; yet there are at present only about twenty in the portico of the former and not one in either of the two latter churches. See Heman’s Sac. Art. in Italy, pp. 58, 59.

[671] The latter works of Fabretti, Muratori, Orelli, Martigny, Cardinal Mai, and Perret contain numerous examples. These have all been laid under tribute in preparing these pages.

[672]

Nos pio fletu, date, perluamus
Marmorum sulcos.—Peristeph., hymn vii.

[673] We append the following examples by way of illustration:

CALEVIVSBENDIDITAVINTRISOMVVBIPOSITIERANT
VINIETCALVILIVSETLVCIVSINPA.

Calevius sold to Avinius a place for three bodies, where both Cavilius and Lucius had (already) been placed in peace.—De Rossi, Inscr. Christ., No. 489.

ΤΡΙΑΚΟΝΤΑΠΕΝΤΑΕΤΗϹΕΝΘΑΔΕΚΙΤΕΥΠΑΤΙΑ
ΘΥΓΑΤΗΡΑΝΤΩΝΙΟΥΚΩϹΤΑΝΤΙΝΟΠΟΛΙΤΙϹϹΑ.

Here lies Hypatia, thirty-five years of age, daughter of Antonius, a native of Constantinople.—De Rossi, No. 583.

The originals are more difficult to decipher, but with a little practice it becomes comparatively easy. Sometimes the letters are of greatly varying sizes, as in the following:

LoCVSavgvStileCToRis.
The place of Augustus, the Reader.

[674] See, also, the uncouthness of the epitaph of Martyrus, Fig. 19, and of Tesaris, Fig. 58.

[675] The distinctions of case gradually disappear, the accusative and genitive are often used indiscriminately, and the former is frequently substituted for the ablative, as in the following phrases, cum uxorem, cum fratrem, sine aliquam, pro caritatem, decessit de seculum, etc. The transition into Italian is indicated by the prefixing the letter i, as in the words ispiritus, iscribet; by affixing e, as posuete for posuit, and by the general softening of the pronunciation, as santa for sancta, meses for menses, and sesies for sexies. The names Stefano and Filipo have also a very modern appearance.

The misplacing of the aspirate is seen to be by no means a cockney peculiarity, as in the following examples:—Hossa, hordine, Hosiris, helephantus, post hobitum, Hoctobris, heterna, etc. In the following the h is omitted: Onorius, ora, omo, ilaris, ospitium, onestus, oc, and ic. The permutation of the letters t and d, and v and b, is also common, as adque for atque, and bibit for vivit. We also find such forms as vicxit, visit, bissit, or visse, for vixit; michi for mihi; pake or pache for pace; opsequia for obsequia; quisquenti for quiescenti; depossio for depositio; vocitus for vocatus; pulla for puella; omniorum for omnium; restutus for restitutus; pride for pridie; que or qae for quæ, and the like. Many of these peculiarities, however, are common to later pagan as well as to Christian inscriptions.

[676] See Fig. 45.

[677] See his “Græculus esuriens,” (Sat., iii, 78,) and the expression, “In Tiberem defluxit Orontes.”—Ib., 62.

[678] Sometimes the two languages are strangely blended in the same epitaph; and occasionally we find a Greek inscription in Latin characters, as in the following: PRIMA IRENE SOI. Read: Πρῖμα εἰρήνη σοι—“Prima, peace to thee.”

[679] In the dated inscriptions the proportion is less, as the Latin-speaking Christians would be the more likely to employ the consular dates as indications of time.

[680] Of the four hundred Gaulish inscriptions in Le Blant few bear dates, and of these none are earlier than the time of Constantine. The first is of the year A. D. 334; the next, at Autun, of the year A. D. 374. They are also more artificial and rhetorical in style than those of Rome.

[681] For example, POL · II · ET · APR · II · COS, which, expanded, reads thus: Pollione iterum et Apro iterum Consulibus, that is, 176 A. D.

L · FAB · CIL · M · ANN · LIB · COS—Lucio Fabio Cilone, Marco Annio Libone Consulibus, that is, 204 A. D. To save space we have generally omitted the names of the consuls, giving merely the date.

[682] Sometimes we have the forms VVCC., Viri Clarissimi; DD. NN., Domini Nostri; and AVGG., or AAVVGG., Augusti.

[683] Fabiola, p. 146.

[684] Christian Epitaphs, Introd., p. xxii, note ✝. We are indebted to this masterly prolegomena for several of the illustrations cited.

[685] In one example it is minutely indicated thus: Ora noctis · IIII. ··· VIII Idus Madias die Saturnis luna vigesima Signo Apiorno,—“In the fourth hour of the night, the eighth day before the Ides of May, the twentieth day of the Moon, in the sign of Capricorn.” De Rossi regards this as an astrological horoscope—a relic of heathen superstition.

[686] The greatest age we have observed in Christian epitaphs is ninety-one years. See Fig. 19. The youngest is three months—Mens. III. We have noticed in Muratori (p. 382, No. 5) the following remarkable instance of longevity: M. Flavius Secundus filius fecit Flavio Secundo patri q. vixit ann. CXII, et Flaviæ Urbanæ matri piæ vixit ann. CV.—“M. Flavius Secundus, the son, made this to Flavius Secundus, his father, who lived one hundred and twelve years, and to his pious mother, (who) lived one hundred and five years.” Kenrick quotes an epitaph of a child of three and his mother (mammula) of eighty; and another of a man of one hundred and two years, ninety of which were passed without disease. The average duration of life, according to Ulpian, was thirty years.

[687] The relationship is generally expressed by such phrases as vixit mecum, duravit mecum, vixit in conjugio, fecit mecum, fecit cum compare. McCaul, Christ. Epitaphs, Introd. xv.

[688] Ib., xxvii.

[689] Of 5,000 epitaphs in Squier’s Index, only forty-five mention the country of the deceased. See one example, page 401, second footnote, and also the following, of date A. D. 388: Rapetiga, medicus, civis Hispanus, qui vixit in pace annos plus minus XXV,—“Rapetiga, a physician, a citizen of Spain, who lived in peace twenty-five years, more or less.”

[690] This is not quite correct.

[691] Letters from Rome, pp. 202, 203.

[692] From ὀπίσθιος and γράφω, to write again.

“What insight into the familiar feelings and thoughts of the primitive ages of the church,” remarks the learned and eloquent Dean Stanley,[693] “can be compared with that afforded by the Roman Catacombs! Hardly noticed by Gibbon or Mosheim, they yet give us a likeness of those early times beyond that derived from any of the written authorities on which Gibbon and Mosheim repose.... The subjects of the painting and sculpture place before us the exact ideas with which the first Christians were familiar; they remind us, by what they do not contain, of the ideas with which the first Christians were not familiar.... He who is thoroughly steeped in the imagery of the Catacombs will be nearer to the thought of the early church than he who has learned by heart the most elaborate treatise even of Tertullian or of Origen.”

By the study of the inscriptions, paintings, and sculpture of this subterranean city of the dead, we may follow the development of Christian thought from century to century; we may trace the successive changes of doctrine and discipline; we may read the irrefragable testimony, written with a pen of iron in the rock forever, of the purity of the primitive faith, and of the gradual corruption which it has undergone.

In this era of critical investigation of the very foundations of the faith it will be well to examine this vast body of Christian evidences as to the doctrinal teachings of the primitive times, which has been handed down from the believers living in or near the apostolic age, and thus providentially preserved in these subterranean excavations, as a perpetual memorial of the faith and practice of the golden prime of Christianity.

While we should not expect to find in these inscriptions a complete system of theology, we would certainly look for some definite expression regarding the religious belief of those who wrote these memorials of the dead. We would expect some reference to the lives of the departed, to the virtues of their character, and to the hopes of the survivors as to their future condition in the spirit-world. In this expectation we are not disappointed. We find in these epitaphs a body of evidence on the doctrines and discipline of the primitive church, whose value it is scarcely possible to overestimate. We are struck with the infinite contrast of their sentiment to that of the pagan sepulchral monuments, and also by the conspicuous absence, in those of the early centuries and purer period of Christianity, of the doctrines by which the church of Rome is characterized. We shall also find references to some of the heresies, which, like plague spots, alas! so soon began to infect the church,[694] and some of which even found distinguished ecclesiastical patronage.[695]

The Church of Rome lays especial claim to the traditions of the early ages and the antiquities of the Catacombs as proofs of the apostolic character of her peculiar dogmas and usages. But these ancient records are a palimpsest which she has written all over with her own glosses and interpretations; and when the ordeal of modern criticism revives the real documents and removes the accumulation of error, the testimony of the past is strikingly opposed to the pretensions of the Roman See and the teachings of Romish doctrine. The distinguished scholarship, laborious research, and archæological skill of such eminent authorities as De Rossi, Pitra, Garrucci, and other Roman savants, only furnish the weapons for the refutation of many of Rome’s most cherished beliefs. There are those, indeed, who carry to these investigations the faculty of seeing what they wish to see, and what no others can perceive. It not unfrequently happens, also, that extreme credulity and superstition are found united with great learning and high scientific attainments. The effect, however, of the honest examination of this testimony by a candid mind is seen in the case of Mr. Hemans, the learned author of “Ancient Christianity and Sacred Art in Italy.” This gentleman, although a pervert from the Anglican communion to that of Rome, and in strong sympathy with many of its institutions, as is apparent from his interesting volume, felt compelled by the historical and monumental testimony of the Catacombs, and of early Christian art and literature, to retrace his steps, and, however reluctantly to condemn and abandon the faith he had espoused.

Protestantism, therefore, has nothing to fear from the closest investigation of these evidences of primitive Christianity. They offer no warrant whatever for the characteristic doctrines and practice of the modern Church of Rome. There is not a single inscription, nor painting, nor sculpture, before the middle of the fourth century, that lends the least countenance to her arrogant assumptions and erroneous dogmas. All previous to this date are remarkable for their evangelical character; and it is only after that period that the distinctive peculiarities of Romanism begin to appear. The wholesome breath of persecution and the “sweet uses of adversity” in the early ages tended to preserve the moral purity of the church; but the enervating influence of imperial favour and the influx of wealth and luxury, led to corruptions of practice and errors of doctrine. Her trappings of worldly pomp and power were a Nessus garment which empoisoned her spiritual life. Hence the Catacombs, the rude cradle of the early faith, became also the grave of much of its simplicity and purity.

In the investigation of early Christian epigraphy, therefore, the determination of dates is of the utmost importance, as it is only inscriptions of the earlier and acknowledged purer period of the church which can bear authoritative testimony as to primitive doctrine. We shall, therefore, first examine in chronological order all those bearing dates earlier than the fourth century which have any doctrinal significance, and then glean the evidence of later examples as to the antiquity of Romanist teachings. We will take the inscriptions as given in his great work,[696] by De Rossi, the most eminent authority on this subject; but while accepting his facts, and acknowledging his candour and honesty of research, which qualities we will seek to imitate, we cannot in all cases accept his conclusions.

The first dated inscription possessing any doctrinal character occurs in the year 217.[697] It is taken from a large sarcophagus found in the Via Labicana, and is of great interest as indicating the lofty social position and honourable offices of the deceased as a member of the imperial household, as well as the devout confidence of his pious freedmen in his spiritual beatification. The upper portion of the following inscription, that in larger type, is engraved on the front of the sarcophagus, and that in smaller characters on the back. The use of a sarcophagus is an indication of the wealth of the deceased.

We have here the earliest indication of doctrinal belief as to the condition of the departed. It is not, however, a dark and gloomy apprehension of purgatorial fires, but, on the contrary, the joyous confidence of immediate reception into the presence of God.[698] The retention of the pagan title of the emperor, “the deified Commodus,” is an anomalous feature in a Christian monument, although doubtless it is merely the unthinking imitation of a common epigraphic formula.

Accompanying an inscription of date A. D. 234, is the first example of the symbols, afterward so common, the fish and the anchor, but no other distinctively Christian feature. In the next year, A. D. 235, occurs the following epitaph, in which there is possibly an intimation of immortality in the expression de sæculo recessit—“retired from the world,” or “from the age.”[699] AVRELIA DVLCISSIMA FILIA QVAE DE SAECVLO RECESSIT VIXIT ANN · XV · M · IIII · SEVERO ET QVINTIN COSS,—“Aurelia, our very sweet daughter, who retired from the world, Severus and Quintinus being consuls. She lived fifteen years and four months.” The epithet “very sweet daughter” is peculiarly appropriate to the Christian character, although common also on pagan tombs.

In the year A. D. 238, on a sarcophagus which bears the first dated representation of the Good Shepherd, we find the following touching inscription. It conveys nothing doctrinal beyond the phrase “most devout,” or “God-loving,” expressive of the youthful piety of the deceased. ΗΡΑΚΛΙΤΟϹ Ο ΘΕΟΦΙΛΕϹΤΑΤΟϹ ΕΖΗϹΕΝ ΕΤ(η) Η ΠΑΡΑ Η(μέρας) ΙΓ ΕΝΟϹΗϹΕΝ ΗΜ(ε)Ρ(ας) ΙΒ.... ΞΑΝΘΙΑϹ ΠΑΤΗΡ ΤΕΚΝΩ ΓΛΥΚΥΤΕΡΩ ΦΩΤΟϹ ΚΑΙ ΖΩΗϹ—“The very devout Heraclitus lived eight years and thirteen days. He was ill twelve days.... Xanthias his father, to his son, sweeter than light and life.” The mention of the duration of the illness is very rare in these epitaphs. The yearning affection of the bereaved father is beautifully expressed in the last clause.

The next dated inscription, of the year 269, A. D., is of a very barbarous character—Latin words in Greek letters, not engraved, but merely painted on the slab. It is evidently, as is indicated by its wretched grammar and orthography, the production of extreme ignorance. It requires a strong dogmatic prepossession to detect in its incoherent language any meaning beyond the attestation of the sanctity of character of the deceased. After giving the date, it reads thus: ΛΕΥΚΕϹ · ΦΙΛΕΙΕ ϹΕΒΗΡΕ · ΚΑΡΕϹϹΕΜΕ · ΠΟϹΟΥΕΤΕ · ΕΔ · ΕΙϹΠΕΙΡΕΙΤΩ · ϹΑΝΚΤΩ · ΤΟΥΩ · Read, Leuces filiæ Severæ carissimæ posuit et spiritui sancto tuo,—“Leuces erected this (memorial) to her very dear daughter, and to thy (sic) holy spirit.”

There is nothing, therefore, in any of the inscriptions of the first three centuries—the ages of the purity of the faith—which can in the least degree support the assumptions of Roman controversialists as to the antiquity of Romish dogmas. Nor is there any indication of those dogmas till the latter part of the fourth century, as will be evident from a brief examination of the principal inscriptions having any reference to doctrine before that period. In the year A. D. 302 we find the following beautiful tribute of conjugal and filial affection, which only, however, attests the high Christian character of the deceased: DOMINO PATRI PIISSIMO AC DVLCISSIMO SECVNDO VXOR ET FILII PRO PIETATE POSVERVNT—“To the highly venerable, most devout, and very sweet father, Secundus. His wife and sons in expression of their dutifulness have placed this slab.”

B · M · CVBICVLVM · AVRELIAE · MARTINAE · CASTISSIMAE · ADQVE. PVDICISSIMAE · FEMINAE · QVI · FECIT · IN · CONIVGIO · ANN · XXIII · D · XIIII—“To one well-deserving. The sleeping-place of Aurelia Martina, a most chaste and modest woman, who passed in wedlock twenty-three years, fourteen days.”

All the expressions applied to the death of the righteous indicate the assurance of their spirits’ peace and happiness. Thus, in addition to the examples already given, we have, A. D. 339, BENE QVESQVENTI (sic) IN PACE—“Resting well in peace;” A. D. 339, IN PACE DECESSIT, A. D. 349, and A. D. 360, IBIT and EXIBIT IN PACE—“Departed in peace;” A. D. 348, REQVIEVIT—“Entered into rest;” A. D. 353, PAVSABIT—“Will repose;” A. D. 355, QVIESCIT—“He rests,” not REQVIESCAT—“May he rest,” as the Romanists write, but the joyful assurance of present repose in the peace of God; A. D. 359, IVIT AD DEVM—“He went to God;” A. D. 363, SEMPER QVIESCIS SECVRA—“Thou dost repose forever free from care;” A. D. 368, QVIENCIS (sic) IN PACE CONIVX INCOMPARABILIS—“Thou restest in peace, incomparable wife;” A. D. 369, VOCITVS (sic) IIT IN PACE—“Called away, he went in peace;” in A. D. 380, we find AETERNA REQVIES FELICITATIS—“Everlasting rest of happiness.” The Christians, as is asserted in the following, sorrowed not as those without hope: IVLIAE INNOCENTISSIMAE ET DVLCISSIMAE, MATER SVA SPERANS—“To the most sweet and innocent Julia, her mother hoping.” The loved ones were “not lost, but gone before:” PRAECESSIT NOS IN PACE—“He went before us in peace;” ΠΡΟΑΠΕΛΘΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΚΑΘ ΗΜΑϹ ΒΙΟΥ—“Having gone before from our life.” Sometimes the body seems to be regarded as the clog and fetter of the soul, binding it to earth, as in the following: ABSOLVTVS DE CORPORE—“Set free from the body;” CORPOREOS RVMPENS NEXVS GAVDET IN ASTRIS—“Breaking the bonds of the body, he rejoices in the stars,” that is, in heaven.

Theodora, who lived twenty-one years, seven months, twenty-three days. In peace. Whilst following an exalted life, a chaste Venus, she pursued her way to the stars. Now she rejoices in the court of Christ. She resisted the world, ever following heavenly things. A devout observer of the law, and mistress of honour, she applied an illustrious mind to holy things while here in this world. Hence she reigns (amid) the choice odours of paradise, where the herbage is forever green beside the streams of heaven,[700] and awaits God, in order that she may rise to the upper air. She laid her body in this tomb, forsaking mortal things, and Evacrius, her husband, built the monument, superintending the work.

The first inscription at all favourable to Romish doctrine is the following barbarous example, (A. D. 380:)

Here rests a handmaid of God[701] who, of all her riches, possesses but this one house: whom her friends bewail, and seek for consolation. O pray for this thine only child whom thou hast left behind. Thou wilt remain in the eternal repose of happiness.

The yearning cry of an orphaned heart for the prayers of a departed mother is, however, a slight foundation for the Romish practice of the invocation of the saints.

Previous to this date we have found not the slightest indication of Romish doctrine; and if those doctrines have been transmitted, as their advocates assert, from the very earliest ages, it is incredible that they should have left no trace in the dated inscriptions for nearly four centuries. After this time, it is true, we find occasional epitaphs which, rigidly interpreted according to the canons of theological criticism, contain sentiments unwarranted by Scripture; but these may be the result of carelessness of expression, or of the corruptions of doctrine which had already taken place in the church.

If then those inscriptions which apparently favour Romish dogmas, of which we know the date, are all of a late period, we may assume that those of a similar character which are undated are of the same relative age, and therefore valueless as evidence of the antiquity of such dogmas. Dr. Northcote admits the fact, but objects to this conclusion as founded upon negative evidence; yet he himself adopts the same line of argument concerning the absence of military rank among the primitive Christians. But we are not left to negative evidence. We have the amplest testimony of a positive character, which we shall proceed to examine, showing that even in the fifth and sixth century the vast proportion of the inscriptions are of a highly evangelical character, and are entirely antagonistic to the most cherished doctrines of the Church of Rome.