bestowed upon it. At first it does not seem to differ in its general character from contemporary pagan art. There is the same natural freedom and the same sort of designs; the principal figures alone have been drawn from religious sources. But by degrees new ideas must have occurred to the artists. involving a Christian sense, till, in course of time, the whole work, from its principal figures to its most insignificant details, was marked by those idiosyncrasies which gave to Christian art its conventional character.

The writers treat separately of symbolical, allegorical, and Biblical pictures, representations of our Lord, His Blessed Mother, and the Saints, and finally of liturgical paintings. We must content ourselves with a few remarks on the first of these. Symbolism differs from direct representation in being an appeal rather to the mind than to the heart. If we seek to know whence it sprung, many sources will suggest themselves to us. One important cause which must have weighed with the early Christians was the disciplina arcani, which they so persistently adopted, and to which both the fear of desecration and the natural instinct of self-preservation must have urged them. They desired to convey instruction and to excite devotion among themselves, but it was important that their representations should not be an occasion of blasphemy to their pagan persecutors.. But besides this there are the prophetic figures of the Old Testament, the divine parable and mystical actions of the New, nor need we look further than the recesses of our own nature to learn what pleasure can be derived from symbolism. The first ages of the Church are distinguished among all others for the universality of its use. The walls of the catacombs are filled with representations which, if not symbolical, would be quite unmeaning, whilst even their Biblical paintings show evidence of having been used in a mystical sense, nor can any, even the most superficial student of the Fathers of the Church, fail to have noticed how it has mixed itself up with their language. But what are the laws which are to guide us in its interpretation? Catholic writers have been accused of distorting it all into arguments for their own doctrines and practices, nor can we exempt Protestants from a similar charge; and many, on account of this disagreement, have come to distrust these ancient symbols altogether, putting them aside as a sealed book, from which we cannot hope to learn anything certainly of the thoughts. and feelings of our Christian forefathers. But unquestionably they must have had a meaning to those who used them, and

it is not unreasonable to suppose that by careful and judicious examination we can find it out, just as we have learnt to decipher the hieroglyphics of old Egypt.

Obviously the truest key to their meaning is to be found in anything that will give us certain knowledge of the thoughts and ideas of the artists themselves, or of those amongst whom they lived, or for whom they worked. A single text from a Father of the Church, writing about the same time that the symbols were being painted, or not long afterwards, is infinitely more valuable and trustworthy as a guide than a whole volume of hypothetical suggestions, however ingeniously invented, and speciously supported by the arguments of some modern commentator. And in proportion to the number and clearness of the texts that can be quoted, or the position and weight of their author, will be the certainty of the interpretation which they support. For instance, an apparent agreement between some passage in an obscure ecclesiastical author of the ninth century, and some Christian painting of the second or third, would not suffice to assure us of any real identity of meaning between them, the agreement might be merely fortuitous. But if, on the contrary, a witness or witnesses can be produced, contemporary with the artists, or with their predecessors perhaps who had helped to form that school and atmosphere of thought in which the artists lived; if it can be shown that certain ideas and modes of thought and expression were dominant in the Christian world at such a time, and formed a part of the common intellectual property, so to speak, of the Faithful, we cannot hope to find a surer guide in the interpretation of the works of art of the same period (p. 203).

Thus when we meet the anchor in frequent connection with such names as Elpis, Elpidius, Spes, &c., now found so as to suggest the idea of a cross, now on a gravestone where we so often find the hopeful prayer, "Vivas in bono,” “In pace," &c.,. and when to these coincidences we add the words of St. Paul (Heb. vi. 19) and kindred passages in the early Fathers, it is something more than a conjecture which leads us to set it down as a symbol of hope. We might say the same of the sheep and the dove, which in like manner are concluded to be emblems of the Christian soul, the former generally whilst united to the body, the latter when separated from it by death; or, by an evident analogy, they will stand for the Church and for the Holy Spirit. For instance, we find the dove by the side of such inscriptions as these—“Anima simplex," "Anima innocens."

We must conclude with a few words on the fish, which, from its connection with paintings symbolical of the Holy Eucharist may be considered as perhaps the most remarkable of the symbols of the catacombs. Its use as a mystical representation of doctrine is confined to the first ages of the Church. In the second and third centuries it is frequently so employed..

After this it gradually fell into disuse. Our first impulse would be to connect it with the miraculous draught of fishes, or the feeding of the five thousand in the desert, but though sometimes used in this way, there is another idea connected with it to which more importance was attached. It is that to which reference was made in the incident narrated at the beginning of this article. The fish was the special symbol of the God-Man, the Redeemer of mankind-of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Saviour-the initials of which words in the Greek language spell the word Izeug, or fish. How it came to be so employed is a question involved in some obscurity, but when once introduced it is not surprising that it should have found such favour, for it is a simple but grand profession of faith in the union of the divine and human natures of our Lord in one Person, and His office of Redeemer, truths which were the battle-field of heresies in those times. Moreover it must have completely eluded the suspicions of the pagan intruders. It lies at the foundation of many Patristic adaptations of Scripture which are quite unintelligible to those who do not bear it in mind. "The fish which is first taken," says St. Jerome, "in whose mouth was the coin which was paid as the tribute-money to those who demanded it, was Christ, the Second Adam, at the cost of Whose blood the first Adam and Peter, that is, all sinners, were redeemed." St. Prosper of Aquitain, with an evident allusion to the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist, the former of which was often called the solemnity of Illumination, remarks-"By the interior remedies of that fish we are daily enlightened and fed." St. Augustine, alluding to the Sibylline verses, expressly mentions the reason we have given why the fish was used as a symbol of our Lord. There have also been found in the catacombs a number of small fish carved in ivory, mother-of-pearl, enamel, and precious stones, some of which are drilled through, as if intended to be worn round the neck. Surely this is not a slight evidence that the present pious custom among Catholics, of wearing the Crucifix hanging from the neck is not peculiar to these later ages. Another proof of the emblematical signification of the fish is drawn from the combinations in which it is found. When we see

it represented as bearing on its back a ship, or a dove, or a sheep, can we avoid understanding in it a reference to our Lord sustaining His Church and the souls of His servants amidst the tempests of the world? Or when we find it combined with the anchor, not recollect the oft-repeated legend-"Spes in Christo ?" Or can we see it with the dove bearing a palm

brand, and not call to mind the no less frequent one-"Spiritus tuus in pace in Christo?"

But the most striking combination is that in which the live fish is seen in the water bearing on its back a basket of bread, in the front of which is an indistinct representation of what may very well be a flask of wine. We cannot suppose this extraordinary symbol to be a work of chance, a capricious whim of the artist, the more so as it is not found once only. It must then embody some deep meaning, and after what we have said about the fish, the interpretation put upon it which was mentioned at the commencement of this article cannot appear strained. We have many other representations in the catacombs, many passages of the Fathers, and above all our Lord's words in the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel, besides other unmistakable references in Scripture, to set down the bread-especially if we suppose the red figure in front of the basket to be a flask of wine-as the symbol of the outward sign in the Holy Eucharist. In confirmation of which we may add that the bread is not of the ordinary kind, but is that special bread of an ashy grey character, which was called sacrificial bread or mamphala; also the words of St. Jerome, which De Rossi tells us struck him forcibly when he first discovered the symbol before us, when speaking of a Bishop who had bestowed all his goods upon the poor, the Saint concludes that nothing can be richer than one who carries the Body of Christ in a basket of twigs, and the Blood of Christ in a chalice of glass.

σσ.

A Second Part of the Eirenicon.

THE time has perhaps gone by, when the appearance of a letter from Dr. Pusey to Dr. Newman on the subject of the controversy called into existence by the Eirenicon of the former writer, could awaken any very wide or strong interest. It has long been so abundantly evident that Dr. Pusey's habits of mind and methods of controversy must always occasion a fear that, whatever innocence of intention, he will, without meaning it, rather encumber the ground between Anglicanism and the Catholic Church with fresh obstacles than remove any that already existed, that it may be assumed that the first feeling which a new publication from his pen will awaken in those who have studied the Eirenicon will not be of a hopeful character. Curiosity may be awakened as to the very large number of charges of inaccuracy and misconception of his authorities which his former work called forth, and which he has announced his intention of meeting to the full. Or again, as it has been so widely rumoured that on the question of the Immaculate Conception and Transubstantiation Dr. Pusey has of late advanced nearer to Catholic truth than before, his new work will be looked to as answering the questions raised by these rumours. There is everything to be expected of a man who shifts his position, especially if as is not always the case he has the courage to withdraw his former assertions. Again, Dr. Pusey has no doubt a right to say that in a certain sense he speaks "in the name of many" (p. 18)—not of course, as we understand him, in the name of the Communion to which he belongs, but of a certain distinct and organised party within that Communion, of which he has a natural claim to be considered the leader-and a declaration from him may to some extent be taken as a manifesto from that body, and so be of a more than personal interest. Still, on the whole, we fear that people in general, and especially Catholics, will not turn to the