We have thus endeavoured to give a faithful transcript of the testimony of the Catacombs relative to primitive Christianity. We have seen how consonant it is with the teachings of Holy Scripture, how opposed to all the institutions and dogmas of Rome. We have only to compare the buried relics of the past with the living present above ground to see at a glance the infinite
contrast between the church of Christ and that of Antichrist. Could the simple bishops of the primitive ages behold the more than regal state and oriental pomp in which, surrounded by armed halberdiers, amid the blare of martial music and thunder of the guns of St. Angelo, their successor of to-day rides in his golden chariot from his stately palace to the majestic fane of St. Peter—the grandest temple in the world—they would feel it difficult to perceive therein any resemblance to their own humble and often persecuted estate, or to the pure and spiritual religion of the meek and lowly Nazarene. Could they witness the almost idolatrous homage which he receives, throned in state, tiaraed with a triple crown, presenting his foot for the humiliating osculation of bishops, cardinals, ambassadors, and pilgrims from every land; could they behold him summoning from the ends of the earth the prelates of Roman Catholic Christendom to record a decree of his personal infallibility and freedom from human error; they would regard as blasphemous these unhallowed assumptions, and denounce, as the prophetic Antichrist, him who laid claim to these awful attributes.[929]
Above the lowly sleepers in the crypts of the Vatican swells the mighty dome which Michael Angelo hung high in air; lofty chant and pealing anthem thrill through the vast expanse; polished shafts of porphyry,
jasper, and costliest marble gleam around; priceless paintings and rarest sculpture by the hand of genius afford a still richer adorning; at an altar blazing with gold and gems a human priest in many-coloured vestments daily repeats, as he dares assert, the ineffable sacrifice of Christ; from four hundred cross-crowned campaniles baptized and consecrated bells ring forth the hours of prayer; at a thousand shrines the multitude adore, they vainly think, the real presence of the Redeemer; and perfumed incense evermore ascends, not to the many gods of the Pantheon, but to the still more numerous saints of the Roman calendar. But we feel that all the kingdoms of the world, and all the glory of them, were a poor compensation for the loss of the primitive simplicity, purity, and spiritual power of the humble service of the Catacombs. We turn away from the gorgeous ritual and hollow pomp to those lowly crypts where the Christian hymn of a persecuted remnant of the saints ascended from beside the martyr’s grave, as the truer type of Christ’s spiritual temple upon earth. In these chambers of silence and gloom we find the evidences of that undying life of Christianity which we seek in vain amid the living death of that city of churches and of priests—the Apostolic See of Christendom—the vaunted seat of Christ’s vicegerent upon earth. With a deeper significance than that with which it was first uttered, we adopt the language of Tertullian, and exclaim, ID ESSE VERUM, QUODCUNQUE PRIMUM; ID ESSE ADULTERUM, QUODCUNQUE POSTERIUS.[930]
[822] Northcote’s Catacombs, p. 140.
[823] Euseb., Hist. Eccles., vi, 43. The hierarchical subdivisions in the Greek church are vastly more elaborate. Thus we have the patriarch, metropolitan, archbishop, bishop, proto-presbyter, super-dean, dean, presbyter, proto-deacon, deacon, sub-deacon, and common priest, besides a host of inferior grades.
[824] Strom., vi, 13. “The succession of the early Roman bishops,” says Stillingfleet, “is as muddy as the Tiber itself.”—Irenicum, ii, 7. It is an historical riddle of which it is difficult or impossible to find the solution.
[825] Eusebius gives this very title, ποιμήν, to Cyprian, (vii, 3.) They were also called πρόεδροι, προεστώς, and præsides, or presidents.
[826] Hippolytus, bishop of Portus, only fifteen miles from Rome, and a saint of the Roman calendar, strongly opposed both Zephyrinus and Callixtus, bishops of Rome. In the fifth century Milan took precedence of Rome, and many other places were of equal dignity. The episcopal office was very different from what is now implied by the name, and its functions varied little from those of the presbyter, save in the general oversight of a comparatively limited diocese. Thus in Northern Africa alone were four hundred and sixty-six bishops, beside sixty-six vacant sees. Clement, bishop of Rome, (Ep. ad Cor., 74,) Justin Martyr, and other early writers, seem to imply that the terms bishop and presbyter were at first permutable. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, addresses his clergy as his co-presbyters—compresbyteros. Jerome, jealous for his order, asserts the original identity of the offices (idem est presbyter qui et episcopus) and the gradual development of episcopal dignity, from custom rather than from primitive appointment, (Comment. in Titum.) Chrysostom asserts the original convertibility of the titles of bishop and presbyter—οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τὸ παλαιὸν ἐκαλοῦντο ἐπίσκοποι, καὶ οἱ ἐπίσκοποι πρεσβύτεροι.—Homil. i, in Phil., i. Lord King compares the two to the offices of rector and curate, (Prim. Ch., c. 4,) but Bingham’s High Church notions led him to magnify the essential difference between the two, (Orig. Eccl., ii, 3.) The bishops were elected by the presbyters and the laity jointly. Eusebius states that Fabian was indicated for the office by the divine portent of a dove descending upon him, (H. E., vi, 29.) They generally attained this dignity not per saltum, but having passed through the inferior grades. Cyprian, however, was but a neophyte, Eusebius a catechumen, and Ambrose a layman, when appointed to the office of bishop. In the course of time, in the East the emperors, in the West the kings, usurped the power of appointment, a relic of which is seen in the royal congé d’élire in Great Britain, so strongly satirized by Carlyle, (Latter-day Pamphlets.)