moment as to the Pagan or Christian character of what we see. There is the same geometrical division of the roof, the same graceful arabesques, the birds and flowers, just as Müller describes them; and it is only when we recognise a figure of the Good Shepherd, or Daniel in the lions’ den, or some similar subject, occupying the central compartment of the whole, that our doubts are dissipated. [Illustration: _Painting on roof of most ancient part of Cemetery of St. Domitilla._] Look for a moment at the most graceful specimen of decoration on the last page; it is one of the most ancient in the Catacombs, and it comes from that one of which we saw in a former chapter the public entrance close to the high road, and which we said belonged to the noble Flavian family at the end of the first century. The whole roof of the vaulted passage is covered with the vine, trailing with all the freedom of nature, and little winged genii are fluttering among the leaves. Certainly we might suspect this of being Pagan, were it not that Daniel in the lions’ den, Noe in the ark, and other undoubtedly Christian subjects, are close at hand to disabuse us of the suspicion. Or look at the painting of another vault on the opposite page. This is more stiff than the former, because it was executed nearly a century later; still, there is nothing to declare its Christian character until the eye rests on the Good Shepherd, who appears below the principal part of the decoration. [Illustration: _Painting on Vault of an Arcosolium in Cemetery of Prætextatus._] We are not saying that the artists who executed these paintings had no Christian meaning in them; on the contrary, we believe that they had, and that the paintings really suggested that meaning to those who first saw them. For we know, on the authority of Tertullian, that “the whole revolving order of the seasons” (which are represented in the second painting) was considered by Christians to be “a witness of the resurrection of the dead.” This, therefore, was probably the reason why they were painted here; and no Christian needs to be reminded that our Lord spoke of Himself under the image of a vine, which sufficiently explains the first painting. Still the fact remains that the representations themselves are such as might have been used by Christian and by Pagan artists indifferently. If any of our readers feel disappointed that the first essays of the Christian painter should not have had a more distinctly Christian character, they must remember that a new art cannot be created in a moment. If the Christian religion in its infancy was to make use of art at all, it had no choice but to appropriate to its own purposes the forms of ancient art, so far as they were pure and innocent; by degrees it would proceed to eliminate what was unmeaning, and substitute something Christian.