LETTER V. The Monuments (continued).

Rome, January, 1847.
My DEAR EUGENIO,-
Without preamble I will continue my interrupted narrative. The day after the accident which occurred to me in the Church of St. Peter, I received a letter from the Waldensian, which I transcribe as follows, to show you more than ever my sincerity; and, although our religious convictions divide us, nevertheless. I look upon you as a brother, as well as the friend of my; heart, from whom I hide nothing, even when it is against myself. This, then, is what the Waldensian wrote to me:-

“SIGNOR ABBE.-I am greatly grieved at what took place yesterday. I confess that I was a little too immoderate; that speaking to a sincere Catholic, as you are, I ought to have taken more care and measured my words; therefore, I ask your pardon, if I offended you by my plain speaking. But apart from my tone, which was rather that of a professor, I believe I have good reasons as to the main point of the question.

“I say I have good reasons to believe that that venerated seat or chair, as you call it, above the altar, of which the festival is celebrated every year on the 18th of January, instead of being the seat of the Apostle St. Peter, is that of Soliman, Caliph of Babylon, or of Saladin, Caliph of Jerusalem. In order that you may believe I have not said this heedlessly, or to insult you, here are the proofs, which, if they are not most convincing to prove that that seat belonged to a Turk, nevertheless are as to show that it could not have belonged to St. Peter.

“In the first place I cannot persuade myself that the most humble Peter would ever have had a special chair for himself. I cannot suppose that for the sake of a seat St. Peter would have transgressed the commandment of Jesus Christ (:Matt. xx. 25-27). I love St. Peter much, and therefore, I cannot believe that he was either a prevaricator or liar; he himself says in his first Epistle, chap, v. 1, that he was only an elder like all the others.

“Think well over it, I pray you; how can one believe after that, that he would. wish to have a chair for himself, falsifying by that fact everything that he had said and taught? But tell me, I pray you, where could he have kept such a seat? In his house? But why, of all his furniture, did they only preserve this seat? You will say that it was the seat on which he officiated in the Church. But I have already shown that there were no churches in those times. The Acts of the Apostles, and the Apostolic letters, tell us that they celebrated worship from house to house. I do not think you will suppose that St. Peter went from house to house drawing his chair after him.

“But let us suppose that of which there is no proof, that St. Peter was in Rome, and that he had a distinct seat in which to officiate. I ask you, what are the proofs that show that this is really the seat of St. Peter? Do not tell me that the Pope, who is infallible, says so; because I will answer you that, according to your own principles, the Pope is infallible in dogma, but not in fact. And then who would have preserved this seat? Certainly not the Christians; because the veneration of relics only began at the end of the fourth century. And if the Christians had preserved it, how was it that it was not found until the seventeenth century? These are some of the reasons for which I cannot believe that this is the seat of St. Peter. To all this add the principal reason drawn from the Bible and from history, which show that St. Peter never came to Rome, and you will see that my motives for not believing in that seat are, as one may say, as just and reasonable as possible.

“Still, I will obstinately maintain that which is so displeasing for you to hear, which is, that that seat may have belonged to a Mahometan. I said so on the authority of Lady Morgan, who, in her work on Italy, in the fourth volume, says that the sacrilegious curiosity of the French at the time when they occupied Rome, in the beginning of this century, overcame all obstacles, in order to see so famous a seat. They took off its copper covering, and drew out the seat, and, examining it diligently, found there engraved in Arabic characters these words:- ‘There is one God, and Mahomet is His prophet.’ I do not know if Lady Morgan tells the truth, but the answers that have been made to her are by no means conclusive. You perhaps know the answer which seems the best; that it is impossible it should be the seat of a Mussulman, because they do not use seats. It is true that usually they do not make use of seats as we do, but of cushions, sofas, stools; but their Muftis use seats, and even chairs, to preach from, and sometimes even their sovereigns use such for thrones. It might then have been the seat of a Mufti. The convincing argument would be to draw out this seat, and let all who would, examine it; but that will never be done.

“You know, Signor Abbe, that I greatly love the good Benedictine Tillemont. He was a learned man, a monk, and a good Catholic; I hope you will not refuse his testimony. Well, Tillemont was incredulous, as I am, about this chair. In his travels in Italy, he says, ‘It is pretended that in Rome there is the episcopal chair of St. Peter, and Baronio says that it is of wood. Nevertheless, some who have seen that which was destined to be placed solemnly on the altar in 1666, affirm that it was of ivory, and that the ornaments are not more ancient than three or four centuries, and the sculptures represent the twelve labours of Hercules.’ That is what Tillemont says.

“You will tell me that Tillemont is opposed to what Baronio says. I could answer you that both these writers were most zealous Catholics; both learned, both able historians; the contradiction then between them about this seat is a proof of the falsity of it–so much the more, that in the passage cited, Tillemont shows that he does not believe in the authenticity of this chair. But now I remember to have read in my youth (I do not recollect in what book) what explains all, and takes away all contradiction between the two writers. The festival of the chair of St. Peter had existed for about half a century, before the seat was placed for veneration. Amongst the relics that are in Rome existed a seat which is said to have belonged to St. Peter; and Pope Clement VIII. thought of causing it to be venerated, but Cardinal Baronio showed him that the bas-reliefs represented the twelve labours of Hercules, and consequently this could not be the seat on which St. Peter officiated. The Pope was persuaded; nevertheless, it was necessary to have a chair of St. Peter. Then they sought in the depository of relics, and substituted for the first, a second ancient seat of wood, and this is that of which Baronio speaks, while Tillemont speaks of the first. But sixty years after the death of Baronio, when Alexander VII. was constructing the altar of the chair, as you see it today, they did not know which of the two should be placed for veneration; not the first, on account of the mythological sculpture; not the second, because it was of Gothic style, and that was sufficient to show that it could not have belonged to St. Peter. The Pope, then, knowing that amongst the relics there was a seat, brought as a relic from the Crusades, ordered this to be taken and brought for . veneration; hut no one had perceived the Arabic inscription recorded by Lady Morgan.

“As for the rest, let us not question about a seat; a seat is at the best nothing hut a seat, and it is not suitable to base our faith upon a seat. Were it as clear as the daylight that this was the identical seat of St. Peter, it would not prove his presence in Rome, because it might have been carried thither. And if it were true that St. Peter was in Rome, the presence of the Apostle nineteen centuries ago, would prove nothing as to the Roman religion being true.

“I have been tractable and allowed myself to be led by you where you wished; now I pray you to let me lead you tomorrow; but I promise you that from this time, I will enter into no controversy; and thus you may be sure of not having to dispute with heretics, and may come without fear of disobeying either your confessor or your master.

“With regard to your master, I ought to bell you that Mr. Mason has discharged his servant, because I discovered, by certain proofs, that he was a spy of the Jesuits. You ought to know such a thing. May God open your eyes as to your dear masters.- Au revoir, yours, etc., “L. Pasquali.”

The last words of this letter produced a terrible effect upon me; now I understood how my master had known all that I did or said with my friends. Such a procedure appeared to me base and disloyal, and irritated me, so that I determined not to allow myself to be thus blindly led by the Jesuit Fathers. Besides, the letter of Signor Pasquali convinced me that I had been wrongly guided by my master. Why, indeed, prevent me from discussing frankly and loyally, with the Bible in my hand? Why oblige me to discuss the monuments? And why then point out such uncertain monuments? These reflections made me accept the invitation of the Waldensian, and made me determine not to speak again of this discussion with my master. Tho next day all four of us met, and Signor Pasquali conducted us to see the Arch of Titus. This precious monument of history and of art is situated at the beginning of the road that the Romans call Sacra. It is the triumphal monument raised by the Senate and Roman people to Titus for his famous and complete victory over the Jews.

“These are,” said the Waldensian, “the sacred antiquities that I love; not, indeed, those that the followers of Dr. Pusey seek with such avidity; on the veracity of these monuments not the least doubt can fall.”

“Pardon me,” said Mr. Manson, “we ought not to despise ecclesiastical antiquities.”

“And. I do not despise them, but I leave them in their place,” said the Waldensian. “They are precious for ecclesiastical history when they are authentic, and carefully studied are precious also to the Christian. They show the beginning and the date of the corruptions and abuses introduced into religion; but to give them a theological place, as if they were a rule of faith, seems to be the excess of human aberration. If a thing is true because it is ancient, we ought logically to say, then Paganism ought to be truer than Christianity, because it is the more ancient. We shall be judged upon the Gospel, not upon antiquity. The antiquities that ought to be held in great esteem by the Christian are those which testify to the Word at God, as does this monument.”

Then he showed that this monument was, both for the Jews and unbelievers a testimony of the truth of the Divine Word. “Let them read Deuteronomy xxviii, St. Matthew xxiv., St. Mark xiii, St. Luke xxi., and then let them look at this monument raised by the Gentiles, who knew nothing of such prophecies, and deny if they can the veracity and divinity of God’s Word.”

From the Arch of Titus we ascended the neighboring side of the Palatine Hill to see the ruins of the Palace of the Caesars.

“See,” said the Waldensian, “a beautiful monument of ecclesiastical antiquity. These rough materials are the ruins of the two great Palatine libraries, one Greek, and the other Latin, where the precious manuscripts of our ancestors were collected, and which Pope Gregory I., called the Great, caused to be burnt.”

Then he showed us the part of the palace built by Augustus, that called after Tiberius, that of Caligula, and that of Nero, and exclaimed: “It is written, ‘The house of the wicked shall be overthrown’ (Proverbs xiv. II). Here are those who caused themselves to be called gods, who called themselves eternal; but He that dwelleth in the heavens shall laugh at them (Psalm 2:4), and having given to His Son the heathen for an inheritance, He broke these, and will break the proud with a rod of iron, and dashed them, and will dash them, in pieces like a potter’s vessel. These foundations which alone remain of the palaces of those who called themselves masters of the whole world, preach the truth of that word, that •there is no wisdom, nor understanding, nor counsel against the Lord'” (Prov. xxi. 30).

The solemn tone with which he pronounced these words, the profound conviction which could be read on his countenance, had as imposing effect, such as I cannot describe, and which charmed one. Mr. Manson was silent, and followed him fascinated, and I felt myself compelled to respect the man whom the day before I had wished to put to death, had it been lawful so to do. The day before he was an adversary, a. heretic, who attacked the Holy Church; the day after he was a man who showed the most profound convictions of Christianity. Nevertheless. a man so profoundly religious must be eternally lost, because he does not belong to our Holy Church. Such a thought revived my pity and compassion for him, and rekindled my zeal to procure with all my power his conversion.

We then went to the Amphitheater of Flavius, called popularly the Colosseum. You have read in history that Flavius Vespasian, after the destruction of Jerusalem, caused to to be built this amphitheater, the most spacious and the most magnificent of any which up to this time have existed. It was capable of containing easily 100,000 spectators, served for games of gladiators, and hunting of wild beasts; and then, by a miracle of art, the vast arena was converted. into a lake, and immediately served for naval sports. You know, also, that in times of persecution Christians were exposed in that arena to be devoured by wild beasts.

Now this amphitheater has been by the piety of the Popes transformed into a holy place. An immense cross is planted in the midst of the arena, and around are fourteen chapels, where are represented the incidents of the passion of our Lord; and before them is performed the pious exercise called the Via Crucis. Thus, in the place where in the times of pagan Rome resounded the roaring of wild beasts, the lamentable cries of the victims, the ferocious applause of a brutal public, echoes instead the pathetic song of devout Christians, who meditate on the death of the immaculate Lamb.

We had scarcely entered this vast edifice when Signor Pasquali seemed absorbed in deep thought, and remained for some moments as if in ecstasy, and we stood still looking at him. Rousing himself he exclaimed: “O, my dear friends! how can I express the crowd of religious thoughts which are awakened in me by this admirable monument! He who unconsciously executed the Divine judgments against the people who put Christ to death, and made to recoil on their own head the blood of the God-Man Whom they had cursed, caused this monument to be raised as an eternal memorial of the destruction of that people; and that people, reduced to slavery, working in chains, erected this monument, which perpetuates the memory of their punishment. Gaudenzio, a Christian, is the architect of it; and God gave him the inspiration for it; yes, God, because neither before nor since has a conception more beautiful or more majestic proceeded from the human mind.” Then he want on to describe the horrors of the gladiatorial games; the ferocity of the Roman people, who applauded this carnage; the imperturbable impassiveness of those monsters, who called themselves Emperors, in receiving the homage of those who killed one another in order to provide amusement for their august lord.

He passed on to describe the combats of the martyrs, but in such vivid colors that he drew tears from our eyes. Then, warmed with a holy enthusiasm, he exclaimed: “0, holy religion of Christ! here, here, thou didst triumph in the blood of thy sons, here thou didst manifest thy divine power to the astonished world. But when the Caesars ceased to persecute thee, and wished thee to sit with them on their throne, thou didst fly to hide thyself, and like a modern Joseph, in flying left thy mantle; thou didst hide thyself in the desert; but that mantle of thine was put on his shoulders by that man who in thy name first sat on the throne of the Caesars; thence he drove them and reigned alone in thy name; under that mantle were concealed pride, despotism, and fanaticism, an infernal trio which reigned covered with the mantle which thou didst leave.”

We were frightened with the emphasis, with the tone of voice, but still more with the conceptions of this extraordinary man. He was continuing, when a monotonous singing was heard at the entrance of the amphitheater. Such a sound made him start and stopped him. A procession of persons, dressed in grey sackcloth, with the head and face covered by a hood of the same stuff, with only two holes to allow them to see through, entered the Colosseum, singing in a rough and monotonous voice the praises of the Cross. The procession was preceded by a great wooden cross, painted black, carried by one of the confraternity, and closed by a barefooted friar of St. Francis, with his head uncovered. Behind these came a few old lay-brothers, preceded also by a cross carried by one of them. The object of this procession was to perform the exercise of the Via Crucis, praying before the fourteen chapels.

Mr. Manson and Mr. Sweeteman turned to me to know what this procession signified. I replied that it was a pious confraternity of penitents, who, every Friday and every Sunday, go to perform this pious exercise of the Via Crucis at the Colosseum. We stayed a little while, the friar mounted a kind of pulpit on the rubble, the confraternity formed a semi-circle, the lay-brothers placed themselves behind them, and the friar began to preach. We remained at a convenient distance, but so as to be able to hear. Unfortunately, that friar was either ignorant or felt constraint from our presence, and did not know what he said, saying such silly things as even to scandalize the brave Mr. Manson. Fortunately the Waldensian was so immersed in thought that he heard nothing.

We left the amphitheater, and on our way home Signor Pasquali asked us if we had been satisfied with our walk. We answered in the affirmative; but I added that the mode of discussion by means of the monuments was too long, and would never lead us to practical conclusions; however, I wished to convince Mr. Manson of his error, and therefore desired to be allowed to discuss with him.

“I hope,” replied the Waldensian, “that the Signor Abbe does not believe that the soul of Mr. Manson is more precious than ours. Let him, however, discuss, but I do not think he will wish to exclude us from the discussion. Let us discuss in good faith, and without any other resolve than that of seeking the truth. Let each one put aside his peculiar doctrines, to seek truth in the Word Of God alone. We four differ upon many points; the Signor Abbe is a Roman Catholic; Mr. Manson belongs to that which calls itself the High Church of England, or, as others call it, the theological school of Oxford; Mr. Sweeteman belongs to the English Church, and I to the Primitive Christian Church; let not one of us then obstinately maintain his Church, but together amicably seek the truth; so much the more as we all know that it is not the Church which saves us, but Jesus Christ. What do you gentlemen say to this?”

All consented, and agreed to begin the discussion.

I confess, dear Eugenio, that this Waldensian has enchanted me. I, who had heard so much evil spoken of them; who had read in so many books the most horrible things as to their ignorance, their disloyalty, and, also, as to their bad habits, found myself dumbfounded in the presence of this man, who was learned, ‘but made no ostentation whatever of his knowledge; and was a man of profound piety and of austere virtue, but without any affectation. The only evil which is to be found in him is error; but I hope with the Divine help to undeceive him. In the next letter I will give you an account of the first discussion.-Adieu,
ENRICO.

Download a PDF file of this article.

Please follow and like us: