The Express.
London, England, 1851-01-07 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 7, 1851.

LADY MORGAN, CARDLWAL WISEMAN, AND
ST. PETER'S CHAIR.*

Oar notice of this piquant brochure has been post-
poned, in the hints that we might be able to pick up
a copy of the" Remarks" to which it is an answer,
and thus be able to arbitrate between the disputants
after a careful perusal of the arguments of both. A
long chase of it we have had through the bookshops
of London ; twice we came upon the scent of his
Eminence's pamphlet; but in both instances we found
on attempting to put up the bird that our pointer had
am the place where it had lately been sitting. We
are therefore reduced to the necessity of gleaning
Cardinal Wiseman's arguments out of the quotations
made from his " Remarks" by Lady Morgan. Should
it turn out that her ladyship has omitted anything of
moment, we will return to the subject when the car-
dinal publishes a second edition or pats out a Lew
statement.
That he will do so there can be no doubt. He is a
disputant who leaves no assailant unnoticed. After
gravely arguing with Punch—as Leatherhead, in
Ben Jonson's " Barbolomew Fair," argues with the
poppet—he cannot refuse the challenge of a real flesh
and blood author of considerable repute. The Catdi-
nal's onslaught upon Punch, in the Dublin Review, is
certainly one of the richest passages in polemical lite-
rature. Punch's Roman prototype, Pitman, has
assailed many a Cardinal, but we never read that any
of them ever entered the field against that pro-
voking wit.
Punch is quite competent to his own defence, but
we cannot help observing that the Cardinal hes
mutely treated him fairly. Until Punch began to
joke about the Cardinal he was " the playful compa-
nion of everybody's railway journey." The Cardinal
was highly delighted with the liberties which " the
cocky little bird perched upon two twin letters " took
with the reverend orators of Exeter-ball and the
Anglican bishops; but he can see no wit and roach
harm in jukes levelled at himself. The Cardinal
bestows his priestly eulogy on the "bright talents"
for caricature "lodged in a catholic breast." The
Belt denial of the really talented and amiable gentle-
man alluded to—in refuting to continue ft lucrative
connexion with old friends who made a jest of what
he deems sacred—merits a more substantial acknow-
ledgment at the hands of the CardinaL
The Cardinal has, indeed, a most catholic—all-
embraoing—taate for literary and artistica ability so
long as it does not bespatter his own red stockings.
He not only enjoys all the jolero and caricatures of
Punch (apart from the anti-Romanist ones); he has
a good word for "the bold, uncompromising, and
truly masculine elcquencs" of the Dispatch, albeit, it
is at times sadly "sullied with irreligious language."
The archbishop would, probably, purify oar periodical
literature after the fashion in which a priest of his
church, in former days purified Boccacio—by substi-
tuting "Emperor" or "King" for -"priest" and
"abbot" in the most lubricous tales of that fascinating
author. lint we are forgetting Lady Morgan.
Her ladyship drew down upon herself the some-
what vituperative eloquence of the Cardinal, by tell-
ing a story, in her " Italy," of the chair preferred in
the Basilic of the Vatican, and said to have been St.
Peter's, incompatible with belief in the authenticity
of that relic. The anecdote is es follows:
The sacrilegious curiosity of the French broke through all
obstacles to their seeing the chair of St. Peter. They actu-
ally removed its superb casket, and discovered the relic.
Upon its mouldering and dusty surface were traced carvings,
which bore the appearance of letters. The chair was quickly
brought into a better light, the dust and eshwebe renv.ved,
and the inscription (for an inscription it was) faithfully
copied. The writing is to Arabic characters, and is the
well-known confession of the blahometan faith: There it
but one God, and Mohonset is his prophet. It is supposed
that this chair had been, among the spoils of the Crusaders,
offered to the church, at • time when a taste for antiquarian
lore and the deciphering of inscririons was not yet in
fashion. This story has been since hushed us, the chair
replaced; end none but the unhallowed remember the tact,
aid none but the audacious repeat Yet such there are
even at Rome.
English readers may be surprised that a light of
the Romish church should take so much trouble to
controvert this one passage in a book, which contains
many more important though playful sallies against
the priesthood of his church. But, as Lady Morgan
remarks in her letter, the episcopal chair or throne
appears to be the foundation of the Cardinal's theo-
logical system. Take the chair front beneath it, and
that system tumbles to the ground. In proof of this
we refer to the address delivered by the C.,rdioal at
his late installation. The bishop's chair in general,
and of course that of St. Peter in particular, is, in
the Cardinal's estimation, the seat of that centripetal
force which holds the whole doctrinal and discipli-
narian Romisb system together. To assail the au-
thenticity of St. I'eter's chair, is to attack the funds..
mental position of the Romish church.
There is another consideration of some weight. To
deny that the chair ever was St. Peter's is to call in
question the infallibility of the Pope who caused it to
be placed in its present position, and of all his succes-
s Ore who have allowed it to remain there. It it is not
really St. Peter'. chair, they have all—in the most
charitable interpretation of their conduct been
deceived, as any fallible mortal might be.
Now we frankly admit that the only evidence pro-
duced by Lady Morgan is her own assertion that
Denon told her the above story. This is only what
English lawyers call "hearsay evidence?' But, in
the first place, the story is probable and characteristic:
we know that Denon and his brother sarans were
rather fond of indulging in such inquiries and exami-
nations when an opportunity of making them pre-
sented itself. Again, both Denon and Champollin
were alive at the time the anecdote was published,
and never contradicted it. Nay, more, though Lady
Morgan does not mention the fact in her published
letter, we have been shown a private letter in which
she mentions an interview with Bacon after the
publication of her "Italy," in which he expressed
himself pleased with her notice of the incident.
But, did any reasonable ground for doubting the
strict accuracy of Lady Morgan's story exist, the
arguments advanced evilest it by Cardinal Wiseman
are of a nature rather to confirm than to weaken it.
Though he gives a very minute description of the
chair, he admits that he has never seen it. Nay
more, he declines to adduce what he himself say
would be the strongest evidence that the story is on-
true:
The most compendious course to confute this unblushing
eabarany would he, to quote the attestation of those who have
been in the service of St. Peter's Church since a period ante-
adept to the invasion of Rome by the French, to the fast
that the seals were violated, nor the relic inspected by
them. But it would be replied to this, that the men who
could deceive the public in the impious manner which Lady
Morgan supposes, would hare little scruple in giving any
testimony necessary to countenance that deceit.
His Eminence's logic is rather at fault here. That
the keepers of the church, at the time of the French
invasion, affirmed the carefully covered up chair to be
St. Peter's, only warrants the inference that they be-
lieved what was told them by their predecessors.
Men may make a mistake of this kind, and yet be per-
fectly credible witnesses as to a transaction which,
if it ever occurred, must have been seen by them.
The excuse for the non-production of this testimony is
insufficient. It is so shallow and absurd as necessarily
to suggest the conclusion that Cardinal Wiseman did
not produce their attestation because he could not pre-
vail upon them to make it. Without imputing to
them much scrupulosity, it is conceivable that they
might demur to making a statement which could be
contradicted by living witnesses.
Again, we are not aware that Cardinal Wieemsn
has positively, averred that the inscription mentioned
by Lady Morgan does not exist upon the chair.
And this is the one enacted point of the controversy.
If an inscription, in Cutic character, to the effect,
that " There is but one God, and lifahomet is his
prophet," is upon the chair, that fact is incompatible
with the belief that the chair has been constantly
prNerved in Rome since the days of the Apostle.
Cardinal Wiseman may have denied the existeoce of
the inscription, but if he hos done so the passage has
act been quoted by Lady Morgan. It is, however,
still open to him to doily it, and (if he can) adduce
evidence to its non-existence.
The existence of the inscription, if proved, is fatal
to the authenticity of the relic. But its non-exist-
ence would still leave the question of authenticity
ffee. The earliest witness to the preservation of St.
Peter's chair at Rome cited by the Cardinal is
Mimed's. We have not at present the works of that
historian at hand; but if any passage to this
effect is to be found therein, it has escaped our
memory. Waiving this consideration, however, it
must be kept in mind that Eustatius was born more
than two centuries after the date assigned to the
martyrdom of St. Peter, and that there is no mien

• Lotter to Cardiaal Wiseman. in answer to Ids .. &marks on
Lady Ifforea's Stotoolooto ?glutting St. Pates's Mak.. Sy Sydney
lAdy Mari. WAGE Clarks Wostenoo. 1161.

to believe he _ever visited Rome. His testimony
would be insufficient to establish the preservation of
such a relic at Rome even in his day. And the Car-
-1 dinal has adduced no continuous chain of evidence to
identify the chair now preserved in the Basilic of the
Va ican with any chair that may have been mentioned
by Pembina.
But the Cardinal has recourse to probabilities.
" The chair of St. Peter," he says, " is precisely such
a one as we should have suppose.: to be given by a
wealthy Roman senator to a ruler of the *hutch
which he esteemed and protected." Lady Morgan has
justly observed, that the luxurious and splendid deco-
rations of the chair, as described in the work from
which the Cardinal's account of it is taken, is utterly
inconsistent with the known poverty and simple
habits of the apostles. But there is a still stronger
consideration. The bassi-relievi on the chair repre-
sent, according to the Cardinal, " the exploits of the
monster-killing Hercults." It really appears to us
that a chair decorated with such heathenish emblems
is precisely such a one as a Roman convert would not
have presented to an apostle—to one who strenuously
warned his disciples against having anything to do
with things savouring of idolatry.
We may observe here that there is a startling dis-
crepancy between the accounts of the chair given by
two venters, both of whom are cited by Cardinal
Wiseman. Turrigio declares that the ornaments on
it are of pinchbeck ; Cardinal Cortese that they are
of fine gold. Turrigio states that, " because from
great age St. Peter's chair was going to pieces and
had got somewhat ricketty, it was encompassed round
with iron hoops and bars of wood." Cardinal Cur-
teses description ignores both the hoops and the bare.
Were these two authorities describing the same chair?
In his eagerness to establish the authenticity of the
chair in the Vatican, Cardinal Wiseman goes out of
his way to throw discredit on a kindred relic pre-
served at Venice. The chair said to have been St.
Peter's, preserved in the Church of St. Peter at
Venice, he admits must have been constructed in the
eighth century, and can never have been used by the
apostle. Nay, more, though he acquits Assetnanni
of any intention to deceive, he admits that that
learned man gave an erroneous Interpretation of the
inscription on the Venetian chair, of a nature to coun-
tenance its claims to authenticity. Tbis is gratui-
tously unkind, for though of the three coats, said to
have been our Saviour's, exhibited in three
different Raman catholic churches, two must of neces-
sity be spurious, St. Peter may have had more than
one chair ; and to throw doubts upon one of the chairs
has a natural tendency to lead men to have mis-
givings respecting the ether.
There is a good deal of truth, too, in a sly insinut.
tion of Lady Morgan's, provoked by the Cardinal's
gorgeous description of the chair at Rome. Leo X.,
and his successor Clement, were as arrant collectors of
pretty nick-narks as Horace Walpole himself, but we
nowhere read that St. Peter had any taste that way.
We confess that there remains not a shadow of
doubt on our minds that Lady Morgan's account of
Denotes statement is strictly accurate, and that that
statement was perfectly true. But we are bound in
fairness to admit that, could our other doubts be got
over, there is one way in which we could reconcile the
existence of a Mahometan inscription on the chair in
question, with a belief that it had °lice belonged to
St. Peter. There are some who believe that the
east, and not the west, was the scene of St. Peter's
labours and sufferings. It is clear that, down to the
period at which Luke's "Acts of the Apostles" ter-
minate, St. Peter had rot visited Rome. His two
epistles are addressed to those of " the dispersion" in
farther Asia, and the first is written from Babylon.
It has been said, indeed, that Babylon means Rome;
bat why should St. Peter call that city by its mys-
tical name when St. Paul always calls it by its own ?
The epistles of Peter have nothing of the mystic
character of the "Revelations" about them : they are
as plain and matter of fact in relation to mere mun-
dane affairs as St. Paul's. Babylon, a famous Beet of
Jewish learning, was the natural head-quartets of the
apostle labouring "along those of "the dispersion."
And the second epistle is evidently written under a
prophetic sense of immediately impending martyrdom.
Now, if the scent, of St. Peter's labours was tarther
Asia, it might be that the Mahometan conquerors
might get temporary possession of his chair, and
inscribe their confession upon it : at Rome this was
impossible. We give Cardinal Wiseman the fall
benefit of this explanation of the difficulty; but if be
adopts it, he must give up St. Peter's visit to Rome,
and his tenancy of that bishopric.
Here, then, we leave the question till Cardinal
Wiseman favours us with further elucidations of the
subject. It is one of little importance in the estima-
tion of us heretics; but it is one of vital importance
with reference to the claims of his own church to
infallibility, and with reference to his own somewhat
peculiar system of divinity.
Au reate, Lady Morgan's letter will be found to
contain much cutlet?' matter not directly bearing
upon the controversy. As in most of her former
publications, she is rather discursive, and atter a Par-
thian fashion discharges many arrows thnt her oppo-
nent will find it difficult to ward off. In the com-
mencement she vindicates her novel,. from the charge of
being mere works of amusement brought against them
by the CardinaL This she is well entitled to do. Ste
was a friend of the Irish—and, above all, of the Moth
Roman catholics—when their friends were fewer and
more needed than they are now. She is entitled to
more respectful and considerate treatment than she

has experienced at the hands of edignitary of the Ro-
mish church. A little of the Cardinal's tolerance for
. .

the " irreligious language" which " sullies " the Div-
patch ought to have been extended to the author of
" The O'Brien. and O'Flaherties," and of " Florence
Macarthy." At the close of her letter Lady Morgan
addresses to the Cardinal, in earnest and eloquent
language, some good advice, whicb, to judge by the
general tenor of his writings and orations, will be en-
tirely thrown away upon him.