Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1879-04-12
PETERS PRIVACY.
The Bible Argument-''Luke"
to "Rustic" Sendeth Greet

We need not trouble ourself to in
quire who Rustic is, or whom he repre-
sents; suffice it to say, it is evident that
he does not have his seat far from the
Episcopal Palace.
OF the three preliminary facts" pro-
pounded by US, the proof of which We
demanded, Rustic only touches upon
one of them. We are, therefore under
the necessity of referring to them again.
Admitting for the sake of the argument
that Peter was ever in Rome-which, to
saw the least, is not satisfactorily proved
we wish to know:
l What evidence is there that he
ever laid claim to the primary, or any
thing like it? Had he been a modern
Pope, we surely should have heard the
rumblings of his thunder.
= Was the primacy ever conceded to
him By the other Apostles, or by any
one of them?
We make some quotations from Paul
on the above points, why does Rustic
evale them? II is evident that the
Scripture argument is not at all to his
fancy. He prefers to be bObb;ng around
among the named divines, giving their
names without quoting their word. In
other words, he would put Luke down
by the authority" of distinguished
names.
But when Rustic has disposed of our
primary facts, we have, another de-
mand upon him. We insist that he
shall giye-nOt for our information, but
for that OF the public-the precise date
of his earliest authorities, and We ask
for their exact words. We cannot con-
sent that he shall cover himself up
under glittering generalities. We wish
10 know precisely what all the earliest
fathers, as quoted by him, did say, and
when they said il, and then the public
will be prepared to give such weight to
their testimony as it may seem to de-
serye-which We Opine will not be
much, as to the facts at issue.
As TO Eusebius please tell WhsR he
wrote, and how he got his information;
whether. he did, or did not, retail vague
rumOrs that he had collected from 9th
ers-we mean particularly as to Peters
presence in Rome. But Rustic does
give US one quotation, OF doubtful char
acter, from Eusebius-and, by the way,
the only one he does give from any Of
the fathers of the first form or five CEN
turtles. Does he suppose that we are to
trust To his mere assertion for the rest?
Does he expect to oyerwhelm us by a
mere parade of names? We think 1t
but fair, as he presumes on our ignor-
ance, that he should be held strictly to
the proof
And nowlet us look to Rustic'S solitary
quotations from EuSebius. But first
give US the date of his history. Ii must
have been very near the times OF the
apOstlps2 We shall see-'The most
merciful kind Providence conducts to
Rome. Peter, the most courageous, and
the greatest among the apostles, and
him who for his prOwess, was the chief
and the prince Of all the rest =
and il this all? l. this the gathered
testimony of all the earliest fathers To
the time of Eusebius? IL would seem
SO, indeed, from the fact that Rustic
makes no direct quotation from any OF
them.
We will now look at the quotation IT.
self. Ii is we'll known that all sorts OF
fables were atlOat in the early Christian
church, and EuSebius is not averse To
detailing them. But assuming the truth
of this basal fact, that Peter was IN
Rome, what is third in the quotation,
after making due allowance for his IN
hated style, To warrant the CONCLUSION
that Eusehius intended to assert the
primacy Of Peter, at Rome IN the Ro-
>manistic sense Of the present day? Ii
il admitted by PrOtestants that Peter
WAS "a Great Apostle although Paul
says. che himself was not a whit behind
him. that generally he was man of
great prOwess," although, on one or
two occasions, before and after his con-
version. he displayed great cowardice.
Take them all in all, Paul was much
drawer man than he, and in all that con-
stitutes true greatness, by tar his super
Tor. As 10 Peters being "the CHIEF or
prince of all the rest this 10 IN keeping
with the generally inflated style OF Euse-
b,us. Besides Eusebius lived at a time
when the Bishop OF Rome began to as
sart high prerOgatives, which from the
TACT of his residing at the centre oil civil
power, some Of the weaker Bishops were
disposed 10 concede, while stern anu
steadiast resistance was offered by others,
especially by the Patriarchs, and tins
was continued as long as there was any
hope. But gradually the usurpation
Was completed, by the AID OF the sup
nor, of the civil authority. In making
mis- statement we feel confident that
We do not mls-state the
facts Of history. But wherein
in all this, does Eusebius show that Pc
tor WAS Bishop, or Pontih At Rome, OF
claimed To be such? His language does
not warrant such construction.
Rustic. however, treats the charge OF
usurpation as a mere incivility on our
mart. II We had meant 10 be unciNh
merely, We would not have gone ABOUT
II in a roundabout way. We meant
nothing of the kind. The cnarge oil
nsnrpation contains the very gist OF the
controversy. We affirmed that the Pa
pacy was a usurpation from hrst 70 las.'
and showed how il was brought about
n Rustic thinks that the easiest way
10 get rid of the charge is 10 treat 1t az
an inciyility, We can only say, that snch
an evasion, from our standpoint, does
not seem 10 be at all creditable TO one
who apparently assumes to represent
/ his Bishop. ...
In reading history we claim the rlgn'
Of forming our own Judgment with pro
mar dsferenee of course 10 learned au-
| tbor;tiea We are not in leading strings,
however, and are inclined 70 DOUBT tne
wisdom OF the man who viii permit
himself 30 70 be, when there Is no oces-
sIon for Il. God has endowed as with