Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1879-04-26
FURTHER REPLY
OF Rev. Samuel Steel to Bishop
Kahn.


would please him. have been and still
am contending for the faith once deliv-
cred to the saints Jude 81 1t is not
the bishop, but his sermons which are
the objective points of my remarks or
effusion. In his letter in Wednesdays
REGISTER there is a remarkable toning
down from the position occupied by him
in the letter of Thursday, April IL. He
has seen my authority and change has
come over the spirit of his dream. His
confidence in his knowledge OF church
history has been rudely shaken. He
would not now say, at least with as much
asperity: "Let us see how competent
the Rev. Steele has shown himself to
to publicly accuse me OF ignorance In
this natter" REGISTER of April IL. The
bishop is not as grateful to me as he
ought to be, for opening up to him this
new field, this new chapter in church
history. All | ask OF him is that when
he publishes a second edition OF his
Church History, he will state, If only in
a foot note, that Brother Steele directed
his attention to work OF HyppOlytus
unknown TO him (the Bishop before.
He need not state to what Church Bro.
Steele belongs, and future readers and
Historians will give me credit
as good Roman Catholic.
But after all there must be
fire where there is so much smoke. In
the first volume of Neander's Church
History, Boston, 1854, page 5Sl, | read
the following statement: III the
Artemonites pretended that what they
called the truth had been preserved in
the Roman Church down TO the time ot
the Roman Bishop Zephyrinus, yet this,
as we have remarked before, signifies
nothing more here than it does in other
cases where they cited the older church
teachers generally and the apostles
themselvesas witnesses for the truth OF
their doctrine. But when they asserted
that from the time of Victor's successor
Zephyrlnus the true doctrine in this
church became obscured, Euseb. Lv.
Ch. 2S, some fact must be lying at the
bottom of THIS assertion Wh'ch ulhdppiIy, IN
the absence of his historical data, it is inn
possible at present accurately to ascer-
tain" So far Neander. Now Neander's
Church History, second edition, is
dated Berlin, July 1912. The work OF
lIippolytus was not then known. How
much it would have rejoiced this
Christian historian to have been able
to fill up the blank in the above by the
facts as contained in Hippolytus. But
in this connection the Bishop refers in
his letter (REGIsTER, 10 April TO
Tertullian's charge of Montanism
against Zephyrinus, and objects to the
evidence OF Tertullian against Zephyri-
nus, because Zephyrinus excommuni-
Gated Tertullian. Would it follow in a
court of law, that because Bishop
Kain excommunicates me | could
not give honest testimony? The
Bishop may believe this but few
besides him would do so. The Bishop
SAYS in his letter of April 10Th, Gould
the charge of heresy be proved against
the Popes it would furnish conclusive
evidence against the (Roman) Catholic
doctrine, but it has not been proved and
cannot be proved" The words within
the parenthesis are mine. No argu-
ments or documents ! could produce
would convince the Bishop of the error
OF his position. He would not be per-
suaded though one rose from the dead,
and this is the position he las main
tanned all his life. He cannot doubt
the teachings of his Church. II the facts
of history are against the church, so
much the worse for the facts. DIR. Man.
ming, now a Cardinal of the Roman
Catholic church says: "The true and
conclusive answer to this objection THAT
church history is against infallibility)
consists in principle OF faith namely
that whensoever any doctrine is con-
tanned in the Divine tradition OF the
church all difficulties are excluded by
prescription" Quoted from Petri
Priviligium 3, ll9, in the inside view OF
the Vatican Council, American Tract
Society, New York. But | appeal from
the Bishop to an intelligent public.
Here are two witnesses, Hippolyus and
Tertullian, both OF whom refer 10 the
same Pope Zephrinus and both state he
was guilty of heresy. The Bishop may
call upon me as much as
he pleases to prove that Hippolyus
wrote the book published in New
York. 1t is all an evasion OF
point at issue and not worthy Bishop.
In giving the names of commentators
upon the work OF Hippolytus and as
cribing it to him, the Bishop speaks OF
Or. Dollinger as "the man whose mania
has been opposition to the infallibillty
of the Pope, and who was eXcommuni-
Gated for refusing TO accept the dogmatlc
decree defining it an article OF Catholic
faith" april 24th). The very learned
and conscientious divine OF whom he
thus speaks was still a Roman Catholic
when this work Of Hippolytus was first
published. He was communicated,
but under what circumstances? Let us
read and ponder. The venerable Dol
linger was summoned by his Archbishop
10 repudiate that which he solemnly be-
lieved 10 bc the truth, and TO cnunciate
that which he knew 10 be falsehoOd,
under penalty OF deposition and excom-
municatiOn. The summons was an
swered on the 2Sth OF March, 1871, by a
memorial respectful in tone, but in its
spirit a challenge to disprove the in.
uClmcnNS Ol tIduu' ihletlloph anu ~
preston which he there put on record
against the Council. He declared him
sell ready to prove:
First, that the texts OF Holy Scripture
cited in defence OF the DEGREES OF the
Council could not be 50 cited except in
violation Of the solemn oath, sworn by
every priest, not to receive nor inter
pref the Holy Scripture, except in ac-
corlance with the unanimous consent
Of the fathers.
Second, that the assertion that the
substance OF the new DEGREES had been
believed and taught in the church al
ways and everywhere, or almost every
where. rests on an entire misapprehen-
sion Of tradition and a perversion Of
history, and is in direct opposition TO
the clearest facts and testimonies.
-