Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1879-04-10
RUSTIC RISES TO REPLY.
n Long List OF Authorities for
Luke's Consideration.
Correspondence of the Register

Luke OOuSluefdtiOns
Correspondence of the Register.
'Luke"will not take it amiss, i trust, il
following his example of making quo
tation (Of very dubious translation,
make genuine One--apropos of his
communication in yesterdays REGISTER.
The Parson too at arguing owned his skill
For cen though ydnquished he could argue
STILL"
Really the man VINO denies that st.
Peter ever was in Rome, is far ahead OF
Goldsmith's schOolmaster, in disputa-
tiOus nature. Two items of Luke's ocm-
munication | will take up-and only
two.
l. lie says; "St. Peter never was in
Rome"
p "Now, what ground is there for
supposing that Peter and Mark were
not actually in Babylon on the Eupra-
ties, when this epistle was written"
As TO this first assertion. What has
been held by all historians prior to the
rise Of Professionalism, and by the great
majority of learned Protestants since
then, must, one should think, be con-
Sidered beyond doubt, otherwise all
PyrrOhnism. Now, purpose in a few
words to prove that such precisely, Mr..
Editor, is the case with IT. Peters Epis-
copate in Rome. st. Ignatius, the dis
ciple so declares Eusebius, the Father
of Church History, Lib. ., Cap. Ia, edi-
ton Wales, speaks thus: Against that
bane of mankind (SimOn Magus) the
most merciiul and kind Providence con-
ducts to Rome, Peter, the most courageous
and the greatest amongst the
apostles, and him who for
his proweSs was the chief and the prince
Of all the rest" No one can deny that
st. Jerome, Papias, Irenaeus, DiOnysius
of Corinth, Capas, Origen, st. Cyprian,
and host of others bear testimony to
this fact. OF course Luke may not con-
slider these ancient fathers deserving Of
much credenCe; nevertheless the
Christian Church thinks otherwise.
However, lest their Papist testimony
may injure his health, I'll cen fOrego
quoting any more OF these "slavish Ro-
manists, and COntine myself to the tes-
timOny OF Professionals, pure and simple.
Calvin land surely he was not very
favorable to ROme) is ashamed to deny
the testimony of all the ancients-lnst.
Lib /, cap. vi. Cave las good author
ity as the Smoky City can furnish in the
way of history says: ave in
trepidly affirm, with all antiquity,
that Peter was at Rome, and for some
time resided there" Prof. Schaf adj
mits that all believed Peter suffered
martyrdom under Nero. Winston, in
memoirs Of his own life says: "Mr.
Bower, with some weak Protestants
before him, almost pretends TO deny
that It. Peter was ever at Rome; con-
corning which matter take my own
p. So. Mr. Baratier proves most thor
Oughlv, as Bishop Pearson has done be-
fore him, that 1t. Peter was at Rome.
This il so clear in Christian antiquity
that il is shame for a Protestant to
confess that any Protestant ever denied
il" These words seem strong in the
mouth of any other than a Catholic,
and / can assure Luke that if
he refers to Chambers Encyclopedia"
he will find out what manner OF man
Winston was. Needless TO tell any one
who is at all COnvcrsant with English
literature, that Bishop Pearson and Mr..
Baratier were eminent dignitarics OF the
Anglican Church. could, Mr.. Editor,
add scores upon scores of Protestant
learned names, who admit that st.
Peter was i'm Rome. But cui bono?
Now, as To Luke's second item,
namely, "Now, what ground is there
for surprising that Peter and Mark were
not actually in Babylon on the Euphates
when this CpiStle was written"
will not do Luke the injustice as to
suppose that he has not read Calmet on
Babylon; he evidently would not rush
into print without thoroughly studying
the matter. He must have read CABINET,
but Calmct's name escaped his memory.
This is unfortunate, a sad deteciits memO-
rids. Nor is Calmet the only illustrious
name that he has forgotten. Strabo
and Plinv would throw some light upon
his pcrplGXitv as To- "Pcter and Mark
not being actually i'm Babylon, on the
EuphrateS." Why, bless his simple
soul. he could learn from these two old
worthless that Babylon on the Eu-
pilates was in ruins before 1t. Peter
or st. Mark ever heard of the Gospel.
In my school days used to hear about
Marius and the ruins OF Carthage, but
the hCraldS uf the Gospel had more serl-
Gus work on hand than "to paint NOR
al or adorn tale" by sitting among
ruins to be nicely described a Tacitus
to-day.
But, perchanCe, Luke meant Babylon
in Egypt; and his particularising ION
the Euphratcs" was a idpSus pe'mT.
Here again. must humbly remind
him that Bah. "in Egypt was not evena
town, buta Castelar, or, as We pro-
sale moderns would say "a fort. Who
knows but they may he still holding
that fort for "he is coming" This,
Mr.. Editor, is what think not an I'M
lust answer To his two items. With re-
gard To his gidcSitd 10 the Bishop, I'm
sure, | do not know how Bishop Kane
would answer them. Suppose he an
swered them by asking other ones:
First-Can sensible man ask an
other equally sensible man, to have the
question in dispute coolly conceded
upon the mere qS DIRT OF the first per
sOnage?
Second-HOw many more individuals
than all the lawful electors of nation
are needed To confer sovereign power
upon the executive of this country?
Did Luke ever vote for a member Of
Congress who could vote in the halls
OF Congress, though Luke could not?
| will not pass any remarks upon such
choice terms a. "usurpation,' nor upon
ina, morsel of Cheshire cheese, Rom
ish." Patrick IIenry'S speech, too,
was much dd rfm wonder he forgot
that boy who stood on the burning
deck" But the Haunting magnificent
robes, Oh, ii any polemical Roman
isl is not silenced now, he must be
past hope Verify, the haberdasher 5
bin seems To evoke unpleasant memo
ries. Luke should see 10 II that all
those under his sway wear nothing but
Linsey Wolsey, and that in scant
ennugb folds. too. RVsTIC.
MANUFACTURING NOTES.
The Falcon furnace OF Brown, Bonnell
4 e., al YOUNGSTOWN, blew in last week.