Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1879-05-07
REV. SAMUEL STEELE'S
Eurther RcpIy to Bishop Kahn.

Further Reply to Bishop kain.
Correspondence Of the Register.
The Bishop has not IN yet demolished
me by his very curt letter in last Mon
DAYS REGISTER, nor has he gained the
victory over me which he SO very un-
graciouSlv claims. The verdict oian in
tclljgcut public would, to my apprchcn-
sion. be- somewhat different from Bishop
Kaiu's, and it is to this class OF persons
appeal, and before them present my
arguments.
The intelligent public will please bear
in mind the course this controversy has
taken up to this time. In my letters in
the REGISTER of April l4th, reviewing
some points in Bishop Kain's sermons,
/ stated that the Scriptures referred to
generally by Romanists, did not sustain
the Primacy or Supremacy otPeter over
the other Apostles by any fair principle
of INTERPRETATION. That even suppose
we grant that the texts referred To did
sustain which they do not the Suprc-
macy of Peter, there is not one word OF
the Bishops of Rome being his success
Sors i'm that primacy or anything
else. and hence the conclusion Is M
cyitablc that the claim for supremacy
and iniullihility made for the bishops oi
Rome by their yOtarics, is without any
foundation i'm Gods written word, and
thus the whole supcrstruCturc falls to
the ground. 1t is nothing but castle
in the air.
In one of my letters, referred to
Popes Zcphyrinus and Callistus as being
guilty of heresy. Bishop Kain never
heard of such a charge against these
men, and made a great deal to do about
my authority for such statement lie
obtained my authority much TO his sur
prise and chagrin. Does hc deny the
quotation from IIippolytus? No; he
| demands that should prove that Hip
polvtus wrote the bOOk-a very easy
wav of getting rid of an argument or
smoothing over a very unpleasant quo
tgtion. I'm nv letter of 10th April, /
stated that, "Thc sixth General Coun-
ell, the third Of ConStantinOple, as
scmblcd i'm $50, dc. Can the Bishop
DENY, asked, that this
council condemned the Monothelitc
hcrcsv and its leaders, among whom
was Honorius, who made a distinctly
momothclitc profession of faith IN re-
ply to an appeal from ScrgluS?
Bishop Kahn i'm noticing this, refers to
a very admirable work on this subject
i'm Latin, Ia pages, 10y Most Rev.
D'CarlOui. and then tells us how long
Uouorius was Pope, and gives us the
rise of MUnOthclism, or the doctrine
| that i'm Christ there is but one will and
one operation. This hcrcSy was en-
/ braccd by the PatriarchS OF CONSTANT
noplc, Alexandria, Pyrrhus, dc. Ser
giuS wrote, It appears, To HonorluS en-
/ treating the Sovereign PouuH 10 impose
| silence on the diSputantS. Deceived by
| these representations, could the jntalli-
/ blr Sovereign PontiH be deceived?
| IonOriuS wrote 10 SCrEiuS, and al
| though deceived, vet he wrote 10 Ser
/ rius am orthodox letter, so the Bishop
/ saws. i'm which there Is not one word OF
/ Mrnothclism: and this We are told Is
not q modern Interpretation, but was
givru To- this letter 10y the PopcS own
| Secretary. Abbot John. Strange To say,
| that Notwithstanding this explanation OF
/ thePope' : own Secretary, the Bishops as
| Semblcd in the Sixth Genera, Council
| Thought and acted differently from this
| learned Secretary Abbot John. This
| general council admitted as such by the
| Eastern and Western churches, having
| al the facts before them, the letters ot
] 81 NJ pre- al I
| rs Bishop kain SAYS, presided over by
/ the LagatcS of Pope Agatho; tins
| Council OF Bishops having the letters OF
/ UuuOrius before them, which Bishop
/ Kahn saws were Orthodox. and assem-
| blrd for the purpose of declaring the OR
/ thoioX doctrine against Monothellsm;
these Bishops for this purpose assem-
| bled. and, Is far as We know, without
/ anv outside influence, declared that
/ Pope Uonorious was guilty of HereSy.
/ And Is il not fair 10 conclude that the
| Bishops then knew at least as much
about this hcresy Of HonOrluS as mod
| crn Bishops do now?
Bishop kain SAYS that these letters
| .for | presume there were more than
| one were prirgts and consequently were
/ noteX-cathedra Now let Us ScXdmlne tins
statement Can We call these letters
prirg,s which passed between these
Bishops and PatriarchS on controversy
which was then reniing the Church,
and shaking them to their foundation?
Were not these letters public documents
and were they not freely employed as
such then and uOuS In support OF all
this produce the following quotation
from Iandons Manual of Councils,
PAGE Isl. The Council says, "llaying
examined the letters Of SergiuS of Con.
stautinople to Cyrus, and the answer OF
Honorius to Sergius, and having found
them to be repusnant to the doctrine OF
the Apostles, and to the opinion OF all
the Fathers, in execrating their impious
dogmas we Judge that their very names
ought to be banished from the Holy
Church of God. We declare them TO