Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1879-04-19
THE AUTHORITIES PRO.
DUCED.
ReplyOf Rev. samuel Steele to
Bishop Kahn.

pears this does not please him. He
wants the work of Hippolytus, to which
! referred. now give it to him with
the greatest Of pleasure. 1t is the work
OF Hippolytus called PhIosophuBasld. 1t
is referred 10 in SchafTs Church His
tory, Vol. l, pages POI, 43l. Az. 1t was
translated into English by DIR. Words
worth, Bishop OF Lincoln, and called by
him "St. Hippolytus and the Church Of
Rome" London. The works OF Hippo
7 lytus, including the PhilOsophumeaa, and
on the universe are published in an
English translation Of the Ante-Nicene
Fathers by DR.. Roberts & Donaldson,
I York. am sorry have not a copy Of
I his book, or | would send il 10 YOU.
You can have SchatF-s Church History,
Vol. /, and McClmtOck and Strongs
I CyclOpadia, where, under the word
Nosils, YOU will find Callistus's express
sion on the subject TO which | referred.
Ny number is SOL Market street
PeSides / have the Wes-
leyan Methodist Magazine for
1878, London, where the views OF Dr.
Newman, DIR. DOllinger and the Jesuit
Magazine, Month, are given. Now, Bishop,
you thought you had me. You were
suspicious of me; you We're judging me
by standard which is not found in
Gods word 1t may be found in Legouri.
Notwithstanding, indeed, although it is
not lawful to lie, or 10 feIgn what is not,
however it is lawful 10 diSSembie what
is, or To cover the truth with words,
&c; tleCture on ROmaniSm by DIR. Cum
ming, Boston, 1851 Now, what can We
think OF a church historian who has
within the last twenty years gone, or
ought 10 have gone over this ground, and
vet appears 10 know nothing Of SchatF
history Of the Christian Church. Prof.
SchafT is a professor in Union TheolOgi-
cal Seminary, New York. The first
volume OF his history was published in
1852 The bishop does not think me
honest because / referred him 10 SchaH.
Let all intelligent people be the judge.
Is not the bishop mistaken is Tuesdays
letter when he says second century,
Ought il not TO be "third?'
But the Bishop has been touched in
very tender pOint-his authorship.
lie winces and retaliateS by informing
the public that have put the cart be-
fore the horse. Now let Us see all about
this great ignorance of mine. / said
quoting from smiths Church History,
that Formosus was Pope from S9l to
500. Does my opponent, the compiler
Oi a Church History, meet me like
Christisn gentleman? No he tries To
make as much capital out OF the mis-
take as he can, and by great flourish
comes down upon me and tries tO ami
hilate me by his show OF erudition.
And what was the mistake | made?
Why, Just this, instead OF saying who
was shortly after succeeded by stephen
VII | said, "whO was succeeded by
stephen VI" On the same page from
which quoted. there is a foot note
stating that Boniiace VI was Pope for
only filesg ddlB in May and June, $50.
In one Of my authorities, Penny CyclO-
pU,lia, the name OF Sergius IL
introduced as an Antelope and
Bpniilcp. STYLED by some the
vi. Waddington's Church History,
another Of my authorities, puts the sue
ccSsion thus: FOrmOSlS, Schism, BOnl-
face VI, Stephen VII. And by the
way, in the course of the succession,
from the third 10 the fifteenth century,
there were twcnty-four times when
there were two, three or four Popes all
at once. Where was the inidllibility of
the Pope then, or to whom did it belong?
But to return, here is the great mistake
the wonderful ignOrance | displayed.
Now the Bishop is welcome TO this We
tory:
Now fellow citizens and the public
generally, both Roman Catholic and
Protestant, is the Bishops knowledge
of Church History, although a compiler
OF one 50 much superior to that Of the
writer? Is it any thing TO boast Of?
The Bishop does not see the relevancy
oi nv reference tO FormoSI and stephen
in my Argument against papal inialllbiI-
itv. He vii. probably see IL after while.
The reference To- ilOnOrIuS has aroused
the Bishop. We hal the velvet before
we have the iron hand now. | gave my
authority ior the Presidency ot the Em-
pernr and until am better informed
must rest upon il. In McCintockS
and StrOng's cyclOpTdla, under Hon
nriuS. are the following statements:
Alter his Honorius' death attempts
were male at Rome 20 eNculpate ms
memory from all accusation OF hcreSy,
vet be VAS condemned by the .Eumen-
ical Council Of COnStantinOple IN
6SO. ami his sentence was confirmed at
different times, aS for instance, by Leo
III. who anathentized him as hereto Tor
having BETRAYED and Subyerted the pure
AuoStolical Church. 0ManSe \. 75lD
Modern Roman Catholic Historians
have tried i'm various ways to
rxhnnoiatc HOnOriuS. Banonins says
that the acts Of the Council OF COn>tan-
tinople were ialsitied: Bellarmine that
this was the cslSe with Honorius'S letter
Z, Sersius. while GARNER and Ballerlnl
claims that he was not mathematical
,or heresv but for negligence. Some that
he merely denied the existence IN
Christ of two discOrdant or conflicting
wills that is OF oJrrUpt dit tSiHiia human
will opposed To the divine will ant that
he dill not put forth any dOgmauc dec
larations irreconciliable with the strict
ultramontane doctrine of inialllbIhty.
| Orsi went even 80 far as To maintain
that HOnOriuS composed this letter to
l NRFEluN - a iAANatN
cXpres.inn when used of Pope (as
James says) is like talking OF wooden
/ iron, page 4O5). The views published
I bv James are ably seconded by L. lie
/ Page Behouf The condemnation oil
| Pope Hunorius, London 1853 and IN
rrply to the ultramOntane views ot the
/ first work. The case OF Pope HonoriuS
reconsidered London 1852, he under
taxes 70 prove three assertions: !, Hon.
/ orius in his letters TO Seryius really gave
/ his sanction the p,0R0thSliStic hereSy. :.
/ Honorious was on account oi htresy
/ condemned by General Councils snd TWO
/ Pores. 3. HonOrius taught heresy eT
/ r,tiSfra. Now let US examine the Bishops
explanation. lie gives Us a history oi
/ the rise of the MonOthelitic heresy, ana
then the letter of Pope HonorIous to
/ Serdus in which be acknowledged the
sentence l quoted Is found. 80 lar ne
/ has found me honest, notwithstanding
/ - ,,sinnationS tO the contrary. Now