Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1879-04-29
BISHOP KAN ON HIS Stills
AGAIN.
sLuke" to ''Rustic," Adieu-
"BabylOn" and the earliest
Fathers" Left In the Lurch.

note OF Bishop Kan 10 Rev. MT. oteele'
What there was in Mr.. Steele's remarks,
or in the antecedents of Bishop Kain,
as scholar, polemic, or a man to
warrant such a display Of the Hide
brand spirit on his part we are at loss TO
conceive; and can only say it reminds
one strongly of "the hole OF the pit
from which he was digged." In plain
English-which we use sometimes-it
savors of low down vulgarity, to which
no gentleman is bound to respond. The
idea that Bishop Kain could confer any
honor on Mr.. Steele by noticing his
articles, is simply preposterous, and is
indicative OF that supreme vanity which
has hitherto characterized all OF his
effusions.
But we turn to the more pleasant task
OF taking our final leave of Rustic. Hav-
ing referred Rustic to a number OF au-
thorities sustaining our view OF the Bah
ylon question, and established, almost
beyond a peradventure, the fact that
Babylon, at the time first Peter was
written, was inhabited by "knots OF
Jews" among those authors being the
contemporary Jewish writers, Josephus
and Philo. We will now proceed to ex-
anime tora moment, the response made
by our country friend"
He answers by giving us, as is usual
with him, the names OF certain ancient
authors. He seems, as in the case OF
the earliest fathers, to be very
much afraid of dates and precise
language. Is he afraid of the scalpel-
the dissecting knife? OF the four pro-
fame authors whom he uses against us,
from three Of them he quotes nothing,
and, therefore, proves nothing; and by
the fourth, he undertakes TO prove the
general, but not the utter, desolation OF
Babylon at the time in question. The
pregnant question still remains: was it
then without inhabitants? We have
already clearly shown that it was not. But
it happens that the solitary writer whom
he does quote, Pawsanias, was born III
the second century, and did not proba-
bly, write till one hundred years after
the time in question, when the condi'
of things in regard to Babylon was very
much changed. But even then, history
shows that it was not an utter desolation.
| think it unnecessary to waste any fur
ther time on this point.
| called upon Rustic to produce the
testimony of the earliest fathers as to
Peters primacy, giving dates
or precise language don't like these
things, and no wonder, for they don't
like him-and after considerable tillibus.
tering, he felt bound TO toe the mark.
We applied the sCalpel; we punctured
the bubble, and 10! there was nothing
in it-nothing, absolutely nothing tend
ing to prove that Peter was ever rprimate
at Rome, at least, in any modern Roman
istic sense. Ii there at all, it was as an
Apostle, and that is all. Poor Irenaeus,
the first and most important of Rustic's
witnesses, in the simplicity OF his soul,
thought that "the Church at Rome was
the earliest of all the Christian
churchesw What does Rustic think
about it? And yet, upon the authority
of witness like this, and few such
like, the advocates Uf the Papacy are
compelled to rely in order TO complete
the chain of evidence by which
they attempt to make out the
Primacy OF Peter. This imagined
successors, and, finally the infallibility
of the present Pope Of Rome. Oh, fish
erman of Galilee, is this the way in
which you intended TO puzzle the brains
of your simple followers to the remotest
times? God forbid. No wonder that
Rustic entirely avoids the early fathers
in his last article. But surely this was
not treating them generously. Did he
have orders on this point from
the Episcopal Palace? When you
can't meet an argument squarely, al
wavs evade it. So the Jesuits would
teach, We presume.
Rustic having failed in both branches
of his argument-that is, scripture and
the early fathers-we think 1t would be
useless to pursue this discussion further.
Doubtless he could produce vast ar
ray Of names belonging TO the middle
ages, but having utterly failed in the
essential points, We trust he
will save himself unneces-
sary trouble. The eccle-
siastical "wood, hay and stubble" OF the
middle ages, is not at all suited to our
taste. Much of it is only eft to be
burned" Such logamachees, therefore,
we leave to those who have the gastric
ability TO digest them. We confess that
We have not.
As we think we recognize in Rustic a
q,ioaddm friend, zone hundred miles
away" among the hills, and sincerely
hoping that he may, at no distant day,
find release from the tolls in which he
has unfortunately become entangled,
we bid him, for thepresent, at least, and
in all sincerity, very kind and respect
ful adieu; and this, il he will, he may
consider as another grain of sugar in
the inkhorn," for old acquaintances
sake. LUKE.