The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1880-08-11
Rome and Rufus"
PETERSBURG, VA, Aug. Sd, 18S

OF d1alectles once said, :" II you ind that
your opponent has all the argument on
his side call him hard Names"
/ was never more forcibly reminded of
this than in reading on my return from
Cobb's Island a few days since, the letter
of "Rufus" in the Catholic Visitor of
July Oath, in reply to mine in your
columns of the 14th. He does not at
tempt to answer arguments, or disprove
statements, but contents himself with the
usual weapon of Catholics-personal
abuse. He accuses me of falsehood
dishonesty, untruthfulness, etc. And
yet 1t is interesting to see how hard it is
for man who was once a Protestant
and therefore accustomed to give rea-
son of the faith that is in him, to bring
himself down to the usual Catholic weap-
on of abuse. Bishop Keane, when he
cannot answer an argument stigmatises it
as lie" but Rufus puts it more
mildly as a false statement" Bishop
Keane, when he has no arguments, hurfs
epithets of "falsehoods' and ISLANDERS
daily refuted." Rufus" is only "sorry
that the Doctor is not more honest and
truthful" Well [ must say that Rufus"
wields right good prentice hand" at
abuse, and by the time he has walked
in the genial sunbeams of Catholic faith,
as long as Bishop Keane has, he will be
doubtless quite as much of an adept in
that sort Of weapon
But the difficulty with " Rufus" is that
he and [ do not agree as to whom l
shall take as an instructor in Catholic
doctrines, whether himself or Father
Muller? He says very truly that the
awfully responsible task Of teaching
Catholic doctrines, should "be en-
trusted but to those who have first
learned them themselves" Well, I
thought when l purchased Father Null
ler's Catechism, endorsed by Archbishop
Bayley and others, that had found an
instructor who could be relied upon.
was very much surprised therefore when
In his first letter Rufus began with L"
distinguish" and went on to make dis
tinctions not found in Father Muller's
book, and to teach doctrines Just the op-
poslte of those taught by Father Null
Ter himself. And when I replied quo
ting further from Father Muller to show
that his teaching and Rufus" were not
the same, [ find that instead of quoting
from other authorities to show that he
was right and Father Muller wrong.
or trying to reconcile Father Muller's
statements of doctrine with his own. he
only calls me hard names.
Now who is right, Rufus" or Father
Muller? See here for instance he saws
In his last letter: They (Presbyterians)
have no faith and therefore cannot be-
lleve. Now turn to Father Muller,
I
kind of Christ do they (Protestants)
believe 2" A. In such a one of whom
they can make liar etc., @. "Will such
a talth in such Christ save Protes-
tants. a. No sensible man will as
sert, etc. -
Now then Father Muller says we have
faith and do believe Rufus" saws we
have no faith and cannot believe. Who
is right? | thought Father Muller was
hard enough on us Protestants charging
us with making liars of the Lord Jesus
Christ, the Holy Ghost, and the HOLY
! Apostles. But it seems that Rufus" is
harder. He will find in his Douay Bible.
James ii 10, Gf he has permission from
Bishop Keane to read it) that the devils
also believe and tremble" Surely we are
not worse m his eyes than the devils
themselves. If they can believe, it would
seem that poor Protestant can Now I
hope Rufus" won't call me anv more
hard names, and won't begin to ddistin-
guish" between different kinds of faith
but give me his authority for saying that
Presbyterians only think" and Cannot
believe" that | may know who is right.
he or Father Muller.
Again, Father Muller teaches that there
IS no salvation out of the Roman Catholic
Church that for every man who lives
and dies out of the Roman Catholic
Church there remains nothing but eter-
nal damnation as sure as there is a God. 8"
(see quotations in my letter in Central
Presbyterian of July 2lst.) "Rufus" says
there is damnation for those who, latter
their vincible ignorance is removed, will
not enter her fold" Who is right, CRU
fus' or Father Muller?
Again, Father Muller SAYS the doc
trines of the Roman Catholic Church are
"e7stjrely independent Of Scripture" "Ru-
fus' " distinguishes and says only in the
sense that "t the Roman Catholic Church
was a living, well-defned, and working
organization before the Bible was COM
piled" ("Rufus" ought to know that the