Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1878-03-08
Presbyterian Church History.

ED. JoURNAL:--Ip answer to the article
in the Journal of March 1st, allow me tc
say that have no desire, nor intention
to be drawn into an extended controversy
with "Pro Bono Publico," for | cannot
see that it Is "for the public good, or that
the interest and good OF this community
will be greatly enhanced thereby.
Hc says the "matter' in JOURNAL oi
February 18th "was gathered with much
care from the Westminster Confession q!
Faith and is authentic and genuine" lie
| saws they are "thc doctrines to which ev.
cry Presbylcr subscribcs belonging to the
Presbyterian Church OF the United States
and the true doctrines of said Church
| to-day" lie further says, 80 Layman
eught not undertake to overthrow these
doctrines or even deny them
but that the doctrines referred to are the
commonly accepted doctrines OF the Pres
| byterian Church" and hopes | will read
the Confession of Faith and learn tho
truth Of his assertions. (Thanks for the
! advice y
In the outset | will say that no exccp.
tions are taken 10 the historical part OF the
article, and that the doctrines therein set
forth are in the main those adhered to by
PreSbyterians but with all due Difference
TO "P. Il. p" | will have to say that al
though gathered with much care" by YOU,
some OF your assertions are not "the doc
trnes to which every Prcsbytcr sub.
scribe-," and are not the pronounced and
promulgated doctrines of the Presbyterian
Church OF the United States to-day!
An anti-Calv9nist can take Calvanistic
articles of faith and belief, aud by deduc-
tiOnS and inferenees - probably without
any Intention ol injusticG--mak Ike it seem to
him to teach doctrine containing errors
and absurdities; but in giving n synopsis
of church doctrine, by n party claiming
to be disinterested. the precise aud erdct
language or teaching should I've fairly
given free from inference and his own
deductions thcrefrom. One OF your dec
larnlions OF the doctrines taught by the
Confession OF said Presbyterian Church is
this: THAT elect infants dying in infancy
are saved and The elect only" Chapter 10,
Section 3, Of this creed book, says: "Elect
infants dying in infancy are rcgenerated
and saved by Christ through the Spirit,
who workcth when, where and how he
pleaseth." But in no place IN said book,
in connection with the subject OF infant
salvation, does il say that some infants
are not elected, and that the elect only" Of
them are saved.
This is m inference by YOU, and the
term "only," given in this place, is nm un-
warranted deduction from the facts.
have never met Presbyterian who believ-
ed, or taught, that Gods mercy and love
would not embrace and save the souls Of
those dying in infancy. These being the
frctS, am | not warranted and justified in
saving that you do the Church injustice, in
proclaiming this unaccepted view MS a
part OF their creed?
As said in the commencement OF this
article, no controversy is desired by ME.
and | have called attention to only one of
three OF his erroneous assertions, given as
''duthentie and genuine" extracts from the
doctrines held by the Presbyterian Church,
but which in fact are partly deductions
and inferences, exhibiting somewhat the
views and doctrines Of the Church, but
mystified with an admixture of errors
similar TO the one noticed. With this ad-
ditional protest, that the purported doc
trnes set forth are not a clear, unpreiu-
diced view Of Presbyterianism, but n
slightly, and possibly unintentionally,
view, shaded by friead not in sympathy
with said Church and its doctrines, l leave
and dismiss the subject for good.
LAYMAN.