- -.a s~\ 
 
 » 
 
 ¥tt 
 
 W^. 
 
q/ LP ^lA^-^r-r-er^/ 
 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J 
 
 W///^/^ X\.\\\\JvrOA\A. 
 
 Divis, 
 Section ... . 
 
 Number, 
 
4 
 
LETTER 
 
 ADDRESSED TO 
 
 R. H. BISHOP, D. D., 
 
 P R E S I D E N T O F MIAMI UNIVERSITY, 
 
 ON THE SUBJECT OF HIS 
 
 "PLEA FOR UNITED CHRISTIAN ACTION;" 
 
 ADDRESSED PARTrCULAHLY TO 
 
 PRESBYTERIANS ; 
 
 BY J. L. WILSON. 
 
 CINCINNATI: 
 
 LODGE, L'HOMMEDIEU & CO., PRINTERS. 
 
 1835. 
 
Cincinnati, February 5, 1835. 
 
 THE REV. ROBERT H. BISHOP, D. D., 
 
 President of Miami University. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 To me it is a subject of no small regret, that any thing has 
 taken place, in the Presbyterian church, to interrupt the harmony 
 of those, who ought "to speak and mind the same things." It 
 is both mortifying and alarming to know, that among those, who 
 profess an adherence to the same system of faith, and order of 
 worship, differences of opinion and practice prevail to such an 
 extent as to agitate the Church and cause the world to stumble. 
 You cannot be insensible that the contradictory opinions preach- 
 ed and published, among us, for several years, and the diversity 
 of practice, which prevails, have brought the Presbyterian Church 
 to a solemn crisis! 
 
 At such a time, as this, when a change must soon take place 
 for the better or woise, all distinguished men, in our denomina- 
 tion, who, like yourself, are elevated to the highest stations of 
 influence, seem bound to state, in unequivocal terms, the ground 
 on which they stand, and the course they intend to pursue. 
 Other classes of society look up to them for opinions, and are led, 
 right or wrong, according as the guides they follow are correct 
 or erroneous. 
 
 My venerable friend, Dr. Bishop, has not been backward in 
 shewing the foundation which he occupies; and I hope to give 
 no offence while I examine whether it be rock or sand. 
 
 Men in deliberative bodies, greatly excited by agitating ques-' 
 tions, may say and do things which ought not to be considered 
 tests of their abiding principles. But when a man of mature age, 
 under the responsibilities of ministerial office, and clothed with 
 all the influence of presidential eminence, preaches a sermon, "by 
 special appointment," and gives it to the public, through the 
 press, in more than one edition, we must suppose that he in- 
 tends it as a test of his orthodoxy, and that he desires the church 
 to be formed upon this model as far as the subject of the dis- 
 course extends. Such, sir, is your Sermon entitled "A Plea for 
 United Christian Action." 
 
To examine this sermon as a reviewer, is not my object. But 
 as I consider the principles advanced, and plans recommended, 
 hostile to the interests of the Church of God, and particularly to 
 that branch of his church, to which we both profess to belong, I 
 shall frankly call your attention to some things which you may 
 possibly review with profit to yourself and future generations. 
 The title of your sermon, in my opinion, ought to be changed. 
 Is it not apleafor united action with Neiv England Divines? If 
 this be not the plea, I am utterly at a loss to understand it. For 
 New England divines, who act consistently with their avowed 
 principles, and meddle not with the affairs of others, I cherish a 
 high respect. If a man should profess to be a Presbyterian, and 
 then should speak and act agreeably to that profession, I care not 
 whether he is from New England or Old England. There are 
 men from New England, who uniformly act correctly in the 
 Presbyterian Church, and, I am sorry to say, there are men from 
 Scotland, who as uniformly act the other way. In proposing 
 then to change the title of your sermon, no disrespect is intended 
 to New England Divines. Ifamanbe asoundPresbyterian,he will 
 be sure to enjoy united christian action with men of the same 
 stamp, whether they be educated at New Haven or Princeton. 
 And yet I am not so indifferent with regard to the place or school, 
 from which a man comes, as you represent our fathers to have 
 been. You say, in your sermon, page 10, "The inquiry from 
 what country, or from what school, or from what particular 
 church a man came, was with them an inferior question." 
 Now, sir, the records of the first Presbyteries, and the 
 first Synod organized in America; and the standing rules of 
 our church, in regard to foreign ministers, prove directly the re- 
 verse. The history of William Tennent, the venerable founder 
 of "the Log College" at Neshamony, contradicts your state- 
 ment. He was admitted into the Presbyterian Church as early 
 as 1718, and his admission was attended with all the caution 
 and solemnity of synodical action. The reasons are recorded in 
 the Synodical Book, as the fathers said — ad futuram rei memo- 
 riam — for the benefit of posterity. But it appears that some 
 men have profited nothing by their memento! 
 
 The Tennents, whom you mention in your sermon, were the 
 sons of this venerable William Tennent, and of course could 
 not be among the fathers of the Presbyterian Church, in North 
 America, as you have stated or represented them. But you have 
 said correctly, p. 9: "It was the peculiar happiness of the Ten- 
 nents, and the'Blairs,andof Davies,and Witherspoon — that they 
 understood well — the essential features of genuine Presbyterian- 
 ism" — and permit me to finish your sentence by adding — it was 
 their "peculiar happiness" to act accordingly. If they found a 
 man who was trust-worthy, they enjoyed with him "united 
 christian action," and if they found a man unsound and unfaith- 
 ful, they dismissed him, without respect to school or country. 
 
They endeavored to keep out heresy, and to- put out those who 
 crept it in; but they were total strangers to the modern policy of 
 inviting it in, and fencing it in, and denouncing those who en- 
 deavor to keep it out; and then preaching and publishing "A plea 
 for united christian action." 
 
 You say, p. 9, "The leading features of American Presbyteri- 
 anism are few and simple;" and on p. 10, you state that one of 
 "the great questions" asked by the fathers, in relation to any ap- 
 plicant for admission to be — "does he agree with us substantially 
 in our view of divine truth?" If so, you add, "We leave him to 
 apply and act out these few general rules in his own way." 
 
 Who can help being "startled" at the word "substantially," in 
 connection with the phrase, "we leave him to apply and act out 
 these few general principles in his own w T ay" — when we remem- 
 ber the plea of the New Haven professors — "for substance of 
 doctrine" — and their rejection, of what they call secondary prin- 
 ciples or explanations? You tell us, p. 9, "Dr. Rogers, of New 
 York, found it extremely difficult to make a Scotchman under- 
 stand what American Presbyterianism was." If that venerable 
 man was now living, he would find the same difficulty still. 
 
 But to return to your "plea for New England preachers." You 
 say, p. 11 — "The preachers from New England formed a large 
 portion of the first Presbyteries and the first Synod which were 
 formed in the English colonies." 
 
 Was it so? Dr. Miller has told us, that, "The Presbytery 
 of Philadelphia was constituted in 1 704, and very soon after, 
 some who had been bred Congregationalists, in South Britain, 
 or in New England, acceded to the new body, and consented 
 to bear the name and act under the order of Presbyterians. In 
 1716, the number of ministers had increased so far, chiefly by 
 emigrants from Europe, that they distributed themselves into 
 four Presbyteries — and erected a Synod." 
 
 The records of the Philadelphia Presbytery, shew that in 1707, 
 three years after their organization, they had one man and one 
 only, from New England, the other members were Scotch and 
 Irish Presbyterians. What becomes, then, of your "large pro- 
 portion"? But did this one man, in the Presbytery of Philadel- 
 phia act consistently with his pledge and give the Presbytery 
 no trouble? Let the brief history of Jedediah Andrews answer 
 the question. 
 
 Did those Congregationalists, who, according to Dr. Miller, 
 "Consented to bear the name and act under the order and dis- 
 cipline of Presbyterians" redeem their pledge? Did preachers 
 from New England promote or disturb the peace of the Presby- 
 terian Church, when admitted into her judicatories? Let the 
 history of Wade and Peniberton, and the records of the first 
 Synod answer. And why, sir, did they disturb the peace of the 
 Church? Simply because the Presbyterians of that day would 
 not "leave them to apply and act out their few general rules in 
 their own way." 
 
Permit me here to ask, was it to promote truth or for popular 
 effect that you made the following statement, p. 11, 12: "If we 
 could this day, tear from our bosom, all who are of New Eng- 
 land birth, or of New England descent, we would exhibit a map 
 of the Presbyterian Church in North America, on a very small 
 scale." 
 
 Who, sir, ever thought of such an indiscriminate tearing out? 
 I apprehend when the Presbyterian Church is purged from her 
 present corruptions, so as "to keep the unity of the spirit in the 
 bonds of peace," many "of New England birth and New Eng- 
 land descent will remain, in her purified bosom, and not a few, 
 from other quarters, will be cast out. And whether the map 
 then, shall be small or great, will be a matter of no consequence 
 compared with her purity, peace, and ultimate prosperity. 
 
 Hence, all that you have said, p. 12, 13, about those excellent 
 men, Mills, Schermerhorn and Smith, can be looked upon in no 
 other light than an ad captandum vulgus — 1\ rhetorical fraud on 
 the popular ear. If only the ear of the multitude was cheated 
 it would be of little consequence, but such an appeal in such a 
 sermon commits a fraud upon the hearts of thousands. 
 
 How impressive are the Apostle's words, and what a warning 
 ought they to be to you and me, "By good words and fair 
 speeches they deceive the hearts of the simple." Rom. xvi. 17, 
 18. 
 
 You say, p. 6, "As a church, we have been threatened, during 
 the last two years, with a division or separation;" and you go on 
 to inquire whether there are to be two or twenty divisions — 
 whether they are to be east or west, north or south — and you 
 give up, in despair, the idea of "a separation upon any national 
 plan;" and then you ask, p. 7, "When these divisions shall be 
 made, what will be the advantages secured?" Ought you not 
 rather to have said to your audience, "We, as a church, are di- 
 vided. The line is drawn to every point of the compass. Not 
 the compass of the surveyor nor the compass of the mariner, but 
 the elective affinity compass, which marks the lines of our ecclesi- 
 astical earth. By this new invention our churches are cut up into 
 a thousand sections — some of our Presbyteries, and one Synod 
 are untramelled by geographical lines — they are left to act out 
 their few substantial principles in their own icay. Diversity of 
 opinions and diversity of plans, are inseparable from the nature 
 of man. Every man, who thinks for himself, must have some 
 plans peculiarly his own. In New York, Philadelphia, Cincin- 
 nati, Hamilton, Zanesville, Indianapolis, and a thousand other 
 places, these "elective affinity" divisions exist. They are sanc- 
 tioned by the highest judicatories of our church, and surely when 
 we are so divided there is nothing to hinder us from "united 
 christian action." It appears to me, that, in some such strain 
 as this you ought to have addressed the people, instead of saying, 
 "We have been threatened with a division." You have not told 
 
us from what quarter the threat came; but you make it plain 
 enough, that you are opposed to a "separation," and you think 
 "the God of our fathers is hedging up our way with thorns, that 
 we cannot pass, " p. 7. It may be right, like Job, to ascribe the 
 evils with which we are afflicted to the Lord, though the devil 
 may bring them. And now in the day of our perplexity, your 
 thorns reminds me of the men who have corrupted our Church — 
 "the best of them is a brier, the most upright is sharper than a 
 thorn hedge." 
 
 Page 7, you ask "In what page of the history of the Church 
 have we any proof that separation or division has been among 
 the means which God has blessed for the building up of the 
 kingdom of his Son." 
 
 I answer, we have the proof m almost, every "page of the his- 
 tory of the Church." The merest tyro in ecclesiastical history, 
 can point for proof to the question of Moses, "Who is on the 
 Lord's side?" Exo. 32 — to the history of Korah,Num. 16 — to the 
 reduction of the army of Gideon from thirty-two thousand to 
 three hundred men, Judj. vii — to the command of Christ, "Come 
 out of her my people" — in short, to the whole history of the Ref- 
 ormation. As long as there is enmity between the seed of the 
 woman and the seed of the serpent, and the seed of the serpent 
 can creep into the church, so long God will bless "division and 
 separation among the means for the building up of the kingdom 
 of his Son." 
 
 You seem to take the broad ground that "all the professed 
 people of God" must be united — that according to "the spirit of 
 freedom and inquiry and independence," every man must have 
 his own way of expressing his views, and his own plan of ope- 
 ration. This coincides precisely with a plan disclosed to me by 
 another Dr. of the West, in 1832 — that no Confession of Faith 
 should contain more than three articles, and all pulpits must be 
 common ! 
 
 To sustain yourself on this broad ground, you endeavor to 
 make us believe, p. 19, "That Paul neither recommended a sepa- 
 ration nor enjoined discipline in the Corinthian church, because 
 "the whole church was too much infected with the evil" — of di- 
 visions and schims, and abuse of the Lord's supper, to be ca- 
 pable of exercising discipline. If Paul neither recommended a 
 "separation" nor "enjoined discipline" in the church at Corinth, 
 what is the meaning of such passages as these — "Do not ye 
 judge them that are within? — To deliver such an one unto Sa- 
 tan for the destruction of the flesh — Put away from among your- 
 selves that wicked person — With such an one not to keep com- 
 pany — no, not to eat — Purge out the old leaven that ye may be 
 a new lump." Will you tell me this "separation" — this "discip- 
 line" related to immorality in practice? I grant it. But was 
 there no discipline in relation to immorality in principle? What 
 then is meant by these passages? — "For there must be also here- 
 
sies among you, that they which are approved may be made mani- 
 fest among you" — "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall 
 every word be established — I write to them which heretofore 
 have sinned, and to all others, that, if I come again, I will 
 not spare — for we can do nothing against the truth but for the 
 truth. — I write these things being absent, lest being present I 
 should use sharpness.' 1 '' Use sharpness! On whom? Certainly on 
 the rulers ! They had excommunicated the fornicator. For 
 this they were commended. But they had not expelled those 
 who caused "debates, swellings and tumults" — and for this de- 
 linquency the Apostle threatens them. "There must be heresies 
 that they which are approved may be made manifest." But how 
 can the approved be made manifest without the condemnation and 
 excision of heretics? And yet you have made thousands believe, 
 if they can believe you, that there was no discipline enjoined, no 
 separation recommended. Nay, more, that the Corinthian church 
 was so corrupted that she was incapable of exercising discip- 
 line ! And you have applied this to the present state of the Pres- 
 byterian church, and put in your "Plea for united christian ac- 
 tion," when our church, according to your own shewing, is so 
 afflicted with "divisions and schisms," that discipline is at an 
 end! This solves an ecclesiastical phenomenon, which no inge- 
 nuity has before been able to explain — namely, that you, and 
 many others, have for several years, set your faces against all 
 discipline for heresy ! You can pronounce, as you did, in the 
 Synod of Cincinnati, that a trial sermon is not the Gospel, and 
 then vote to sustain the ordination of the man who preached and 
 published it, and held on tenaciously to all the errors it contained! 
 I am constrained to judge of men not from what they profess, 
 but from the scale into which they cast their influence. And if 
 your influence has not been in the scale of error and misrule, in 
 the Presbyterian church for the last three years, then I confess 
 that my senses have deceived me. 
 
 You say, p. 1 8, "We are not more divided in any of the lead- 
 ing doctrines of the Westminister Confession of Faith, than the 
 fathers of that age themselves were. Nor have we any reason 
 to believe that the Divines of the Assembly themselves, in their 
 final vote upon the most of the articles in the confession, were 
 agreed, upon any other principle, than the principle of comprom- 
 ise.'''' Agreeably to this, you represent "Presbyterianism like all 
 other isms — when used in controversy — very vague and equivo- 
 cal and ambiguous," p. 8, 9. 
 
 I have been so foolish as to believe that Presbyterianism, as 
 set forth in our standards was not like other isms, "vague, equivo- 
 cal, and ambiguous,'''' but that it contained "a well defined system of 
 truth and order;" even "the system taught in the Holy Scrip- 
 tures." Nor have your statements about Rogers, and Owen, and 
 Baxter, led me out of this foolish belief! 
 
Has Dr. Bishop yet to learn that the Assembly of Divines did 
 not meet of their own accord — that they were permitted to dis- 
 cuss no subject but what was proposed to them by Parliament — 
 that they were carefully watched by Lords and Commons, to 
 see that they did not transcend their commission — that they sat 
 long and carefully investigated every subject committed to their 
 consideration — that when they gave "their final vote" upon each 
 article — they gave thatvote upon principle, and not upon comprom- 
 ise — that they were all at liberty when their labors were ended, 
 and the Assembly was dissolved, to adopt the Confesson of Faith, 
 Catechisms and Government, or not, as they pleased — and that 
 Owen, and Baxter, and Usher, and many others never adopted 
 the standards of the Presbyterian church? Why, sir, do you a- 
 muse yourself and deceive your hearers, by illustrations drawn 
 from the theological differences of such men? 
 
 To shew that there was no compromise in the votes of the As- 
 sembly of Divines, I need only cite one or two cases. The As- 
 sembly were unanimously of opinion that "Baptism is rightly 
 administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person." 
 But some members thought that dipping or immersion ought to 
 be allowed as "a mode of Baptism." On this subject the Assem- 
 bly were divided, and the moderator gave the casting -vote 
 against immersion. They all agreed that "pouring or sprink- 
 ling" was right. But 24 out 49 thought immersion might be 
 allowed as "a mode of baptism." When they were so equally 
 divided upon "a mode" of an external ordinance, and no com- 
 promise could be had — and when the majority inserted in the 
 book that "clipping the person in water is not necessary," but 
 that "baptism as ordained by Christ is the washing with water by 
 sprinkling or pouring water upon the person, in the name of the 
 Father, &c." — can any sober minded man believe they would 
 compromise the essential truths of salvation? 
 
 Take another case. The Assembly of Divines, of Westmin- 
 ister, was, at first, composed of Episcopalians, Erastians, Inde- 
 pendents and Presbyterians. I know not that any of the Ana- 
 baptists, Neonomians, or Antinomians were members. The Par- 
 liament sent an order "that the Assembly of Divines and others, 
 should forthwith confer, and treat among themselves, of such a 
 discipline and government as may be most agreeable to God's 
 Holy Word — and to deliver their advice touching the same, to 
 both Houses of Parliament, with all convenient speed." A plan 
 was proposed, in order to unite all parties, namely — that every 
 bishop should be independent, and that synods and councils 
 should be for concord and not for government. Abp. Usher was 
 agreed to this plan. But no compromise could be obtained. The 
 Presbyterial form of church government was adopted. I find 
 no case of compromise, but in regard to the Solemn League and 
 Covenant. The Scots' commissioners were instructed "to pro- 
 mote the extirpation of popery, prelacy, heresy, schisms, scep- 
 
 B 
 
10 
 
 ticism and idolatry, and to endeavor an union between the two 
 kingdoms, in one Confession of Faith, one form of Church Gov- 
 ernment, and one Directory of worship." 
 
 The Solemn League and Covenant was to pave the way for 
 all this, and was to be considered the safeguard of religion and 
 liberty. This league was adopted in Scotland, none opposing it 
 but the king's commissioners. When it was presented to the 
 two Houses of Parliament, they referred it to the Assembly of 
 Divines, where it met with opposition. 
 
 "Dr. Featly declared he durst not abjure prelacy absolutely, 
 because he had sworn to obey his Bishop in all things lawful and 
 honest, and therefore proposed to qualify the second article thus: 
 'I will endeavor the extirpation of Popery, and all anti-christian, 
 tyrannical, or independent Prelacy ;' but it was carried against 
 him. Dr. Burgess objected to several articles, and was not with- 
 out some difficulty persuaded to subscribe, after he had been 
 suspended." This looks very much like the days of com- 
 promise, does it not? Yet, there was a compromise. 
 Mr. Gataker, and many others, declared for primitive 
 episcopacy, or for one stated president, with his presbyters 
 to govern every church, and refused to subscribe till a pa- 
 renthesis was inserted, declaring what sort of prelacy was to 
 be abjured. 
 
 The Scots, who had been introduced into the Assembly, were 
 for abjuring episoopacy as simply unlawful, but the English Di- 
 vines were generally against it. The English pressed chiefly 
 for a civil League, but the Scots would have a religious one, to 
 which the English were obliged to yield, taking care at the same 
 time, to leave a door open for a latitude of interpretation. Here 
 was a compromise. And what was this door of "latitude of in- 
 terpretation?" It was this: The English inserted the phrase, "of 
 reforming according to the word of God;" by which they thought 
 themselves secure from the Inroads of Presbytery. The Scots 
 inserted the words "according to the practice of the best re- 
 formed churches," in which they were confident their discipline 
 must be included. Here was a compromise from necessity. The 
 English were obliged to adopt a religious League and Covenant, 
 or not obtain the assistance of the Scots in a war which they 
 were carrying on in defence of civil and religious liberty. As 
 your reading is much more extensive and minute than mine, I beg 
 you to point out the instances where compromises were made, 
 and a latitude of interpretation allowed on points of doctrine. I 
 believe it will be a difficult task for you, or any member of the 
 New School, to do this. And if this be not done, I hope to hear 
 no more about compromising the truths of God. 
 
 Upon what, I consider a groundless assertion, with regard to 
 compromise, in the Westminister Assembly, you bund the follow- 
 ing proposition, p. 1 8, namely: 
 
 "An approximation towards unity of opinion as to the best 
 modes of expressing our individual views of Divine truth, is all 
 
11 
 
 that ever can be obtained in our adherence to a public creed." 
 Then I affirm that "approximation" can be obtained without any 
 "public creed." Quod erat demonstrandum. Away with all 
 public creeds! "Approximation towards unity of opinion" can 
 be obtained by adherence to the Bible, as the standard of our 
 "common Christianity." And as you declare that "We need 
 the untrammeled assistance of all our friends," p. 14, then tru- 
 ly the Rev. Mr. P. of the 1st Congregational Church, in Cincin- 
 nati, and Rev. Mr. W. of the 1st Presbyterian Church, may 
 henceforth exchange pulpits in this day of united division! ! I 
 will here advertise you thatas our church has become so corrupt, 
 like the church at Corinth, as to be incapable of exercising dis- 
 cipline; and as union upon the compromise of truth and error is 
 to be the standing order of the day — there are some who believe 
 that a compromise has been made between the Miami Universi- 
 ty and Lane Seminary. Is this so? Is the Seminary to send 
 literary students to the University, and the University to send 
 theological students to the Seminary? Are these institutions 
 thus "to play into each other's hands?" The public and the 
 church have a right to an explicit answer. Not that I claim to 
 be the public or the church, nor have I been appointed to ask the 
 question. But you ought to know what the belief of some, and 
 not a few, is on this subject, and if the belief is ill founded, I 
 think you ought to disabuse the University from the odium of 
 such a suspicion. 
 
 You have laid down a "general principle," and applied it to 
 the Presbyterian Church, namely: that "Mutual confession of 
 equal corruptions, and equal apostacies," must be "the broad ba- 
 sis, the spirit of" our "union," page 3, 4. I stop not to in- 
 quire whether this "general principle" is at all contained in 
 your text. I have not sagacity enough to see it there. Nor can 
 I discover it in your references, on p. 14. But if you adhere to 
 this principle, the Presbyterian Church already divided, can ne- 
 ver be united. 
 
 Can any man, who fears God and loves the truth, make "con- 
 fession of equal corruptions and equal apostacies," with those 
 who propagate heresy among us? Can any Presbytery or Sy- 
 nod, adhering to the doctrines and order of the church, make 
 such confession, when, by the influence of Arminian and Pela- 
 gian heresies, all their efforts to maintain truth and order are par- 
 alyzed? Take your own text — can Judah, who maintained the 
 true worship of God, confess "equal corruptions and equal apos- 
 tacies" with Israel, who set up the calves at Dan and Bethel? 
 
 I say, sir, if you adhere to this "general principle," then our 
 church is divided already by a deep and impassable gulph! There 
 are not a few who would sutler all the tortures of the inquisition 
 sooner than make "mutual confession of equal corruptions, and 
 equal apostacies," with men whom they know to be corrupters 
 of the word of God and the discipline of his house. 
 
 If we have no other basis of union than such "mutual confes- 
 
12 
 
 sions," there never can be union. If all honest men -and all 
 knaves are to come together on the ground of "mutual confes- 
 sion of equal corruptions," then light and darkness can have 
 fellowship — Christ and Belial concord. 
 
 Page 18, you have recommended a course of reading, to which 
 no one will probably object, and such a course might be profita- 
 ble to some who have not taken it. But what is the utility of 
 such a course of reading? The reader might gain some knowl- 
 edge of ecclesiastial history, by reviewing parts of the state of the 
 church, in the progress of the reformation, when every thing but 
 the Word of God, was in a revolutionary, fluctuating, and unset- 
 tled state — when a corrupt King was conniving at Popery, and 
 a reforming Parliament was calling in the aid of the Scots to set- 
 tle affairs both in church and state — when high and low Episco- 
 palians, high and low Presbyterians, Independents and Erastians, 
 were endeavoring to settle the standards of the Church, to suit 
 their several parties. Suppose the reader should discover, as 
 you have done, that Owen and Baxter, who never professed to 
 belong to the same party, differed in theology — suppose he 
 should find out that Twiss, and Harle, and Laud, and Usher, dif- 
 fered, when nothing was decided but the Solemn League and 
 Covenant, and when every man was required to swallow this enor- 
 mous pill, however revolting it might be to his conscience, would 
 that be a good reason for Presbyterians now to differ in theological 
 opinions, when they have a well defined and settled system, which 
 has been adopted by them all as the confession of their faith? You 
 might.as well request us to read the lives of Toplady and Wesley, 
 of Hervey and Fletcher, of Dr. Mason and Bishop Hobart, in 
 order to learn how widely Presbyterians may at this day differ 
 and yet all agree! Your plea for union is as unsatisfactory as 
 your assumptions are unfounded. You think very few are pre- 
 pared to say to what an extent diversity of opinions, as to doc- 
 trines, exists among the ministers of the Presbyterian church, 
 and you add, "It is a hard matter, even in this age of inventions, 
 to find a new shade of error, or a new cause of theological dif- 
 ference," p. 1 8. This is readily granted. Does it therefore fol- 
 low that all these shades of error are to be tolerated in the Pres- 
 byterian church? And because you say, "happy results have been 
 realized" by the labors ofmen of different denominations, in a way 
 which was not "contemplated by the leading men of the West- 
 minister Assembly," does it follow that the purity, peace, and 
 prosperity of the Presbyterian church are to be promoted by a 
 compromise which leaves every man to teach and to do "un tram- 
 meled" whatever is right in his own eyes? 
 
 This word "untrammeled," p. 14, must remind many of a distin- 
 guished man, who disdains to be confined, by any "frame-work" 
 around the Bible. You apprehend no "great danger" from a 
 variety of opinions, and plans, and operations, if all be said and 
 done "in a christian spirit;" p. 13. The wolf then has nothing 
 
13 
 
 to do but to put on the sheep's clothing, and go on in our church 
 saying and doing what he will. 
 
 Paul, I think, differed from you in opinion. He thought Satan 
 could be transformed into an angel of light, and his ministers in- 
 to ministers of righteousness, and he stood ready to anathema- 
 tize an angel from heaven, if he preached another gospel, no 
 matter what spirit he might manifest. 
 
 In comparing page 13, 14 and 18, I am constrained to think 
 that you have placed on a level the "diversity of gifts bestowed 
 by our Lord and Master upon his people" with "the diversity of 
 opinions as to doctrines which exist among the ministers of the 
 Presbyterian church, in the present generation." If this is not 
 your meaning, then your whole argument is inconclusive. If this 
 be your meaning, then I have no language to express my sur- 
 prise and regret. 
 
 Page 9, you have given us a picture of what you call "Amer- 
 ican Presby terianism." I shall not undertake to point out either 
 its beauties or defects, at present, but just say, that it appears to 
 me to be thrown in, like the Adhering Act of the last General 
 Assembly, "an unabating attachment to the standards of our 
 church" — i. e. a passport to heresij in the wholesale. Far be it from 
 me to charge the General Assembly or Dr. Bishop with heresy. 
 I believe they have had their share in giving passports to here- 
 ticks. 
 
 We are told, Eccl. i. 9, that "There is no new thing under the 
 sun;" and you have told us, "it is hard to find a new shade of er- 
 ror, or a new cause of theological difference." Yet there is one 
 thing new and strange to me, that such a man as Dr. Bishop, 
 whose praise is so extensive in the churches — whose talents are 
 unquestioned — and whose character has so long been above sus- 
 picion, should deliberately compose, solemnly preach, and grave- 
 ly publish such a sermon as the one now before me. Truly "the 
 gold has become dim, and the fine gold changed." 
 
 But, sir, neither schemes of unnatural mixture, nor the broad 
 mantle of modern charity, can screen from merited rebuke the 
 abuses which have obtained in the "high places" of the Presby- 
 terian church. 
 
 You tell us, p. 1 8, "Baxter and Owen are readily appealed to, 
 by almost every minister of the Presbyterian church, as standards 
 of correct theological opinions." This is also new tome. What! 
 quote Owen and Baxter as standards, when you tell us they 
 "differed in their explanations of some of the most important doc- 
 trines of the Westminister Confession!" No, sir, ministers of the 
 Presbyterian church, of good sense and honesty, never quote 
 Owen, nor Baxter, nor Witherspoon, nor Davies, as standards, 
 but they bring the writings of these men to the standards of our 
 church, and consider them worthy of regard only so far as they 
 agree with these. So, I will gladly quote Dr. Bishop. In your 
 "Apology for Calvinism," which you published against the Ar- 
 
14 
 
 minian tenets of the Springfield Presbytery, you said, "To warn 
 and fortify their people against these errors, is the incumbent 
 duty of those who serve in the sacred office." Instead of read- 
 ing "Heber's life of Jeremy Taylor," to discover how men differed 
 in"the Westminister age," I have read your excellent "Apology 
 for Calvinism," in which you ably expose the Arminian errors, 
 and shew clearly that "if our notions on the atonement be either 
 false in themselves, or confused and imperfect, they will con- 
 taminate and mislead us in every other article of the Christian 
 faith." And you justly feared that they who had adopted the 
 Arminian notion of a "universal purchase," would soon deny 
 every essential doctrine of the gospel. You have lived to see 
 that your fears were not groundless. You ably defended the 
 use of creeds and confessions, the doctrine of the Covenants, the 
 total inability of fallen man, the satisfaction of Christ made for 
 the elect only, and regeneration, not by moral suasion, but, by 
 the agency of the Holy Spirit. Since the publication of your 
 Apology, you have seen the wild-fire and the wild-water of Bar- 
 ton W. Stone and Alexander Campbell — the wild dancing of the 
 Shakers, and the Arminianism of the Cumberlands desolating the 
 churches of the West. You have lived to see new men and new 
 measures creeping in and starting up among ourselves; and by 
 Arminian and Pelagian heresies, dividing our churches and Pres- 
 byteries from Newburyport to Marion. And where is Dr. Bishop 
 found, April 23d, 1833? In the 2d Presbyterian church, in the 
 city of Cincinnati, on a special occasion, by special appoint- 
 ment, preaching a plea for union, which really appears to me, to 
 annihilate the use of all creeds and confessions, and leave every 
 man "untrammeled," to preach whatever opinions, and pursue 
 whatever plans may seem right in his own eyes. This, sir, is a 
 subject of deep regret. You and your friends, I am informed, 
 have been engaged in special prayer for me. This was kind, 
 and as far as you prayed right, I hope the Lord has heard you 
 and will answer in mercy. Be assured, my respected friend and 
 brother, that I have not forgotten you in my imperfect addresses at 
 a throne of Grace. I do hope*you will take my plainness as the 
 greatest proof of my sincere friendship, and believe me with 
 much esteem, your's affectionately, 
 
 J. L. WILSON. 
 


i 
 
 >f 
 
 fr