STRICTURES 
 
 *1 
 
 ON A 
 
 . i > 
 
 % 
 
 PAMPHLET, \ 
 
 PUBLISHED BY A MINORITY 
 
 , OF 7HE 
 
 EASTERN SUBORDINATE SYNOD, 
 
 € 
 
 OF THE 
 
 REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN' CHURCH. 
 
 ROBERT GIBSOSf, 
 
 7 
 
 Pastor of the Second Reformed Presbyterian Church, in the city of New-York. 
 
 1 
 
 - - 
 
 “ Paul, thou art beside thyself, much learning’ doth make thee mad. But 
 he said, I am not mad, most noble Fcstus. 1 ’—Ac’^s. 
 
 NEW-YORK z 
 
 PRINTED AT THE GREENWICH PRINTING OFFICE* 
 
 No. 118 Barnov street. 
 
 1832 . 
 
i n u 
 
 STRICTURES. 
 
 2-SfS.S 
 
 G 3. «s i & 
 
 It must be distressing to every lover of Zion, to see divi¬ 
 sions in the church of God. Still more so, to find Christian 
 professors and Christian ministers turn their weapons against 
 each other, and that with all the bitterness of partizans, and 
 without respect to personal character. Opposition from the 
 world is to be expected, and, sometimes, even a mean personal 
 assault of character, both ungenerous and unjust, is looked for, 
 where men choose to lay aside manhood, and condescend to 
 any thing for the support of party. Still, the good sense of a 
 thinking community will ultimately frown upon a course so 
 opposed to the law of kindness. 
 
 This document does not profess to be written in the kindest 
 language. It is intended to repel an ungenteel and unchris¬ 
 tian attack made upon an injured man and minister of God’s 
 sanctuary, as well as that of his brethren, who are misrepre¬ 
 sented in a pamphlet sanctioned by a minority of synod, con¬ 
 sisting of six ministers and six ruling elders. 
 
 The occasion of the following remarks and animadversions, 
 is, the circulation of a pamphlet, entitled “An original draft of 
 a Pastoral Address,” and having an appendix of sixteen pages, 
 containing notes, one of which is particularly offensive. This 
 pamphlet is industriously circulated through the various con¬ 
 gregations in the connection of the Reformed Presbyterian 
 Church. 
 
 In about a week after this publication saw the light, a para¬ 
 graph appeared in the Christian Expositor, under the editorial 
 head, of which the following is an extract. 
 
 “With one or two exceptions of minor importance, we are 
 tc pleased with the whole production, and the course of policy 
 “ which it advocates. It is worthy of the high reputation of its 
 “ learned author. And as further illustrated by the«notes, it 
 
4 
 
 “ exhibits a view of the moral character of the American govern- 
 “ ment—of the relations of our ecclesiastical community to the 
 “civil institutions of our country—and of the church’s legisla- 
 “ tion upon these subjects, which has our cordial approbation.” 
 See Expositor, vol. *2, No. 2, page 75- 
 
 In the following page the editor remarks—“If the principles 
 “which it (original Synodical Address) advocates, are obnox- 
 “ ious to any, let such employ the weapons of honour, reason, and 
 “Christianity, in opposing them. But henceforth, let the in¬ 
 definite charges of apostacy—the hinting crimination of mo- 
 “tive—and the intangible insinuations calculated to destroy 
 “confidence, and whisper ministerial and private character to 
 “ ruin, be left for those who are sufficiently degraded to employ 
 “ them.” 
 
 In the above paragraph there does appear something like 
 whispering ministerial and private character to ruin in the use of 
 the word “henceforth;” but we give credit to the author or 
 authors of note B. page 26'th, Original Draft, for ceasing to 
 whisper, and more magnanimously slandering openly. 
 
 By the introduction, pages 3d and 4th, it appears that only 
 part of that address had been sanctioned by the Eastern Synod 
 —that the minority had published the entire address on their 
 own responsibility—and that notes were to be added, explana¬ 
 tory of the instrument, on the same responsibility. As the 
 whole minority of synod was to be held responsible for the 
 notes and explanations, it was confidently expected that some¬ 
 thing dignified, manly, and Christian, would be published un¬ 
 der the sanction of twelve Presbyters, forming that minority ; 
 but how great was our astonishment to find, under note B. page 
 20th, an Essay of Dr. Willson, entitled “ Prince Messiah,” in¬ 
 troduced, and a low, personal attack made upon his character 
 as a man under the influence of derangement. 
 
 Both the rejected part of the address, and the notes (intended 
 to give “a definite location to the allusions of the Address f) hold 
 him up as the leader of thoughtless men of a party—distracting 
 the church—teaching novel doctrines—novel practices—being new 
 light pedlars — disorganizes —possessed of infuriate zeal —having 
 their party shibboleth—holding vital godliness and moral worth 
 as but minor considerations —as a people who are happily pre¬ 
 vented from daring to use any other sword, than that of the mouth 
 —men of manufactured consciences, &c. &e. Their leader, Dr. 
 
Willson, is represented as insane—an aspiring Diotraphes—-a 
 fanatic—leader of a shibboleth party—of disorganizing new 
 light pedlars—and his doctrines as being the illiberal vagaries 
 of insanity and fanaticism, &c. while as to themselves (modest 
 men!) they are “ the sober, discreet, temperate, and intelligent 
 part of the brethren—men of vital godliness and moral worth.” 
 
 Such seems to be an outline of the three characters brought 
 forward on the arena of public conflict, as either explicitly 
 stated in the address and notes, or plainly insinuated. View¬ 
 ing the matter in this light, the writer of this document thought 
 that the interests of religion generally, of the Reformed Presby¬ 
 terian Church, and of an oppressed and abused man, demanded 
 that a few animadversions should be, if possible, as extensively 
 circulated as the above pamphlet, to correct the misrepresen¬ 
 tation, and repel the ungenteel attack made upon a respectable 
 minister of Jesus Christ. 
 
 The very fact of publishing the rejected part of the Synodical 
 Address seems objectionable. Not that there is any objection 
 to men publishing on their own responsibility. The freedom 
 of the press is an invaluable blessing; but it may be abused. 
 In this case it certainly has been. Something is due to an ec¬ 
 clesiastical court on the groifnd of courtesy. Where a court 
 has not assailed the reputation of the writer or writers of a 
 document, nor impugned their motives; but where it has delibe¬ 
 rately thought a document was uncalled for, or was so expressed 
 as to divide and distract, rather than conciliate, it seems cour¬ 
 teous in an individual, or a minority, to withhold an appeal to 
 the public to see what change a little time and reflection will 
 produce. 
 
 But we take higher ground. Whatever right an individual 
 may have as a man, and as an American, as a Presbyterian, he 
 is bound by Presbyterial law and order. According to Pres¬ 
 byterian churcli order, if a document is rejected, or if an act is 
 passed in opposition to the judgment of an individual, or of a 
 minority, he or they have a right to enter a dissent, or even a 
 protest, assigning the reasons of such dissent, and having them 
 recorded upon the minutes of Presbytery or Synod; but they 
 have no right given them to publish a document rejected by the 
 deliberate vote of a church court; and much less has any mem¬ 
 ber a right to form a party and appeal to the public, without re¬ 
 cording the protest and the reasons on which it is based. They 
 
6 
 
 have a right to dissent, and even to secede from the community 
 of professors; but, while remaining among them, they have no 
 right to follow a decisive course. It is contrary to Presbyte¬ 
 rianism, and contrary to their engagements at ordination. 
 They engage to submit to the courts in the Lord: but in this 
 case there is not even a delay till the meeting of the superior 
 court ; but a minority, contrary to express judicial act, throw 
 into the hands of the people a document condemned by Synod. 
 
 In opposition to the editor of the Expositor, it is asserted, 
 that they neither have such a right, nor any approved precedent . 
 The only precedent that will be plead is that of Dr. McLeod, 
 chairman of the committee of correspondence, who published on 
 his own personal responsibility, an address accompanying a re¬ 
 port of the committee of which he was the chairman. That this 
 punishes no precedent will appear from the following statements. 
 
 I. The conduct of Dr. McLeod, in that matter, was never 
 judicially approved. 
 
 II. It never was offered to the court as the report of the com¬ 
 mittee, but as his own, and accompanying the document. 
 
 III. It never was given to the court with a view to publication, 
 or their adoption; but simply as an argument to justify the re¬ 
 port of the Committee. 
 
 IV. No act was passed that it should not be published. 
 
 V. The Doctor published it as his own, on his own respon¬ 
 sibility, and neither took pecuniary aid from others in order to 
 its publication, nor availed himself of the feelings or prejudices, 
 or liberal views of others to have them committed along with 
 himself. He endured the reproach, or took the credit alone, 
 and did not lay a foundation for rending the church, or viola¬ 
 ting presbyterian church order, in an act of insubordination-And 
 
 VI. There was no higher court, than that before which the do¬ 
 cument was read, to which an appeal could be made. The 
 contrary of all these is the matter of fact, in relation to the ve- 
 ry singular document under review. — The Anti-synodical Ad¬ 
 dress. 
 
 In the transactions of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, a 
 transaction is recollected, illustrative of the above sentiment— 
 viz. that no committee, or minority has a right to publish a do¬ 
 cument, however good, that by the majority is thought inexpe¬ 
 dient, or uncalled for. 
 
 At a previous meeting of synod, a committee had been ap« 
 
I 
 
 7 
 
 pointed to prepare a document on our civil relations with the 
 United States. An able document was prepared, and read be¬ 
 fore synod at its sessions in 1830. Every member said he could 
 subscribe every principle contained in the report—none dared 
 at that time oppose it, (even “the learned author of the pastoral 
 address,” said then, that he “did not know that there was one 
 sentiment in it that he could not subscribe,”) but the majority 
 thought it uncalled for under the then existing circumstances, 
 and it was referred to a committee, who reported it as inexpedi¬ 
 ent to publish the document at present, or something to that; 
 effect. 
 
 The original committee was treated with little courtesy. 
 Its labour was thrown away: the document was smothered ; it 
 was evidently put into the hands of the second committee, that 
 it might never see the light. Of this fact the writer of this ar¬ 
 ticle is well aware, for deeming it uncalled for, he both knew 
 that this was the object of others and himself, in adding to the 
 committee. 
 
 A copy of that document was still in the hands of the former 
 chairman. Why did he not publish it? Certainly, not because 
 he thought the report useless or injurious, but simply that he 
 determined to act as a presbyterian, to submit to the decision of 
 the majority, and not rend the church. We hear of no expres¬ 
 sions of wrath from that-committee—we find no report foisted 
 into the churches by their agency ; but here is a document fil¬ 
 led with insinuations, personal reflections, and stigmatizing all 
 those who might differ from the sentiments therein contained 
 as not thinking for themselves, having their consciences manu¬ 
 factured, and being led by a man under the influence of derange¬ 
 ment. The notes do not seem intended, and certainly are not 
 calculated to soothe the feelings, or remove the roughness of the 
 invective in the rejected part of the pastoral letter; but rather 
 to fix a charge of insanity on a distinguished member of the 
 court, and give location to the terms “ aspiring diotraphes—intol- 
 “ erance and fanaticism—illiberal vagaries of insanity and fanati¬ 
 cism—wild reveries of ignorance and enthusiasm—insinua¬ 
 tions and foul misrepresentations of the prejudiced, pestilent, 
 “designing and ambitious—and unprincipled and ambitious 
 “demagogue,” &c. &c. which are embodied in that thing called 
 a pastoral address. 
 
 These notes also give location to all the surly epithets con- 
 
eerning the majority of synod, as led on by a man, such as the 
 notes would represent him to be. They give location to such 
 expressions as, having “consciences manufactured for you— 
 “animated with an infuriate zeal for the extirpation of every 
 “ one who cannot articulate with sufficient distinctness their par- 
 <c ty shibboleth—men introducing novel doctrines-^-novel prac- 
 “ tices—disorganizing new light pedlars—disturbers of the good 
 “ order and harmony of Zion,” &c. &c.—but I forbear. A pub¬ 
 lic document containing so much vituperation and ungenteel 
 ribaldry, has never come under my observation. To use the 
 language of its eulogist- 44 it is worthy of (he high reputation of its 
 learned author-we admire the magnanimity it displays.” Wor¬ 
 thy of the high reputation! magnanimity! yes, it is in perfect 
 keeping with his “ tivo sons of oilf on the opposite side of the 
 question—written in the same spirit—a spirit which never did, 
 and never can do any good. 
 
 So much for the general aspect of the document. Let us ex¬ 
 amine a few of its statements. In page 10th it thus states—“ re¬ 
 flect on this truth, that the relation of our ecclesiastical commu¬ 
 nity to the civil institutions of these United States, has never 
 been a subject of definitive legislation in our judicatories.” 
 
 What do these gentlemen mean by definitive legislation? 
 If it is meant that no final—no unalterable legislation has been 
 enacted, then it is admitted. All our church deeds may be al¬ 
 tered, and we feel bound to alter them whenever we ascertain 
 them to be wrong; but if it is intended to convey the idea that 
 no positive ar.d express law has been enacted by the Reformed 
 Presbyterian Church, stating die light in which it viewed the 
 American government; and the duty of its members to abstain 
 from taking any part in public affairs by voting, sitting on ju¬ 
 ries, &c. it is utterly denied. 
 
 In the year 1806, May 15th, the church enacted that its mem¬ 
 bers should, not sit on juries, or vote at elections. This is stated 
 in the 1st edition of its testimony, pages 133—138, and certifi¬ 
 ed by its official organs, who are yet living. It was always re¬ 
 ceived as common law in that section of the church; which law, 
 more than any other, prevented the increase of the covenanting 
 church everywhere in these United States. There is not a con¬ 
 gregation in all their connection, nor of any respectable connec¬ 
 tion in the land, living among covenanters, that did not view 
 it as their common law; and it is well known that some of the 
 
9 
 
 very men who tell us that there never has been any definitive 
 legislation upon the subject, are the men who laid this grave¬ 
 stone upon the church, of which they are so much ashamed, 
 that, at this late day they come forward and tell us there was 
 never such a law! verily, these are the new light pedlars, and 
 not as they represent themselves in the Pastoral address, as “ the 
 “sober, discreet, temperate and intelligent part of the brethren, 
 “ of vital godliness, and moral worth'* These men need no 
 trumpeters of their fame. They live in their own story. 
 
 Again it is said in page 9th, Original Pastoral Address, “ va¬ 
 rious illiberal attempts, it must be admitted ,have been made, 
 “to stamp as the Ordinance of the Devil, the best government 
 “ on earth, &c.” 
 
 It is true that such attempts have been made in relation to 
 this government, and by none so illiberal and violent, as by “ the 
 learned author” of the pastoral address. He is the leader in 
 this iniquity, if iniquity it be. To him in a peculiar manner is 
 the church indebted for her disgrace, if disgrace it is, to “stamp 
 as the Ordinance of the Devil, the best government on earth.” 
 He was the “manufacturer of factitious consciences.” Who 
 has not read his “ sons of oil,”? Who deserves best the appella¬ 
 tion of a new light pedlar? 
 
 We are further told, page 10th, that “it is susceptible of de¬ 
 monstration that since the commencement of Christianity, no 
 “government on earth has had a fairer claim to recognition as 
 “ the ordinance of God, than that of these United States.” 
 
 Admit the American government to be the Ordinance of God, 
 the truth of the above statement is questionable. It is admitted 
 that no government of which we read, since the promulgation 
 of Christianity, has manifested so great a degree of republican¬ 
 ism. But republicanism, however important, is not the main 
 thing in constituting the ordinance of God. Here it is thought 
 the error lies. This is the prevailing mistake in our day. For¬ 
 sooth, because our government is republican in its form, there¬ 
 fore it is the Ordinance of God l Had not Fiance also a repub¬ 
 lican government, when the King was ejected and Bonaparte 
 was first Consul? what then? was it therefore the ordinance of 
 God? Who does not know that these French republicans voted 
 that there was no God? Mere republicanism, therefore, is no 
 evidence that either this is the ordinance of God, or that it has 
 
 a higher claim to be recognized as the ordinance of God, than- 
 
 B 
 
to 
 
 the British nation at the time when it recognized the divine 
 law as the supreme rule, and was as a nation in covenant with 
 God. 
 
 It is perfectly easy to bluster about the excellencies of democ¬ 
 racy—to shew the baseness of some men, who hypocritically 
 professed attachment to the covenants—and who, to render 
 them odious to the nation, by violence attempted to compel 
 some to enter into the covenants of our fathers—to bring this 
 charge against the innocent—and thus excite the prejudices of 
 the multitude against both the nation and the covenants. This 
 was done by the persecuters in days of old; but it is now too 
 late to employ such means, with a hope of success in destroy¬ 
 ing a covenanted work of reformation. Whatever might have 
 been the form of government in the nation, it was in covenant 
 with God. 
 
 It is fearlessly asserted, that there is nothing in scripture to 
 justify the belief that a people may not have a king, if they 
 choose, instead of a President or First Consul. Kings have 
 ruled with divine approbation. If the people choose them, 
 it is their own business. If they approve of hereditary govern¬ 
 ment, let them see to it. We admit their folly: but it does 
 not distroy the moral character of the government. Rehobo- 
 am was not too wise, yet he succeeded his father upon the 
 throne. Israel’s government was, notwithstanding, the ordi¬ 
 nance of God. In a merely political point of view, irrespective 
 of God and his law, it is admitted that this government has 
 higher claims; but bring God and his law into the account, and 
 before the profanation of their covenants, and papistical viola¬ 
 tion of the constitution, the British government had a superior 
 claim to be accounted the ordinance of God. It formally ac¬ 
 knowledged God and his law, as well as the Mediator, but this 
 does neither. Some States may acknowledge God and his law, 
 in some slight degree; but there is not one State that provides 
 for setting aside its enactments when proven to be contrary to 
 the Law of God. These United States, as such, never did in any 
 form acknowledge God’s law as paramount to every other—nor 
 did any State in the union. Their Constitution says the very 
 reverse, according to the comment of their own statesmen. See 
 the Tripolitan treaty, as ratified by the -President and Congress 
 in 1797. “ The government of the United States is not in any 
 
 “sense founded on the Christian religion. It basin itself, no 
 
"character of enmity against the laws or religion of* Mussul- 
 “ men , ff 
 
 In page 10th, we are told to " weigh these circumstances can- 
 " didly and see if you can find any thing positively immoral in 
 ** the instrument lying at the foundation of that momentous 
 "transaction, and then reject it.” 
 
 The Reformed Presbyterian Church holds it to be immoral 
 in any man to refuse or neglect to recognize, and publicly ac¬ 
 knowledge God—that upon this principle Christ says, " whoso- 
 f< ever is ashamed of me before men, of him will I be ashamed 
 " before my father and his Angels.” It is equally held to be a 
 sin in nations, and their rulers of every grade, to refuse or ne¬ 
 glect submission to God and his Son—and the Spirit of God 
 seems to recognize this, when he says—" Be wise now therefore 
 O ye Kings : be instructed ye Judges of the earth, serve the 
 Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest 
 he be angry , and ye perish, from the way, when his wrath is kin¬ 
 dled but a little,"’ Psal. II. 10, 12. Our nation has, at least,;ne- 
 glected to obey this law; for most assuredly it has not even 
 mentioned God, his Son, or his law in the general constitution. 
 The learned author of the pastoral letter and notes used to 
 know this, but has discovered a happy way of getting rid of the 
 difficulty; for he tells us—page 27, Synod. Address, note D. 
 that "a man is still a man, though he may be deficient in an ear» 
 "or an arm , or have some unsightly excressence growing upon 
 " his person.” 
 
 By this it appears that a neglect of God &c. is a small 
 matter , as an ear, an arm, or some unsightly excressence i ! 
 How much the gentleman has advanced in a respect for God 
 and his law, all covenanters will judge from this specimen of 
 sound theological reasoning . Some think that the " Boy" thirty 
 years ago, upon this subject, knew more than the full grown 
 Doctor. 
 
 But we have yet another offset from the learned author’s 
 pen. " There are entire books of the Bible, in which the name 
 "ofGod is not found, but this does not destroy their divine au- 
 " thenticity.’’ 
 
 It is admitted that there are two books in tin; Bible, in which 
 the name of God is not found; but fortunately we are not in¬ 
 debted to these clerical and lay brethren for the information. 
 ' Thomas Paine and some other very rscpectable theological xvri- 
 
ters told ns so several years since! We perceive some sense, and 
 great wickedness in these men introducing that fact to view: 
 but it is difficult to perceive the use of our brethren quoting 
 this in the present controversy,, Do they mean to say that the 
 law of God, and the system of grace, and the duty of nations, 
 are not called up to view—and that religion and morality are 
 not inculcated in the books of Esther and the song of Solomon ? 
 Surely they do not mean this; and unless they do, it has no 
 more to do with the argument, than to tell us that Homer was 
 blind. No doubt “ the learned author,” and his collegues might 
 furnish many tests in the Bible, in which the name of God, and 
 the term law are not found, but will they therefore force upon 
 the majority of Synod, that, according to our argument, the 
 Bible is not the constitution of God’s kingdom ? We do not con¬ 
 tend that the constitution of the United States is immoral be¬ 
 cause the name of God is not introduced into every section , and 
 his law mentioned in every clause ; but that in no section are 
 either of them once mentioned , or even hinted at . With Paine, 
 and his kindred theologians, we would without the least hesita¬ 
 tion discard the Bible, if in the whole of that bobk there was no 
 mention of God, the mediator and his law. 
 
 After all, we are not sure that upon proof of positive immor¬ 
 ality it follows that therefore a government is no more the ordi¬ 
 nance of God. On this principle it is believed that it would be 
 almost impossible to find the ordinance of God in any civil or 
 ecclesiastical constitution among men. Yet these gentlemen 
 authorise the members of the church to reject the American 
 government if they can only discover positive immorality. 
 
 In page 11th, this very singular document states, that “ the 
 most obnoxious feature, indeed, we may say, the only obnox¬ 
 ious one—the existence of slavery, is rapidly softening in its 
 unsightly aspect.” 
 
 Three things appear upon the face of this quotation. 
 
 I. That slavery is worse than the neglect of God and his law. 
 
 IT. That slavery is the only obnoxious feature in our con¬ 
 stitution. 
 
 III. That it is rapidly softening in its unsightly aspect. 
 
 It will not be dificult to demonstrate that not one of these as¬ 
 sertions is true. It admits of no dispute that God is not even 
 mentioned in the United States’ constitution, nor one syllable 
 concerning his holy law. It has been shown that God com- 
 
S3 
 
 mands the nations to kiss his son, and that it is immoral to ne^ 
 gleet to acknowledge God—and we further observe, that this 
 neglect of God’s law is the very foundation of slavery; for, if it 
 was recognized and enforced, the law, of the mediator, would 
 forever set aside the slavery of unoffending men. A nation 
 would then hear Christ saying, “ whatsoever ye would that oth¬ 
 ers should do to you, do ye also the same to them ; this is the 
 Law and the Prophets.” If the law of God and his Son would 
 lead to this course, and it is rejected, then, such rejection is 
 even worse than slavery. Owing to this rejection of the law of 
 the Most High, not only is slavery permitted, but the slave¬ 
 holder is constitutionally rewarded. He has votes (conse¬ 
 quently influence in the general government) in proportion to 
 the number of slaves in his possession. Three votes for every 
 five slaves. This is rewarding and encouraging slavery. 
 
 It is no solid answer to this fact to say that they are also tax¬ 
 ed in the same proportion—for 
 
 I. The Southern people considered it an advantage, notwith¬ 
 standing the taxation, or they would not have stipulated for it, 
 nor would the Northern have granted it, as a compromise:— 
 
 II. In the view of the divine law they are men, not property.— 
 
 III. It is a serious injury to the black man; for it throws so 
 much more influence, in the general government, into the hands 
 of his unholy master, thereby preventing any reformation on the 
 subject of slavery.— 
 
 lV r . It is not a permission of three slaves out of five to vote 
 at the polls, (which yet would be too trifling to mention as a 
 compensation for the loss of liberty) but a grant to the master to 
 enjoy more of the privileges of a free man, because more deep 
 in the iniquity of enslaving his fellow men, or his own children. 
 
 Nor is it true that “ slavery is softening in its unsightly 
 aspect. Slavery is not on the decrease—slaves are used with no. 
 more kindness—the general government has taken no measures 
 to effect their entire emancipation—no compensation has been 
 allowed them for the loss of their liberty—slaves are yet dis¬ 
 posed of at public sale in the District of Columbia—even 
 nominal covenanters are palliating the iniquity—and it yet re¬ 
 mains constitutional law, that a free state must give up the 
 poor African, who, instead of slaying his master, has fled to 
 another state for protection. The constitution has been a- 
 mended, but no change has been made in favour of the afflicted 
 
14 
 
 son or daughter of Africa. It is no apology, no extenuation of 
 the crime, to call them property, and say that as property they 
 must be given up. It is much more like the conduct reproved 
 in scripture—“ When thou sawest a thing, thou joinedst with 
 him in sin.” 
 
 So far as slavery is concerned, it was an unholy alliance 
 made for political purposes—irrespective of human rights, 
 moral honesty, or divine law. When about to enter into a con¬ 
 stitutional bond, and unite as sovereign states to protect and 
 defend each other, the questions were, shall we unite ? and on 
 what terms ? 
 
 “ All men are born free and equal,” says the declaration of 
 independence. To hold unoffending men in bondage is im¬ 
 moral—for say the scriptures, “ What ye would that others 
 should do to you, do ye the same to them: this is the law and 
 the prophets.” Well, be it so, is the language of the northern, 
 eastern, and middle states; of two evils we must choose the 
 least. These are the only terms on which the south will unite 
 with us, and we will rather violate the law of God, practically 
 deny the declaration of independence, and send back the poor 
 captive to his thraldom, than want this Union. To the God 
 who freed them from the hand of a powerful enemy, they could 
 not confide for protection, but formed a union on a principle 
 as immoral as it is opposed to human rights. 
 
 We hear of the Holy Alliance in Europe; but European des¬ 
 pots are entirely eclipsed by enlightened Americans! Here is 
 an alliance sealed by the slavery of more than two millions of 
 Africans—at the expense of their degradation as men—and 
 often at the expense of the life both of body and soul. Such is 
 our Christian land! What an outcry is raised about the im¬ 
 prisonment of two missionaries , and how silent about the de¬ 
 gradation of two millions , ten thousand, four hundred and thirty - 
 six slaves!!! Yet are we, told by twelve ecclesiastics, calling 
 themselves covenanters, that slavery is rapidly softening in its 
 unsightly aspect! 
 
 As Dr. Willson can suffer nothing from the publication of 
 the offensive note in page 20th, w r e give it in the words as pub¬ 
 lished by the minority of Synod. 
 
 “ Amply sufficient has been quoted to give a definite location 
 to these and similar allusions of the address. All the remarks 
 that the subscribers of this document see fit to make upon the 
 
subject is—‘That they thus publicly disclaim all responsibility 
 for the obnoxious sentiments contained in the publication re¬ 
 ferred to, and express their unqualified reprobation of the in¬ 
 consistent, partial, and erroneous statements with which it is 
 replete. The mental alienation under which its author labours, 
 divest9 him of all personal responsibility. And as this has now- 
 become notorious, there is little danger that the ravings of in¬ 
 sanity will be mistaken for the expressions of truth and holiness. 
 This infirmity was once the occasion of an ecclesiastical' pro¬ 
 cess by which he was debarred from the exercise of his func¬ 
 tions as a preacher of the Gospel, and if he has not recently 
 been made the subject of judicial cognizance, it is to be attri¬ 
 buted to the tender, yet perhaps culpable sympathies of his 
 brethren.’* 
 
 For several years the writer of this document has been ac¬ 
 quainted with Dr. Willson. With his public character he has 
 been long acquainted; for the Doctor’s name has, for at least 
 fifteen years, been associated with the Reformed Presbyterian 
 Church as one of her most distinguished champions. It is now 
 too late to attempt to destroy his character by a calumnious 
 libel of insanity; and a generous public will not sustain the 
 slang, that a majority of that church which has sacrificed world¬ 
 ly honours and the rewards of office, that the) 7 might support 
 a good concience, are so weak-minded, and thoughtless, as to- 
 follow an insane leader in a measure both novel and sinfuk 
 
 That they are fallible men, and liable to be mistaken, they 
 will readily admit; but that new ground is assumed , every can¬ 
 did man who has read their testimony, and the defence of that 
 testimony by Doctors McLeod, McMaster, Black, and Wylie r 
 must deny, even though it should be asserted by twelve Pres¬ 
 byters. 
 
 On the showing of the authors of the address and notes, it is 
 evident that they consider the statements in “ Prince Messiah,” 
 concerning President Washington, as no way affecting the 
 main question concerning the character of the American gov¬ 
 ernment (see note 6th, page 21st, where they say—“ If the alle¬ 
 gation were true, it effects nothing for the main argument;) and 
 on the same principle, to prove the insanity of Dr. Willson, and 
 the weakness of the intellect of his followers, whose conscien¬ 
 ces he has unfortunately manufactured, will not affect the ques¬ 
 tion in dispute. They know it does not. Why then unneces- 
 
frarily vituperate their own ecclesiastical connection ; and why 
 (even if it were true) tell the world that Dr. Willson was in¬ 
 sane? and why, on the credit of twelve Presbyters, leave the 
 impression that he is always insane, and that he is “ divested of 
 all personal responsibility ?” 
 
 It is most astonishing that men of talent, and high theologi¬ 
 cal standing, should condescend, in this way, to an act which 
 should make an Ethiopian blush. Such an attack from twelve 
 deists is sufficient to make humanity blush for ages; but when, 
 it is publicly made by his fellow professors, with whom he has 
 held communion for nearly thirty years, and along with whom 
 he has been in the habit of sealing his covenant with God, in 
 giving and receiving the sacramental pledge—who were bound 
 in all good conscience, as men, as church members, and as 
 church officers, to defend each others reputation—for these 
 men to denounce a fellow creature on account of a visitation 
 of God, and hold him up as a lunatic , while yet of regular stand¬ 
 ing as a church member and minister, and as a preacher deci¬ 
 dedly more popular than any or all of them, seems more than 
 strange. Humanity weeps over it. 
 
 Nor is this all. They admit that this man has been retained 
 in the communion though confessedly deranged. Nor does it 
 appear, from any public document , that any discovery was made 
 of this derangement while he could be imposed upon to support 
 their ecclesiastical policy, nor until he became a formidable 
 antagonist in the defence of the old practices , and published 
 principles of these very men—the authors of the anti-synodical 
 address. It certainly seems strange that an adherence to the 
 principle [note A.*] contained in the act prohibiting voting and 
 sitting on juries, declared and defended by Dr. Wylie, in his 
 e< Sons of Oil”—Dr. McLeod, in the second of his war sermons, 
 and Dr. McMaster, in his “ Duty of Nations,” should be an 
 evidence of Dr. Willson’s derangement, and the above sermon3 y 
 exhibiting and supporting the same views, should not be an 
 evidence of their insanity ! But upon the testimony of these 
 men it proves Dr. Willson’s insanity, therefore the community 
 are at liberty to believe, that these very liberal gentlemen were, 
 at least, once insane. 
 
 As the “ Duty of Nations”—“War Sermons”—and “Sons of 
 Oil,” may not be as industriously and extensively circulated as 
 
 “ the original draft and notes,” a few selections are made from 
 
 * See Notes. 
 
17 
 
 each, to introduce the reader to the harmony in sentiment origi¬ 
 nally subsisting between their authors and Dr. Willson. Our 
 first quotations are from the “ Duty of Nations.” [Note B.*] 
 
 Page 16th, 5th line from the bottom of the page. 
 
 “From his hand (Messiah’s) the law should be received. If 
 ‘‘his law be not received he cannot be obeyed. If his authority 
 “be rejected, after the command of obedience is proclaimed, 
 “ rebellion marks their conduct who do so, and the portion of re - 
 “ bels is what they deserve” % 
 
 Page 18th, “ The law of the Saviour of men should never be 
 “ forgotten, ‘ whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do 
 “ ye even so to them.’ This is the law of benevolence—of equity 
 “not to be violated but by trampling on the remonstrances of 
 “ conscience, and rejecting the authority of the Redeemer im- 
 “ pressed on his statutes. Of no right should man be depriv- 
 “ ed unless he shall have forfeited it by crime. That nation has 
 “ but feeble claims to virtuous illumination—to generosity— 
 “to justice,—which tolerates, not to mention authorizing the 
 « merciless practice of robbing a fellow mortal of all that is val¬ 
 uable to him in life, his liberty. How inconsistent to estab¬ 
 lish laws to punish with severity yonder plunderer of your 
 “ sheep-fold, and by the same authority enact statutes to justi- 
 “fy him in forcibly degradinghis brother from the rank of man, 
 “ and in plundering him of what is more precious to him than life.” 
 
 Page 22d. 
 
 In the first part of the page the Dr. declares the infidelity of 
 being indifferent toward the church of God. In the middle, 
 he states the proper character to be trusted with civil affairs 
 —and in the latter clause, of the same paragraph, are the follow¬ 
 ing words. 
 
 “ As it is doubtless a duty to make such a selection, so it is 
 “equally incumbent to made these moral and religious qualifi- 
 “ cations a constitutional condition of eligibility to office. In vain 
 “do men inveigh against the profanity and impiety of public 
 “ characters, while silent respecting the constitution by which they 
 " are eligible. If a constitution of government exclude the 
 “scriptures of truth from being the rule of the nation, in man¬ 
 aging national affairs—if it bind the hand of rulers, in their 
 “ official standing, from shewing any more regard to the religion 
 “ of Christ , than to the delusions of Mahomet, why should the fra- 
 “ mers thereof,-why should the approvers thereof declaim against 
 
 * See Notes. 
 
 c 
 
18 
 
 the man who is constitutionally qualified when invested with 
 “ otTice ? 
 
 “A greater inconsistancy in human conduct can scarcely be 
 “found, than men solemnly pledging themselves, either per¬ 
 sonally or by representation, to maintain inviolate a constitu- 
 “ tion which rejects the law of God, and requires no profession of 
 “ religion to qualify for office under it, and at the same time re- 
 “ probating the officers of government for irreligion. If these 
 “ reformer^ be sincere , let them begin at the fountain head—let 
 “ the constitutions of the land be purified from infidelity—let 
 “a national mark of disapprobation be set upon impiety—till 
 “this be done let them stand at a distance from sanctioning 
 “ immoral deeds; then with consistency may they reprove na- 
 “ tional immorality. On every other ground , either their sincerity 
 “ or discernment may be justly disputed. 
 
 Page 38th, foot note. 
 
 “ In the United States all have an estabiishment, as well the 
 “ believer in, and worshiper of the Virgin Mary, as the worship¬ 
 per of Jesus.” 
 
 Page 41st, foot note. 
 
 • 4 In the laws of our States respecting these things there is a 
 “glaring inconsistency. That our Redeemer is God is a truth, 
 “ and that open image worship is a crime, is as evidently reveal- 
 “ed, as that the first day of the week should be observed in a 
 “ religious manner. A denial of the first, and an open practice 
 “ of the second, are doubtless as pernicious as a violation of the 
 “sabbath by attending to usual secular employments. These 
 “ employments are lawful on other days : idolatry and blasphe- 
 “ my never are. Where is the consistency in restraining from 
 “doing on the sabbath what is lawful on common days, and to 
 “ protect in the commission of CFime at no time lawful ? The 
 “man who profanes the name of any person of the trinity in 
 “common life will be punished; but if under the pretext of 
 “ religious principle he blasphemes the character of Jesus, and 
 “ profane the oracles of heaven by attempting to make them 
 “prove the Saviour no more than a mortal man, he passes not 
 “ only without censure, but has a right guaranteed him so to do.” 
 
 From “the war sermons” published by Dr. M'Leod, ser¬ 
 mon 2d. we select a few paragraphs, shewing also the coinci¬ 
 dence between Drs. M‘Leod and Willson, with respect to the 
 United State’s government. 
 
Page 53d. 
 
 “ The constitutions of government, as reduced to practice, 
 “ are the proper objects of examination. To these, as it res- 
 “ pects the two belligerents, I now direct your attention, while 
 “ I place them in the ballances in the name of the Judge of the 
 “ world. I begin at home with, 
 
 I. The national government of the United States. 
 
 “ The sins of a nation is the aggragate of all the transgres¬ 
 sions committed by individuals in that nation, but these are 
 “ properly national £tfi£,which are notorious , prevalent . and char - 
 “ acteristic. I speak not, however, of the nation at large, but of its 
 “constituted authorities , and therefore attend only to authorized 
 sins.” 
 
 Page 54th. 
 
 “The public immobilities of the constitution of the federal 
 “government, may, although more numerous in detail, be class- 
 “ ed under two heads, viz. Disrespect for God —and violation of 
 “ human liberty. 
 
 By the terms of the national compact, God is not acknow¬ 
 ledged, and holding men in slavery is authorised. Both of these 
 are evils. 
 
 1. God is not acknowledged in the constitution . 
 
 In concluding the argument on this position, in page 55th, 
 the Dr. employs the following language—“ But no considera¬ 
 tion will justify the framers of the federal constitution, and 
 “ the administration of the government, in withholding a re¬ 
 cognition of the Lord and his Anointed, from the grand char- 
 “ ter of the nation. On our daily bread we ask a blessing. At 
 “our ordinary meals, we acknowledge the Lord of the world, 
 “ we begin our last testament for disposing of worldly estates, 
 “ in the name of God : and shall we be guiltless, with the Bible 
 “ in our hands, to disclaim the Christian religion as a body 
 “politic?” 
 
 In a foot note, Page 53th, the Dr. says that they have dis¬ 
 claimed the Christian religion in these words. “ The govern- 
 “ ment of the United States is not in any sense, founded on the 
 “ Christian religion. It has in itself, no character of enmity 
 “ against the laws or religion of Mussulmen.” 
 
 Tripolitan Treaty, Art 11. U. S. laws, vol. IV. He adds— 
 
 “ This treaty, ratified in the year 1797, was thereby made 
 “the supreme law of the land.” Cons. Art, 6. sec. -2. Here 
 he represents the united U. States as telling its own character — 
 that it is not Christian. 
 
Page *56, be says— 
 
 “ The constitution of our government recognizes the practice 
 “ of holding men without being convicted of any offence against 
 “society, in perpetual slavery To establish this position he 
 “ quotes the constitution of the United States, Art. I. sec. 9, 
 “ clause 1.—and constitution, art. I. sect. 2, clause 3. 
 
 Almost every page of “ the Sons of Oil” carries us to the ex¬ 
 tent of Dr. Willson’s “ Prince Messiah,” if we except the men¬ 
 tion of General Washington’s religious opinions: and some 
 think, that Mr. Wylie did not flatter dignitaries in those days, 
 any more than Dr. Willson does now. Be that as it may, we 
 shall strive to do justice to the Doctor, by furnishing a sample 
 to shew the doctrines he taught for the purpose of “manufac¬ 
 turing consciences.” 
 
 Sons of Oil—page 10th. 
 
 “ Civil government does not, as some modern politicians aC 
 “ firm, originate either in the people as its fountain, or in the 
 “ vices consequent upon the fall.” 
 
 Page 20. 
 
 “ They agree (civil and ecclesiastical authority) in being 
 “both hound to take the moral law as the unerring standard of 
 “ all their administrations.' ,y 
 
 In assigning the reasons why covenanters cannot yield submis¬ 
 sion for conscience sake, to the present civil authority in North 
 America—he says, in 
 
 Page 46. 
 
 “ The federal constitution, or instrument of national union, 
 “ does not even recognize the existence of God, the King of 
 nations.” Same page—“ most, if not all, of the State constitu- 
 “ tions contain positive immorality.” 
 
 Page 47, 
 
 “ The government gives a legal security and establishment to 
 “gross heresy, blasphemy, and idolatry, under the notion of 
 “liberty of conscience.” 
 
 In page 48, he utters a severe philippic against the secession 
 church for differing from him on that subject. 
 
 Page 51. Speaking of the constitution of Pennsylvania, the Dr. 
 says, “we cannot in conscience (however others may look up- 
 “ on it) swear allegiance to a constitution, so friendly to the ene- 
 “ mies of Jesus. We are bound to him and cannot serve two 
 “ masters.” 
 
Page 53. “They make no provision for the interest of true 
 religion. See federal constitution, art. 3. amendment.” 
 
 Page 55. “ Another reason, why we cannot fully incorporate 
 with the national society, is because we consider them in a state 
 of national rebellion against God." 
 
 Page 56. “Deists, and even Atheists maybe chief magis¬ 
 trates. See the federal constitution.” 
 
 He attempts to prove it by two arguments. 
 
 I. That “an affirmation is admitted in place of an oath of 
 office.” 
 
 II. That “ in 1797 the good people of the Western States con- 
 “ centred by representation in the senatorial council, and chief 
 “ magistrate, disclaimed the religion of Jesus, in the ratification 
 “ of the treaty of peace and friendship with the Bey of Tripoli.” 
 After quoting the words of the treaty, (as stated above in the 
 quotation from Dr. McLeod’s war sermon) the rev. gentleman 
 adds—“ and what is farther worthy of notice, by the sixth arti¬ 
 cle of the federal constitution, this treaty is made the su- 
 “ preme law of the land.” 
 
 Page 6*2. This modern reformer states what should be our 
 conduct toward this government. “We ought to do no act, 
 “ which may be justly considered an homologation of their ille - 
 “ gitimatc authority'' He proceeds to specify what acts might be 
 justly considered an homologation of their illegitimate authority , 
 He mentions four acts. 
 
 I. An oath of allegiance. “ No oath of allegiance theerefore 
 can we swear.” 
 
 II. Electing public functionaries. “ We cannot elect public 
 functionaries to fill the various offices in the State.” 
 
 III. “ Nor accept of an office to which an oath is annexed.” 
 
 IV. “ Nor sit on Juries.”—Page 63. 
 
 In answering the objection concerning oaths, holding deeds 
 of land &c., the gentleman proceeds to shew by a course of 
 reasoning, in pages 81-83 inclusive, that they constitute no ho¬ 
 mologation of the constitution of the land —no approbation of the 
 government, or recognition of its authority. 
 
 The reading of the book is recommended to all.' covenanters 
 — not as being an expose of their principles $ nor as fixing the law 
 of their church; nor as being all true ; but to see how very far, 
 in almost every important position, a man may differ from him¬ 
 self —and how harmonious his former grand points of discussion 
 
are with those in “ Prince Messiah”—ami to see how bitter 
 a man can be against his own pupil , whose conscience he has 
 some reason to believe he has manufactured. 
 
 The above quotations are given for the purpose of shewing 
 that Dr. Willson has not assumed new principles, nor recom¬ 
 mended novel practices—that his brethren, defending the old 
 cause, are neither “ disorganize ^’ 5 nor “ new light pedlars,” and 
 that if the pamphlet entitled “ Prince Messiah” evinces derange¬ 
 ment, then Doctors McMaster, McLeod, and Wylie were insane 
 at the time when their books were written : but it is a comforta¬ 
 ble reflection that they are now free from mental alienation ! 
 
 Let us again turn our attention to the pamphlet under review. 
 An extraordinary item in the notes accompanying “ the original 
 draft,” is, that a private publication of Dr. "Willson, for which he 
 only was responsible, should be introduced, and, at least, by in¬ 
 sinuation, hold those presbyters who forme the majority of Synod 
 accountable for its contents; as if that pamphlet, or its principles 
 were the reason of voting down the rejected part of the address. It 
 is well known that the vote of some of that majority, was not 
 based either upon the principles of Dr. Willson’s pamphlet, or 
 any of the reasonings therein ; but that, in their judgment, it 
 was uncalled for—argued only one side of the question—impli¬ 
 cated, in ungenteel inuendo, those who differed from the writer 
 of the instrument—and was calculated to produce distraction 
 in, and ultimately rend the church. Who does not know that 
 some of that majority al ways abhorred the old act concerning 
 juries, voting, See., and blamed the leading men for imposing 
 unnecessary burdens upon the people, and afterwards had not 
 sufficient magnanimity to disannul, by a direct act, a law so use¬ 
 less, and one that has been productive of so much evil: yet 
 there, is not one qualifying phrase, either in the original draft or 
 notes appended to save them from indiscriminate condem¬ 
 nation. Why call up “Prince Messiah” in this controver¬ 
 sy? who plead for it in Synod? who opposed the address be¬ 
 cause “Prince Messiah” was apposed to its principles, reason¬ 
 ings, declamation, and insult? And do not these “ sober, tem- 
 “ perate, discreet, intelligent brethren—the men of vital godli- 
 “ ness and moral worth” know that Dr. Willson is “ insane , a 
 Diotraphes, pestilent, prejudiced, a fanatic, manufacturer of 
 consciences, ambitious demagogue, and new light pedlar”!! 
 Why introduce this man ? Why should twelve sane members of 
 Synod condescend to his pamphlet! 
 
22 
 
 It appears to have been a trick, not unlike that in the dele¬ 
 gation synod of 1S31, when the question under discussion was, 
 the abandoning of the delegation system so far as it referred to 
 the attendance of ministers. The report of a committee on the 
 proper mode of ordaining elders and deacons was thrust into 
 the discussion for no conceivable purpose, but to throw up a 
 blind before elders and ministers, as if the object in breaking 
 down the delegation was to carry the question about the impo¬ 
 sition of hands. We hear something about this, in the “ Chris¬ 
 tian Expositor,” as if some great achievement had been accom¬ 
 plished concerning the non-imposition of hands. The public 
 will best judge of the extraordinary success of the gentlemen, 
 when we inform them that the subject was not discussed, but 
 at once laid on the table of Synod, and never yet called up, and 
 that there was not one person opposed to the measure. It was 
 dragged in for effect , and opposed by some men as if it were 
 an enormous matter; but a single member of Synod did not 
 speak one word in its favour. It was lying on the table, and 
 not called up. It is so still. 
 
 But about this “mental alienation.” It is impossible to ac¬ 
 count satisfactorily for such a statement from such a quarter. 
 To use an expression quoted in a former page—“ their sincerity 
 or discernment may be justly disputed .” 
 
 Did they fiud him treated as an insane man ? Did they not 
 know that the Assembly of the State of New-York, composed 
 of about one hundred and sixty men, the representatives of the 
 State, and supposed to be sane , spent nearly two days in legislat¬ 
 ing upon this man and his pamphlet, in the very place where 
 he lived, and where they might have known of his insanity, had 
 there existed such a fact? Were they ignorant of the fact, that 
 almost every editor of a public political print in the Union, 
 took notice of the conduct of the Assembly in relation to this 
 insane production which gave so much offence? And if insane, 
 why twelve ecclesiastics write a book against him? Query. 
 Where is the greatest evidence of insanity ? Is it in Dr. Will- 
 son’s writing a book coinciding with the sentiments of “ the 
 Sons of Oil”*—“ Duty of Nations”—and “ War Sermons” — 
 or in twelve Presbyters writing a book against a madman? 
 The public will judge. 
 
 It really does appear that they do not seriously believe in his 
 “ alienation of mind,” and that he is “ destitute of all personal 
 
responsibility.” It is generally admitted that he walks the 
 streets of Albany without a strait jacket—is considered per¬ 
 fectly harmless, and endangers no man’s life, not even the lives 
 of those dear, kind , good, culpably sympathizing brethren , who 
 have dealt so tenderly with him. “ Tender, yet perhaps culpa¬ 
 ble sympathies of his brethren 1!” As a rare exemplification 
 of their tenderness and sympathy , let any honest man read the 
 last paragraph of note B. original draft. 
 
 But it seems that this kind, tender course must be abandoned. 
 The man has become dangerous —his writings are read—a hun¬ 
 dred and sixty legislators think him worthy of notice, censure, 
 and proscription. Editors tell of the man—his pamphlet—the 
 magnanimity of the State Legislature in their dealings with 
 him—and it requires twelve Presbyters to publish a book and 
 write him into contempt; while yet they find they cannot suc¬ 
 ceed unless they lay aside their tender sympathies, and tell the 
 world he is deranged ! 
 
 We mignt here retort, in the style of page 21st. original Sy¬ 
 nodical Address—“ And among other modes of reasoning em¬ 
 ployed to sustain a position which was evidently felt to be un¬ 
 tenable, reference is had to private character and personal opin¬ 
 ions,” that “ these being proved by a kind of sophistical and ad 
 captanduin argument,” they may hide the deformity of that 
 policy which they prepared for the church, advocated in their 
 public discourses, and for the reception of which they have 
 been in the habit of manufacturing consciences. 
 
 After all, this is a serious business. What if any of the rela¬ 
 tions of these authors of note B should become deranged ? what 
 if they themselves should yet become subject to “ mental alien¬ 
 ation ,”? would they think it honourable in any man to publish 
 it through the medium of the press, and speak lightly and re¬ 
 proachfully of a visitation of God ? Should Dr. Willson publish 
 such an article in his “Quarterly,” there is not one of his breth¬ 
 ren would publish a line in defence of his character. They 
 would admit his insanity, from a conviction, that otherwise, he 
 could not condescend to such meanness and sinfulness. To 
 preserve his credit, they would admit him insane. 
 
 That Dr. Willson, by intense study, in the exercise of a gi¬ 
 gantic mind, has been under God’s hand ; and that the church 
 did right (some twenty years since) in preventing him, for a 
 time, while a licentiate, from preaching the gospel, Dr. Willson 
 
himself and his brethren will admit; but that he wrote the 
 “ Prince Messiah” in a tit of mental alienation, or that he is 
 habitually so, they must in truth and conscience deny: but no 
 other construction can be put upon the expression, “ the men¬ 
 tal alienation under which its author labours, divests him of all 
 personal responsibility.” 
 
 What could be the object in making so violent an attack 
 upon Dr. Willson ? Can it be to prostrate the reputation of a 
 godly man [note C.*]—a Christian minister of no mean stand¬ 
 ing? To deprive a helpless family of bread, by shaking the 
 confidence of the church in his integrity or sanity—or that of 
 the citizens of Albany, so that they may withdraw their sons 
 and daughters from his seminary? Is it sheer malice? Or, 
 rather, is it not that they would court the world, at whatever ex¬ 
 pense, and shield themselves from the reproach connected with 
 their former publications? They may account for it the best 
 way they can to God, and their own unmanufactured consciences. 
 
 It was certainly a mistaken course in those of that minority 
 who had committed themselves in print before the public. 
 Who will not now inquire for “ the Sons of Oil,” War Ser¬ 
 mons,” and “Duty of Nations?” Covenanters, at least, will 
 read them, and in them will also perceive that their authors 
 once, and Dr. Willson now, are agreed. It is very questiona¬ 
 ble whether the civil community will judge these men better re¬ 
 publicans, or more honest men, than when they told them their 
 faults. 
 
 In conclusion, it is stated most honestly, that although the 
 writer hereof is not embroiled as a partizan in the present con¬ 
 test agitating the Reformed Presbyterian Church, yet he sin¬ 
 cerely regrets having been laid under the necessity of saying 
 hard things concerning men who have long ranked high in the 
 church of God : but he could not stand bv, and suffer a fellow 
 professor, and an honest minister, to be reproached with all the 
 bitter epithets to which note B. gives locality. He views it as 
 an insult to the majority of Synod, as they seem to be repre¬ 
 sented as led by a deranged man into acts of infuriate zeal. 
 Perhaps the style is not sufficiently mild, but he thinks it is, at 
 least, as much so as that of the pamphlet to which it replies. 
 He only is responsible for every word. His name accompanies 
 it. He states facts, and nothing but facts, according to the best 
 of his judgment. He has nothing to apprehend from the gentle- 
 
 * See Notes. 
 
 D 
 

 man who cautions us to “ Beware!” for Dr. Wylie will conde¬ 
 scend to fight with neither small nor great, but with the king 
 of Israel only. Should he look down upon us in a hind letter 
 through the magazine, he will find us at our posts. “ Great is 
 the truth, and it will prevail.” 
 
 ROBERT CrIBSON# 
 
 New-York, Nov . 8 th, 1833. 
 
 ( 
 
 * 
 
 ♦ 
 
NOTES. 
 
 Note A. Why refuse to let covenanters vote, sit on juries, &c. for so many 
 years? It must be something', in their judgment, fundamentally wrong in 
 the government of the land. This is not a mere difference of views in the ap¬ 
 plication of principle. Had they recognized the government as the ordinance 
 of God, or even a good ordinance of man, the church had not been so long 
 trammelled. However far Dr. Willson may have pressed the subject, the 
 quotations given in the former pages show, that they have gone as far, if not 
 farther, with the exception of a reference to Washington’s religion. They, 
 however, have this to account for, not that they have been taught these sen¬ 
 timents by Dr. Willson, but that they taught Dr. Willson to relinquish, for 
 conscience sake, his natural rights as a citizen. The Doctor was born a citi¬ 
 zen. They were foreigners. 
 
 Note B. It is with regret that the name of Dr. McMaster has been intro¬ 
 duced, or any quotation from his “ Duty of Nations,” as he is, by the writer 
 of this document, viewed as an honourable man. And it is strongly suspected 
 that it must have been without his knowledge or consent that the offensive 
 paragraph in page 20th, original Synodical Address, ever saw the light. From 
 what is known of the Doctor, it is believed he is above such little conduct , and be¬ 
 sides, that he has too much good sense not to know that the baseness of such an 
 attack would injure even a good cause. His name and writings are introduced 
 merely to show, that with the exception of the personal attack upon the late 
 rulers, he has written in favour of the principle assumed by Dr. Willson, in 
 his “Prince Messiah,” and that the Essay can be no evidence of Dr. Will¬ 
 son’s derangement. 
 
 The most that can be said is, that it was indiscreet to say a word against 
 the idol of the American nation. If information has been furnished to de¬ 
 monstrate that there has been one pious ruler at the helm of affairs in the 
 United States, in that information Dr. Willson will rejoice. His whole ob¬ 
 ject seems to be to urge upon the people the duty of electing such men. 
 
 Note C. “A godly man.” When is Doctor Willson ever supposed to 
 be under an excitement of mind ? and what is the cause of such excitement ? 
 
 His greatest enemy cannot say that he, at any time, under such itrSuence, 
 preaches against the standards of His church—swears profanely—gets drunk— 
 encourages others in the neglect of duty, or omits the zealous discharge of 
 his own duty—prays less, or is less fervent. No. The contrary of these are 
 the symptoms ^ay which these tender brethren suspect him. Is he insane? has 
 he ever been? Who will dare to say that he brought it upon himself by 
 luxury , intemperance , or immorality of life ? Those who know him best esteem 
 Dr. Willson a godly man. 
 
 I 
 
 4 
 

 «• 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 
 ■w.