# John M Wilson



## ADKing (May 16, 2007)

I have been looking for some biographical information on the John M Wilson who served as the editor for Thomas Ridgeley's "Body of Divinity". What was his tradition etc? It will give me some more context as I read his notes. Any one know?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 16, 2007)

Adam -- Do you mean, perhaps, James P. Wilson?

Edit: I see editions which reference John M. Wilson and James P. Wilson as the editor. I'll see what I can find out.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 16, 2007)

For James P. Wilson (1815 edition - available online here), I have found this entry in William Sprague's _Annals of the American Pulpit_. And this is from the Early American Presbyterian website:



> James Patriot Wilson, D.D. (1769-1830)
> 
> He was born in Lewes, Delaware. He graduated at the University of Pennsylvania, in 1788. He acted, for some time, as Surveyor-General for the State of Delaware. He was admitted to practice at the Bar. The unexpected death of his wife, and the assassination of his brother before his eyes, made such an impression of the importance of eternal things that he quitted the law for the pulpit. He was ordained pastor of the Lewes Church, as successor of his father, in 1804. In 1806 he accepted a call from the First Church in Philadelphia. In May 1828, he retired to his farm, a little south of the village of Hartsville, Bucks county, Pennsylvania, about twenty miles from the city, on account of the infirm state of his health, preaching, nevertheless, to his congregation as often as his health permitted. For some years before his death his infirmities compelled him to preach sitting in a high chair in the pulpit. His resignation of his pastoral charge was accepted in the Spring of 1830.
> 
> ...



For John M. Wilson (later edition), I have not yet found anything biographical, but I did find this positive 1845 review.


----------



## ADKing (May 16, 2007)

Thank you Andrew. I have the photocopy of the 1855 edition that Still Waters puts out. The editor is John M Wilson. I am curious about him because there are some sentiments expressed in his (rather lengthy!) notes and comments on Ridgeley's work that I find odd. I thought knowing his "story" (what denomination he was part of and when and where and what theological "axes" he had to grind) might help me understand where he was coming from. If you do find anything out about him I would be very curious. I have done some searches online that haven't yielded anything helpful.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 17, 2007)

I pulled out my SWRB collector's edition and took a look at the editor's preface and some of his notes. I then did some more searching but with little success. I was not able to find anything biographical about John M. Wilson, except that I believe he also edited _The Rural Cyclopedia, or a General Dictionary of Agriculture_ (Edinburgh, 1849). 

I see that he is also cited by James Jordan and Ralph Allan Smith in an attempt to show that Thomas Ridgeley was a theonomist.


----------



## MW (May 17, 2007)

They are lengthy notes, and quite out of keeping with the spirit of the work. Thankfully they are placed at the end of each question.


----------



## ADKing (May 17, 2007)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> I pulled out my SWRB collector's edition and took a look at the editor's preface and some of his notes. I then did some more searching but with little success. I was not able to find anything biographical about John M. Wilson, except that I believe he also edited _The Rural Cyclopedia, or a General Dictionary of Agriculture_ (Edinburgh, 1849).
> 
> I see that he is also cited by James Jordan and Ralph Allan Smith in an attempt to show that Thomas Ridgeley was a theonomist.



Thanks for looking. I encountered the same thing. I would not be overly concerned with the accuracy of Jordan and Smith. They have a tendency to appeal to sources that do not actually support them.


----------



## ADKing (May 17, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> They are lengthy notes, and quite out of keeping with the spirit of the work. Thankfully they are placed at the end of each question.



I am just starting to work my way through the book. In Beeke's "Meet the Puritans" it is commended as the most thorough work on the Larger Catechsim--what Boston and Watson are to the Shorter. Nevertheless, if in fact the notes _are_ out of keeping with the tenor of the work (as they hint at being in the early pages) then it seems less valuable. Perhaps an earlier edition would be a more valuable tool?

I do note though that Ridgeley's "simplified" (i.e. without "scholastic" distinctions) comments on the Trinity, coming as they do, in his debate with Arianism are an unhelpful and unfortunate blot on the work. 

I find it interesting too that Ridgeley was an Independent. Nevertheless, it looks good overall. It appears much more thorough than using something like JG Vos.


----------



## MW (May 17, 2007)

ADKing said:


> I do note though that Ridgeley's "simplified" (i.e. without "scholastic" distinctions) comments on the Trinity, coming as they do, in his debate with Arianism are an unhelpful and unfortunate blot on the work.



I concur with this finding. It would be good to hear your thoughts on his doctrine of inspiration.


----------



## ADKing (May 18, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> I concur with this finding. It would be good to hear your thoughts on his doctrine of inspiration.



I'll let you know after I more thoroughly read it. I skipped ahead when I initially got the book to the Trinity because of the comment he made about it in his preface.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 18, 2007)

ADKing said:


> Thanks for looking. I encountered the same thing. I would not be overly concerned with the accuracy of Jordan and Smith. They have a tendency to appeal to sources that do not actually support them.



Indeed! 



ADKing said:


> I am just starting to work my way through the book. In Beeke's "Meet the Puritans" it is commended as the most thorough work on the Larger Catechsim--what Boston and Watson are to the Shorter. Nevertheless, if in fact the notes _are_ out of keeping with the tenor of the work (as they hint at being in the early pages) then it seems less valuable. Perhaps an earlier edition would be a more valuable tool?
> 
> I do note though that Ridgeley's "simplified" (i.e. without "scholastic" distinctions) comments on the Trinity, coming as they do, in his debate with Arianism are an unhelpful and unfortunate blot on the work.
> 
> I find it interesting too that Ridgeley was an Independent. Nevertheless, it looks good overall. It appears much more thorough than using something like JG Vos.



Ridgeley is very good across the board and the best of few expositors of the WLC, but one area of concern that I have noted pertains to his views on what he calls the "mediatorial Sonship" of Christ. John Gill commented on that here:



> The other person, who has objected to the eternal generation of the Son of God, is Dr. Thomas Ridgeley, Professor of Divinity in London, towards the beginning of the present century:[140] who strongly asserts, and contends for the doctrine of a Trinity of divine distinct persons in the Godhead, and [y]et strangely adopts the Socinian notion o[f] Sonship by office, and makes the eternal Sonship of Christ to be what he calls his mediatorial Sonship.
> 
> [140] See his body o[f] divinity, p. 121, etc.



Curt Daniel says:



> Temporal Generationism rejects the doctrine of Eternal Generation and says that though Jesus is God, He is not "Son" except by virtue of the Incarnation and Virgin Birth. This view is perhaps the least dangerous of the errors regarding the Trinity, and has been held by various Evangelicals and Calvinists, such as Thomas Ridgeley.



As for the notes, I haven't compared the notes between the two Wilsons, but if you want to check out James P. Wilson's edition, the links to the four downloadable 1815 volumes are provided above.


----------



## ADKing (May 18, 2007)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Ridgeley is very good across the board and the best of few expositors of the WLC, but one area of concern that I have noted pertains to his views on what he calls the "mediatorial Sonship" of Christ.



Yes, as you noted in the quote from John Gill it is too close to Socinianism and too far from Nicene orthodoxy. Though it may be the "least dangerous" of the errors, nevertheless I would say it is still dangerous. Witness the degeneration of the English dissenting movement into Unitariansim (not to mention the non-subscribing Presbyterians in Ireland and the Congregationalists here in New England). When traditions start to dabble with this sort of thing, history has taught us that it ends in ruin. We have seen it play out far too often to be blind to the consequences in our own day. Thanks for the comments and quotes. (I will now step off of the soap box )


----------

