To the Rev. Mr. Plenderlieth
LIT. — TO THE REV. MR. PLENDERLIETH.
May 23, 1768. Reverend and Dear Sir, — Some years ago, it was reported that I recommended the use of a crucifix to a man under sentence of death. I traced this up to its author, Dr. Stennett, an Anabaptist teacher. He was charged with it. He answered, “Why, I saw a crucifix in his cell;” (a picture of Christ on the cross;) “and I knew Mr. Wesley used to visit him; so I supposed he had brought it.” This is the whole of the matter. Dr. Stennett himself I never yet saw; nor did I ever see such a picture in the cell: and I believe the whole tale is pure invention.
I had for some time given up the thought of an interview with Mr. Erskine, when I fell into the company of Dr. Oswald. He said, “Sir, you do not know Mr. Erskine. I know him perfectly well. Send and desire an hour’s conversation with him, and I am sure he will understand you better.” I am glad I did send. I have done my part, and am now entirely satisfied.
I am likewise glad that Mr. E. has spoke his mind. I will answer with all simplicity, in full confidence of satisfying you, and all impartial men.
He objects, first, that I attack predestination, as subversive of all religion, and yet sufler my followers in Scotland to remain in that opinion. Much of this is true. I did attack predestination eight-and-twenty years ago; and I do not believe now any predestination which implies irrespective reprobation. But I do not believe it is necessarily subversive of all religion. I think hot disputes are much more so; therefore, I never willingly dispute with any one about it. And I advise all my friends, not in Scotland only, but all over England and Ireland, to avoid all contention on the head, and let every man remain in his own opinion. Can any man of candour blame me for this? Is there any thing unfair or disingenuous in it?
He objects, secondly, that I “assert the attainment of sinless perfection by all born of God.” I am sorry Mr. E. should affirm this again. I need give no other answer than I gave before, in the seventh page of the little tract I sent him two years ago.
I do not maintain this. I do not believe it. I believe Christian perfection is not attained by any of the children of God till they are what the Apostle John terms “fathers.” And this I expressly declare in that sermon which Mr. E. so largely quotes.
He objects, thirdly, that I “deny the imputation of Christ’s active obedience.” Since I believe justification by faith which I have done upward of thirty years, I have constantly maintained that we are pardoned and accepted wholly and solely for the sake of what Christ hath both done and suffered for us.
Two or three years ago, Mr. Madan’s sister showed him what she had wrote down of a sermon which I had preached on this subject. He entreated me to write down the whole, and print it; saying, it would satisfy all my opponents. I was not so sanguine as to expect this: I understood mankind too well. However, I complied with his request: a few were satisfied; the rest continued just as they were before.
As long as Mr. E. continues of the mind expressed in his “Theological Essays,” there is no danger that he and I should agree, any more than light and darkness. I love and reverence him, but not his doctrine. I dread every approach to Antinomianism. I have seen the fruit of it over the three kingdoms. I never said that Mr. E. and I were agreed. I will make our disagreement as public as ever he pleases; only I must, withal, specify the particulars. If he will fight with me, it must be on this ground; and then let him do what he will, and what he can.
Retaining a due sense of your friendly offices, and praying for a blessing on all your labours,
I remain, reverend and dear sir.
Your affectionate brother and servant.