Andrew Fuller to unnamed correspondent [most likely J. W. Morris], undated [c. 1784].

Dear Bror

   I see you have next you Claudes 1st Vol.—Respecting your objection I must say it seems to me a very obscure one— “If Adam had eternal life dwelling in his soul as a natural principle (as I think you affirm)”—I affirmed that eternal life (or blessedness) was promised in the covenant of works, and would have been enjoy’d if Adam had obey’d, wh I supposed inferable fm Matt.19.17.  And this Mr Brine grants—tho’ he denies that the life promised in the Covt of works was the same with that promised by the covenant of grace, yet he grants they were alike in duration.  Consequently, both were eternal life.  Motives to L. & U. p. 25. But as to my affirming that “eternal life dwelt in his soul as a natural principle,” I think I never did say any such thing either of his soul or of that of believers.  Tho’ I believe that grace in ye Saints is glory begun, and as it were, a well of water springing up into everlasting life—yet I do not think this is owing to the nature of ye principle, but to the continual influence of God’s Holy Spirit.  I suppose if God were this moment to leave me utterly as to his gracious influence, the nature of my principle of love to him is not such as would keep alive, but I should utterly apostatize.  There seems therefore no propriety in saying of even a believers principle that eternal life naturally dwells in it, wh I take to be your meaning.  True it is eternal life begun, but that is owing to the engagements of God who has promised to keep this spark alive rather than to its being in its own nature necessarily eternal. God did not engage to keep it alive in Adam, but he has in believers.  What absurdity would follow affirming that if Adam had stood, his children would have been born after his likeness, and that was in the image of God.  The flesh in Jn. 3.6. denotes the state of man as corrupted, and not as innocent.  As to “the first Adam being made equal to the second” He was equal to him considering Xt as man, in the moral state of his mind.  The Superiority of the 2nd Adam to ye first lay not in his being more holy, or the principles of his mind being of anor nature, but in his being God, and so an honor derived to all he did, and upon the individual of human nature wh he assumed.  And what absurdity follows my sayg that “the Second Adam is to have the honor of doing that for us wh the first did not chuse to perform”?  Is not this the fact?  Did he not obey the law wh Adam did not chuse to obey?  Yn does he not stoop lower than that, to stand in our place as well as Adams, and bear our griefs & carry our sorrows!  To do that for us wh was wickedly refused to be done by Adam, and even to atone by his death for him & our defects no way detracts fm Xts honor, but rather speaks his infinite humiliation.  Your last sentence shocks me—“But in this Adam seems to discover a greater regard for the honor of Xt (shall I say) than my Bror Fuller, for sooner than he would rival his maker of that glory wh is due to his name only, would rather forego his present honor & happiness and thereby give an opportunity for that glory to be manifested wh we now behold in the person of Xt Jesus!” A fine apology indeed for the fall of man!  And so a state of innocence stood in the way of Gods glory, and Adam was so humble that rather than do that he would sin against God & so give him at least an occasion of glorifying himself!  Truly I tho’t the motive leading to mans apostasy had been pride, and not humility; aspiring to be as a God, instead of giving place to God!  According to this mode of reasoning man did better in sinning much better than angels who kept their first estate!  But I hope this was merely a slip.—Dr Bror if I can receive any additional knowledge fr your objections, or be convinced of any thing, or afford any assistance to you, I shall be glad of the opportunity—Our Ministers Meeting is on Wednesday the 28th Inst  anor at Northampton on the Friday.  Shall be glad to see you.

               With respects to Mrs M.  I am dr Bror

                                       Yrs affectionately

                                                   A Fuller

N.B. I think in representing the principle of innocence in Adam as the same in nature with that in believers, we do not degrade either Xt or believers but rather by the contrary we degrade the image of God in wh we were originally created.  See Gens 1.27 compd with Ephe. 4.21.  “After God” there certainly means after the likeness of God—Quere, Can there be two essentially different images of the one unchangeable God? 

P.S.  Have sent you Beart. He was an Independent Minister of Bury Suffolk about 70 or 80 years ago—There is I think a great deal of good sense and good divinity.

Text: Eng. MS. 369, f. 50a, JRULM.  Given the reference to “Mrs. M.” at the end of the letter, as well as the reference to a minister’s meeting of the Northamptonshire Association, it is highly probable this letter was addressed to J. W. Morris at Clipston. Morris’s church was a member of the Northamptonshire Association. This letter expounds on Fuller’s ideas of grace and faith as expressed in his The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation (1785).  Also mentioned is John Brine (1703-1765), High Calvinist Baptist minister at Curriers’ Hall, Cripplegate, London, 1730-1765; and  Truth Defended: or, A Vindication of the Eternal Law and Everlasting Gospel (1707-1708) by John Beart (1673-1716).