Andrew Fuller, Bristol, to Samuel Hopkins, Newport, Rhode Island, 17 March 1798. 

Bristol Mar. 17. 1798

Dear Sir

         My dear friend Ryland having been about five years now at Bristol without my having paid him a single visit, I set off last monday morng for that purpose and being here, and having a few leisure hours I feel inclined to drop a few lines to one or two of my friends in America to whom I have long been under great obligations.

         I have been reading your Letter to Bror Ryland. Booth is an upright godly man, but First, He is a generation older than Ryland, or Sutcliff, or Pearce, or myself; and perhaps this may in part account for his paying so little attention to our writings. Secondly, He is a great admirer of Owen, Vitringa, Venema &c; and seems to suppose they have gone to the neplus ultra of theologial knowledge [sic]. Third, Having written a pretty large (and I think an able) work, entitled Pedobaptism examined on the principles concessions & reasonings of the most learned pedobaptists, he there got into such a habit of quotation that he seems to be incapable of writing four pages without it.

         You seem to think him artful. I believe he is as honest a man as any I know, and as good a character; but I wil not say he is destitute of what you call “British pride.” Bror Ryland & I agree in attributing his misrepresentations of you to this spirit, by which he was prevented from a patient and candid examination of the whole of what you say, rather than to any unworthy design, of wch we think him incapable.

         I sincerely thank you for your remarks upon his publication, wch every person of judgement who has read it, within my knowlege [sic], considers as a decisive ansr. It is a mistake of yours however that you suppose Mr B. has not read the American writers, such as Edwards & Bellamy. I heard him say three or four years ago to this effect, “I have lately carefully read over Edwards on the Will; & it has afforded me a mental feast.” He had read it before, but never went thro’ it at one reading. Bellamy he considers as far inferior to Edwards, and I never heard him speak of him by way of approbation; but ^rather^ as being disgustingly tautologous. The present American writers he considers as Baxterians; & tho’ he throughout approves of my Lrs on Socinianism, yet he reckons me as verging to the same point. I lately asked him what he thought of Edwards’s Sermons on Justification? He sd they did not throughout accord with his ideas on that subject, particularly in that part of them wch treats of Justification as being by faith. What he advances there Mr B. wd consider I reckon as teaching Justification by moral virtue; tho’ I am persuaded it is not so.

         When Mr B’s piece first came out I was in London. On looking it over I perceived the confusion of his ideas. I called on him & told him, that as to the first part I had not material objection to it, except this that it seemed to imply that sinners were very willing to come to Xt, if the door was but open, and that all that was wanting was a right or warrant to come – But as to his second Part, I was fully persuaded he was wrong, and that I shd have very little difficulty in proving him to be so. To this he made very little reply but that he supposed I shd not approve of it.

         I have remarked its effects upon the publick mind. Our Magazine Reviewers who have praised it are ignorant of the subject. People in general do not understand Mr B.— nor comprehend who or what he means to oppose. They seem in general to understand so much of the first part however as to supppose it intended to strike at High Calvinism, as it is called here, & to support the same principles as I have espoused in my Gospel of Xt worthy of all acceptation. Hence when I have been asked for a Copy of my book, & have ansd “it is out of print,” it has been replied, “then I’ll get Mr Booth’s book, I reckon that is much the same as yours.” I believe it will do very little or no harm here. Among those who have read the American writers it is considered as an obscure & inconsistent piece.

         Carey & Thomas, our missionaries in India, are of our sentiments; and a number of circumstances in England give us opportunity of spreading them.  

         I am not sure that your notion of God being the Author of sin is essentially different from the idea of sin being the object of a divine decree: but I am satisfied of this, that to say God is the author of sin would convey to almost every reader or hearer the ideas that God is the friend and approver of sin – that we are mere passive instruments – and that he himself being the grand agent, ought only to be accountable for it; so that I shd think by using it I conveyed ideas directly contrary to James 1.13; & feed those excuses, wch, as McLaurin on that passage observes, the carnal minds of men are exceedingly apt to indulge.

         And I must say that the above passage taken in its connexion contains an important truth, & a serious caution wch you seem to overlook. It teaches if I understand it, that evil is not to be attributed to God. v. 13-15. But that every good & perfect gift, especially that of regeneration, is v. 17, 18. Your observations on the passage in Vol 1. p. 213. go only to prove that your views do not represent God as tempting men to sin, or as being tempted himself to sin: but you do not observe the opposition in the text & context, that evil is not to be ascribed to God, but that good is.

         I have enjoyed great pleasure in reading many of the metaphysical pieces of the American writers; & I hope that those who can throw light upon evangelical subjects in that way will go on to do it: but I have observed that wherever an extrordinary man has been raised up, like Prest Edwards, and who has excelled in maintaining some particular doctrine, or in some one science, or manner of reasoning, it is usual for his followers and admirers too much to confine their attention to that doctrine science or manner of reasoning, as tho’ all excellence was there concentred. I allow your present writers do not implicitly follow Edwards as to his sentiments; but that you preserve perhaps a greater degree of free enquiry than the Calvinists do on our side the water: Yet I must say it appears to me that some of your younger men possess a rage of imitating his metaphysical manner, till some of them become metaphysic-mad. And I am not without some of Mr Scotts apprehensions, lest by such a spirit the simplicity of the gospel shd be lost, and truth amongst you stand in the wisdom of man rather than in the power of God.

         I wished to have written also to Dr Edwards, whose kind attentions to some questions of mine have laid me under obligations to him. I have learned much from him, yourself, West[,] Smalley, Spring &c. If you see them present my love to each of them. I feel also love Dr Dwight for his own as well as for his Grandfathers sake.

         Our Dr Rippon has told the world that the College of New Jersey has honoured me with a Diploma of D. D. I do not know that it was so, as I have never received any account of it: If I had, I shd have written them a respectful Letter expressive of my gratitude, considering ^it^ as a token of respect, and acknowleging, what is the truth, that if I were disposed to use any title I shd esteem it as coming from that quarter beyond any other in the world: but declining to accept it partly because I have not those qualifications which are expected to accompany such titles; and partly because I believe them to be contrary to the command of Christ, in Matt. xxiii.8. – I am dr Sir

                                 Affectionately Yrs

A. Fuller

Address: Rev. Dr Hopkins | Newport | Rhode Island

Postmark: none

Endorsed: Mr Fuller | Mar 17. 1798

Note: “Received & forwarded by C. D.”

Text: Simon Gratz Collection, British Literary Misc., Case 11, Box 7, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.