Thomas Steevens, Colchester, to John Sutcliff, Olney, 10 November 1785.                                                 

Colchester Nov 10th 1785

Dear Brother

It would give me great pleasure to be instrumental of good to you in Body or mind. I am therefore willing that my last should produce a friendly smile or even a laugh; as I learn from the faculty that laughing is an exercise promotive of health.

But you mistook me in one thing—Mr Perkins had given me the shadow of an hope, that you would visit Colchester. I aimed to give substance to this shadow & referred the consideration of your queries ’till your self should explain them.—However I have reviewed them & am apprehensive that our views would very nearly coincide. They are now in London: Mr Thomas of Devonshire Square wishing to weigh them, & avail himself of you or me in an attempt to bring his Father to see with Mr Fuller.

You wish to know my thoughts of that gentlemens publication—I will be perfectly free, however much I may prove myself precipitate & even ignorant in what I wrote before.—I admire the Spirit of the author—it appears plain I think that his alone wish is to propagate Truth—I admire the perspicuity of his manner which conveys at once his meaning to the mind—Nor can I find anything to say against, but much to say for the Sentiment. I was rather averse to it before, either because I did not understand it, or because it was wrongly stated by others—the last I think was the chief reason; for I now recollect, that for seven years past & more I have been coming over to his mind tho’ I did not know, that I had any Partners—thinking upon that text with a view to the pulpit “ye will not come to me that you may have Life” led me into a quite (for me) new train of Thought upon mans Inability & I found & said it lies in his will.

 The wiseacres in your Parts will do as they please I suppose, but it pleases me, that some very sensible Independents here about have the Book & esteem it—But my baptist Brethren will not receive it & some of them already deem me an Arminian for only attempting to explain to them the meaning of the phrases moral & natural Inability—I have had some warm, I dont mean angry, disputes upon the Subject—but alas it is a Task indeed to “tell Persons a Story & find them Ears,” or which is much the same—state a Truth & give them understanding—Indeed there is one very great unhappiness attendant upon the Statement of this case—Mr Fuller is obliged to use the word natural inability. We have been accustomed to say man is a Sinner by Nature—is by Nature averse to God & therefore knows not how to drop the common Idea when we mean to express something very different by the same word, hence many exclaim “no need then for divine Influence”; but I sincerely wish they would read the Book once & again before they reply.

Mr Fullers Idea of Faith will not, I conceive, easily gain ground with those who have been accustomed to view Faith as being somehow or other, a belief of personal Interest in Jesus Christ & this must occasion the rejection of his whole System. But had I known his mind upon this article before I should have been a Believer e’er I had seen his performance; for I think his definition of Faith entirely incontrovertable, tho I suppose he finds a need to enlarge his Definition sometimes, in order to show, that none but those whose Faith actuates the whole Soul are real Believers in the Son of God.

It appears to me that Mr F— deserves the thanks of all the Lovers of simple Truth & I am not without hope, that some who cannot fully adopt his view will yet so far profit by it as to address their fellow Sinners more in the Style of Scripture. I know two or three already who mean to make this use of his work.—But what think you Bror?  a neighboring minister seriously very seriously proposed to me the following Queries a few months since—”But if it is the Duty of Sinners to believe in Jesus Christ, is it my Duty to exhort them to it?  This is what I want to know!”   By this I think you will be informed that we have wiseacres with us too.

Your views & mine agree with respect to Scripture language in the main, but I still think, that there are in use many Terms which some hold sacred, that give very unscriptural Ideas—I remember to have heard a Reverend divine in London spend a whole hour to prove the propriety of the Term offer & so foolish was I as to think Mr Fuller meant to plead the same cause. I ask his pardon for condemning him unheard.

Many thanks to you for the circular Letter I deem it very valuable—lent it to my Friends at a Prayer meeting which was unusually well attended, but I fear I have lent it till it is lost—I have read a Sermon by the same author: alltogether lead me to form the best opinion of the man & to hail the church happy that has such a Pastor—the association favored that has such a member.

Thro mercy we have Peace—I mean we are not at war professedly, but some of my People charge me with “wishing them to be more holy than God requires”!  I sometimes say where will these things end? —we have some prosperity in the addition of members, but I want to see much more.

May you be held as a Star in the redeemers right hand & be happily instrumental in leading many Souls to him. Such is the wish of 

                                                      Your affectionate Friend

                                                                        Thos Steevens

Text: Eng. MS. 371, f. 115, John Rylands University Library of Manchester. On the back page Sutcliff has written, “Rec.d M.r Steevens Nov.r 30. 1785. Ansd sometime.” Others who appear in this letter include Timothy Thomas of Devonshire Square, London, and Andrew Fuller at Kettering. The High Calvinist Baptists influenced by the writings of John Gill and John Brine were keen to oppose what appeared to be Arminian elements with Fuller’s theology. See E. F. Clipsham, “Andrew Fuller and Fullerism: A Study in Evangelical Calvinism,” Baptist Quarterly 20 (1963-64): 99-114; 146-54; 214-25; 268-76.