1675. preached, for the use of the unlearned as well as the learned: whence having first published his opinion in English, both from the pulpit and the press, Mr. Truman thought he had a right to vindicate it in the same language, notwithstanding that the strongest arguments against it were delivered in a Latin treatise, to which therefore a Latin answer was not without reason expected. And farther, considering that this matter had been first debated by the most learned and pious Dr. Hammond, in English also, whom Mr. Bull is supposed by this author to follow; he concluded to write on in the vulgar tongue rather than in the learned.

Besides these two, he seemeth to have had a third motive both for writing against Mr. Bull, and for his writing against him in English rather than Latin; which was, that by exposing certain doctrines and opinions, as contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England, which were by the most eminent divines thereof maintained at that time, and by Mr. Bull then defended with great learning and force in his said book, he might under the pretext of rectifying them, and of composing many differences in opinion, to use his own words, add some weight to his reasons for separation, from the maintainers of them, and from the society whereof they were members. For it looks as if it were his design to shew hereby, that he was no such separatist from the Church of England, whose doctrines he would appear as heartily to embrace, as some who lived in her bosom; and that many abiding in her ministerial communion were yet greater nonconformists than ever he was; while professing themselves to be divines of the Church of England, they nevertheless

departed, as he thought, from the very principles on which the Reformation was founded. It was his misfortune, upon the Act of Uniformity, not to be thoroughly satisfied in all that was required of him for his continuance in the exercise of his ministry; and he was jealous of some advances made towards Socinianism, as well as carrying too high a controversy about things in their nature indifferent. But he endeavoured still to keep a fair correspondence with the Church of England, to speak of her with esteem, to make honourable mention of her bishops, to express himself as one of her members, and actually to defend lay-communion with her. And therefore he would not be thought to have written against her by such an essay as this; which was very probably intended by him for his own justification: and to insinuate that there might be more danger to be apprehended by the Church of England from a nonconformity to her doctrines, than from one to her discipline. These I take to be the chief motives of his undertaking to write against Mr. Bull and others, and of making this his public appeal, not in Latin, as Mr. Bull had done, but in English, as properly concerning the English Church, I must now give some account of what he hath performed in this enterprise, so far as our author is concerned with him; without which the history of this controversy, and consequently of the works of so great a man of our church, would remain but very imperfect. To proceed then,

1675.

of the se

XXXII. Mr. Truman having published about the An account beginning of the year 1669 his Great Propitiation veral treaaforesaid, wherein the article of justification was ne-lished by

tises pub

1675. cessarily treated of, for a fuller illustration of the him against same he added an Appendix to it, concerning the meaning of the apostle Paul, in treating this subject; of Mr. Bull. in which he will have the apostle to dispute against

the doctrine

and method

justification by perfect obedience to the law, as a thing impossible to a man in this life; and our Lord not to have added any thing new to the law in his sermon on the mount, but only to have vindicated it from corrupt interpretations. For without considering at all the infirmity of the law, as being referred to by the apostle, he insisted that not only an outward obedience to it was required of God, but also that which was inward and perfect; and that therefore a man was bound by it to live perfectly, and free from all manner of sin, both outwardly and inwardly, looking beyond temporal promises and threats to those that are eternal. And besides this, he seemed to maintain that a man might be obliged to do somewhat, which it was not in his power to do; and might also be justly punished for not doing it, where the disability or impotence was not natural, but proceeded originally from his own fault.

Now when after this another scheme for the interpretation of St. Paul was brought forth by Mr. Bull, which he found to contradict his in some material points, or at least not to be easily reconcileable with it, he set himself hereupon to defend his own scheme, as the only orthodox one, thinking that Mr. Bull would make an intolerable change in the very substance of the body of divinity. And in this view he published not very long afterward m, A Discourse of natural and moral Impotency, upon the principles

m [In 1671.]

laid down in his former discourse; in which some chapters of Mr. Bull's second dissertation are indirectly attacked. For he looked upon this distinction to be of such importance in divinity, as that they who should speak or write of the controversies about justification, grace, free-will, the law of works, faith, evangelical perfection, and such like, without keeping clear notions about this, would certainly speak and write like children concerning them, though otherwise never so capable and learned: as also that a person but of ordinary understanding, by keeping to this distinction, might competently satisfy himself and others (if willing to be satisfied) in such controversies as have posed the greatest wits and scholars that deviate from it. This he hath treated at large with great metaphysical subtlety for the learned, and with sufficient plainness in the practical inferences for the use of the unlearned. Notwithstanding which, whatever he might pretend, he appeared to several to teach here a new divinity, and to deliver strange opinions and doctrines very remote from the common sentiments of men, according as he himself was indeed sensible of beforehand. Wherefore he prudently abstaineth from mentioning of names, that none might hereby be provoked against him, as he was not without reason apprehensive of. And without telling his own name, that he might not either expose himself, or do any prejudice thereby to a cause he was so fond of; he cared not to let the world know any more of him, than that he lived obscurely, and was the author of such a book, as had not been ill received by the public.

There are two editions of this discourse, which because they afford an occasion to Mr. Bull of giving

1675.

1675

us his more mature and accurate thoughts upon so nice a subject, will deserve not to be forgotten: the one was taken care of by himself, but the other by a friend after his decease, with some additions left by the author under his own hand; and particularly an Appendix for farther clearing up and vindicating the same discourse, in which he declareth his opinion concerning the propagation of the soul and sin. This second edition had his name put to it, and his quality. The principles upon which he here goeth are these: 1. No man is bound by any law of God or man, farther than his natural faculties and powers reach. 2. A man is bound by the law of God, so far as these natural powers do reach, and his greatest aversation of will to obey the same will not excuse him, but rather add to his inexcusableness. 3. Such an aversation of will in man doth certainly hinder his compliance with God's commandments, till God takes it away; or till by some supereffluence of grace, which he is not in justice bound to afford, he overcometh this reluctance of the will. Whence this author inferreth, and laboureth to prove, 1. That a man's culpable impotency lieth only in a disability to do what he hath a power to do; or in his not being able to do in one sense, what he can do in another. And, 2. That the effect of divine grace consisteth not barely in a man's receiving from God a power to obey his commands; but in something over and beside, to cause a man to do what he is bound to do, and would be to blame for not doing. These principles and inferences were afterwards examined by Mr. Bull, both in Latin and English, on occasion of his last treatise, which came out soon after to back this, and is directly levelled against our