make use of an artifice, before he could obtain leave 1675. to have it printed: whence he calleth this his book, d Infælicis Horoscopi fœtus; as if it were born under an unfortunate planet; and so heavily complaineth of the hardness of its parent's labour, as also of his being threatened with a smart answer. Of the occasion and motives for his engaging in this controversy, enough hath been said already. Of the contents and method of his book, so far at least as Mr. Bull was therein concerned, it remains now to give some account, for the affording a light to the history of this controversy, and to some part of the life of so eminent a writer in our church, as this that I am now employed in.

ner of his

and esta

his own

He stateth then the question after this manner. The manThere is no disagreement, saith he, between them stating the about the sense of the word justification; and he al- question, loweth these four things, viz. 1. That the faith which blishing justifieth is not barren, and fruitless of good works. opinion. 2. That the radical seeds or habits of the other virtues are also infused together into the soul along with faith. 3. That good works are needful to salvation; so that without them it cannot be attained. 4. That justification may, in a declarative sense, be attributed to works of righteousness; all this he freely yieldeth to Mr. Bull. But the τὸ κρινόμενον in this controversy, according to him, "is that, for the " sake of which God may receive a sinner to grace, may acquit him from the curse of the law, and may make him an heir of everlasting life." And it is here agreed, that on God's part this must be the merit of Christ, and that alone; the only dif

66

1675. ference ariseth from the application of this merit; that is, whether it be by faith and works together, or else by the former alone. This latter opinion is by him maintained to be the doctrine of the church of England, and the catholic church, and particularly of all the churches that are called reformed: and the other he accuseth of great singularity and novelty, which he undertaketh to prove, but with what success, is left to the learned and candid examiner to judge. For he challengeth all the Fathers, both before and after St. Augustin, to be of his opinion; most heavily charging, at the same time, the contrary one, as unsupported by any one Christian writer. He readily yieldeth indeed, that there are different uses of the word justification found among the holy Fathers; but contendeth, that they all universally agree in the thing itself, and stand up against the righteousness of works, for the righteousness of faith, in our acceptance with God. And thus having claimed the judgment of the catholic Fathers, without so much as one of them excepted, to be unanimously for him; and triumphed over Mr. Bull, as he thought, on this head, where his greatest excellency was generally esteemed to lie; he proceedeth to fexplain the doctrine of the Church of England, from her Articles and Homilies, insisting very much upon the literal and grammatical sense of them, and from the testimony of some of her most learned writers, such as Mr. Hooker and bishop Andrews: and then & passeth on to the judgment of the foreign reformed churches; instancing in the several confessions of the protestants of Germany,

Cap. ii. p. 12.

Cap. iii. p. 20. * Cap. iv. p. 28.

France, Holland, Poland, Hungary, Bohemia, and 1675. Switzerland, besides the oriental confessions of faith by Cyrillus Lucaris. All which he hath endeavoured to bring over to his side, not without some appearance of truth, and appealed to as witnesses for him, against the harmonist.

of the rea

Now having laboured to establish his own opinion, His account which he supposeth to be the faith of the Church of sons why all

are not of

England, and to fortify it by the authority of Fathers his opinion. and Synods, and by the whole strength of the reformation; his next endeavour is, to inquire how Mr. Bull, or any other, the matter appearing to him so very plain, could possibly fall into the contrary opinion. Wherefore the far greatest part of his book is taken up in discovering what he is pleased to call, the fountains of this error. The 1st of these is, according to him, the h abuse of the doctrine concerning justification, as by him explained, or the fear of antinomianism; and upon this he spends a whole chapter. The 2d is the distinction between justifying works and the merit of them; upon this he hath also another chapter, and is large in discussing the meaning of that distinction, ex operibus and propter opera. The 3d is the exclusion of some works, and the admission of the rest, contrary (as he will have it) to the express mind of St. Paul. The 4th is the imputative righteousness of Christ, either exploded or not rightly understood; which he maintaineth to be a very great cause of error in this matter. The 5th is the manner of arguing from them concomitance of works with faith, for the jus

1675. tification by works. The 6th is the misunderstanding the nature of justifying faith. The 7th and last is the symbolizing with popery. These he maketh the seven sources, or causes of departing from the unity of the church's doctrine, concerning justification, as the same is stated by him; and to make this out he hath spared no labour, and hath said some things that are not amiss. This inquiry being finished, the last chapter was reserved by him for the Preconciliation of St. Paul and St. James. But he thinketh there was no need of it, and condemneth the harmonist and others, for being at so much pains, where there was so little occasion for it; there being no disagreement at all, saith he, between them, seeing that they speak not of the same faith or justification, and so cannot differ. However, he commendeth Mr. Bull's industry, and wisheth only, that he might employ his parts for the cause of truth and of the Christian faith. This treatise Dr. Tully was willing should be thought to have been written by him, in defence of the XIth Article of the Church of England. It was learnedly writ, and with some spirit, and by many at first it was approved of, who concluded that he had the better of the harmonist, especially in his 2d, 3d, and 4th chapters, where his chief strength was thought to consist, and in the conclusion.

The design of his

XL. As Dr. Tully's treatise of Justification was discourse, pretended to be written in defence of the XIth, so was his dissertation of Original Sin, which is his commentary on the seventh to the Romans, no less

De Sententia Paulina.

■ Cap. x. p. 104.

0

Cap. xi. p. 115.

P Cap. xii. p. 131.

pretended to be written in defence of the IXth Ar- 1675. ticle of our religion. The principal design whereof is to explain and defend these following propositions, and more particularly the last of them; viz. 1. Original sin is the depravation of nature, propagated from Adam to every man. 2. By this depravation man is very much departed from original righteousness, and hath a natural propensity to evil, the flesh lusting always against the spirit. 3. This very depravation and corruption of nature is not only at first in every person born into this world, but doth remain even in them that are regenerate. 4. The permanence of such depravation in the regenerate is confessed and avowed by St. Paul, and that even in his own person: and this hath of itself the nature of sin, and is thence no less than seven times called by the name of sin in this very seventh to the Romans. Here he mightily triumpheth over the harmonist, as he every where calls him, for understanding St. Paul no better, and for not attending enough to the doctrine of his own church. He chargeth him with too much precipitancy and magisterialness in judging, with affectation of novelty, with not rightly numbering the votes of the ancient Christian writers, with reviving a calumny of Pelagius against them, and with mistaking the sense of the apostle several times, and wresting it with vain and groundless criticisms. And he endeavoureth to shew, how among the Fathers, Augustin and Hierom are flatly against the harmonist, though they were at first, before they had examined into the matter, of another opinion; how Hilary also, Nazianzen, and others, before the disputes between Pelagius and Augustin, had the same sentiment; how a probable reason may