THO' it be a little uncommon, to bring two Por­tions of Scripture, situated at such a Distance in the Bible, for the Text or Argument of one Discourse; yet as these Passages, not only have something of a similar Sound, but have generally been judg'd to have very much the same Mean­ing; and as Expositors, however varying in their Comments on the one and the other, in Correspondence to their differing Views of the Context, and their differing Schemes in Divinity, have nevertheless consider'd them as nearly parallel Scriptures, of [Page 2] much the same Import, and capable of the same Application and Use in Religion: therefore I have tho't it no Impropriety, to place them in Connection at the head of this Discourse, in Order to compare them together, and discover the true Sense of the one by that Light the other reflects upon it; by which Means we shall see how the Prophet and the Apostle, and so how both the Old Testament and the New, concur in pouring Contempt on the personal Righteousness of Man, and disparaging all the moral Attainments, even of the Best, as well as Worst of Mankind, under some limited Notions and Respects.

Both of these Scriptures seem to have been miserably tortur'd by Papistical and other Writers, to pervert 'em to a false Sense, and a wrong and dangerous Use: while yet, in a fair and equitable Construction, they appear subservient to some of the most excel­lent Purposes in Religion; to humble the fallen Creature, and exalt the blessed Redeemer; to rout all the vain Pretences of self-righteous Mortals; to conduct Sinners to Christ, as the End of the Law for Righteousness unto every one that believeth; and to excite the Just to live by Faith, doing all in the Name of Christ, while careful to maintain good Works.

The Prophet ISAIAH (as Protestants in general have under­stood and apply'd his Words) by the Spirit foreseeing some future great Revolution in the Church, composes a prophetical Prayer, wherein this holy Man in the Name of the Converts of Zion makes that lowly Confession, All our Righteousnesses are as filthy Rags. And the Apostle PAUL, for himself (but therein exhi­biting the communis Sensus Fidelium, the genuine Sentiment and Spirit of every true Christian) after having confessed in relation to Time past, that he had counted all Things but Loss, for the Ex­cellency of the Knowledge of Christ, subjoins this further Confession referring to the Time present, And I do count them but Dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own Righ­teousness, which is of the Law.—

It appears to me the principal Scope, as well of the Prophet, as the Apostle, to renounce all Pretensions to Justification by Works, and disavow every Plea from righteous Self in point of reconciling or ingratiating Worthiness before the Sovereign Lawgiver; to dis­claim Self-Righteousness in every Shape, and reject all Tho'ts of standing in the Judgment, upon the foot of personal Obedience to God's Law, the everlasting Rule of Righteousness.— They both use strong and emphatical Language, that discovers a profound Sense of the absolute Insufficiency of the best Righteousness of [Page 3] Men, for the purpose of intitling them to the special Mercy of God. It seems, taking their Words in such a Reference, they both with equal Expressions of a just Contempt and generous Dis­dain explode their own Righteousness, as altogether inadequate and unavailable to so great a Design: the one resembling it to filthy Rags, and the other to loathsome Dung. (I stay not to criticise on the Translation, nor mention the Variety of suppos'd Allusi­ons in the Original.) Self-Righteousness in all it's Forms and Appearances stands condemn'd and vilify'd here. Even the Saints most perfect Works of Righteousness as respected under certain restrictive Considerations, are all thus depreciated by the inspir'd Prophet and Apostle, yea, have a deep Disgrace thrown upon them by these homely and contemptuous Simile's.— We have exem­plify'd here the agreeing humble Confessions both of the Jewish Church and Christian, and the Harmony of the Saints of every Age in acknowledging the Truth which is after Godliness.— This is the View I have of these Scriptures, after diligent and impartial Inquiry into their true Meaning: and in this, I think, I have the concurrent Suffrage of the Body of reform'd Churches and Di­vines.— However, let us now recollect the varying Glosses of Commentators and Preachers upon these Words, and a little exa­mine into their several Grounds and Reasons.

I. I observe, some interpret both the Prophet and the Apostle as speaking only of a Pharisaical or meer external Righteousness: and according to them, 'tis at most but a Form of Godliness with­out the Power, or some Shew of moral Virtue without the Reality, that is here represented in such Terms of Reproach.— Yet, as there are different Degrees of Pharisaism, and Hypocrisy appears in a Variety of Figures, these Interpreters, thô agreeing in the general Sentiment, are divided about the particular Application of it, and go into a various Latitude of Thought.

1. There are those who so restrain the Meaning of these Scrip­tures, as to suppose them applicable only to the Case of grosser Hypocrites: whose feigned Righteousness, they willingly grant, deserves no better Name than that of Dung, or filthy Rags.— They own, the Scriptures every where paint the conscious and designing Hypocrite in Characters of Ignominy; and pronounce the Sacrifices of the Wicked, thô pretending to be Sacrifices of Righteousness, an Abomination to the Lord. To this Purpose they apply those Divine Passages,— Bring no more vain Oblations;—I hate, I despise your Feast-Days;— Is it such a Fast that I have chosen? —I will declare thy Righteousness, and thy Works; for they shall not [Page 4] profit thee.— Your Webs shall not become Garments, neither shall you cover yourselves with your Works: Your Works are Works of Ini­quity, &c.—They own, the most specious Profession and Appear­ance of Religion, with the Shew of Virtue in some Instances, which Men put on for a Cloke of Covetousness, for a Mask to cover their wicked Lusts, and recommend themselves to the good Opi­ion of the World, if not also to ingratiate themselves with the blessed God, and as it were compound with him for their Sins; all such pretended Righteousnsses, I say, they own to be wretch­edly defective, corrupt and polluted, worthy of the most inglorious Names, in the View of the Heart-searching Judge, and of enligh­ten'd Conscience in reflecting Penitents. This is what some contend to be the whole Amount (particularly) of the Prophet's Confession in our Text; as if he only had in his Eye the Righ­teousnesses (falsely so called) of the vilest Hypocrites, who feign themselves to be just Men, while yet in Truth (and for that Rea­son) they are to be rank'd among the very worst of wicked Men.

In this very confin'd Sense, the Church of Rome in particular understands the Prophet's Words, rejecting the Protestant Sense with deep Indignation; and that, as they think, upon sufficient Grounds in Scripture and Reason, the most plausible of which I will now produce and endeavour to refute. Thus Dr. BISHOP a popish Priest (in his Answer to Mr. PERKYNS'S Reform'd Catholick) shews his Opinion, ^* ‘That the holy Prophet speaketh those Words in the Person of the Wicked; and therefore (says he) they are madly applied unto the Righteous.’ So Cardinal BEL­LARMINE, the Flower of the popish School and Champion of the Church of Rome, when he comes to answer what the old Protestants used to argue from this Passage in Isaiah, premises this Observation. ^‡ Hîc plané triumphare sibi videntur Haeretici: hunc enim Locum semper in Ore habent; cùm tamen ad Rem nihil pertineat, &c. ‘Here the Hereticks [so he stiles the Protestants] look upon themselves certainly triumphant: for they have this Text always in their Mouths; while yet it's intirely foreign to the Purpose.’— Where, by the Way I observe, we have an ample Attestation to the Reformers laying a peculiar Stress on this Scripture, as affording a most irresistible Argument against the Popish Doctrine of Justification by Works: and thô I would call no Man upon Earth Master, nor set up the Judgment even of the [Page 5] old Protestants for an infallible Standard of Orthodoxy; yet, with­out more convincing Reasons than any their Opponents have ever offer'd, I should be loth so much as to seem to betray their Cause or to reflect on their Memory, by giving up so notable a Text, which they triumph'd in & always had in their Mouths, into the Hands of their Popish Adversaries. However, it may not be amiss, to hear the Grounds of the PAPIST'S judging this Text impertinently alledg'd, and what the Reformers say in their own Defence.

The Romish Champion assigns ‘ three Reasons, (1.) Because undoubtedly Isaiah do's not speak of righteous Men, but (de insignibus Peccatoribus) of remarkably wicked Men.’— To invalidate which, the PROTESTANT replies; Certainly this Prophet Isaiah was no such wicked Man, and he includes himself, together with other pious Persons in Israel, when in the Name of the Church he presents this humble Confession to God, All OUR Righteousnesses are as filthy Rags. Nor is there any Thing here confess'd, more than is imply'd in this same Prophet's humble Words on a former Occasion, (Chap. 6.) I am a Man of unclean Lips, and dwell in the midst of a People of unclean Lips. And the PROTESTANT further argues, they can't be profligate Sinners, who are personated by the Prophet in this Confession, because none such can truly (in the Sense intended) plead as in the Context, Doubtless thou art our Father;—Thou, O Lord, art our Father, our Redeemer,— Return for thy Servants sake— We are thine—We shall he saved—Now, O Lord, thou art our Father— We are the Work of thy Hand, &c. Nevertheless the PAPIST attempts by several Considerations, to support and strengthen this his first Reason why the Prophet should be thought to speak in the Person of very wicked Men. As, "(1.) Because in the pre­ceeding Context he had said, Behold thou art wroth, and we have sinned." But the PROTESTANT sees no Force of Argument in this. For no Man liveth and sinneth not; and God is angry at Sin, wherever he seeth it: He keeps his own Children under a holy Discipline, while in this World, and often chastises the Righ­teous for their sinful Failings, with a fatherly Displeasure.

The PAPIST adds, ‘(2.) It is plain that the Prophet speaks in the Person of the Wicked, from those Words in the following Con­text, There is none that calleth upon thy Name, There is none that riseth up and taketh Hold on Thee.’ But the PROTESTANT reply's, The Righteous are liable to a sad Decay of Faith and Prayer; and indeed in the Prayers of the Saints, at best, there's always too little of Love and Zeal to the Name of the Lord, and [Page 6] too little of a stirring up themselves to take hold on God: So that in the Account of God's Law and strict rectoral Holiness, their Prayers are as it were no Prayers, and at least very frequently are such as scarce deserve the Name even in the Account of Gospel-Grace: Yea, for a Season there may be so much of Formality and Deadness in their praying, as that God interprets it a not calling on his Name, a not taking Hold of him; and when Conscience is awaken'd in his backsliding Children, they charge themselves with vile Deficiency in the Duties of Faith and Prayer, they censure and humble themselves for the Iniquity of their holy Things, as the Root of all their Defection, and a just Reason of their hea­venly Father's correcting them.— The PAPIST subjoins,

‘(3) The Scripture every where speaks honorably of the Works of righteous Men, and asserts their being well pleasing to God, as a sweet smelling Savour: and in this very Chapter Isaiah says, Thou meetest him that rejoyceth and worketh Righteousness, &c.’ Hence (the Jesuite concludes) ‘none can suppose him to call the Righteousnesses of Saints filthy Rags; unless any one be so doating as to imagine that nasty Things are pleasing to God, and that filthy Rags are a sweet Odour to him who is the Fountain of Purity.’ But to this the PROTESTANT reply's, that the Saints Works of Righteousness are not consider'd abso­lutely, when honour'd with these Eulogies, nor are accepted for their own intrinsick Dignity, Purity and Perfection: But they have their Estimate, in the Court of governing Grace, from the plea­sing Principle of Faith, which is the spring of them, and are valu'd for the sake of the pleasing Mediator, in whose Name they are perform'd, with whose Blood they are sprinkled and cleansed, and with the sweet Incense of whose Merits they are perfum'd. Whereas, strictly in themselves consider'd and view'd in the Glass of the Law, they are full of Imperfection and moral Pol­lution; insomuch that they can't be call'd good Works, but in very lax Language, and in a comparative Sense. To this purpose, that celebrated Note of ORIGEN ^‡ upon Luke 17.10. Etsi omnia fecerimus, &c. i. e. ‘Notwithstanding we have done all Things that are commanded, yet have we done no good Thing. For if our Doings were truly good, then were we not unprofitable Servants. But any good Deed of ours is called good (non propriè, sed abusivè) not of Right, but by Abuse of Speech. In Comparison of other Men's Works, they are call'd good: but [Page 7] (quantum ad Veritatem, bonum nostrum non est bonum) in respect of the Verity itself, our good Works are not good.’ Agreably St. AUGUSTINE saith well, ‘If God would deal with us ac­cording to our good Deservings, he would find in us Nothing but what he might condemn.’ So again he saith, ‘Our Righ­teousness in this Life consists rather in the Remission of Sins, than in the Perfection of Virtues.’— Indeed the Saints best moral Ornaments, that in the Account of Gospel-Grace are of great Price in the Sight of God, nevertheless in the Eye of the Law have so much of real Deformity and Impurity attending them, as might justly make them an ungrateful Spectacle to a holy God, and a very Stench in his Nostrils; yea, that would actually be the Case, were it not for the Blood of Sprinkling and the Robe of imputed Righteousness, that cleanses and covers all. Hence, as the Persons of the Saints are said to be made accepted in the Beloved, so their spiritual Sacrifices to be acceptable to God thro' Jesus Christ. It is not any Virtue or Value in their Persons or Services, absolutely consider'd, that commends them to God and makes them delec­table in his Sight: but it's the Mediation of Christ, in whom they have believed and in whom they are view'd as cloathed with his Righteousness, that procures them all their Acceptance and Approbation in the Eyes of God. Hence that Speech of BASIL, a primitive Father, ‘ This is our whole & full rejoycing in God, while we confess our selves destitute of all Righteousness of our own, that we are justified by only Faith in Christ.’ And that saying of JEROM, another of the Fathers, ‘In Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have Boldness, and Access (to God) and Confi­dence thro' the Faith of him: not thro' our Righteousness, but thro' Him in whose Name our Sins be forgiven.’ ^† So then, altho' the Prophet had just before said in his Prayer, Thou meetest him that rejoyceth and worketh Righteousness, this carries in it no­thing at all of real Inconsistency with the Protestant Gloss on his following Confession, All our Righteousnesses are as filthy Rags: Nor does it afford Papists the least Shadow of an Argument in favour of their Hypothesis, that the Prophet makes this humble Confession in the Person of the Wicked. Indeed, the rejoycing spoken of, is a rejoycing in GOD our Saviour, saying (as in Context) Thou art our Redeemer: Or a glorying in the Lord, after that Man­ner in which this Prophet describes it (Chap. 45.17.) Surely shall one say, In the Lord have I Righteousness and Strength. 'Tis [Page 8] the Language of Faith: and this is an operative obedientia Prin­ciple. Faith worketh by Love; and by Faith, the Saints of every Age have wrought Righteousness. Yet 'tis equally a Principle of Humility, laying the Saint low in his own Eyes, and teaching him to entertain low Tho'ts of his own Works of Righteousness.

But let the POPISH Disputant go on. ‘Nor ought it to move us (says he) tho' Isaiah seems to speak to generally, as to com­prehend all Men: because this is the Manner of Scripture, to speak of many, as if it were all.’— However, to this the PROTESTANT has an easy Reply to make. Neither the Ana­logy of Faith, nor any Thing in the Context, obliges us to construe the Term of Universality here in a limited Sense, as extending only to the Wicked, in Exclusion of the Righteous. But on the contrary, as there are very apparent Grounds in the Context, to suppose the Prophet's making this Prayer in the Person of the Righteous, and consequently their making the Confession, in Dis­pute; so our Imputation of it to them is justifiable, by the Scrip­ture-Representations of the Saints present State of moral Imper­fection, and by a Variety of parallel Examples both in the Old and New Testament. For we often find the Righteous lamenting the Defects and Defilements of their Works of Righteousness, as well as deploring the Interruption of their Obedience by Works of Wickedness: and accordingly crying to God for pardoning and sparing Mercy, with earnest Deprecations of a judicial proceed­ing against them. I might instance in Job, that perfect and upright Man, and refer you to many Passages of his, to this purpose. So in David, the Man after God's own Heart, who abounds with Expressions, of this Import, in his Psalms. And in Nehemiah, in Paul, with many other Saints on Scripture-Re­cord. But the Time would fail me. There are a Multitude of the Saints Confessions, whose Language implies nothing short of this in the Text, All our Righteousnesses are as filthy Rags.

But to proceed, says the PAPIST, ‘Another Reason is, be­cause tho' Isaiah should speak of all, i. e. of that whole People, yet he did not speak of all for every Time, but only for that Time when for their consummate Wickedness they were doom'd to Captivity in Babylon.’— To which the PROTESTANT answers: This Prayer of inspir'd Isaiah is indeed prophetical, and respects a future Time, perhaps in particular that of the Babylonish Captivity, or as some think, the Times of the Messiah. But still it contains many Things of a common Reference, or gene­ral Aspect; and the Confession in our Text is accommodable to all Times of the Church indifferently. For it is founded on [Page 9] a melancholy Truth, equally applicable to every Age, as to that in which Solomon lived, There is not a just Man upon Earth, who doeth Good, and sinneth not, even in his good Deeds themselves, as to the Manner of doing them. Nor it there any Time but the Challenge which he makes in his Day, may on the same Grounds be repeated; Who can say, I have made my Heart clean; I am pure from my Sin! So the Challenge may be apply'd to the Men of every Generation, as well as of that to which David belong'd; Who can understand his Errors? Nor are there any but what at all Times have Occasion to pray with him, Cleanse me from secret Faults.

The PAPIST adds, ‘A third Reason is, because Isaiah do's not speak of all the Works even of the Wicked, but only of those which they imagined to be Righteousnesses; such as their Sacrifices, New-Moons, and Rituals of Worship, wherein they especially placed Righteousness: which Observances indeed, for want of being done with a right Intention and in due Manner, are deservedly compar'd to filthy Rags.’— But to this the PROTESTANT replies; that there is no Colour for such a Limitation; for the Prophet speaks in indefinite Language, his Con­fession is of universal Extent, without any Exception or Reserve, ALL our Righteousnesses are as filthy Rags. Agreably I find that Note made upon these Words by Bp JEWEL, an eminent old Reformer: ^† ‘Our Virtue, our Holiness, our Fastings, our Prayers, are filthy, when they come to GOD'S Sight.’ And it's the famous Dr. WILLET'S Observation on the Text: ^‡ ‘The best Works we do are somewhat defiled with our own Corruption.— The Prophet's Words are general; ALL, i. e. whether the Righteousness of the moral or the ceremonial Law. The most righteous Men in the Earth (says he) have not only their Infirmities, and are in Danger to sin daily, but even their best and most holy Works are blemished with some Infir­mity, and have a Smack of Sin.’— Thus the old Protestants apply'd our Text to the Saints themselves, and to all their Works, their very purest Works, even of Morality, as well as Ceremony.— However, should we grant what is contended for, that they at most concern only unregenerate Sinners, it do's not appear, that such have always been wont to place Righteousness in Rituals, more than in Morals. We find, in that Parable, intended for [Page 10] the Conviction of certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, our LORD who knoweth the Hearts of all Men, describes the Pharisee boasting of his moral Attainments, as well as cere­monial Observances, and placing them to the Account of his Righteousness. Yea, it's observable, our Popish Adversary him­self elsewhere ^* has in Effect, by large Concessions, given up the Plea he makes here. Thus, in explaining that Righteousness of the Law which the Scriptures shut out of Justification, he produces several Texts, where he tells us, " Works are excluded simply, without any Mention of the Mosaic Law." And, however in­consistently with his Argument before us, he expresly makes the following remarkable Concession. ‘The Apostle having to do (says he) not only with Jews, but also with Gentiles, that boasted of their Philosophy, no less than the Jews did of their Law, We [of the Church of Rome] therefore understand him absolutely to exclude all Works, antecedent to Faith, as well the Observation of Morals, as of Ceremonies.’— By the Cardinal's Leave then, interpreting the Prophet's Confession by the Apostle's allow'd Doctrine, we may fairly extend the Com­parison of filthy Rags to all Righteousnesses, of a moral Complexion, as well as ritual. And it follows too, by the same Rule of judg­ing, that since he grants all Works indifferently (previous to Faith) are rejected, he ought not to have confin'd the Prophet's Idea in the Text to the Works of very wicked Men, or gross Hypo­crites, that did but practise a little Religion meerly in Pretence, in wilful Disguise and with conscious Dissimulation; all Hypocrites and Sinners in Zion not being of so abandon'd a Character.

Nor surely may this be allow'd to have been the Apostle's View and Meaning in his part of our Text. For it can't with the least Colour of Reason be pretended, that he is personating the worst of wicked Men; since he is here in the directest Language speaking of himself singly: and he never confess'd himself such a foul Dissembler with God or Man, as the vicious and designing Hypocrite; no, but on the contrary, we find him almost on all Occasions vindicating his moral Character from so black a Slur, and even in our Context claiming to have been always an unspot­ted Example of human Sincerity in his Jewish Profession and Practice: nevertheless even this honest moral Jew here reports of himself, that when commencing a christian Convert, he counted all his Pharisaical Righteousness, tho' so untainted, so exemplary [Page 11] and respectable, but as Loss and Dung, for Christ's Sake. Now doubtless, as there were some other Pharisees in his Day alike undissembling as he, to all whose Righteousnesses the same Charac­ters of Disgrace were equally due: so there might be several like Instances of Pharisaical Morality, in the Jewish Church, at the Time Isaiah refers to in his prophetical Prayer, which contains this humble Confession, All our Righteousnesses are as filthy Rags: a Confession surely no less suitable for the most moral Hypocrite among them, than was that of Saul the Pharisee, for himself. It appears quite unreasonable then, to understand the Prophet as only speaking in the Person of the grossly wicked; since his Words are as well applicable to others, of a fairer Carriage and even the most unblemish'd Appearance.

Upon such Considerations, I observe,

2. The Generality of Protestant Interpreters have extended these degrading Comparisons in our Text to all the Righteousnesses of the most refined Hypocrites (at least) without excepting the Case of any the exactest Moralist, or most rais'd Devotionist, still unregenerate.

As to the Prophet's Confession, 'tis commonly judg'd by PRO­TESTANT Writers, that he is here prophetically addressing the Throne of Grace in the Church's Name, at some Season of spe­cial Awakning and Reformation. And if they be consider'd as now reflecting on their former Doings in Religion, previous to their Conversion, it is acknowledg'd, the Language of their Con­fession here is but what became self-judging Penitents, and in­deed is usual with such. For true Gospel-Penitents are wont to blush and even loath themselves at the Remembrance of those very Devotions and Virtues of theirs, which they once prided themselves in; vainly Dreaming they would make their Persons beauteous and amiable in the Sight of God, as well as Man, and would serve for a compleat Robe of Righteousness, in which they might stand with Safety before the King of Glory: but now, convinc'd of their manifold Imperfections and Pollutions, their Contrariety to the Rule of Duty in many Regards, and their Shortness of it in all, they lament them as formally evil, however good materially, and even despise and renounce them in Relation to any such Purpose as that of a justifying Righteousness. In this Light, they can now look upon their once-boasted Robe of Righ­teousness no otherwise indeed than as filthy Rags: defective as Rags, or like some torn and scanty Garment, insufficient to cover their moral Nakedness; and corrupt as filthy Rags, like a sordid dirty besmear'd (as well as tatter'd) Garment, rather polluting to [Page 12] them, than beautifying and recommending in the Eyes of their Heart-searching and Sin-hating Sovereign, while viewing them in the Glass of his holy Law.

Certainly our Apostle, in his Confession before us, must be own'd an Example of this self-condemning and self-abhorring Frame of Mind; if we only consider him as therein respecting his former unregenerate Life. For, after the straitest Sect of the Jews Religion he had lived a Pharisee, and his Manner of Life from his Youth, as touching the Righteousness which is in the Law, blameless; yea, exhibiting a notable Zeal towards God (thô not according to Knowledge) and much of Care to keep a Conscience void of Offence towards Men.— However, afterwards upon Re­flection being convinc'd that he all this While had not the Faith of God's Elect, that Faith without which 'tis impossible to please God, he therefore now, since his having it given him to believe in God with a Faith unfeigned, revokes his Pharisaical Pretension to being justified by Works, and censures all his old Righteousnesses as deeply deficient, deprav'd, and even detestable in the Sight of God that justifieth; however inculpable in the View of short-sighted Men, and in the Eye of his own misguided Conscience. He now sees and confesses, that notwithstanding the laudable Consistence of his visible Actions and the uniform Tenor of his Behaviour in the World, under the Influences of natural Consci­ence, excited and improv'd by a religious Education, his past Life had been polluted with Abundance of moral Evils, thô of a more refin'd Sort; and that his very best Duties (whether of the ceremonial, or moral Kind) had all been vitiated by Unbelief and secret Hypocrisy, wretchedly defective and corrupt therefore in a just Theological View, and now appearing to his inlighten'd Eyes worthy the Name of Loss and Dung it self. He now own's that he had all the Days of his Pharisee-Life been, as it were, but patching up filthy Rags for a Coat of Armour against the fiery Law, or (to keep to his own Metaphor) but heaping up Dung for a Defence against the Justice of the divine Lawgiver; and that a holy God might justly have spread Dung upon his Face (as the Prophet speaks) even the Dung of his solemn Feasts and Fasts, of his heartless Devotions and lifeless Vertues: All which he now renounces with a deserv'd Contempt and no longer places his Righ [...]ousness in them.— Thus some understand and apply the Words of the Apostle in our Text.

Indeed, there are Interpreters, that from such a View as they've taken of the preceeding Context, do suppose him in our Text but to renounce Judaism, as such; to disclaim that Righteousness [Page 13] which was his own as under the Levitical Law; his Righteousness, which he had as a Jew and a Pharisee, or a strict Conformist to the Rituals of the Mosaic Dispensation. They think, now he was become a Christian, he might very well undervalue this as Loss, yea, despise it as Dung, in Compare with that more ex­cellent Gospel-Righteousness, which he had since arriv'd to by the Knowledge of Christ and Obedience to the Faith.— But it is a Difficulty with them, to conceive how the Apostle should count that Degree of moral Righteousness he had attain'd, while a Jew, to be any Loss or Prejudice and Damage to him: much less can they suppose his Renunciation of ritual Observan­ces under the Law, fairly to be translated to moral Attainments under the Gospel, or justly to be consider'd as instructing the Christian Professor to count his Duties of Morality no better than Loss and Dung. But this Difficulty seems to vanish, when we reflect, that these derogatory Names regard moral Works, not as absolutely consider'd, but under the relative Notion of a justifying Righteousness, and as a Man's trusting in them for Righteousness hinders him from submitting to the Righteousness of God by Faith, without doing which he hazards the Salvation of his Soul.

However, there are others who judge the Apostle's Example a proper Object of the Christian's Imitation; and suppose those Characters, odious as they are, which he apply's to his own Righ­teousness, whether in one View or another, justly transferrible to the moral Virtues of Men under a Christian Profession, tho' the most substantial and sublime, consistent with an unregenerate State. They conclude the Text truly accommodable to the Case of a Gospel-Pharisee; and scruple not applying to the most re­fin'd Hypocrite's external Righteousness (ritual, or moral) these depreciating Names of Loss and Dung. For to this Case they think those Sayings of CHRIST justly referrible, which shut all such out of the heavenly Kingdom, whose Righteousness exceeds not the Righteousness of the Jewish Pharisees; and which charac­terise these as but whited Sepulchres, while outwardly appearing righteous unto Men; yea, pronounce that which is highly esteemed among Men even an Abomination in the Sight of God.— But then, of those in this Way of thinking, there are some who can by no Means consent to have such a Stigma, as that in the Prophet's Confession, apply'd to the real Righteousnesses of Saints, to in­ward vital Religion or true Holiness, however imperfect. And be sure they think it quite unlikely, that the Apostle, tho' justly counting his Pharisaical Virtues, before Conversion, but Loss or [Page 14] Detriment for Christ, should now after Conversion and when in Christ account his Evangelical Graces likewise still but Detriment or Loss, and very Dung: especially as they don't observe, that the Writings of this Apostle, or other Parts of Scripture, any where else, represent true Gospel-Holiness under these debasing Appellations, or any the like Characters of Discredit and Dimi­nution; but rather every where asserting its Utility, its Excel­lency, its Importance, yea, its absolute Necessity and indispen­sable Obligation, and constantly speaking of the Believer's Works of Righteousness in all the Language of Regard and Applause.

Nevertheless, there are other Divines, of equal Reputation for Piety, Learning and Judgment, who think they may consistently carry the Sense of the Text even to that Length; and supposing all Objections fairly answerable, do maintain, that both the Prophet and Apostle, when speaking of such Righteousnesses as were but like Dung and filthy Rags, did verily design their own real Righteousnesses, as sincerely obedient Believers; and by Parity of Reason, the inherent Righteousnesses of all other Saints; so reflecting a Sort of Odium on all the personal Righteousness of Man,— but this only under some particular Respects and with special Limitations, that they had in View.

Which brings me to observe, under the other general Head,

II. Many pious judicious Expositors and Preachers, especially in the first Times of the Reformation from Popery, have inter­preted both the Prophet and the Apostle, in our Text, as having their Eye more immediately to the personal Righteousnesses of real Saints, thô only under certain determinate Ideas and re­straining Considerations; and in those particular limited Views, applying to true Holiness itself, as subsisting in and exerted by imperfect Men, the ignominious Names of Dung & filthy Rags.

Indeed I can't find that any of them do ( as they be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say is the meaning) under­stand our Text, in one or other of it's Parts, to deny either the actual Existence of all true Holiness in Believers, or all Use and Advantage of it to them, or it's Necessity, or it's Obligation: And therefore don't understand them to stigmatise the Saints per­sonal Righteousness unlimitedly, under every Consideration of it. Accordingly when Protestants apply these Names of Reproach in our Text to true inherent Righteousness, they never mean to dis­parage it absolutely and irrespectively: No verily, but always in a restrain'd qualify'd Sense only, as viewing it under certain [Page 15] Comparisons, or under certain special Relations, and having a Place falsely assign'd it in some particular Account, from which the Scripture exempts and intirely excludes it. 'Tis a known and approv'd Distinction, applicable in the present Case, that of dictum simpliciter & secundum quid; and to argue from the latter to the former, thô too common in ill-natur'd Wrang­lings, is a Fallacy and Abuse, which every fair Reasoner will avoid with Scorn: Yet this is very much the Manner of argu­ing our Popish Adversaries use with us, in their angry Debates upon the Meaning of our Text. Because PROTESTANTS, in Con­futation of the ROMISH Error concerning Justification by Works, have alledg'd the Passages before us as asserting the Saints Works of Righteousness to be all imperfect and polluted, tinctur'd with the Remains of innate Corruption, as well as interrupted with fre­quent Commissions of Sin, all which defile the Man and debase his moral Character; from whence they judge it a necessary Consequence, that such Works can have no intrinsick Worth any Way equal to the Design of Men's Justification before God: therefore Papistical Writers, I find, make hideous Exclamati­ons against them, as abominably wresting these Parts of Scrip­ture, and indeed contradicting the whole Tenor of the holy Bible: And these Writers having first misrepresented that as spoken simply and absolutely, which Protestants say but compara­tively, or respectively to a particular Case, they then proceed to Charge the Protestant Doctrine with many odious Absurdities, and excuse it not from Blasphemy it self. ^† They make loud Re­monstrances against it, as equally ridiculous, pernicious, and impious. They anathematize it as one of the worst Heresies, the Christian Church was ever infested with. They represent it as horridly derogating from the Honour of God's moral Govern­ment, from the Perfection of Christ's Work of Redemption, from the Glory of the Spirit's Work of Sanctification, and so from the Credit of the whole Christian Revelation; as tending to undermine all Religion, to evacuate the Law & subvert the Gospel; by debauching Men's Principles and Manners, by confirming Infidels in their Aversion to Christianity, by hardning hypocritical Professors in their guilty Neglects of moral Duty, and by stum­bling sincere, but weak, Believers; discouraging their Pursuits of Virtue, shaking their Hopes, and disturbing the Comforts they feel in themselves from a Consciousness of their so walking as to [Page 16] please God and secure their own Happiness.—In all the Language of Severity and Scorn therefore, yea, with railing Accusation, I find these Popish Writers rejecting and inveighing against the Protestant Construction and Application of these Passages in our Text: while what we produce them for Proof of, is only the Necessity of an imputed Righteousness, grounded on the Impossibility of Justification by any Righteousness of our own, which we appre­hend fairly deducible from these Scriptures; for as much as we are here assur'd, all personal Righteousnesses of Men are so very imper­fect, & so debased by polluting Mixtures of moral Infirmity & Cor­ruption, that these Righteousnesses themselves need the Blood of Christ to wash away their Defilements, and the Mantle of his Righte­ousness to cover their Failures: so far are they from absolutely pleasing God (expropria Dignitate) by any Worth of their own, and consequently from being qualify'd to be justifying Righteous­nesses in his Sight.—This, This is the heinous Doctrine, which awaken'd the Vengeance of ROME against the Reformers, and bro't such a Flood of Obloquy upon them, as wicked Slander­ers of Religion and virtual Murderers of all Morality, as grosly Ignorant in the Scriptures, or perversely abusing the sacred Text, and venting even Blasphemy against it.

But to support these invidious and defamatory Charges, the very Champion of the Romish Cause, with all his Powers of Reason and Treasures of Learning, could only produce the most impotent Pleas (and none since seem to have produced any better) nor could offer so much as any Shew of Argument, that I can observe, besides what is grounded on a palpably forc'd Sense of the Text, and an evidently false Representation of Fact, in Re­lation to the Protestant Construction and Use of it.— Neither have Protestants been wanting in the just Vindication of them­selves against this disingenuous and abusive Treatment from the Romish Adversary: but have often appear'd in their own Defence, have stated and defended their Opinion without Disguise and with superior Strength of Reasoning, solv'd all the Difficulties and Objections thrown in their Way, and said abundantly enough for ever to silence the unreasonable Clamour against them. I have thought therefore, it might answer a valuable End, that would richly compensate the Labour, to review the Popish Controversies on this Occasion, and collect some Things (for a Specimen) out of those large and excellent Defences, which Protestants have made long ago, of their Interpretation and Use of these Passages in our Text, against the Cavils and Crimina­tions of Jesuitical Sophisters; that if any under a Protestant [Page 17] Profession should be found siding with the Church of Rome and pleading a Popish Cause, in censuring and opposing (on no better than Popish Principles and Reasons) the Protestant Notion of our Text commonly receiv'd among us, such may be put to the Blush and others put on their Guard, by discerning whence the Opposition takes it's Rise and whither it leads. For at Rome it commenc'd, and for ought I can foresee, there it must terminate.

In the first Place then,

As to that Part of our Text, All our Righteousnesses are as fil­thy Rags, I find the PROTESTANT Application of this to the real Righteousnesses and moral Virtues of good Men exploded by PAPISTICAL Writers in general, and by some of 'em both ridi­cul'd as absurd and curs'd as blasphemous.—But the feigned Blas­phemy vanishes and the pretended Absurdity disappears, when Protestants come to make their Defence (as is commonly the Manner with them) by stating truly their Construction and Use of the Text, by examining the Context, and comparing spiritual Things with spiritual.

According to the current Sense of the Reformers (as already observ'd) the Prophet in our Text represents the Church of the living God (not the Wicked, as Papists imagine, but the Godly) making this humble Confession, All our Righteousnesses are as filthy Rags. And the Doctrine they found upon it, is principally this: That the Saints, conscious of remaining Corruption in themselves, of many Sins staining their Lives, and much moral Imperfection polluting and blemishing their very best Works, do therefore re­nounce all Dependance on their own personal Righteousnesses, for a Title to special Mercy and Justification before GOD; and in Relati­on to such a Purpose, do indeed account them but as filthy Rags.— The PROTESTANT Opinion is, that this undervaluing Resem­blance, in the Prophet's Intention, reaches to all Works, as well of a moral, as a ritual Aspect, and as well subsequent, as antece­dent to Faith. For since the fairest Duties of Morality, even after Conversion, are not so pure and perfect, as to be intirely faultless before God, nor can atone for their own Faults or at all excuse them, much less merit a Reward, but even need a Pardon of their immoral Defects, and leave us absolutely dependent on the meritorious Obedience and propitiating Blood of the Mediator, for their Title to Acceptance and Approbation with God; there­fore PROTESTANTS in old Time used to conclude, we may with the utmost Propriety and Pertinence extend this Character of filthy Rags further than to Works (ritual or moral) done before Conversion, and apply it to the very best Works of real Christi­ans, [Page 18] as consider'd under the formal Notion and Design of Righ­teousnesses, to justify them in the Sight of God, against the Accu­sations of his violated Law and the Challenges of his offended Justice.

However, to obviate a vulgar Prejudice, let it be noted here; while they thought the Saints moral Righteousnesses shut out of the Office of justifying (as they were wont to speak) and as well from the Exigence of the Case, as in Honour to the Priestly Office of the Mediator, pleaded strenuously for an imputed Righ­teousness, even that which is of GOD thro' Faith only, as the sole Ground, Matter, or objective Reason of Justification before God; yet still (whatever their POPISH Adversaries insinuated, to blacken their Reputation and raise a Cloud on their Doctrine) the Reformers were as far as any in the World from casting the least Slight on the blessed SPIRIT in his Office as Sanctifier; but ever asserted the absolute Necessity of subjective Grace (without which they deem'd Religion, in its most plausible Appearances, but an empty Name) ever proclaim'd the Righteous more excel­lent than his Neighbour; and ever pronounc'd inherent Righte­ousness greatly beneficial, in its due Place, and in Relation to those special Ends, for which the Gospel requires it. They highly honour'd real Holiness, as the Result of Divine Election, the Purchase of Christ, the Product of the Spirit, the Image of God, and the moral Glory of human Nature, the Evidence of a pardon'd State and the Earnest of eternal Life, the Beginning of Heaven upon Earth, a sure Principle of Happiness to the Subjects of it, and a singular Blessing to the World. Nevertheless, in perfect Consistency (as they thought) with all due Honours to it in every such View, they constantly affirm'd this inherent Righ­teousness to be universally so imperfect in its Degree, attended with so many sinful Failings in its daily Exertments, and allay'd with such frequent grosser Pollutions of Life, even in the per­fectest Saint here below, that it can by no Means sufficiently an­swer the End of a reconciling and justifying Righteousness, nor safely be confided in for a Title to God's special Mercy, or for Security against the Arrests of his Law and Justice. Pursuant to this, they thought, that altho' as a Characteristick of the par­don'd and justify'd Man, and in point of Qualification or capa­citating Disposition for enjoying the Privileges of such, as well as in regard of its Subserviency to the Redeemer's Kingdom and Glory, moral Righteousness be an Ornament of great Price in the Sight of God; yet still, consid [...] [...]der the formal Notion of a justifying Righteousness, or under any Notion of a procuring Cause, [Page 19] effective Means or objective Reason of Peace with God, it is really of no Price at all in his Sight, but useless and worthless as filthy Rags.— Now 'tis only in this limited respective Notion, or else in a meer comparative View, that Protestants have suppus'd the Saints Righteousnesses disparag'd by the Prophet under this Name of Reproach.

Indeed I find some later Protestant Expositors, for the sake of obviating Prejudices and avoiding Difficulties, have chosen to put a personal Sense on the Word Righteousnesses (supposing, by a Figure in Speech, the Abstract put for the Concrete) and under­standing the Prophet to intend righteous Men, they think that by filthy Rags is only suggested the forlorn and abject Condition of God's People, at the Time this prophetical Prayer refers to.— But, reserving all due Respects to the Inventors of this Construc­tion, I may modestly say, it seems rather ingenious, than solid and judicious: Nor see I the Necessity or Expediency of depart­ing from the commonly receiv'd Notion of the Text, which our Protestant Fathers, reforming from Popery, laid such extraor­dinary Weight upon, and made such perpetual Use of (triumph­ing in this Text, and having it ever in their Mouths) as furnishing them with a very powerful Plea in Opposition to the PAPAL Doctrine of Justification by Works.

However, it mayn't be improper to observe here, I find the PROTESTANT Writers commonly defending their general Con­struction of this Scripture by explaining it in sundry particular Senses; and these are reducible to two, the one Comparative, and the other relative to Justification: which I shall now take some Notice of distinctly.

1. They vindicate their applying the Character of filthy Rags to the moral Righteousnesses of Saints themselves, by pleading that none will deny their deserving this disgraceful Name, if view'd in a comparative Light.— And 'tis certainly not unusual in Scripture-Language, to call Things, in their Nature valuable, by diminutive Names, or put detracting Characters upon 'em, comparatively speaking. Thus, the Jewish Rituals are intituled weak and beggarly Elements, perhaps in Comparison with the su­periour Institutions of the Gospel. Besure, when the Apostle was running down the Dispensation of Moses, and applying to it some Terms of great Disparagement, he explains himself by say­ing, Even that which was made glorious, had NO Glory in this Respect, by Reason of the Glory that excelleth.— So here, the Pro­phet's Confession, I suppose, will by universal Consent admit of a comparative Sense.

[Page 20]Even Papists, as well as Protestants, agree, that the most ex­alted moral Righteousness in the World must appear but as impure Rags, if view'd in the infinitely transcendent Light of GOD'S holy Face, or compar'd with the supreme Standard and Origin of all Perfection and Purity. This perhaps might in Part be Bp JEWEL'S View, in that Passage of his before recited. For having occasionally made the Remark, that "in God's Sight the Stars are unclean," he brings in the Words of our Text, with this Gloss upon it ‘Our Virtue, out Holiness, &c. are filthy, when they come to GOD'S Sight.’ And I find the great Cardinal of Rome himself ex­presly making this Concession. ^† ‘So great (says he) is the Purity, and Sublimity of GOD'S Righteousness, that all the Righteousness of Men and Angels, compar'd with that, ap­pears but UNRIGHTEOUSNESS. Just as a Candle, thô dis­cernibly shining in the dark, yet placed in the Rays of the Sun is extinguish'd, or as the brightest Stars disappear in the Day-Light: So in Comparison with GOD, all human Purity is as it were IMPURITY, and all our Beauty but Deformity.’ Accordingly he quotes with Approbation that Saying of AUSTIN, Cujus Participatione justi sunt, ejus Comparatione nee justi sunt. That is, The Righteous lose their Character, and appear UN­RIGHTEOUS, upon a Comparison with the divine Fountain, from whence they derive their Righteousness. Agreably, I find the Cardinal applying in this Light several Passages in the Book of JOB. ‘ I know, it is so of a Truth: but shall Man be righ­teous in Comparison of GOD!— Shall mortal Man be just com­par'd with GOD!’— So then, by the Adversary's own free Concessions here (whatever he has elsewhere pretended to the contrary) there's no Need of supposing, that the Prophet's Con­fession respects only the Wicked; but may properly enough be refer'd to the Righteous, in a comparative Sense. And surely there's none will deny, that all our Righteousnesses are as filthy Rags, when bro't into Comparison with the Righteousness of GOD. Verily one such Glimpse as holy Job saw of God's tremendous Holiness, might well make any Man cry out as he did, Behold, I am VILE! I abhor my self. So the holy Prophet Isaiah, when a Beam of the divine Glory flash'd in his Eyes, instantly losing Sight of all his own Righteousness, he broke out in that Language (equivalent to his Words in our Text) Wo is me, for I am undone, because I am a Man of UNCLEAN Lips.— Now after this, [Page 21] where is the Blasphemy, or where the Absurdity, of ascribing to the Saints themselves that humble Confession, All our Righteous­nesses are as filthy Rags!

And view'd in other comparative Lights, Protestants have pleaded, that the Saints personal Righteousness loses all its Purity and Glory. Thus, compar'd with that shining Array of habi­tual Rectitude and Innocence, which adorn'd Adam originally in Paradise, what is the most compleat and glistering Garb of moral Righteousness now on Earth, but as broken Shreds of Righ­teousness, and these defiled and blacken'd with Sin?— Or com­par'd with the Law of our Nature, the primitive Standard of actual Righteousness, what is the most consummate Righteousness of imperfect Saints, but as filthy Rags? Verily 'tis at best as Rags; or as a Garment, not only short of the true Measure, but full of shameful Scissures, its several Parts scarce hanging to­gether; and this inconsistent ragged Garment, not only blemish'd by its own Defects and Rents, but foul'd too by attendant Lusts and Corruptions.—Or compar'd with the reveal'd Rule of our Obedience, the Law of the Lord which is perfect, his written Word which is very pure, is not the compleatest Righteousness of the most improv'd Saint upon Earth, but scanty and imperfect, yea, even as filthy Rags?— Or compar'd with the Purity and Perfection of the Saints themselves in their heavenly State, what is the highest Perfection and Purity of Saints in this their Earthly Condition, but Imperfection and Impurity? The Righteousness of some real Saints loses its Brightness, when only compar'd to that of others, even now in this evil World, who shine with superior moral Attainments: but what is the Righteousness of the most finish'd Staints on the Earth to that of glorify'd Saints in the World of spotless Purity and Perfection? In this comparative View, surely all our Righteousnesses appear as filthy Rags.

In a Word, at least, this is their due Character, if compar'd with the Righteousness of CHRIST, the admirable Pattern and Source of all our Righteousnesses. In Comparison with that Righ­teousness, which he exemplify'd in our Nature and Stead, and which is graciously imputed to Believers (call'd in Scripture the Righteousness of GOD, from its Divine Author and immediate Subject, God incarnate, as well as from its Divine Institution and Acceptance) in this Light surely the Saints own personal Righteousness at best appears full of uncomely Defects & with an ugly Hue: not as the other, a fine Linen Robe white and clean, but rather like a dark, coarse, rotten, leprous Garment. Verily there's an inconceivable Disproportion between the Saints own [Page 22] inherent Righteousness, and that of Christ imputed to them.— I will briefly state the Resemblance and Disparity between them, in the agreable Words of the excellent Bp BARLOW, ^† who understands the Prophet in our Text as speaking, not absolutely, but comparatively, and in Relation to the excelling Righteousness of God our Saviour. His Words are; ‘ Isaiah (confessing his own and his People's Sins) saith, All our Righteousnesses are as filthy Rags. So he calls even his own inherent Righ­teousness, if compar'd with the absolute and perfect Righte­ousness of CHRIST, by which all his Saints are justify'd. For this Righteousness of our blessed Saviour, imputed to his Saints, is in Scripture ( Rev. 19.8.) call'd a compleat and intire Linen-Garment, white and clean, which (according to Rev. 3.18. & 6.11.) they have of CHRIST, to cover their Nak­edness. (It is not an inherent, but an imputed and external Righteousness, which as a Robe or Garment covers their Sins and moral Nakedness. ( Rom. 4.7.)—When Saint John says, imputed Righteousness is a Linen-Robe, white and clean, and Isaiah says, our inherent Righteousness is filthy Rags, the Comparison may stand thus; the Analogy and Difference thus appear. (1) Our blessed Saviour's imputed Righteousness is an intire Robe, or Linen-Garment (as the Apostle calls it) per­fectly white and clean, which covers all our Sins and moral Nakedness. But (2.) our own inherent Righteousness is as filthy Rags. (1.) Rags only, or broken Fragments (as it were) and little Pieces of Righteousness, and no intire Robe: for our many intervening Sins divide and rent it into Rags. And (2.) those Rags too are not perfectly white and clean, but are filthy. Either (1.) in Respect of their Defects, which stain them: for, if God should examine them according to the Severity of the moral Law, they would be found defective (at least) in Degree, and be unable to abide the Trial, so as to justify us before God. Or (2.) they are filthy Rags, at least comparatively, in Relation to the more excellent Righteousness of CHRIST.’

But I proceed now to the other particular Sense, in which Pro­testants have usually explain'd and defended their general Con­struction and Application of the Text. According to them,

2. This Character of Reproach is due to all Righteousnesses of Saints themselves, if consider'd under the Notion of justifying [Page 23] Righteousnesses, serving to make our Peace with GOD, and by their Worth & Virtue securing us against the Challenges of his Law and Justice: Hence believing Penitents tho' laudably zealous of good Works, as excellent in other Views, do renounce all Trust in them, and at it were lose all Value for them, under this Notion of their pacifying the Anger, and winning the Favour of the Divine Lawgiver and Judge.—Here good Works (which spring only from justifying Faith, and so follow Justification) appear quite out of Place and out of Character. Put to this Account, they stand for a Cypher, for Nothing, or worse than Nothing. Being thus mis­placed, the Excellency that is in them, as it were, goes away; and here they fall under a just Disparagement.—This was the Opinion of those who have been wont so strenuously to urge this Text in Opposition to Popery.

PROTESTANTS have from the Beginning had warm Contests with the Romish Adversary, on that important Question, ‘ What is the MATTER of justifying Righteousness?’ (as Mr. Richard Hooker, a celebrated old Protestant expresses it) Or, ‘ What is that Righteousness, by which a Man is justified in the Sight of God?’— Whether his own inherent Righteousness, or that of Christ imputed to him?— The PAPISTS hold for the former, in Opposition to the latter. ^‡ One main Ground of their Opinion is a suppos'd Perfection in the Saints Works of Righteousness. These they define to be ‘Works good in Kind, or in Respect of God's Command, and done with a right Intention’: And such Works they call perfect, in Contradistinction to all faulty and defiling Imperfection. For they maintain, ‘that neither meer innate Concupiscence, nor doing these Works with a defective Love, nor the Intermixture of venial Sins (as they speak) can possibly pollute the Saints good Works.’ ^† They observe, ‘The Scripture in absolute Terms denominates some Men, just, holy, undefiled, perfect:’ and in such Men they assert, ‘there is such true and absolute Righteousness, that in the just Judgment of GOD, not Punishment, but Glory is due to it.’ ^‖ How­ever, at the same Time, to put a fair Gloss on their Opi­nion, they confess, ‘that the Reason of this Worthiness in good Works turns wholly upon Grace, results from Christ's Merits, and hither all the Praise is ultimately to be refer'd.’ ^* They distinguish, and say, ‘ That FOR which we are justify'd, is the [Page 24] Merit of CHRIST, as the meritorious Cause; altho' it be BY our inherent Righteousness, as the formal Cause.’ ^‡ And I observe, our great Antagonist, in considering it as a Case of Conscience, makes several modest Concessions. He grants it a ‘ Point of PRUDENCE, not to confide in our own good Deservings, but in the alone Mercy of GOD.’ ^† Yea, he has delivered it in the Form of a Thesis, or solemn Position, importing his deliberate Judgment: ‘ By Reason of the Uncertainty of our own Righte­ousness, and the Hazard of Vainglory (TUTISSIMUM est) it is acting the SAFEST Part, to repose our whole Confidence in the alone Mercy of God:— Eying this only, and in a Manner for­getting our own good Deservings.’ ^{{inverted †}} — Thus, the Adversary himself, after his long and passionate Pleadings for Justification by Works, has in Effect (by his Tutissimum est) retracted all, and given up the Favorite-Article of Popery. For, as a learned Man ^† observes upon it, ‘This his Assertion is directly the Reverse to his whole Doctrine of Justification.’ And in this great Point truly lay the very Heart and Centre of all the chief Controver­sies between the Church of Rome and the Reformers.

According to the old PROTESTANTS, there's no safe Approach to God, but in the Righteousness of CHRIST imputed and receiv'd by Faith. The absolute Necessity of this They tho't rationally grounded on the Impossibility of Justification by our own inherent Righteousness: for a convincing Proof of which, they con­stantly pleaded the Imperfection of our best moral Attainments: and for the Evidence of this, they appeal'd to the whole Tenour of the sacred Scriptures, to universal Experience and Observation, and to the constant Confessions of good Men from Age to Age. The Confession in our Text they particularly set an Asterism upon, and made much Use of it to establish their Doctrine, in Oppo­sition to Popery. For, while the Papists dreamt of the Prophet's speaking here in the Person of the Wicked, these old Protestants constantly asserted his doing it in the Name of the Righteous; and they considered the Church of God as by this Confession expressing a humble Sense of their own Unworthiness, acknow­ledging their absolute Dependence on God's free Mercy in Christ to pardon and save them; and, from a Consciousness of the faulty Defects of their own Righteousnesses, disclaiming all Pre­tensions, in Consideration of any Worth in them, to Justification of Life, yea, in Relation to this End, even rejecting and despis­ing [Page 25] them as filthy Rags. Hence that eminent old Reformer, Bp JEWEL, thus speaks in one of his Sermons ^†: ‘If we ap­pear in our own Apparel, we must despair.— Let us therefore put on us Jesus Christ. Let us cover us under his Apparel, as Jacob covered himself under the Coat of his Brother Esau; and so let us present ourselves before our heavenly Father.’—Ana­logous to which are those Observations and Reasonings of ano­ther excellent old Protestant Bp HALL. ^{{inverted †}} ‘ We are all as an unclean Thing (WE, saith the Prophet, including even himself) and all our Righteousnesses are as filthy Rags.— That there is an inherent Justice in us, is no less certain, than that it is wro't in us by the Holy Ghost.— But this being wro't by him ac­cording to the Model of our weak Receipt, and not to the full Power of the infinite Agent, is not so perfect, as that it can bear us out before the Tribunal of GOD.— Nothing can for­mally make us just, but that which is perfect in it self. How should it give what it hath not? Now our inherent Righteousness, at the best, is in this Life defective.— Tho' true, how should it be pure, where we cannot but be faulty?— Surely that which is less than it ought, is faulty.— To say, that our actual Justice, which is imperfect thrô the Admixtion of venial Sins, ceaseth not to be both true and (in a sort) perfect Justice, is to say, there may be an unjust Justice, or a just Injustice; that even muddy Water is clear, or a leprous Face beautiful. — It must be only under the Garment of our Elder Brother, that we dare come in for a Blessing: his Righteousness made ours by Faith, is that we are justified by in the Sight of God. This Doctrine is that which is blasted with a Tridentine Curse.— It is not the Logick of this Point, we contend for; it is not the Grammar; but it is the Divinity: What is that whereby we stand acquit­ted before the righteous Judge? Whether our inherent Justice, or Christ's imputed Justice apprehended by Faith? The Di­vines of Trent are for the former: All Antiquity with us for the latter.— The sweet and passionate Speeches of St. Austin and St. Bernard alone would fill a Book: neither can any re­formed Divine either more disparage our inherent Righteousness, or more magnify and challenge the Imputed.’—

And says the famous Episcopal HOOKER, in his Discourse of Justification. ^‖ ‘Concerning the Righteousness of Sanctification, [Page 26] we deny it not to be inherent;— only we distinguish it, as a Thing different in Nature, from the Righteousness of Justifi­cation. We are righteous, the one Way, by the FAITH of Abraham; the other Way, except we do the WORKS of Abra­ham, we are not righteous.— We see how far we are from the perfect Righteousness of the Law: the little Fruit which we have in Holiness, it is (God knoweth) CORRUPT and UNSOUND; we put no Confidence at all in it.—The Apostle saith, God made him to be Sin for us, who knew no Sin, that we might be made the Righteousness of God in Him.— Let it be counted our Folly, or Frenzy, or Fury, whatsoever, it is our Comfort and our Wisdom, we care for no Knowledge in the World, but this, That Man hath sinned and God hath suffered, That God hath made himself the Son of Man and Men are made the Righteousness of God. You see therefore that the Church of ROME, in teaching Justifica­tion by inherent Grace, doth PERVERT the TRUTH of CHRIST.— It is a childish Cavil, our Adversaries do so greatly please them­selves with, exclaiming that we tread all Christian Vertues under our Feet, because we teach that Faith alone justifieth: where­as as by this Speech we never meant to exclude either Hope or Charity from being always joyned, as inseparable Mates, with Faith, in the Man that is justified, or Works from being added, as necessary Duties, required of every justified Man; but to shew, that FAITH is the only Hand which putteth on Christ unto Justification, and CHRIST the only Garment, which, being so put on, covereth the Shame of our defiled Natures, hideth the Imperfection of our Works, and preserveth us blameless in the Sight of God; before whom, otherwise, the Weakness of our Faith were Cause sufficient to make us culpable, yea, to shut us out of the Kingdom of Heaven, where nothing that is not absolute can enter! — If any Man had a perfect Faith (as the same Author argues in another Place ^‡) what doth let why that Man should not be justified by his own inherent Righ­teousness? For Righteousness inherent, being perfect, will justify.— And Faith being perfect,— what is there to exclude other Christian Vertues from the like Perfection? And then what Need have we of the Righteousness of CHRIST! His Garment is superfluous: we may be honourably cloath'd with our own Robes, if it be thus.’

[Page 27]According to the old Religion of PROTESTANTS, it appears, the Righteousness of CHRIST imputed, and received by Faith, is eminently (tho' not exclusively of habitual Righteousness, as its inseparable Attendant, or of actual Righteousness, as its necessary Consequent) the Righteousness of the Saints, represented in Scripture under the Emblem of white Raiment, a white and clean Robe, and call'd the Wedding-Garment, the Robe of Righteousness, the Gar­ment of Salvation: which the God of all Grace hath provided for Sinners (such as we all are by Nature, and such as the Saints themselves must appear, when view'd by the Eye of rectoral Holiness, in the Glass of the Law) to cover their moral Nakedness, and screen them from the Revenges of Justice and the Lashes of Conscience. Those old Protestants tho't, "that unless we put on Christ, and cover us with his Body and Blood as with a Garment, our filthy Nakedness must appear, and nothing remain for us but Despair. They judg'd this clearly imply'd in the Prophet's Confession, that all our Righteousnesses are as filthy Rags. And they judg'd that in the Prophet DANIEL'S Prayer equivalent to this: We do not present our Supplications before Thee for our own Righteousnesses, but for thy great Mercies. (Dan. 9.18.) Yea, they thought Isaiah's Confession to have been but the Language, constructively at least, of all other eminent Saints on Scripture-Record. They were wont to instance in some corresponding Speeches of Abraham, of Jacob, of Job and his Friends, of David, and Asaph, and Ezra, and Nehemiah, with others in the Old Testament; so of Peter, of Paul, of James, of John, and others in the New. [For Brevity, I omit the particular Passages refer'd to: Some of 'em have already been cited; and the most of 'em are obvious, to those acquainted with their Bibles.] And when consulting their own Experience, with that of other the People of God in their own Times, these old Protestants found this bearing Testimony to the Imperfection of their personal Righteousnesses, whether habitual or actual; so obliging them to make Isaiah's Confession their own. By melancholy Experience, they perceiv'd their Obedience daily interrupted and impeded, by the resisting Principle of indwelling Sin. They saw deplorable Flaws, and Spots of Filth, in their purest and most indefective Works of Righteousness. Nor only in their most perfect Duties of Morality saw they Occasion to lament very faulty Imperfec­tions; but complain'd too of a censurable Weakness even in their most vigorous Exercises of Faith itself. Which Failures of theirs appear'd, in the impartial Judgment of Conscience, sufficient Matter of just Condemnation to them, should a righteous God [Page 28] enter into Judgment with his Servants, and be strict to mark Ini­quity. So that they dar'd not venture upon in Inquisition by the inflexible Rule of Righteousness, and stand a Trial at the Bar of Justice, under the Shelter of any Righteousness of their own. They saw and confess'd this Covering too contracted, too deform'd and too defiled, to serve (by any Beauty or Virtue in it self) either to attract the Favour of an offended Lawgiver, or to protect them from the Wrath of Him who is a consuming Fire. In re­gard to any such Purpose, they saw and confess'd all their Righ­teousnesses to be but as filthy Rags, which the fiery Law & incensed Justice of God would burn up in its destroying Flames; had they Nothing more effectual, than their own purest Religion, to cover their Sins, and make their Persons acceptable in the Sight of Him, whose Eyes are as a Flame of Fire, and who is of purer Eyes than to behold Inquity, in whatever Instance or Degree, with­out infinite Displeasure and Detestation. Upon such Views of the Case, it was the Manner with these old Protestants, to strip themselves, as it were, of their own filthy Garments, laying them at the Feet of Jesus, and to put on Christ by Faith, so cloathing them­selves with Change of Raiment, when they bow'd their Knees be­fore a holy God, And transacted with him in relation to the mo­mentous Concerns of Pardon and Justification.

Truly they confess'd themselves afraid of going about to establish their own Righteousness, or even seeming to seek Righteousness as it were by the Works of the Law. They saw that the Law is holy, and just, and spiritual, the Commandment exceeding broad, and the Demands of Divine Justice (whether in moral or penal Respects) transcending all Possibility of a perfect personal Fulfilment and Satisfaction by them. They saw it above their Power, either to atone for their past Sins, or to obey without Sin for the future. And hence, althô they knew that if there had been a Law which could have given Life, verily Righteousness should have been by the Law, yet as they by Experience found the Law weak thro' the Flesh, and seeking to be justify'd by the Law but a vain Pursuit, they therefore sought to be justify'd by Christ thro' Faith in his Blood, and looked unto Jesus, as the Lord their Righteousness, as well as Strength; abjuring Self, in every View, not only vicious Self, nor only civil Self, but righteous Self too, in this Affair of Justification before God. They abjur'd every Thing of their own in Competition with CHRIST, particularly as consider'd in his reconciling Office: utterly foregoing all their Righteousnesses, as view'd under the Notion of pacifying and recommending Righ­teousnesses in the Eyes of an affronted Lawgiver and just Judge.— [Page 29] Indeed I can't find by any Hint in their Writings, that these old Protestants allow'd a Place, in this Business of Justification, for the Distinction some of late have so warmly espous'd, between a Law-Righteousness and a Gospel-Righteousness of the moral Kind. Besure▪ since a perfect immaculate Obedience to the Law, in its Rigour, is impracticable in this fallen State of Mankind, they saw no Colour for any Hope of Justification by a (strictly) Legal Righteousness of our own: which, if it be not more than the very Papists pretend to, yet perhaps is all that some modern Protestants, in orthodox Language, appear to renounce. And for ought I can observe, neither did these old Protestants see any Room left, even in the mediatorial and infinitely condescending Scheme of redeeming Grace, for a Claim to Justification (properly speaking) by an Evangelical Righteousness of our own, or Works of Righteous­ness done in Obedience to the Gospel; considering the Saints moral Imperfection in their present State. For they saw the whole Duty of Man according to the moral Law, taken into the System of Divine Precepts in the Gospel, without the Abro­gation of any one moral Command, yea, without any Relax­ation of the Severity of the moral Rule, or the least Abate­ment of Obedience in Point of Degree; but the universal and intire Law, (without Exception of an Iota) as a Rule of right Action, abiding in full Force and perpetual Obligation; not at all made void by Faith, but rather established and enforced by it. And in Consequence of this, they concluded the Defects in the Saints Obedience to have the Nature of Sin; not only as being against the original Law of Morality, but against the Injunctions of the very Gospel itself; and being thus sinful, therefore needing Divine Forgiveness. In which State of the Case, they saw their own Righteousness, in every View of it, absolutely insufficient, by any Worth or Excellency in it self, to ingratiate them with an infinitely holy and omniscient Lawgiver; and altogether unfit to be consider'd as a justifying Righteousness before God, even in the compassionate and gracious Plan of the Gospel.— But the exceeding Riches of the Grace of God in his Kindness towards us by Jesus Christ, the very Mercy of Mercies in the infinitely merci­ful Scheme of Man's Salvation, these old Protestants saw, lay in the Provision of a better Righteousness than their own inherent, to answer the End of Justification, and Intitlement to God's spe­cial Favour, that is, the Righteousness of CHRIST, imputed to Believers, and covering their Sins from the Eye of vindictive Justice. Even as David also describeth the Blessedness of the Man, to whom GOD imputeth Righteousness without Works; saying, [Page 30] Blessed are they whose Iniquities are forgiven, and whose Sins are covered. This imputed Righteousness they held to be ‘the most essential Recommendation to Heaven’; the only justifying Righteousness before God, against the Challenges of his Law and Justice, affronted by their Sins and Imperfections; and this they held to be received only by Faith, a true and lively Faith. They held it for Gospel-Doctrine, ‘that altho' Faith doth not shut out Repentance, Hope, Love, Dread and Fear of God, to be joined with Faith in every Man that is justified; yet it shuts them out from the Office of justifying,’ and so from being joyn'd with CHRIST'S Righteousness to that End: they observed, ‘that Man cannot make himself righteous by his own Works, neither in Part nor in the Whole; for that were the greatest Arrogancy and Presumption of Man, that Antichrist could set up against God, to affirm, that Man might by his own Works take away and purge his own Sins, and so justify him­self.’ ^†— While therefore they honour'd inherent Righteousness in its Place and in Relation to its proper Ends, they dar'd not exalt that (under any Consideration of it, whether as a Legal or Evangelical Righteousness) to a Rivalship with CHRITS'S Righ­teousness imputed, or to a Co-partnership with this, as the Matter or Ground and objective Reason of Justification before God. They consider'd this Righteousness, which is upon them that believe, as a compleat Robe of Righteousness, perfectly sufficient to secure its End, in point of Justification and Peace with God; not needing the moral Righteousnesses of Men to be tack'd to it for its greater Sufficiency, which are neither fitted to enlarge, nor strengthen, nor beautify it; but rather, as thus advanc'd out of their due Place and apply'd to a wrong Use, they put on the Character of filthy Rags. In reference to Justification, these old Protestants infinitely prefer'd the Righteousness which is of God by Faith; and in this most beauteous white Raiment, the Wedding-Garment, they desired to be found; as knowing, that so they should be found of their Judge in Peace, without Spot and blameless.

I think I've now said enough to shew, that the commonly re­ceiv'd Notion of the Prophet's Words in our Text, as it is agre­able to the Judgment of PROTESTANTS, in Opposition to the POPISH Opinion upon it, so likewise agreable to the Scope of the Context, justifiable by the general Tenor of Scripture-Doc­trine, and applicable to excellent Uses in the Christian Life.

[Page 31]Nevertheless, after all, it may perhaps contribute to your further Satisfaction and Establishment in the genuine Protestant Construction of this Passage in ISAIAH, if I rehearse to you something of that excellent Defence of it, which was made by an old Protestant, the learned Bp ROBERT ABBOT, in Answer to one Dr. BISHOP, a Popish Priest, and in Vindication of the celebrated Mr. PERKINS. ^†

Mr. PERKINS (in his Book, call'd The Reformed Catholick) had advanc'd, among others, this Argument for the Necessity of imputed Righteousness; ‘ That which must be our Righteousness before GOD, must satisfy the Justice of the LAW, which saith, Do these Things and live. But there is Nothing that can satisfy that Justice of the Law, but the Righteousness and Obedience of JESUS CHRIST. Ergo. — Now under this Argument, to prove that the Righteousness of the Regenerate & Faithful is not such as that it can answer the Justice and Righteousness required in the Law, Mr. PERKINS alledgeth the common Confession of all, indited by the Prophet ISAIAH, All our Righteousness is a menstruous or defiled Cloth. For if the Righ­teousness commanded by the Law be most exact and perfect, and no Righteousness is performed by us, but what is by our Weakness and Corruption blemished and stained, then can no Righteousness of ours satisfy the Commandment of the Law.— To which Dr. BISHOP [the Romish Priest] answereth, that the Prophet speaketh these Words in the Person of the WICKED of that Nation and that Time; and therefore that they are madly applied unto the RIGHTEOUS.’— [Dr. ABBOT replies] ‘Where a Man would wonder, that he should be so mad, as to imagine that Prayer to be made in the Person of wicked Men, or that wicked Men should make Mention of any their Righteousness unto GOD! And as for the Time, it fitteth not the Age where­in the Prophet himself lived; but was prophetically written in Respect of a Time long after succeeding. He foresaw in the Spirit the Desolation of Jerusalem and the Temple and that whole Land; and thereupon putteth himself in the Person of the FAITHFUL, and maketh himself as one of them that should live at that Time. This is very apparent by the Pro­phet's Words (v. 10.) Thine holy Cities lie Waste, &c— This Prayer was to serve for a Direction to the FAITHFUL that then should be, to make their Moan unto GOD, and to intreat [Page 32] Mercy at his Hands. And very answerable to this propheti­cal Prayer is the Prayer of the Prophet DANIEL, made pre­sently at that Time [the Time of Jerusalem's actual Desola­tion.] For whereas Mr. BISHOP, to prove that the Prophet speaketh in the Person of the Wicked, alledgeth those Words (v. 5) Lo, thou hast been angry, for we have offended, and have ever been in Sin: the Prophet DANIEL likewise saith (Chap. 5, 7, 10) WE have sinned and committed Iniquity, and done wickedly: O Lord, Righteousness belongeth unto Thee, and unto US open Shame: WE have not obeyed the Voice of the Lord our God, to walk in his Ways, &c. And whereas he alledgeth the other Words (Isai. 64.7.) There is no Man that calleth upon thy Name, and standeth up to take hold of Thee; the Prophet DANIEL in like Manner saith (Chap. 9 13.) WE have not made our Prayer before the Lord our God. Both of them [ Isaiah and Daniel] say, WE have offended, WE have sinned, WE have not prayed, as shewing plainly that they so spake of other Men as that they implied Themselves also. The Prophet DANIEL saith of himself (Chap. 9.20.) that in that Prayer he confessed his own Sins, and the Sins of the People. And why should the Prophet DANIEL be said to confess his own Sins, and not the Prophet ISAIAH, or those Just and Faith­ful in whose Person Isaiah spake? Nay, both the one and the other spake out of the true Affection of the Faithful at all Times, who always find in themselves Defects and Defaults, whereby they find just Cause in Confession of Sins to join themselves with other Men; even as the Prophet ISAIAH elsewhere doth (Chap. 6.5.) Wo is me; I am a Man of pol­luted Lips, and I dwell in the midst of a People of polluted Lips.— We cannot doubt but that there were many faithful and godly among the Jews at that Time of their Desolation: Yet in those faithful and godly there was that Default, as that God said of them (Isa. 51.18.) There is NONE to guide her, among all the Sons that she hath brought forth.— The Prophet could not say, WE have sinned, WE have all been as an unclean Thing, with­out Intendment of himselfe. — And that which the Prophet spake, did so concern the Faithful of that Time and Place whereof he spake, as that the same hath true Application to the Faith­ful in all Times and in all Places; because no Reason can be given, why the Faithful of one Time should so speak, but by [...] it is enforced upon the Faithful of all Times.’

Thus, Dr. ABBOT hath shewed, "That the Prophet by Way of Prophecy indited this Prayer in the Name of the Faithful, who [Page 33] were to live in the Desolation of Jerusalem; that the Prayer of the Prophet Daniel, at that Time, fully expresseth the Effect of the same Prayer of Isaiah; and therefore that it is the Confession of the Faithful and Godly, that their Righteousness is as a stained Cloth." But further, he shews "that the ancient Fathers have used the Place for the Proof thereof:" hereby effectually removing the Prejudice against this Construction of the Text, as if it were only of modern Date, a novel Conceit of the Reformers. With this View, he recites that Speech of ORIGEN. ‘Who will glory con­cerning his Righteousness, seeing he heareth GOD saying by the Prophet, All your Righteousness is (sicut Pannus Mulieris menstruatae") as filthy Rags.’ He observes also, HIEROM saith thus, ‘By thy Mercy we shall be saved, who by ourselves are unclean, and whatsoever Righteousness we seem to have, it is compar'd (Panno menstruatae Mulieris") to filthy Rags. St. AUSTIN, alluding to the same Place, saith, 'Whatsoever he toucheth that is unclean, by the Law it shall be unclean. But we all, quasi Pannus menstruatae, being come of an unclean and corrupt Mass, do carry in our Foreheads the Blot of our Unclean­ness, which from God that seeth all Things, we cannot hide; thereby acknowledging that Blot remaining in us, which must needs stain whatsoever proceedeth from us.' But St. BERNARD is most frequent both in affirming this Stain of all our Righte­ousness, and in applying this Place to the Proof thereof. 'What can all our Righteousness be (saith he) in the Sight of GOD? Shall it not, as the Prophet saith, be reputed as a defiled Cloth; and shall not our Justice, if it be strictly judged, be found unjust and scant?' And in another Place, ' Our base Righteousness (if it be any) is right perhaps, but not pure; unless haply we think our selves better than our Fathers, who no less truly than humbly said, All our Righteousnesses are as a defiled Cloth.' And in another Place he saith likewise, ' All our very Righteousnesses being looked upon by the Light of Truth, are found as a defiled Cloth.' Again, 'Our perfect and secure Rejoycing is, when we are afraid of all our Works, as holy Job witnesseth of him­self, and with the Prophet Isaiah do know that all our Righte­ousnesses are to be reputed no otherwise but as a defiled Cloth.’

This Reply of Dr. ABBOT is sufficient, I think, to vindicate the Protestant Interpretation of the Prophet's Words against the Charge of Novelty, as well as Perversion and Abuse.— ^*

[Page 34]But now in the second Place,

It remains, to say something on the other Part of my Text, the Apostle's Words, in the same View & Application wherein we have last been considering the Words of the Prophet, as referring to the Righteousness of real Saints.

The Apostle is in the Text and Context giving a Reason of the Hope that is in him, exhibiting the Ground of his present Confidence towards God, and declaring the Foundation on which he desired to be finally standing, when he should appear before the Judge of all. For those Expressions, That I may win Christ and be found in him, Expositors in general suppose, have a tacit Relation to the Judgment of GOD.— And they are agreed, I think, that the Apostle declares, not only that he formerly had renounced his Pharisaical Gains, as Loss for CHRIST, but that he now undervalues all Things (whether worldly Advantages, Church-Privileges, or personal Accomplishments, even all that's valu'd among Men) in Comparison with CHRIST, and renounces every Thing whatsoever in Competition with Him: yea, that he now counts them but Loss and Dung, comparatively to CHRIST, who was precious to him above all, whom he would suffer nothing to rival, and whom he superlatively desires to win, to gain the full Possession of him, and to be found in him, at last, not having his own Righteousness, &c.

But the Dispute is, What Righteousness the Apostle here in­tends; and in what Respect he so undervalues this, counting it even as Dung.— Now the commonly receiv'd Opinion among PROTESTANTS has been, that the Apostle includes in his Idea all his own personal Righteousness, of whatever Kind, Degree, or Date of Attainment: and as to the Notion under which he so depreciates his own Righteousness, that it is not as consider'd simply and absolutely, but only comparatively to the more excellent Righteousness of CHRIST, and relatively to the impor­tant Concern of being found of his Judge in Peace.

The PAPISTS indeed are of Opinion, that the Apostle in our Text renounces nothing more than what he had in the preceeding Context already express'd his Renunciation of, that is, his old Pharisaical Righteousness, ‘that external Righteousness which he had while continuing in the Jews Religion:’ and so they think, his Example can only teach us to renounce a meerly ‘ external Righteousness, of Works without Faith, the Righteousness of the Proud and Self-confident; a Righteousness which cannot please God, and which the Church of Rome holds Contempt.’ ^‡

[Page 35]But the Reformers maintain'd, that the Apostle in our Text extends his View further, even to his Christian Righteousness, or Evangelical Obedience. BELLARMINE himself is a Witness to this Fact, when he passes that confident Censure, ^{{inverted †}} ‘Our Adversaries [meaning the Protestants] do most impudently refer several Texts and especially this in Phil. 3. to good Works, that are done by the Saints from Faith and the Grace of God.’ Accordingly I find many noted old Protestant Writers so applying this Passage in our Text. Mr. HOOKER ^‖ (the famous Defender of the English Hierarchy) understands the Apostle as speaking here of ‘his Righteousness of Sanctification; of that which he had by inherent Grace; of his Christian Righteous­ness, whereof Faith itself is a Part, and the leading Part, being the Root of all Christian Virtues.’ And he remarks, that the Papists are for Justification by ‘a Righteousness which is in us. If it be in us (says he) then it is ours:— but the Righteousness wherein we must be found, if we will be justified, is not our own: therefore we cannot be justified by any inherent Quali­ty.’ —Dr. WILLET observes on our Text, ^‡ ‘St. Paul speaks of those Works which he did even since he was an Apostle.—St. Paul here denieth his own Righteousness inherent, and commendeth the Righteousness which is of God thro' Faith, i. e. apprehended by Faith, not consisting in the Act of Faith.— Paul trusts not in his own Works (but counts them Loss and Dung in Repect of Christ) he will put no Confidence in Dung.’— So Bp HALL upon it observes, ^† ‘Saint Paul was a great Saint; he had a Righteousness of his own (not as a Pharisee only, but an Apostle) yet that which he dares not trust to, but forsakes, and cleaves to God's.’— ‘It is the main Care of our Lives and Deaths (says he ^‡) what shall give us Peace and Acceptation before the dreadful Tribunal of GOD. What but Righteousness? What Righteousness, or whose? Ours, or CHRIST'S? Ours, in the inherent Graces wrought in us, in the holy Works wro't by us; or CHRIST'S, in his most perfect Obedience and meritorious Satisfaction wro't for us and applied to us? The Tridentine [Popish] Fac­tion is for the former: We [Protestants] for the latter. GOD [Page 36] is as direct on our Side, as his Word can make him; every where blazoning the Defects of our own Righteousness,—every where extolling the perfect Obedience of our Redee [...]—Wo were to us, if not more just in that, than sanctify'd in [...] selves. We are sanctify'd in part, according to the Weakness of our Receit, &c.’— Agreably Bp BALLOW ^‖ has these Remarks. ‘Saint Paul himself desires, when he should appear at God's Tribunal, to be found in CHRIST, not having his own Righteousness which is of the Law, his inherent Righteousness of Works. — The Quaere is, what Law he means here?— I think it manifest, he means the moral Law. — If we consider him before his Conversion, 'tis evident he then had no Righteousness of his own: and therefore to say, he means his Righteousness acquired by his natural Abilities before his Conversion [as Papists do] is evidently irrational; seeing Saint Paul well knew (and has taught the World that Truth) that he neither had nor could have, before his Conversion, so much as one good Work, much less a Righteousness in Rela­tion to the moral Law.— After his Conversion he had indeed a Righteousness of his own; but this imperfect, and mix'd with sinful Failings, as he sadly complains, Rom. 7.14, &c. This Righteousness of Sanctification is that inherent Righte­ousness which he calls his own. — His Righteousness of Works is meant, which was his own Righteousness (1.) Ratione Prin­cipii, it was wro't by him. (2.) Ratione Subjecti, it was in him. This the Apostle opposeth to an external imputed Righ­teousness:— Declaring that he rely'd only on the Righteousness of God thro' Faith in Christ; which, to be sure, was not any Righteousness of his own Works.’— And Bp Barlow further observes, ^* concerning the Reformers in England, that in their Homily of Salvation, they cite this Text, and have the following Note upon it, ‘Saint Paul doth glory in the Contempt of his own Righteousness, and that he looked for the Righteousness of God by Faith.’— They also remark, ‘As great and godly a Virtue as Faith is, yet it puts us from itself, and remits us to Christ, to have Forgiveness of Sins and Justification by him only.’

Others moreover have observ'd ^{{inverted †}} by Way of Criticism on the Text; that the Apostle's Words in the Original are, My own [Page 37] Righteousness which is [...] (without the prepositive Article, usually met with in other Places) and may truly be read, My own Righteousness which is of Law; not of [the] Law, as if it pointed particularly to the Law of Moses, which is sometimes call'd the Law, in Contradistinction to that Grace and Truth which came by Jesus Christ: but only of Law, indefinitely and in gene­ral; or ' from Law, from a Law, from any Law,' that God has given Men for a Rule, or establish'd Measure of right Action. Righteousness indeed is a practical Conformity to the Law or Rule one is under: and so the Apostle by his own Righteousness intends his Actions of Conformity to God's Law, the Rule of his Obe­dience, whatever it was. Now, it could not be the Levitical Law; for that was abolish'd by the Death of Christ, and the Apostle had long liv'd in the intire Neglect of that, nor ever ex­pected to be recall'd to the Observance of that. It must therefore mean the Gospel-Law, in its moral Precepts and positive Institu­tions, the only standing reveal'd Rule, and the Law which he was now under a professed Subjection to. Consequently, when he here speaks of his own Righteousness of Law, he intends his personal Gospel-Righteousness, or his Works of Righteousness in Obedience to the Gospel-Rule, as well internal, as external. Surely he can't mean any bare external Righteousness of his own, as the Papists pretend. For as he now had an inward Prin­ciple of Righteousness, which he infinitely prefer'd to any meer outward Practice; so he well knew, that God's Law was a Rule to his inward, as well as outward Man; prescribing to the Heart and Conscience within, the Secrets of which God only is privy to, and not only to the visible Conversation and Action among Men. He knew therefore, that only an outward Appearance of Righteousness in the Sight of Men was not the Righteousness of Law, which properly is a Righteousness in the Sight of GOD. The Apostle must then, in the Renunciation which he now made of his own Righteousness, have Respect to a Righteousness which was in some Measure conformable to Law, internal and real, not meerly external and apparent. Whatever Righteousness was now (subjectively) his own, whether inward or outward, he sacrifices all, that he might win Christ; he repudiates the whole from being the Matter of his Justification, and trusts in nothing that is his own to recommend him to the Divine Mercy.

And this Construction of the Text has sometimes been defend­ed by alledging parallel Scriptures, where the Expression, my or our Righteousness, must necessarily design a real Righteousness; not [Page 38] consisting barely in Externals, but including a Degree of inward Conformity and sincere Obedience to the Law of God. Here Protestants have generally instanc'd in Daniel's Prayer (Chap. 9.18.) and in Isaiah's Prayer (Chap. 64.6.) in particular, as parallel Places; where the Servants of God, in like Language of Renunciation with that of the Apostle Paul, use the Expression, Our Righteousnesses, and most evidently intend real Righteousnesses, and not the outward Superficies or Semblance only of Obedi­ence, a meer Sceleton of Righteousness, without any Thing of inward Substance and Vitality. But it means some Degree of that which is elsewhere described the Righteousness of God's Testi­monies, and is sometimes call'd true Holiness; which ever im­plies inward, as well as outward, Conformity to the Divine Rule of Obedience.

The PAPIST ^† indeed thinks personal Holiness to be intended by the Righteousness of Faith; which he supposes to mean, not any extrinsick, relative, imputed Righteousness of another, but an intrinsick, qualitative, and moral Righteousness of our own; call'd the Righteousness of Faith, because Faith is the vital Root or Principle, from whence our sincere Obedience springs: and this he imagines to be call'd the Righteousness of GOD, because God is the prime Efficient of it, because 'tis an Image of his Righ­teousness, and because he accepts it for our Justification — But PROTESTANTS answer to this, that the Manner of Expressi­on used by the Apostle here, necessarily carry's it to a different Sense. He do's not say, the Righteousness which IS Faith, or which is the Obedience of Faith; but that which is THROUGH Faith of Christ, the Righteousness which is of God BY Faith. Phrases never made Use of by this Apostle in his Writings, nor any where else in Scripture, to describe our own inherent Righteous­ness; as if Faith itself, or the Fruits of Faith produced in us, were the very Righteousness, that is the Matter or objective Reason of our Justification before God: but always to point out the Righteousness of CHRIST (not his absolute, but his respective, dispensative Righteousness) as the Object which Faith eyes and receives, and centres its Expectations in, for obtaining Mercy. The Scriptures frequently mention the Righteousness which is of God, the Righteousness which is thro' Faith, but ever with a plain Reference to a Righteousness foreign or extrinsecal to us; the Righteousness of another, and not that which is in our selves; [Page 39] an imputed, and not an inherent Righteousness: which two Righ­teousnesses the Apostle puts in Contradistinction to one another here and often elsewhere. Whereas, the Popish Gloss on the Text destroys one of his Ideas, and confounds Justification with Sanctification, which are two Things very different in their Na­ture, have a very distant Situation in the Scheme of Redemption, and between which accordingly the Apostle always preserves a wide Distinction, in his Discourses upon them.

It has been further remark'd by Protestant Writers, that there's a beautiful Gradation in the Apostle's Speech, of which our Text is a Part; that it is evidently progressive, not in the Tenses only, but the Contents of it. None will deny, he advances from the past Time to the present: and PROTESTANTS hold, that his own Righteousness of Law, which he renounces in our Text, means that which he had at the Time of his writing this Epistle; a Christian therefore, and not a Jewish Righteousness; and in the Renunciation he here makes, they suppose him, as by the whole Tenor of his Language he manifestly respects a future Time, to have a tacit Reference to the Day of Judgment.

To this the PAPIST answers ^*, ‘That it is but puerile, or weak and impertinent, to argue from the Apostle's varying the Tense; as if he must needs speak of divers Things, because he speaks in divers Tenses! When the Truth is, that Word (ARBITROR, or I account) respects not his present Works, but only his present Judgment concerning Works past, & done by him while of the Jews Religion. 'Tis strange, how ready these Hereticks [meaning the Reformers] are with their Blasphemies, on the slightest or no Occasion.’

To which the PROTESTANT replies, that it's puerile Weak­ness indeed, to mistake the main Drift of an Argument, or to answer it with meer Quibble and Evasion, or with Calumny, as is done here. For the Force of our Argument do's not lie so much in the Apostle's changing the Tense, in our Text, when renouncing his own Righteousness, but in his changing the whole Form of Expression, and speaking here at the present Time in Relation to some future Time; which evidently imports a Re­nunciation of his present Righteousness.— For, not contenting himself with having before said (ver. 7.) What Things were Gain to me, those I HAVE counted Loss for Christ, he proceeds from the past to the present Time, and rising in his Views, he expresses more [Page 40] than he had already, saying (ver. 8, & 9.) Yea doubtless and I DO count ALL Things (whether past, or present) but Loss,—and DO count them but Dung, THAT I MAY (hereafter) win Christ and he found in him, not having mine own Righteousness, which is of the Law; or, as I think (the like Phrase being so used elsewhere) it might be read, not having for my Righteousness that which is of Law.— Now to suppose, as the PAPIST do's, that the Apostle is here only asserting his resolute Adherence to a former Judg­ment he had made, at his Conversion from Judaism to Christianity, and so but repeating in the present Tense that very same Decla­ration which he had already express'd sufficiently in the past Tense; This, says the PROTESTANT, is very much to lessen, if not destroy the Beauty and Energy of his Speech, to detract from the Propriety and Emphasis of his Terms of Amplification, to confound his manifestly different Ideas, to sink the Meaning and deaden the Spirit of the whole, and turn the Passage in our Text particularly into little better than an empty and trifling Tauto­logy; when yet, in the Protestant View and Application of it, if appears very animated and striking, truly rich in Sense and new in its Contents.— Besides, as the Apostle here, by the whole Aspect of his Language, undoubtedly had in his Eye the future eternal Judgment and final Result of Things, it carry's the Face of extream Absurdity, to suppose him, after so long a Course of Works of Righteousness, in Character of a Christian and in Quality of an Apostle of Christ, expressing now with so much Solemnity his Desire that he might not go out of the World a meer Jew, and renouncing only the Hope of his being found at last in his Pharisaical Righteousness! After so many Years of Gospel-Pro­fession and Ministry, how unreasonable do's it look, to suppose, that when he is representing to his Christian Friends the present Ground of his Trust for Justification before God, what Righte­ousness it now is or is not bottom'd upon, he should in the renun­ciative Part of his Declaration recur to an antiquated Pretension, a meer imaginary Jewish Righteousness, which he had long ago relinquish'd; or at most, only speak of a meer external Righte­ousness under the Gospel? Truly, if it be not a Gospel-Righte­ousness, inherent and real, that he means here by his Righteous­ness of Law, it seems, he can have no rational consistent Mean­ing whatever. If this be not what he now calls his own, then we must suppose him here only to renounce that which is [...] [...]gh­teousness at all, but is at best only a lifeless Image, falsely [...]ing the Name. For, if he had now had nothing beyond a [...] exter­nal Conformity to the Christian Institution, his Religion [...] [Page 41] still as vain, as when a Jewish Zealot; his Righteousness had scarce exceeded the Righteousness of Saul the Pharisee, and all his seem­ing Righteousness had indeed been but a plausible Cover of real Unrighteousness. Whereas, in Fact, he now was and for a great while had been a sincere Christian and a distinguish'd Minister of JESUS: yet nevertheless he even now declares, after a long Series of upright and eminent Profession and Practice, as well as when he first commenc'd a Believer, that he utterly distrusts every Thing of his own, in point of Worthiness therein, to procure him Favour with his righteous Judge; that he still renounces all Pretension to any such inherent Righteousness, as might embolden him to present himself, with a Claim on that Score alone to be reputed just and unblameable in Holiness, before the Judgment-Seat of God, which now he has in Prospect. But going out of himself, and looking beyond his own Righteousness, he casts his Eye to JESUS, and asserts his Dependance on him to secure his final Happiness: declaring he desires to be found in Him, that God might view him in and thro' the blessed Mediator, the Lord his Righteousness, and not view him as he is in himself, at present an imperfect, impo­tent, wretched Man (as he elsewhere describes his Case) by reason of Sin dwelling in him, and to continue such till the Period of his disciplinary State; nor consider him meerly in Character of a moral Agent and accountable Creature, to be dealt with on the Foot of his own Obedience, and judg'd in Strictness according to Law, to be try'd according to the Exactness of the moral Precepts even of the Gospel-Revelation, and to have his own in­herent Righteousness, that which is of Law (and not that which is of God by Imputation) regarded as the Rule and Reason of the Judgment to be pass'd upon him. No, he wou'd not for a World, for a thousand Worlds, have the just and almighty Judge descend from Heaven, in flaming Fire, to take Vengeance on them that obey not the Gospel, and find him with no better Righteousness upon him, than his own sublimest moral Righteousness, to recom­mend him to Mercy in that tremendous Day. For, as he was now conscious of his being not already perfect, nor indeed expected ever to attain it while in this mortal State, so he well knew that an imperfect Righteousness, such as his own, cou'd never abide the Test of severe Law, cou'd never bear a critical Scrutiny by the exact Rule of Morality laid down in the Gospel; and there­fore that he cou'd not stand in the Judgment, if try'd according to the Strictness of his moral Obligations, as a Man [...] Christian. Now, says the Protestant, if this was the Case [...] great [...] Paul himself, what Presumption and Folly m [...] [...]t be in any of [Page 42] inferiour moral Attainments, to look for Justification before God in Virtue of their own Righteousness?

Let vain-glorious PAPISTS delude and flatter themselves with the pleasing Idea of a present Perfection in their own Righteousness, ‘an absolute Justice in themselves (as they speak) free from all Infection of Sin, clear of all polluting Defects,’ constituting them sufficiently righteous before God, in the judiciary Sense, making them amiable and acceptable in his Sight, and leaving no Occasion for a superadded imputed Righteousness.!— This imagi­nary Perfection and Sufficiency of inherent Righteousness the REFORMERS and their Followers have ever exploded, ‘as an idle Dream, a Pelagian Whimsy, a drunken Fancy (as Bp ABBOT speaks ^†) contrary to Experience, contrary to Con­science, contrary to our own Confessions to God, and contrary to the Word of God.— There's none but unperfect Perfection here’ (says he; meaning an Universality of Graces, but all delinquent in their Degree of Vigour and Activity, and Manner of Expression) ‘None but what leaves us in Case to be call'd evil: of common and original Uncleanness there's That yet sticking, for which Christ may say to us, as he did to his Apostles, YE being EVIL. To affirm Man now to be in him­self just and clean in the Sight of God, is to justle CHRIST out of his Place, who is the Lord our Righteousness. It is to defeat the Work of GOD, by whom he is made unto us Righ­teousness.— Not but that we also by him do work Righteous­ness, according to the Grace given us; but this Righteousness is, thro' our Corruption and Frailty, too weak and base, to stand before God, for us to be saved thereby.— But Faith is our Comfort;— that as Jacob receiv'd the Blessing and Inhe­ritance in the Apparel of Esau, his elder Brother, to whom the same did properly belong, so we receive the Blessing of God, and are accepted unto eternal Life, in the Garment of the Righteousness of CHRIST, by Faith in him.— It's our Safety, that this overshadoweth the Errour of our Works, that this covereth our Imperfections, which disgrace and blemish all our Righteousness. What have we to cover and hide the same, but the Fleece of the Merit of Jesus Christ?’

Well therefore might the Apostle (and Protestants after his Example) so ardently breathe after CHRIST, and express his [Page 43] earnest Expectation and Desire to be found in Him, united to him, interested in him, possess'd of him, covered with him, hid in his Wounds, invested with the "Purple Garment of Redemption by his Blood," and enwrapped in that long, large and rich Cloke of the Redeemer's Righteousness, thrô Faith in him.— In Consequence, well might the Apostle (and we after him) com­paratively despise all his own best Attire of inherent Righteousness, in Respect of that superlatively excellent Robe of imputed Righ­teousness, and with Relation to that great Concern of his obtain­ing Mercy in the great Day. Well might he desire to be found, at that Day, not having for his Righteousness that which is of Law; this being in strict Law-Consideration but imperfect, and on a Trial by Law utterly insufficient to justify him. Though truly valuable in the Apostle's (and so in the Protestant's) Judgment, for it's Divine Original, for its excellent Nature, and for its Usefulness to its proper Ends, and altho' highly esteem'd as a Part of the Salvation which is by Christ, as one of the precious Benefits of his Purchase, and an essential Requisite to future Happiness in the actual Possession and full Enjoyment of him; yet this personal Righteousness being at present but imperfectly attain'd by the in­spir'd Apostle himself, he dares not confide in it for a safe Appear­ing before the dread Tribunal of infinite Justice, but desires and hopes to be found under a more sure and effectual Covert. Not that he wish'd to be uncloathed, in point of Sanctification; but only to be found clothed upon, with a superiour and more effectual Righteousness than his own, in Point of Justification.

He well knew both sanctifying Righteousness and justifying Righteousness to be in their several Places, and for their several Purposes, of infinite Importance; the former to give him a Meetness, and the latter, to give him a Title to be a Partaker of the heavenly Inheritance. While therefore he follows after Ho­liness, as of fundamental moral Obligation, and in the Nature of Things a requisite Preparative for possessing and enjoying the In­heritance; yet nevertheless, as knowing his present Attainments to be very defective, and consequently in the Reason of Things im­possible to be his justifying Righteousness before God, he founds no Claim of Right upon it, in Virtue of it's own Worth, but in this View renounces it altogether. He desires, he mayn't be found having for his Righteousness that which is of Law, his own moral Righteousness only, to guard and recommend him at the awful Day he has in Prospect; but that he might be found hav­ing on him a more sufficient and compleat Armour of Righteous­ness, even that which is by Faith, the only effectual Cover to his [Page 44] Sins, and the only sure Defensative from the Wrath to come. To this final Issue of Things, the Apostle is generally tho't to have pointed his Eye, in the Words before us. And under such a Prospect, he has been tho't by Protestants to speak so distrustful­ly and disparagingly of his own imperfect Righteousness; apply­ing to it even the depreciating Name of Dung, as being unwor­thy the Character of a justifying Righteousness, and of no Suffici­ency in it self to intitle him to the special Mercy of God.

Thô indeed his thus under-valuing it has also been sometimes accounted for in another Way; by supposing, he might reason­ably disparage it as view'd in a comparative Light. He might deservedly reproach his own Righteousness, as being but Dung and Filth, in Comparison of the supreme and infinite Righteous­ness of GOD: since we read, There is none holy as the Lord; yea it is written, There is none good, but one, that is GOD. Behold, the Heavens are not clean in his Sight: the brightest Star above is eclips'd by his superiour Glory, and appears but as a Lump of Dung and Impurity.—So be might justly call it by this disgracing Name, in Compare with the immaculate and indefective Obe­dience of the Man JESUS, that holy and just One.—In a Word, (to omit other Comparisons) he might, by Reason of the Pollutions cleaving to his purest Gospel-Righteousness, while in this World of Imperfection, represent it under so derogatory an Emblem, in Respect of the Glory to be reveal'd in him, and in Compare with the supereminent Holiness and sinless Perfection of Saints in the Resurrection-State. Hence that Observation of AUSTIN, a celebrated Father ^‖ ( In Comparatione Resurrectionis illius, Stercus est tota ista Vita quam gerimus, &c.) ‘That all the Life which we live here, i. e. all the Righteousness of this Life, is but Dung in Comparison of the Resurrection; that if a Man mea­sure himself, what he is now and what he shall be then, he will find This which now is, to be but Loss and Dung in Compa­rison of That.’ I suppose, as Austin here plainly alludes to our Text, he might naturally enough be led into this Illustration upon it by some remarkable Passages in the following Context; where the Apostle throws a comparative Slight on all his past and present moral Attainments, and declares, that forgetting every Thing behind, he only looks forward, pressing towards the Mark and breathing after the Perfection and Glory he hop'd for at the Resurrection of the Just.— Now, taking the Text in any such [Page 45] comparative Light, where is the Impudence of Protestants, where the Blasphemy, or where the Absurdity they are tax'd with by their Adversaries, for understanding and applying the Apostle's Words as spoken of his real Christian Righteousness!

But still the POPISH Writers, I find, renew the Charge upon us, prosecute it in sundry Particulars, and urge it with some new Enforcements: which it may be worth while to take a distinct Consideration of, thô as briefly as I well can.—Let it be observ'd,

(1.) The foremention'd Popish Priest Dr. BISHOP'S most plausible Plea is, ^‡ ‘That inherent Righteousness, being GOD'S Gift, is of it self pure, and has sufficient Virtue in it self to the End for which it is given, the making a Man righteous.’— However, to this the PROTESTANT makes Reply; that this End, taken in its moral View, is but imperfectly attain'd at present, by the largest Partaker of the Gift of sanctifying Grace: and for that Reason, it is impossible, inherent Righteousness should reach this End, taken in it's forensick or relative Notion; but in this View 'tis secured to us only by an imputed Righteousness, even that which is of GOD thrô Faith. It is this, that the Apostle intends in the Place alluded to, where he mentions the Gift of Righteousness; and he describes it, the Gift by Grace, which is by one Man, Jesus Christ. (Rom. 5.) He calls it the Righteousness of ONE, the Obe­dience of ONE: and informs us, that it's by this we obtain Justifi­cation of Life, by this we are made righteous, i. e. in the forensick or relative Sense. In this Law-Sense our own Obedience can never constitute us righteous before God; because it is in it self at best but an imperfect Conformity to the Rule of Righteousness, and is attended with a depraving Mixture of Unrighteousness, and posi­tive Transgressions of the Law. Bp ABBOT observes, concern­ing inherent Righteousness, ^† ‘Though it be pure, of it self, and in the Work of GOD, yet it is soiled in the Puddles of our Corruption, and receiveth a Blemish by our crooked and unto­ward using of it; and is neither given to that End, nor is suffi­cient, to yield us Justification in the Sight of GOD.’— And to mention some correspondent Observations of another excellent Divine, ^‖ ‘By Reason of the Law of Sin, which is always mov­ing &defiling, Evil is mixed with all the Good we do, insomuch that there would be a Wo and a Curse to all our gracious Acts, [Page 46] if strictly examin'd.— There's Dross and Sin in every holy Duty, insomuch that the Apostle cries out of himself, O wretch­ed Man that I am!— The Flesh soils and debases our holiest Duties: 'tis as Mud cast into a pure Stream, or Poison min­gled with Wine.— Every Duty of ours needs the Mercy of God to forgive it's Imperfections. — God is not only angry with gross Sins, but displeas'd at the imperfect [Exercise of the] Graces of his People. (Rev. 3.2.)— For this they are subject to divers Chastisements. And hence they groan under their Imperfections.— Hereby the godly Man is made to go out of all his Graces and his Duties [in Point of Dependance upon 'em for Justification] and calls his very Righteousness a menstruous Rag.— So the Prophet Isaiah of old complain'd (Chap. 64.6.) All our Righteousnesses are as filthy Rags. Not only their Unrighte­ousnesses, but their very Righteousnesses were as filthy Rags.— Because of the Pollution cleaving to our best Duties it is, that Paul judgeth them Dung and Dross, comparatively to Christ's Righteousness, and in Reference to Justification. Phil. 3.8.’— This may suffice for Answer to the first Objection.

Cardinal BELLARMINE advance some others more directly level'd against the Protestant Opinion upon our Text; and repeatedly charging it with Blasphemy, as well as Absurdity and incredible Pride, he urges the Accusation with Vehemence and expostulates the Case, in a Variety of plausible, but weak Pleadings and abusive Insinuations; which I shall now consider. The Objection he begins with is indeed something coincident with that already reply'd to: yet being set in a little different Light, I shall not pass it, but allow it a distinct Consideration.

Let it then be observ'd,

(2.) 'Tis objected, that this very Apostle, who is suppos'd in our Text to renounce his evangelical Works of Righteousness, do's elsewhere dignify and applaud such Works, by intitling them the Fruit of the SPIRIT: and therefore he can't rationally be suppos'd to stigmatise the very same Works with the dishonoura­ble Name of Dung; but it must be blasphemous, to make such a Supposition. The CARDINAL'S own Words are, ‘ Quanta, quoeso, Blasphemia, &c. i. e. How great, I beseech you, is the Blasphemy, to call by the Name of DUNG, those very Works, springing from Faith and the Grace of God, which this same Apostle himself ( Gal. 5.) calls the Fruits of the SPIRIT! Are then the Fruits of the Spirit indeed DUNG!’ ( de Justif. p. 96.)

To this the Protestant makes Answer; 'Tis a vain and impo­tent Insult, that has no Foundation to support it, but meer Mis­take [Page 47] or wilful Misrepresentation of our Opinion. For as a wor­thy Writer, of the Church of Scotland ^†, has noted, what we hold is only to this Purpose: ‘Thô our personal Righteousness be good, yet in the Matter of Justification before God we must lay it aside, and betake our selves solely to the Righteousness of CHRIST, and seek to be found in him alone. To account our own Righteousness, consisting in our Obedience to the Law, to be DUNG, as Paul did, in the Business of Justification, is all that we plead for.’ And as a judicious Divine of our own ob­serves ^{{inverted †}}; ‘Every true Believer doth sincerely desire to be found in a Righteousness which is according to the Law of GOD, and to be full of good Works; he would be sanctified throughout, perfectly conform'd to God's Holy Will, he makes it his Study every Day to live to God, and desires to [...] found so doing when he shall be summon'd to appear before h [...] Judge: But he hath no Mind to be found in it as his Trust, his Reliance, that which he would be tried by, and stand or fall according as it shall be found. Christ doth by his Spirit in­fuse an Holiness and Righteousness into his People, yet this is not the Thing we are justify'd by or for: for that which is imperfect, thô it may be acceptable in a Way of Grace and Pity, yet it cannot justify in a Way of Law and Equity. The Sentence therefore of Justification must needs proceed from a Righteousness which we never perform'd.— The Apostle in our Text and Context is treating of Justification; and in Res­pect of that, he resolutely despises every Thing of his own.’— ‘From that (says a valuable Lay-Writer ^†) he removes all Things, but CHRIST and his Righteousness, not admitting his own Graces to be the Matter of it. Even our inherent Graces (how precious soever in Sanctification) must not assume the royal Seat of CHRIST and his Righteousness: They must not be our very Righteousness in Justification. BELLARMINE indeed here crieth out, Quanta, quoeso, Blasphemia est! How great is this Blasphemy, to call good Works, done from the Faith and Grace of Christ, no better than Dung! But PARAE­US answers him very well, that they are not so call'd absolutely in themselves, but comparatively to the Righteousness of CHRIST: Nefas enim ducit in ullis Operibus Fiduciam Justificationis ponere coram Deo. In the Matter of Justification the whole Church [Page 48] call her Righteousness a filthy Rag: St. Paul will not there know his own inherent Graces, no more than Job would know his own Soul.’— (Job 9.21,)— Further, says Dr. BARLOW, a Bishop of the Church of England ^{{inverted †}} ‘When it is objected, that St. Paul would not (nor truly cou'd) call his own inherent Righteousness, or evangelical Obedience, Loss and Dung; the Answer is easy and evident. For, 1. That his own Righteous­ness (of which he speaks) consider'd absolutely, and in it self, neither truly could nor was (by him) so called. But, 2. As the Greek Scholiasts observe (and 'tis evident by the Text) he counts those Things he speaks of, Loss & Dung, [...] and comparatively; in Relation and Comparison to our blessed Saviour and his Righteousness. His Meaning is not, that he desired to want or lose his inherent Righteousness; but only not to have it, to that End and Purpose, to trust in it, and rely upon it, for his Justification before God.’

Thus, it appears, that it's only in some such limited Sense, the Protestants suppose the ignominious Name of Dung apply'd by the Apostle to his own Gospel-Righteousness: and not simply, or in an absolute and indefinite Manner, as our Popish Adversaries abu­sively represent our Construction of the Text, in order to fasten upon us the Imputation of Blasphemy. But surely it can't be blaspheming the HOLY SPIRIT, to follow his own Dictates in the inspir'd Scriptures, which every where teach us the Imperfection of the Saint's Graces and Works, exclude them from being the Matter of our justifying Righteousness, and proclaim it the sole [...]rogative of CHRIST'S Righteousness, by Grace imputed and by Faith receiv'd, to effect Justification of Life. What Blasphemy can it be, to say, that the Graces of the SPIRIT are ineffectual to an End, which he himself declares them never design'd for? Or, Where is the Blasphemy of saying, that the Wisdom of God having seen fit, the Sanctification of the Spirit should be incompleat in the present Life, therefore ‘No meer Man since the Fall is able in this Life perfectly to keep the Commandments of God, but daily doth break them in Tho't, Word, and Deed?’ That our very Exercises of Grace are tinctured by the remaining Cor­ruption of our Nature, and all our Works carry the debasing Mark of human Frailty and Imperfection? "For (as Bp ABBOT well observes ^‡) altho' in their Original, which is the SPIRIT of GOD, they be pure and clean, yet as Water, tho' clear in the [Page 49] Fountain, gathereth Uncleanness from the Channel wherein it runneth, so the Works of Grace wrought in us" [not the immedi­ate Infusions of the Spirit, or the seminal Principles of Grace themselves, consider'd abstractly, but only taken together with their recipient Subject, and consider'd as existing and operating within us] "do receive some Taint of the Corruption of our Nature, thro' which they pass."

Our Graces and Virtues are indeed the FRUIT of the Spirit: but then it is to be observ'd, neither are they the very SPIRIT himself; nor is his Influence, in the Production and Actuation of them, at all derogated from, by applying this Name of Reproach in our Text to the inherent Righteousness of Saints. ^† For, tho' he is the prime Efficient, by implanting, preserving, exciting and assisting the Principles of Grace and Virtue in us; yet he is not the immediate formal Agent, in the Exertment and Exercise of them. Tho' we are call'd the Temple of the Holy Ghost, and 'tis he giveth us to believe, to repent, and obey; nevertheless there being no such Unity of Persons between Him and us, as that He should be said to perform these very Actions himself, it must there­fore be only We that do them, under his special Influence. And however pure, however perfect the Principles of Operation, as infus'd by the Divine Sanctifier, yet as they actually exist and exert themselves in the human Subject, they are but imperfect in their Degree of Vigour, and defective in their Manner of acting, thro' the Resistance of the Flesh; and this "breathes some dis­tasteful Quality upon our very best and purest Works, for which we have Need to ask Pardon at God's Hands." 'Tis a known and approv'd Maxim in the Schools, Quicquid recipitur, recipitur ad Modum Recipientis. So the Grace of the Spirit receiv'd by us, is only (as Bp HALL has express'd it) according to the Model of our weak Receipt; and our Exertments of Grace are but according to the inferiour Manner of human Action, in this imperfect State of our lapsed Nature: so that "all our Works savour of our earthly Vessels." But we look for Perfection in the coming World.— These Considerations, I think, sufficiently vindicate the Protestant Sense and Improvement of our Text, from the Im­putation of Blasphemy.

I shall but add here: as unwilling as I am to make Use of Re­torsion in an Argument of this Nature, yet I can't forbear men­tioning how free some of the old Reformers were to return this [Page 50] odious Crimination, in their Controversies with the PAPISTS: whose Doctrine of Justification by inherent Grace, they charge with Blasphemy, as it strikes at the sacred Prerogative of CHRIST to be our Righteousness, and thrusts him out of one of the most eminent Characters of Honour he sustains, in the Gospel-Plan of Redemp­tion. Thus, Dr. WILLET, that ancient and famous Defender of the Reformation, didn't scruple to drop such Reflections as these. ^‡ ‘ Bellarmine (says he) denieth, that we are justified formally by the Righteousness of CHRIST, but asserts it to be by our own Righteousness inherent in us. This is a great Blasphemy, and contrary to the Apostle, Phil. 3.9.’— And again, ‘To say, that a Man by working well, even of the Grace and Gift of God, is justified, is to make the Death of CHRIST needless and in vain. What greater Blasphemy, than this!’

(3.) The PAPIST ^† still prosecuting his Argument, objects; ‘How do's the blessed Apostle glory, saying (2 Tim. 4.) I have fought the good Fight, I have finished the Course, I have kept the Faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a Crown, &c. But ought so great an Apostle to glory thus of that which is DUNG!’

True, replies the PROTESTANT, he reflects with a sacred Pleasure on these Things in his past Experience and Practice: but we must expound what he says here, in a just Consistence with what he has said elsewhere; particularly in Gal. 2.20, 21. ‘I am crucified with Christ: Nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the Life which I now live in the Flesh, I live by the Faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the Grace of God: for if Righteousness come by the Law, then Christ is dead in vain.’ From this we learn, that as Faith in CHRIST was his governing Principle, so the Hope of Righteousness, now in his View, was from CHRIST, and not from the Law. Had he fought the good Fight? It must be remember'd, it was the good Fight of FAITH. Had he finish'd the Course? It must also be remem­ber'd, he ran the Race set before him, looking unto JESUS, the Author and Finisher of his FAITH. Had he kept the Faith? This may intend the internal Principle, as well as the external Doctrine, so denominated. Had he a Crown in View? He ex­pected it as the End of his FAITH, whereby he had believed unto Righteousness, and so to everlasting Life.— The Apostle was now in the high Exercise of that Faith, by which the Just do live, both [Page 51] in a relative and qualitative Respect, and which God has appointed the special Medium in the Hand of the Spirit for the Application of Redemption, that no Flesh should glory in his Presence. As it is written, That God might be just, and the Justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is Boasting then? It is excluded. By what Law? That of Works? Nay, but by the Law of Faith. The Christian therefore is to know none but the Triumphs of Faith: and these are but humble and self-abasing Triumphs, Triumphs in CHRIST, and not in our selves. Faith is in its Nature a self-denying Grace, powerfully counter-acting a self-righteous Spirit in every Form of its Appearance, suppressing every self-applauding Thought, and disposing us to have our Eyes ever towards the Lord, beholding the Lamb of God. looking for the Mercy of the Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal Life:— This very Apostle, tho' so vastly excelling in Gifts, Graces, and holy Ser­vices, yet was sensible he had not whereof to glory before God, any more than Abraham: and under the Influence of Faith, he did but glory in the Lord; not in himself, not in his intellectual En­dowments, not in his moral Attainments. God forbid (says he) that I should glory, save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ! Christ and his Obedience unto the Death was the Object of his Dependence and the Matter of his Glorying. In respect of this, he undervalu'd and renounc'd every Thing of his own. Such was his Humility, he named himself LESS than the LEAST of all Saints. Cou'd he reduce himself lower! Nay, he expressly denominates himself NOTHING! But how is this? It can't be understood, he is so simply and absolutely; but comparatively and in some re­spective Sense. It must mean, he is NOTHING in point of righteous Self, NOTHING in point of Rivalship with Christ, NOTHING in Comparison of Christ, NOTHING in himself abstractedly from Christ, who is his Righteousness and Strength and Life and All.— Now might he not as consistently account his own Righteousness, that which is of Law, to be Dung, as account himself to be Nothing? For was he not in Fact Something, in the Sense of the Word as he uses it sometimes? Was he not indeed a Man in Christ, an Apostle of Christ, an eminent Image of the Son of God, fill'd with the Spirit, enrich'd with Divine Know­ledge, and abounding in every good Work? How then could he pronounce himself NOTHING? Why, just in the same Sense, with the same View, and from the same Spirit and Principle, as he calls his own Righteousness by the Name of Dung. Both Expressions conspire to illustrate & verify his chosen Motto, By GRACE through FAITH.

[Page 52]But now,

(4.) The PAPIST (alluding still to 2 Tim. 4.12.) further ex­postulates, ‘What Crown of Righteousness is owing to that which is DUNG! Or who is that righteous Judge, which condescends to Crown that which is DUNG!’

Upon this the PROTESTANT observes, that eternal Life is call'd a Crown, perhaps chiefly in Allusion to the ancient Custom of crowning Victors with Garlands at the End of a Race, or En­counter: and 'tis call'd a Crown of Righteousness, not primarily in Respect of our own Righteousness of Law, but of that which is of God by Faith. ^† In a Sense indeed Men's personal Righteous­ness is crown'd; but herein God only crowns his own Gift: and in Opposition to all Desert on Man's Part, 'tis absolutely a Crown of sovereign Grace and Mercy; not of Righteousness, as due to the Creature for his Service, which is always defective, and at best is but his Duty, in Vertue whereof therefore he can chal­lenge no Reward at the Hands of his righteous Judge. Neverthe­less God crowns the Believer, in Consideration of CHRIST'S Righ­teousness upon him, and with a View to the gracious Promise, founded on that Righteousness and embraced by Faith. God is a Debtor to no Man, but the Man JESUS (God incarnate) and to Nothing but his own free Promise made for his Sake. In Res­pect of Him and the Promise in Him, God is just and faithful, while yet he freely by his Grace pardons, justifies and saves the Man to whom he imputeth Righteousness without Works. He preserves unspotted the Character of a righteous Judge, while in his Loving-kindness and Mercy he stoops to crown such as have no Demand upon him on the Score of their personal Worthiness, or in Ver­tue of their own Works of Righteousness, as justifying them in his Sight. But while they renounce their own Righteousness as Dung, in Point of Justification or a Title to saving Mercy, he makes them accepted in the Beloved; and in Justice to his Me­rits on their Behalf, he vouchsafes to them the Crown of Life.— I must here again remind you, that when the Apostle represents his own Righteousness as Dung, he do's not call it such absolutely and simply, but only comparatively to Christ's Righteousness, and respectively to the Case of Justification before God, which is the Source of all Right and Title to eternal Salvation. He do's but give it this Name in some such View as he stiles himself Nothing: And it might as reasonably be objected, Who is that righteous or that wise Judge, which deigns to crown that which is NO­THING.!—Truly 'tis Christ-exalting Grace which bestows, and [Page 53] Self-annihilating Faith which receives the Crown of Righteousness.— However the Saint's inherent Righteousness may be the Evidence of his Right, and the Measure of his Reward; yet the Reason of the Reward and the Foundation of the Right is CHRIST'S Righteousness, divinely imputed and by Faith received. God is the righteous Judge, and he will assert his Character, will display the Glory of his Name, both in real Justification here, and in de­clarative Justification hereafter; both in pardoning now, and crowning in the End, such as only deserve Punishment at the Hand of his Justice. In doing both, he still magnifies his Law, preserves it's Authority and Dignity, secures it's Design, and lets not an Iota of it fall to the Ground. But how can this be, unless he acts with a View to an absolute Law-fulfilling Righte­ousness? Hence Dr. WILLET observes, ^‖ ‘God crowneth the Works of his Saints, not for the Worthiness of them, which indeed are but Dung, in Respect of the excellent Reward: but we, with our Works, are crowned for the Worthiness of CHRIST. Rom. 6.23.’— ‘Can that which in Comparison is but Dross and Dung (says Bp ABBOT ^{{inverted †}}) be truly said to deserve the Righteousness of Heaven?"— But says Bp HALL ^†, If our heavenly Father smell upon our Backs the Savour of our elder Brother's Robes, we cannot depart from him un­blessed.’— The humble Protestant agreably expects the hea­venly Crown as a Crown of Righteousness, with Respect to the Righteousness which is of God by Faith; but as a meer Gift of sovereign Mercy, in Relation to his own Deserts. Hence that humble Speech of the last mention'd Divine, ^‡ ‘We are not so Proud, that we should scorn (with the Papist) to expect Heaven as a poor Man doth an Alms: Rather, according to St. Austin's Charge, Non sit Caput turgidum, &c. (Let not the Head be swell'd with Pride, that it may receive a Crown) we do with all Humility and Self dejection look up to the boun­tiful Hand of that GOD, who crowneth in Mercy.’

(5.) The PAPIST yet further objects, ‘And then what Thanks do we owe to GOD, for creating us in Christ Jesus unto good Works, if these are nothing else but DUNG?’

To which the PROTESTANT replies: Truly infinite Thanks are due to the blessed God for his renewing Grace, from such as are the happy Subjects of it: and yet, in perfect Consistency with [Page 54] this, such ought to and will preserve a humble Opinion both of themselves and their Works.— However, we demand; Who are they that ever said, the good Works of the Regenerate are " No­thing else but DUNG?" Did ever any Protestant drop such an Ex­pression, at least without some proper Guard or Limitation, to point out an honest and consistent Meaning? Or is this any just Consequence of the Protestant Opinion, we are debating upon! No, the Insinuation is abusive, and a wicked Calumny. For we do not say, we do not think, nor does our Opinion at all infer, that good Works are to be so call'd absolutely, in universal and indefinite Terms; but only in a comparative Sense, and in Res­pect of a particular End and Use of them. We confess them good and profitable to Men, and gratefully acknowledge the Grace of God in Christ towards us in forming and furnishing us to good Works: But still we suppose 'em not design'd of God, nor suited in their own Nature, to answer every valuable Purpose; and view'd in some certain Positions, we suppose them to have no Glory, by Reason of the Glory that excelleth. Being in them­selves imperfect, and intermingled with Sin, we maintain that they are as Dung, in Comparison with CHRIST'S Righteousness, and in Relation to the noble End This is design'd and adapted for, the recovery of the divine Favour to a perishing Sinner, setting him right in the Court of Heaven, and securing him against all the Chal­lenges of God's Law and Justice, to which any the least Sin must otherwise inevitably expose him.—We maintain the Necessity and Advantage both of imputed and inherent Righteousness; and think them both of such Consequence and Use to us, in their respective Places, as highly to deserve our Esteem, and our Thanksgivings to God: the latter as constituting our Meetness, the former as founding our Right, to inherit the Kingdom of God. But now shall it be said, we despise the one or other of these, the Meetness or the Right to inherit, because we don't jumble and blend them together in our Doctrine, without Distinction? Shall it be said, we despise Sanctification, because we don't confound it with Justi­fication? Or with what Truth can it be said, that we account in­herent Righteousness good for Nothing at all, and of no Impor­tance to us in the least, meerly because we don't own it good for every Purpose, and in particular deny it's Fitness to the End of our Justification? With what Face of Truth or Honesty, can it be pretended, that we absolutely despise moral Virtue as meer Dung, because we say that we are justified by Faith, and not by Works? Do's this annul the Necessity, or destroy all Use and Benefit of real Vertue? The Eye is not the Hand, nor is fitted [Page 55] to do the Office of the Hand, and therefore cannot say to it, I have no Need of thee: The Head is not the Foot, nor is fitted to it's Design, and so cannot say to the Foot, I have no Need of thee: but yet are they not all of the Body and all of Use? Shall it be said that, we affirm, The Ear is not of the Body, or is of no Service, because we say, It is not the Eye, and cannot see? Or that we hold, the smelling Faculty is of no Benefit, because we say, It is not the Hearing? Or, if we distinguish between these Things, so different in their Nature and End, and refer each to its proper Place and Use, shall it be said that we despise or are unthankful for the one or the other? No, we notwithstanding value both, and are thankful for both, in each of the Comparisons. So in the present Case, tho' we distinguish between Faith and Works, between Justification and Sanctification, and between Righteousness imputed and inherent; yet we preserve a Value for both, and are thankful for both, in Respect of their several Ends and Uses. And hence, altho' we rate our own defective Obe­dience as Dung, in Comparison with the vicarious and meritori­ous Obedience of CHRIST, and as consider'd under the Notion of a justifying Righteousness, which is the whole of our Meaning, and we suppose was the Apostle's real Meaning; yet this is not in the least inconsistent with our being truly thankful to God for his Mercy in renewing and purifying our Hearts by Faith, where­by we are dispos'd and capacitated to work Righteousness. No, there's a palpable Agreement between Humility and Gratitude in this Case; the former by no Means excludes the latter; both these gracious Tempers of Mind subsist and act with the greatest Harmony and mutual Subserviency, in the same Subject: and both are the Property and Characteristics of the regenerate Soul. Where the one or other is wanting, 'tis a dark Symptom. In particular without Thankfulness for the Provision of a better Righ­teousness than our own, for our Justification, or without that Hu­mility towards God, which excludes Self-Confidence and Boasting in our own Righteousness, there's but little Sign of our being the Workmanship of God created in Christ Jesus unto good Works.— I call to Mind those apposite Sayings of a late excellent Divine of our own ^†; ‘There's no regenerate Man, that makes to him­self a Righteousness by any Doings of his own: Regeneration cures him of this Folly, and makes a Man afraid and asham'd of such foolish Attempts.—Man (says he) if thou dost not count [Page 56] Loss and Dung to be a Name good enough for the best Thing that ever thou didst, thou art in thy own Righteousness to this Day.’

But the PAPIST adds one Reflection more;

(6) ‘In fine, if the good Works of the Faithful are Loss and Dung, then certainly they ought not to be practised and ad­hered to, but shook off and thrown away.’

No, says the PROTESTANT, not by any Means. This is no just Consequence from our Doctrine: there's no Appearance of Reason for such an Inference. What we plead for, is their being excluded from all Concernment in Justification of Life: with re­gard to this indeed let 'em be put away out of Sight, and treated with Neglect, in point of Dependance or pleasing Reflection upon them; nay, let 'em be even contemned, as worthless Dung, in Comparison with the Righteousness of CHRIST, the only recon­ciling and justifying Righteousness. In respect of this, the Apostle despis'd and repudiated every Thing of his own; All went, that he might win Christ, and be found in Him, not having for his Righteousness that which is of Law: for he knew, there was no Law in Being, whose Righteousness could justify a morally im­perfect Creature. Indeed the Law Man was originally placed under, had a Reference and Aptitude to the Design of Justification: but then it was the Justification of a righteous and innocent, not an apostate sinful Man; so that upon the Loss of his Innocence, there was a Change of his Case, in point of Capacity to reach Justification by the Deeds of the Law. And whatever Degree of moral Righ­teousness, habitual or actual, any may recover by the Grace of God, yet it being ever defective, while in this World, and unequal to the Demands of the Law moral, it is consequently unequal to the Design of justifying him in the Eye of the Law. Only the Righteousness of Christ is adequate to the Law-Demand, and satisfactory to Divine Justice: therefore only this, imputed and received by Faith, is sufficient to justify the Ungodly. In point of Justification then good Works are by no Means to be the Object of our Confidence; but the Righteousness of CHRIST alone is to engross our whole Trust and Regard: Yet this do's not in the least argue, that good Works must be of no Account at all with us, in point of Sanctification. Tho' contemptible in one View, mayn't they be respectable in another? Tho' not at all influential to effect one Design, mayn't they be subservient to another End? It's truly absurd to a high Degree, only because we maintain, that our Righteousness inherent, under the Respect of a justifying Righteousness (a Respect which it neither is calcu­lated [Page 57] nor intended for) and in Competition with Righteousness imputed, must have no Consideration with us, to infer, that there­fore moral Virtue is under every other Respect to be of no Value with us, that good Works are not worthy of our Practice or Pur­suit in any Regard: but only fit Objects of our Contempt, & de­serving intirely to be cast out of our Care and Esteem. No, this is as far from being a genuine Consequence of our Doctrine, as it is distant from the Spirit and Disposition of a genuine Protestant. We are not for abandoning, but for cherishing the Love and Prac­tice of good Works; tho' we decline trusting in them to recom­mend us to God, and intitle us to his saving Mercy. Nor did the Apostle, while disparaging his own Righteousness under the Name of Loss and Dung, mean to undervalue it in all Respects; and when he desires to be found in Christ, not having his own Righteousness, he do's not intend to suggest as if he were desirous to part with it, or willing to be dispossess'd of it, to lose what he had gain'd in point of Sanctification, and in that Respect to be found without it; no, by no Means: he only designs to ex­press his Desire that he might be found at last not having this for his justifying Righteousness, but having a better Righteousness than his own, that wou'd effectually answer this blessed Purpose. Otherwise, for various excellent Purposes, he was bent upon di­ligently following every good Work, endeavouring that he might perfect Holiness in the Fear of God, and seeking after a Righte­ousness according to Law, as fully conformable to the moral Rule as possible in this imperfect State; and he long'd for Heaven with a View as much to the perfect Purity, as the perfect Rest and Happiness of that better Country. And this is the Principle, this the Spirit of the real Protestant. He loves the Law of God, and is alive to it as the Rule of moral Duty; while yet as a Co­venant of Works, he is dead to it. And while making the Obedience of Christ his Trust, he also considers it as an Example for his Imitation, and desires to have the Image, as well as the Righteousness of Christ upon him: nor can content himself with an idle Profession of justifying Faith, but studies to shew his Faith by his Works; and the more strong in Faith, the more zealous of good Works; the more CHRIST is precious to them that believe, the more hateful will Sin appear, and Holiness the more amiable in their Eyes; which Views will by a natural Efficacy put them upon shunning the one and following the other. Hence that Observation of the judicious Mr. WILLARD ^‡ ‘I am satisfy'd, [Page 58] if the Righteousness of CHRIST were more prized by us, there wou'd be more of real Holiness among us.’

Upon the Whole, what little Ground then had the CARDINAL, whose Reasonings we've been examining, to conclude them with that insulting Reflection; "Let [the Protestant] now go his Way and complain that we call him an Enemy to good Works!"

No, says the Protestant in Return, we detest the vile Character; and conscious of Innocence, we confront our injurious Accusers. We claim to be the truest Friends, and not at all Enemies to good Works, whether in point of Doctrine, or Disposition, Principle or Fact. Religiously we teach the Necessity, the Excellency, and the Usefulness of good Works; nor hold any Opinion, but what in its true Construction is friendly, not inimical to them. Indeed we renounce the undue Honours which our Adversaries claim for them, and are careful to have the Respects paid 'em duly regu­lated, conformably to the Scripture-Rule: Accordingly we consider good Works as the Fruit or Consequent of Justification, and don't set them up as the Cause, the Reason or antecedent Condition of it; we don't exalt 'em to a Rivalship with CHRIST'S Righteousness; we don't set them in Competition with Faith: but still we value them in their proper Place and Order, & with Reference to their genuine Ends. We think it our bounden Duty, and an Ingredient of our Happiness, as well as becoming our Gospel-Profession, to be the genuine Lovers and Practisers of good Works. We recommend the Love and Practice of them to others. In Conformity to Scripture-Doctrine, we inculcate upon them that have believed, a Care to exhibit and evidence their Faith, by a good Conversation in Christ. Nor dare we flatter any in their Pretension to justifying Faith, while we see it contradicted by their habitual Neglect of holy Behaviour: for according to our Doctrine, the Faith which receives CHRIST for Justifi­cation, do's also receive him for Sanctification; & not only apply's his Righteousness, to cover our Sins, but his Strength to excite and enable us to work Righteousness our selves, to mortify our Lusts, to cleanse our Hands, and purify our Hearts, that we may glorify God in this World, and be prepared to enjoy Him in a better. How then can we justly be characteriz'd Enemies to good Works! Nay, but in Truth the foul Character belongs to those who are Enemies of the Cross of Christ and to Faith in his Blood; the one being the procuring Cause, and the other the producing Principle of good Works.— We close with the Words of Bp HALL ^* ‘ [Page 59] What is Faith (says he) but the Hand of the Soul? What is the Duty of the Hand, but either to hold or work? This Hand then holds Christ, and works Obedience and Holiness.— Let me sling this Stone into the brazen Forheads of our Adversaries, which in their shameless Challenges of our Religion dare tell the World, that we are all for Faith, nothing for Works, and that we hold Works to Salvation as a Parenthesis to a Clause, that it may be perfit without them: Heaven and Earth shall witness to the Injustice of this Calumniation, and your Con­sciences shall be our Compurgators this Day, which shall testify to you, both now and on your Death-Beds, that we have taught you, there is no less Necessity of good Works, than if you should be saved by them; and that altho' you cannot be saved by them, as the meritorious Causes of your Glory, yet you cannot be saved without them, as the necessary Effects of that Grace which brings Glory.— Let the vain Sophistry of carnal Minds deceive it self with idle Subtilties, and seek to elude the plain Truth of God, with Shifts of Wit: We bless God for so clear a Light, and dare cast our Souls upon this sure Evidence of God.’

The APPLICATION of what has been said now remains. The Weight and Usefulness of the Subject would invite us to dwell still longer on it, by way of Reflection and Inference, in a Variety of Particulars, that might profitably be enlarg'd upon. But I must only suggest the following Hints; which may the ra­ther suffice, as I've endeavour'd to throw a practical Light on the Argument all along thro' the Discourse.

First, No Wonder then, that Ministers of more mature Judg­ment and Experience in Religion, have commonly laid out so much of their Labours in the Word upon that great Evangelical Subject, the Righteousness of CHRIST, made ours by the Donation of God and the Application of Faith; and when on any moral Subject, that they have study'd discreetly to assign it's due Place in Christian Divinity, and to point out the true Principles of ac­ceptable Obedience, refer it to it's genuine Ends, and inculcate a humble Dependance on CHRIST both for Righteousness and Strength, while they urged the Pursuit of personal Holiness. — It has risen from a Consciousness of their own Imperfection and Insufficiency, from a dutiful Regard for the Honour of the Re­deemer, and a tender Care for the Salvation of Souls.

Again, How solicitous should all Ministers (pretending to the Character of Protestant) be, that in preaching on moral Themes they well regulate, methodize and guard their Discourses, lest any [Page 60] Hearer should thro' their Heterodoxy or Carelesness get a Snare to his Soul? Here, omitting all that my own Tho'ts might sug­gest, I shall only ask your Attention to what that venerable Fa­ther in our Israel, the late Mr. WILLARD, says in his judicious and faithful Sermon, intitled, Morality not to be rely'd on for Life; where having among other Things observ'd, touching ‘the Influence Faith has into our moral Obedience, That it makes us apprehensive we can be accepted only in the BELOVED, That it makes us confess with the Church (Isa. 64.6.) All our Righteousnesses are as filthy Rags, and to profess with Paul (Phil 3.8.) I count all Things but Loss and Dung that I may win Christ;’ He begins the Application of his excellent Discourse with this Inference, which I shall repeat intire as wor­thy of our solemn Consideration, and what may be, if I mistake not, a Word in Season. ‘ Hence (says he) what Caution had Gospel-Ministers need to use in their preaching up of moral Du­ties? That it is their Duty to preach them and press them upon their Hearers, is certain; otherwise they cannot be faithful in declaring the whole Counsel of God: And yet, if they so preach them as to revive the Covenant of Works, to advance the Righteousness of Man, and depreciate the Righteousness of CHRIST, they are far from being the Ministers of CHRIST, and are indeed the Betrayers of Souls, as far as in them lieth. Nor indeed (says he) do I know of any Thing which doth more threaten the Undermining of true Christianity and the bringing in of another Gospel, than the putting of moral Vir­tues into a Legal Dress, and without any more Ado to com­mend them to us as the Graces of our Christian Religion. He who when he hath told Men all the moral Duties required in the Law of God, and laid them out according to their Nature, as they were enjoined on them in the First Covenant, saith to them, This do and live; and doth not endeavour to shew them that there is something more wanting, without which they are undone, will be found an Enemy of Grace and a Murderer of Souls: Nor would I have such a Minister's Ac­count to give in the last Day, for a Thousand Worlds.’

Further, From what has been discours'd, we learn our Obli­gations of Gratitude to the God of all Grace for his infinite Com­passion towards us, in providing so happily for our Justification be­fore him, by sending his dear Son to bring in everlasting Righte­ousness, the grand Relief of a guilty World.— And what has been said, teaches us to admire the Wisdom of God, in not com­pleating the Sanctification of his People at present; that so the [Page 61] Righteousness which is of God by Faith, might have its due Honours reserv'd to it, and the Riches of Divine Grace appear the more conspicuous in the Saint's eternal Salvation.— Hereby also we learn the Importance of yielding a firm Credit and serious Attention to those peculiar Doctrines of Revelation, concerning Original Sin, imputed Righteousness, Justification by Faith only, the Sove­reignty of God in Salvation, &c. Doctrines so clearly exhibited in the Scriptures, and striking directly at that Self-Righteousness, Self-Confidence, and spiritual Pride, so hazardous and so natural to vain Man.— We learn likewise the Necessity there was of the Protestant Reformation; the Unreasonableness and Dangerousness of the present Defection from it (in Point both of Opinion & Prac­tice) so visibly prevalent in many Parts of the World call'd Re­formed; and the Improbability of a general Revival of the Pro­testant Interest, without a general Revival of the true Protestant Spirit and Principles.— We moreover learn the pitiable Case of Multitudes of Souls in the Christian World, that are under the Disadvantage of having no other or little better than Popish Guides; who by their corrupt, unfaithful, or unskilful Ministry sooth and flatter them in a Way of Self-Righteousness, cherishing the Spirit of the Old Covenant and thwarting that of the New, to the no little Hazard of their eternal Interests.

Again, We have awful Ground from what has been said, to fear, that the Number of true Believers in the professing World, is com­paratively very small; in that Multitudes discover a prevalent Spirit and Principle the Reverse of that of the Prophet and Apostle, whose Examples were recorded for our Admonition; and so few appear heartily concurring to the Saints united Confession in Disparagement of their own Righteousness.— We shall do wisely to examine into our own Sentiment and Disposition of Heart con­cerning our own Righteousness, and very seriously inquire whe­ther we have the same Mind in us, as was in these humble Saints, whose Renunciations of their own Righteousness we've been re­flecting upon.— And such as are conscious they were never bro't to look upon their own Righteousness as filthy Rags or as Dung, and accordingly to renounce it in Point of Dependance upon it for Justification of Life, may by the Light of those Examples in our Text see their Pride and Self-Confidence detected and con­demned.— These Examples read Lessons of Reproof to the Chil­dren of God, who are often too indulgent to Unbelief and spiritual Pride, sad Remains whereof in various Degrees are found even in the Regenerate; but much more to self-deluding Hypocrites, who (notwithstanding all their seeming Experiences & moral Re­finements) [Page 62] are still unhappy Strangers to that Faith and Self-denial requir'd in the Gospel, and are under the full Dominion of spiritual Pride and Unbelief; and most of all to those gross Dissemblers in Religion, who consciously live in the habitual Practice of Sin, but for a Disguise put on a Profession of Godliness and make a Shew of virtuous Action, in some particular Instances. If the real Righteousnesses of truly good Men, by Reason of their Imper­fections, are comparatively but as Dung or filthy Rags, much more so are the heartless Duties of unregenerate Moralists, and still more so the feigned Righteousnesses of designing Hypocrites. Prov. 21.27. The Sacrifice of the Wicked is Abomination: How much more when he bringeth it with a wicked Mind? — But still how much more abominable and filthy is Unrighteousness or Wickedness itself! How malignant an Evil is Sin, that stains and blemishes the very Righ­teousnesses of Saints! How odious and pernicious then is reigning Sin! more so than the Poison of Asps, which can but kill the Body, when Sin destroys the precious Soul! But above all, what a dreadful Sin is habitual and final Unbelief, which binds on the Guilt of other Sins and the Curse of the Law, and consigns the Sinner over to eternal Damnation, without a Remedy! The Sting of Death is Sin, and the Strength of Sin is the Law. How vile the Character, how miserable the State, of the unrenew'd and unpardon'd Sinner!

But to conclude,

Let what has been said awaken us all to a just Concern, that we may win Christ, and be found in him; not having for our Righ­teousness that which is of Law (inherent in our selves and im­perfect) but that which is of God by Faith. Let us often review the Examples of the Prophet and Apostle, and learn of them to renounce our own defective Righteousnesses, as filthy Rags and as Dung, comparatively to CHRIST'S spotless perfect Righteousness, and relatively to Justification of Life. A deep abiding Convicti­on of this great Truth will have a happy Tendency, to make Christ precious to us, and excite us to live by the Faith of the Son of God; to raise our Admiration of the Love of God in Christ, and inspire us with humble Gratitude; to fill us with self-abasing Thoughts, and make us humble in all our Approaches to the Throne of Grace; to put us upon justifying God in his afflic­tive Dispensations, and being contented with all the Allotments of his holy Providence; to teach us Charity, Meekness and For­bearance towards our Fellow-Christians; and in a Word, to in­flame our Desires after another and better Country, even an hea­venly, where our personal Righteousness shall no more be pol­luted [Page 63] and disgraced by the Remains of Sin, but be perfect and immaculate as that of the Angels of God, and we shall shine forth as the Sun in the Kingdom of our heavenly Father.—Let us there­fore be much in studying this profitable Subject, and much in Prayer to God, that he would open our Understandings to under­stand the Scriptures referring to this important Point of Truth, and give us, of his Grace, to feel the Force & experience the Be­nefit of an effectual Persuasion: that a self-righteous Spirit may be subdu'd in us, and a humble Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ may be ingenerated, invigorated, and actuated in us by the Power of the Holy Ghost, and made to exert its Influence upon us, for the daily increasing Mortification of Sin and Self, and for the promoting a Life of Communion with Christ and Devotedness to him, as well as Dependance upon him.— For we should always be mindful, that Christ is the Object of our Obedience, as well as of our Faith; and that he is of God made unto us, not only Righteousness, but Sanctification. While therefore, in Compari­son of imputed Righteousness & in Reference to Justification before God, we renounce all our own imperfect Righteousness as Dung and as filthy Rags, yet nevertheless let us at the same Time be careful to preserve and express a due Honour and Regard for per­sonal Holiness, as valuable on other Accounts and useful for o­ther Ends. Let us not fail to realize the Stability of the mo­ral Law as a Rule of humane Life, our indispensable Obligation to Obedience, and the absolute Necessity of practical Godliness and Honesty; tho' not with any View to our acquiring a Right to Pardon and Peace with God, yet with a View to the Glory of God concern'd therein, with a View to our being meet for the Master's Use here and for his blissful Presence hereafter, and with a View to evidencing the Sincerity of our Faith, and so the Truth of our Pretension to be at Peace with God: Because, as it is the Office of Faith to apply Christ's Righteousness for Justification, so it is the Nature of Faith to rely on his Strength and Grace for Sanctification, and by Motives from the Love of Christ to con­strain us to Obedience. So that if our Faith be not such as pu­rifies the Heart and works by Love, it wants the essential Cha­racters of a true justifying Faith.— As therefore we would follow Holiness to any Purpose, let us in the first Place be solicitous to obtain like precious Faith with that of the Apostles and Prophets and other Scripture-Saints, who of old thro' Faith wrought Righte­ousness, while yet at the same Time they thro' Faith sought Justi­fication by CHRIST'S Righteousness only, and renounc'd all Hope of Acceptance and Reward meerly on Account of their own [Page 64] Righteousness.—As a Means to strengthen our Faith, and so to promote our Obedience, by invigorating it's most effectual Principle, let us with a Dependance on the Spirit of Holiness for his ne­cessary Influence, be much in meditating and applying the Truth which is after Godliness, one Article whereof is that which has been employing our Tho'ts.

It is a remarkable Passage, to our Purpose, that in TIT. 3.8. These Things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God, might be careful to maintain good Works: these Things are good and profitable unto Men. The Apostle had just before been opening the Doctrine of Grace, in some of its most important Branches, and these Things which he had now been saying, he would have Titus to confirm and inculcate in his Mi­nistry, to the End that Believers might by these Truths be put upon a Care to excell in good Works.—With this View then, let us be much in meditating upon this Doctrine, firmly believe, and wisely apply it. Let us pursue it to its genuine Purposes, to establish our Faith in Christ, and thereby to promote our Obedi­ence; which indeed, if it be not the Obedience of Faith, will nei­ther be pleasing to God nor profitable to us. Faith must be the Principle of all our Duties: Faith must begin & carry them on: and when we have done our best, "we must carry them to Christ (as Mr. WILLARD expresses it) that they may be offer'd up with his sweet Incense, and that so the Dung of them may not procure them to be rejected."

Now the God of Peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the Sheep, through the Blood of the everlasting Covenant, Make you perfect in every good Work, to do his Will, working in you that which is well-pleasing in his Sight through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever.

AMEN.