Humilis confessio: the saints united confession, in disparagement of their own righteousness. A sermon preach'd (summarily) at the Tuesday-evening lecture in Brattle-Street, Boston, Jan. 30. 1749,50. Representing the commonly receiv'd Protestant sense & use of two Scripture-passages, which depreciate all our personal righteousness, under the comparison of filthy rags, and of despicable dung. In opposition to popish abuse and calumny. / By Thomas Foxcroft, M.A. One of the Pastors of the Old Church in Boston. ; [Ten lines of quotations] Foxcroft, Thomas, 1697-1769. Approx. 198 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 67 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI : 2011-05. N05160 N05160 Evans 6500 APX3717 6500 99020486

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Early American Imprints, 1639-1800 ; no. 6500. (Evans-TCP ; no. N05160) Transcribed from: (Readex Archive of Americana ; Early American Imprints, series I ; image set 6500) Images scanned from Readex microprint and microform: (Early American imprints. First series ; no. 6500) Humilis confessio: the saints united confession, in disparagement of their own righteousness. A sermon preach'd (summarily) at the Tuesday-evening lecture in Brattle-Street, Boston, Jan. 30. 1749,50. Representing the commonly receiv'd Protestant sense & use of two Scripture-passages, which depreciate all our personal righteousness, under the comparison of filthy rags, and of despicable dung. In opposition to popish abuse and calumny. / By Thomas Foxcroft, M.A. One of the Pastors of the Old Church in Boston. ; [Ten lines of quotations] Foxcroft, Thomas, 1697-1769. [4], 64 p. ; 22 cm. (8vo) Printed and sold [by S. Kneeland and T. Green] opposite the prison in Queen-Street., Boston: : MDCCL. [1750] Half-title: Mr. Foxcroft's sermon on the saints united confession, in disparagement of their own righteousness. Caption title: The saints united confession, in disparagement of their own righteousness. Samuel Adams and Timothy Green printed opposite the prison in Queen Street at this time.

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

eng Catholic Church -- Doctrinal and controversial works -- Protestant authors. Sermons -- 1750. 2008-09 Assigned for keying and markup 2008-11 Keyed and coded from Readex/Newsbank page images 2009-04 Sampled and proofread 2009-04 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2009-09 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion

Mr. Foxcroft's SERMON ON The Saints united Confeſſion, In Diſparagement of their own Righteouſneſs.

HUMILIS CONFESSIO: The Saints united Confeſſion, in Diſparagement of their own Righteouſneſs.

A SERMON Preach'd (ſummarily) at the Tueſday-Evening Lecture in Brattle-Street, Boſton, Jan. 30. 1749, 50. REPRESENTING The commonly receiv'd PROTESTANT Senſe & Uſe of two Scripture-Paſſages, which depreciate all our perſonal Righteouſneſſes, under the Compariſon of filthy Rags, and of deſpicable Dung. IN Oppoſition to POPISH Abuſe and Calumny.

By Thomas Foxcroft, M.A. One of the Paſtors of the Old Church in Boſton.

Haec eſt Hominis vera Sapientia, IMPERFECTUM eſſe Se noſſe.

HIERON. adv. Pelag.

Ad VIRTUTIS Perfectionem pertinent etiam ipſius IMPERFECTIONIS & in veritate Agnitio & in humilitate Confeſſio.

AUGUST.

Our very Virtues may be a Snare to us.— No Man's Caſe ſo dangerous, as his, whom Satan hath perſuaded, that his own Righteouſneſs ſhall preſent him pure and blameleſs in the Sight of God.—We acknowledge a dutiful Neceſſity of doing well; but the meritorious Dignity of doing well we utterly renounce.

R. HOOKER, Eccl. Pol.

BOSTON: Printed and Sold oppoſite the Priſon in Queen-Street. MDCCL.

The Saints united Confeſſion, In Diſparagement of their own Righteouſneſs. ISAI. LXIV. 6.

—All our Righteouſneſſes are as filthy Rags.—

Compar'd with

PHIL. III. 8, 9.

—And 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.—

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 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 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 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, See Dr. ABBOT'S Deſ. of Reform. Cath. p. 388. 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. BELLARM. Controv. de Juſtif. p. 381. 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 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 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 See Dr. WILLET'S Synop. Pap. 1210. and Bp JEWEL'S Def. of Apol. p. 3 5. 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 (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. Cited by Bp JEWEL, ubi ſupra. 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 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 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: Ser. at the End of his Works, Pag. 215. 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: Synop. Pap. p. 1028, and 1210. 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 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 BELLARM. de Juſtif. p. 90, 91. 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 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 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 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 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 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. Vid. BELLARM. de Juſtif. Pag. 369, Pag. 90. & alibi. So Dr. BISHOP'S Epiſ. to K. JAMES. Vid. Bp ABBOT'S Anſ. p. 38, & 134. 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 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 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, 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, 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.

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. BELLARM. de Juſtif. p. 381, 389. 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, 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 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, LETTERS concerning Juſtification by Faith only. p. 165, 166. 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 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. Vid. BELLARM. de Juſtif. p. 125, &c. 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. JD. ibid. p. 368. &c. 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. Ibid. p. 174. 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. Pag. 413, 414. They diſtinguiſh, and ſay, That FOR which we are juſtify'd, is the Merit of CHRIST, as the meritorious Cauſe; altho' it be BY our inherent Righteouſneſs, as the formal Cauſe. Ib. p. 127, 128. 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. p. 419. 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. p. 424. — 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 PRIDEAUX Lectiones, Pag. 73. 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 them as filthy Rags. Hence that eminent old Reformer, Bp JEWEL, thus ſpeaks in one of his Sermons At the End of his Works. p. 215.: 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.In his Book, intitled, The old Religion. Chap. 5. 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. At the End of his Eccl. Pol. pag. 495, 496. 509. Concerning the Righteouſneſs of Sanctification, 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 Serm. of Cert. & Perpet. of Faith in God's Elect. ECCL. POL. pag. 528. ) 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.

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 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.— 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, 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. Church of E. Hom. of Sal. — 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.

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. DEF. of the Ref. Cath. p. 387, &c. With p. 597, 598.

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 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 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.—Ad hujuſmodi Dicta explicanda, Interprete benigno Opus eſt, non maligno Calumniatore.— Epiſc. DAVENANT in Loc.

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. BELLARM. de Juſtif. p. 90. 96. 412.

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, Ibid. p. 412. 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 SER. At the End of his Eccl. Pol. p 494, 495. & 528. (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, Synop. Pap. p. 986.1000.1046. 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, The old Religion, p. 38, 39. 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 As cited by Mr. ROLLS in his Anſwer to Dr. Sherlock, p. 165.) 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 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 LETT. of Juſtif. p. 126, 156,—163. 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, Ibid. p. 116, 135. 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 See Mr. ALSOP'S Antiſozzo; p. 547, &c. and Mr. ROWLIN'S 7 Ser on Iſa. 45.24.— pag. 218. by Way of Criticiſm on the Text; that the Apoſtle's Words in the Original are, My own Righteouſneſs which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (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 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 BELLARM. de Juſtif. p. 90 96, & p. 176, 177. 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; 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 Ibid. p. 96, & 413., 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 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 〈◊〉 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 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 Anſw. to Dr. BISHOP'S Epis. p. 138, 139. and Def. Ref. Cath. p. 418, 583, 585, 622.) 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 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 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 Cited by Bp ABBOT, ubi ſupra, p. 584, 585. (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 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, Cited by Bp ABBOT, Def. Ref. Cath. p. 400. 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, Ubi ſupra, p. 403, 404. 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, Mr. A. BURGESS, on Original Sin, p. 11, 495.499. and on Juſtification, Part 2d. p. 233, 234 and p. 172. 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, 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 or wilful Miſrepreſentation of our Opinion. For as a worthy Writer, of the Church of Scotland BROUN, Life of Juſtif. p 460, 461., 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 WILLARD, Brief Diſc. of Juſtif. p. 15, 66. 68.; 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 E. POLHILL, Eſq Anſw. to Dr. Sherlock. p. 360,—363.) 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 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 LETT. of Juſtif. p 164, 167. 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 DEF. Ref. Cath. p. 706.) altho' in their Original, which is the SPIRIT of GOD, they be pure and clean, yet as Water, tho' clear in the 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. See Mr. BURGESS of Juſtif. Part II. p. 172. 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 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. Synop. Pap. p. 580, and 1273. 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 BELL de Juſt. p. •• . 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 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.

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. Vid. ABBOT'S Def. Ref. Cath. p. 716. 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 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, Synopſ. p. 986. 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 Def. R. C. p. 585.) be truly ſaid to deſerve the Righteouſneſs of Heaven?"— But ſays Bp HALL His Works, p. 807., 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, His Old Religion, p. 50. 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 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 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 Dr. C. MATHER, Everl. Goſp. p. 30, 34.; 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 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 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 Pref. to Dr. MATHER'S Everl. Goſp. I am ſatisfy'd, 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 His WORKS, p. 316, 677. and his Old Religion, p. 40. 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 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 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) 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 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 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.