The Saints United Confession in Disparagement of their Own Righteousness

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

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

T HO' 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 judged 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 considered them as nearly parallel Scriptures, of much the same Import, and capable of the same Application and Use in Religion: therefore I have thought 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 tortured 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 everyone 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 applied 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 Thoughts 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 supposed Allusions in the Original.) Self-Righteousness in all it's Forms and Appearances stands condemned and vilify'd here. Even the Saints most perfect Works of Righteousness as respected under certain restrictive Considerations, are all thus depreciated by the inspired 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 reformed 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 mere 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, though 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 everywhere paint the conscious and designing Hypocrite in Characters of Ignominy; and pronounce the Sacrifices of the Wicked, though 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 enlightened 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 ranked among the very worst of wicked Men.

In this very confined 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 endeavor to refute. Thus Dr. BISHOP a popish Priest (in his Answer to Mr. PERKYNS'S Reform'd Catholic ) shows his Opinion,

So Cardinal BELLARMINE, the Flower of the popish School and Champion of the Church of Rome, when he comes to answer what the old Protestants used to argue from this Passage in Isaiah, premises this Observation. Hîc plane triumphare sibi videntur Haeretici: hunc enim Locum semper in Ore habent; cùm tamen ad Rem nihil pertineat, &c. — 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 though 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 offered, I should be loath so much as to seem to betray their Cause or to reflect on their Memory, by giving up so notable a Text, which they triumphed 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 alleged, and what the Reformers say in their own Defense.

The Romish Champion assigns

— 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 confessed, more than is implied 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 cannot 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,

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 awakened 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,

Hence (the Jesuit concludes) But to this the PROTESTANT reply's, that the Saints Works of Righteousness are not considered absolutely, when honor'd with these Eulogies, nor are accepted for their own intrinsic 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 performed, with whose Blood they are sprinkled and cleansed, and with the sweet Incense of whose Merits they are perfumed. Whereas, strictly in themselves considered and viewed in the Glass of the Law, they are full of Imperfection and moral Pollution; insomuch that they cannot be called good Works, but in very lax Language, and in a comparative Sense. To this purpose, that celebrated Note of ORIGEN upon Luke 17.10. Etsi omnia fecerimus, &c. i. e. Agreably St. AUGUSTINE saith well, So again he saith, — 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 considered, 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 viewed as clothed with his Righteousness, that procures them all their Acceptance and Approbation in the Eyes of God. Hence that Speech of BASIL, a primitive Father, And that saying of JEROM, another of the Fathers, So then, altho' the Prophet had just before said in his Prayer, Thou meetest him that rejoiceth 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 favor of their Hypothesis, that the Prophet makes this humble Confession in the Person of the Wicked. Indeed, the rejoicing spoken of, is a rejoicing in GOD our Savior, 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. 'It is 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 Thoughts of his own Works of Righteousness.

But let the POPISH Disputant go on.

— 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,

— To which the PROTESTANT answers: This Prayer of inspired 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 applied to the Men of every Generation, as well as of that to which David belonged; 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,

— 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: And it's the famous Dr. WILLET'S Observation on the Text: — Thus the old Protestants applied 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 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 expressly makes the following remarkable Concession. — By the Cardinal's Leave then, interpreting the Prophet 's Confession by the Apostle's allowed 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 confined the Prophet 's Idea in the Text to the Works of very wicked Men, or gross Hypocrites, that did but practice a little Religion merely in Pretence, in willful Disguise and with conscious Dissimulation; all Hypocrites and Sinners in Zion not being of so abandoned a Character.

Nor surely may this be allowed to have been the Apostle 's View and Meaning in his part of our Text. For it cannot 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 confessed 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, though' 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 unblemished 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 raised Devotionist, still unregenerate.

As to the Prophet 's Confession, 'tis commonly judged 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 considered as now reflecting on their former Doings in Religion, previous to their Conversion, it is acknowledged, 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 complete Robe of Righteousness, in which they might stand with Safety before the King of Glory: but now, convinced 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 owned 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 (though not according to Knowledge) and much of Care to keep a Conscience void of Offence towards Men.— However, afterwards upon Reflection being convinced 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, depraved, 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 improved by a religious Education, his past Life had been polluted with Abundance of moral Evils, though of a more refined 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 enlighten'd Eyes worthy the Name of Loss and Dung itself. 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 Armor against the fiery Law, or (to keep to his own Metaphor) but heaping up Dung for a Defense 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 Virtues: All which he now renounces with a deserved 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 arrived 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 attained, 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 considered 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 considered, 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, though' 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 refined 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 Sepulchers, 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, applied 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, though' 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 donit observe, that the Writings of this Apostle, or other Parts of Scripture, anywhere else, represent true Gospel-Holiness under these debasing Appellations, or any the like Characters of Discredit and Diminution; but rather everywhere 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, though 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 cannot 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 donit 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 restrained qualified Sense only, as viewing it under certain Comparisons, or under certain special Relations, and having a Place falsely assigned it in some particular Account, from which the Scripture exempts and entirely excludes it. 'It is a known and approved Distinction, applicable in the present Case, that of dictum simpliciter & secundum quid; and to argue from the latter to the former, though too common in ill-natured 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 alleged the Passages before us as asserting the Saints Works of Righteousness to be all imperfect and polluted, tinctured 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 intrinsic 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 itself. 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 Honor 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 hardening 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 assured, 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 qualified to be justifying Righteousnesses in his Sight.—This, This is the heinous Doctrine, which awakened the Vengeance of ROME against the Reformers, and brought such a Flood of Obloquy upon them, as wicked Slanderers of Religion and virtual Murderers of all Morality, as grossly 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 forced 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 appeared in their own Defense, 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 forever to silence the unreasonable Clamour against them. I have thought therefore, it might answer a valuable End, that would richly compensate the Labor, 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 received 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 cursed as blasphemous. —But the feigned Blasphemy vanishes and the pretended Absurdity disappears, when Protestants come to make their Defense (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 observed) 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 entirely 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 considered 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 Honor 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 deemed Religion, in its most plausible Appearances, but an empty Name) ever proclaimed the Righteous more excellent than his Neighbor; and ever pronounced inherent Righteousness greatly beneficial, in its due Place, and in Relation to those special Ends, for which the Gospel requires it. They highly honor'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 pardoned 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 Honors to it in every such View, they constantly affirmed this inherent Righteousness to be universally so imperfect in its Degree, attended with so many sinful Failings in its daily Exertments, and allayed 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 pardoned and justified 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 mere 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 received 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 maynit 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 viewed 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 entitled weak and beggarly Elements, perhaps in Comparison with the superior 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 viewed in the infinitely transcendent Light of GOD'S holy Face, or compared 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

And I find the great Cardinal of Rome himself expressly making this Concession. 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. — 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 referred to the Righteous, in a comparative Sense. And surely there's none will deny, that all our Righteousnesses are as filthy Rags, when brought 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 myself. 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) Woe 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 viewed in other comparative Lights, Protestants have pleaded, that the Saints personal Righteousness loses all its Purity and Glory. Thus, compared with that shining Array of habitual Rectitude and Innocence, which adorned Adam originally in Paradise, what is the most complete and glistering Garb of moral Righteousness now on Earth, but as broken Shreds of Righteousness, and these defiled and blacken'd with Sin?— Or compared 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 compared with the revealed Rule of our Obedience, the Law of the Lord which is perfect, his written Word which is very pure, is not the completest Righteousness of the most improved Saint upon Earth, but scanty and imperfect, yea, even as filthy Rags? — Or compared 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 compared to that of others, even now in this evil World, who shine with superior moral Attainments: but what is the Righteousness of the most finished Staints on the Earth to that of glorified 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 compared 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 (called 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 agreeable Words of the excellent Bp BARLOW, who understands the Prophet in our Text as speaking, not absolutely, but comparatively, and in Relation to the excelling Righteousness of God our Savior. His Words are;

But I proceed now to the other particular Sense, in which Protestants have usually explained 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 considered 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 though' 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 Favor 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,

(as Mr. Richard Hooker, a celebrated old Protestant expresses it) Or, — Whether his own inherent Righteousness, or that of Christ imputed to him?— The PAPISTS hold for the former, in Opposition to the latter. One main Ground of their Opinion is a supposed Perfection in the Saints Works of Righteousness. These they define to be : And such Works they call perfect, in Contradistinction to all faulty and defiling Imperfection. For they maintain, They observe, and in such Men they assert, However, at the same Time, to put a fair Gloss on their Opinion, they confess, They distinguish, and say, And I observe, our great Antagonist, in considering it as a Case of Conscience, makes several modest Concessions. He grants it a Yea, he has delivered it in the Form of a Thesis, or solemn Position, importing his deliberate Judgment: — Thus, the Adversary himself, after his long and passionate Pleadings for Justification by Works, has in Effect (by his Tutissimum est ) retracted all, and given up the Favorite-Article of Popery. For, as a learned Man observes upon it, 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 received by Faith. The absolute Necessity of this They thought 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 appealed 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 :

—Analogous to which are those Observations and Reasonings of another excellent old Protestant Bp HALL. —

And says the famous Episcopal HOOKER, in his Discourse of Justification.

According to the old Religion of PROTESTANTS, it appears, the Righteousness of CHRIST imputed, and received by Faith, is eminently (though' 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 called 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 viewed 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 thought, "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 judged this clearly implied in the Prophet's Confession, that all our Righteousnesses are as filthy Rags. And they judged 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 referred 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 perceived 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 complained too of a censurable Weakness even in their most vigorous Exercises of Faith itself. Which Failures of theirs appeared, 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 dared 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 confessed this Covering too contracted, too deformed and too defiled, to serve (by any Beauty or Virtue in itself) either to attract the Favor 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 confessed 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 clothing themselves with Change of Raiment, when they bowed their Knees before a holy God, And transacted with him in relation to the momentous Concerns of Pardon and Justification.

Truly they confessed 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 justified by the Law but a vain Pursuit, they therefore sought to be justified 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 abjured every Thing of their own in Competition with CHRIST, particularly as considered in his reconciling Office: utterly foregoing all their Righteousnesses, as viewed under the Notion of pacifying and recommending Righteousnesses in the Eyes of an affronted Lawgiver and just Judge.— Indeed I cannot find by any Hint in their Writings, that these old Protestants allowed 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 entire 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 itself, to ingratiate them with an infinitely holy and omniscient Lawgiver; and altogether unfit to be considered 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 Favor, 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 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, and so from being join'd with CHRIST'S Righteousness to that End: they observed, — While therefore they honor'd inherent Righteousness in its Place and in Relation to its proper Ends, they dared 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 considered this Righteousness, which is upon them that believe, as a complete 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 advanced out of their due Place and applied to a wrong Use, they put on the Character of filthy Rags. In reference to Justification, these old Protestants infinitely preferred 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 have now said enough to show, that the commonly received Notion of the Prophet's Words in our Text, as it is agreeable to the Judgment of PROTESTANTS, in Opposition to the POPISH Opinion upon it, so likewise agreeable 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 Defense of it, which was made by an old Protestant, the learned Bp ROBERT ABBOT, in Answer to one Dr. BISHOP, a Popish Priest, and in Vindication of the celebrated Mr. PERKINS.

Mr. PERKINS (in his Book, called The Reformed Catholic ) had advanced, among others, this Argument for the Necessity of imputed Righteousness;

— [Dr. ABBOT replies]

Thus, Dr. ABBOT hath shown, "That the Prophet by Way of Prophecy indicted 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 shows "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.

He observes also, HIEROM saith thus,

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.—

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 received 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 considered 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 expressed his Renunciation of, that is, his old Pharisaical Righteousness,

and so they think, his Example can only teach us to renounce a merely

But the Reformers maintained, 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,

Accordingly I find many noted old Protestant Writers so applying this Passage in our Text. Mr. HOOKER (the famous Defender of the English Hierarchy) understands the Apostle as speaking here of And he remarks, that the Papists are for Justification by —Dr. WILLET observes on our Text, — So Bp HALL upon it observes, — — Agreably Bp BALLOW has these Remarks. — And Bp Barlow further observes, concerning the Reformers in England, that in their Homily of Salvation, they cite this Text, and have the following Note upon it, — They also remark,

Others moreover have observed 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 called 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 established 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 abolished by the Death of Christ, and the Apostle had long lived in the entire Neglect of that, nor ever expected to be recalled to the Observance of that. It must therefore mean the Gospel-Law, in its moral Precepts and positive Institutions, the only standing revealed 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 cannot 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 preferred to any mere 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 merely 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 alleging 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 instanced 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 mere 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 called true Holiness; which ever implies inward, as well as outward, Conformity to the Divine Rule of Obedience.

The PAPIST indeed thinks personal Holiness to be intended by the Righteousness of Faith; which he supposes to mean, not any extrinsic, relative, imputed Righteousness of another, but an intrinsic, qualitative, and moral Righteousness of our own; called the Righteousness of Faith, because Faith is the vital Root or Principle, from whence our sincere Obedience springs: and this he imagines to be called 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 anywhere 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 extrinsical to us; the Righteousness of another, and not that which is in ourselves; 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 ,

To which the PROTESTANT replies, that it's puerile Weakness indeed, to mistake the main Drift of an Argument, or to answer it with mere 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 expressed 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 extreme 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 mere 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 bottomed upon, he should in the renunciative Part of his Declaration recur to an antiquated Pretension, a mere imaginary Jewish Righteousness, which he had long ago relinquish'd; or at most, only speak of a mere 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 distinguished 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 Favor 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 merely in Character of a moral Agent and accountable Creature, to be dealt with on the Foot of his own Obedience, and judged in Strictness according to Law, to be tried 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 passed upon him. No, he would 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, could never abide the Test of severe Law, could never bear a critical Scrutiny by the exact Rule of Morality laid down in the Gospel; and therefore that he could not stand in the Judgment, if tried 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 inferior 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,

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, (says he; meaning an Universality of Graces, but all delinquent in their Degree of Vigour and Activity, and Manner of Expression)

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, possessed 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, through 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 esteemed 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 attained by the inspired 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 wished to be unclothed, in point of Sanctification; but only to be found clothed upon, with a superior 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 maynit 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 complete Armor 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 thought to have pointed his Eye, in the Words before us. And under such a Prospect, he has been thought 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 itself to entitle 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 viewed 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 eclipsed by his superior 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 revealed in him, and in Compare with the supereminent Holiness and sinless Perfection of Saints in the Resurrection-State. Hence that Observation of AUSTIN, a celebrated Father ( In Comparatione Resurrectionis illius, Stercus est tota ista Vita quam gerimus, &c.)

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 hoped 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, though as briefly as I well can.—Let it be observed,

(1.) The forementioned Popish Priest Dr. BISHOP'S most plausible Plea is,

— However, to this the PROTESTANT makes Reply; that this End, taken in its moral View, is but imperfectly attained 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 through 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 itself 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, — And to mention some correspondent Observations of another excellent Divine, — This may suffice for Answer to the first Objection.

Cardinal BELLARMINE advance some others more directly leveled 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 replied to: yet being set in a little different Light, I shall not pass it, but allow it a distinct Consideration.

Let it then be observed,

(2.) 'It is objected, that this very Apostle, who is supposed 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 cannot rationally be supposed to stigmatise the very same Works with the dishonorable Name of Dung; but it must be blasphemous, to make such a Supposition. The CARDINAL'S own Words are,

( de Justif. p. 96.)

To this the Protestant makes Answer; 'It is a vain and impotent Insult, that has no Foundation to support it, but mere Mistake or willful Misrepresentation of our Opinion. For as a worthy Writer, of the Church of Scotland , has noted, what we hold is only to this Purpose:

And as a judicious Divine of our own observes ; — — (Job 9.21,)— Further, says Dr. BARLOW, a Bishop of the Church of England

Thus, it appears, that it's only in some such limited Sense, the Protestants suppose the ignominious Name of Dung applied 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 cannot be blaspheming the HOLY SPIRIT, to follow his own Dictates in the inspired Scriptures, which everywhere 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 received, 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 designed for? Or, Where is the Blasphemy of saying, that the Wisdom of God having seen fit, the Sanctification of the Spirit should be incomplete in the present Life, therefore

That our very Exercises of Grace are tinctured by the remaining Corruption of our Nature, and all our Works carry the debasing Mark of human Frailty and Imperfection? "For (as Bp ABBOT well observes ) altho' in their Original, which is the SPIRIT of GOD, they be pure and clean, yet as Water, though' 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, considered abstractly, but only taken together with their recipient Subject, and considered 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 observed, neither are they the very SPIRIT himself; nor is his Influence, in the Production and Actuation of them, at all derogated from, by applying this Name of Reproach in our Text to the inherent Righteousness of Saints. For, though' 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 called 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 infused 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." 'It is a known and approved Maxim in the Schools, Quicquid recipitur, recipitur ad Modum Recipientis. So the Grace of the Spirit received by us, is only (as Bp HALL has expressed it) according to the Model of our weak Receipt; and our Exertments of Grace are but according to the inferior Manner of human Action, in this imperfect State of our lapsed Nature: so that "all our Works savor 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 cannot 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 Honor he sustains, in the Gospel-Plan of Redemption. Thus, Dr. WILLET, that ancient and famous Defender of the Reformation, didnit scruple to drop such Reflections as these.

— And again,

(3.) The PAPIST still prosecuting his Argument, objects;

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.

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 finished 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 ourselves. 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, though' so vastly excelling in Gifts, Graces, and holy Services, yet was sensible he had not whereof to glory before God, anymore 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 renounced 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 cannot 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, filled with the Spirit, enriched 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,

Upon this the PROTESTANT observes, that eternal Life is called 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 called a Crown of Righteousness, not primarily in Respect of our own Righteousness of Law, but of that which is of God by Faith. In a Sense indeed Men's personal Righteousness is crowned; 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 Virtue 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 Virtue 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,

— — The humble Protestant agreeably expects the heavenly Crown as a Crown of Righteousness, with Respect to the Righteousness which is of God by Faith; but as a mere Gift of sovereign Mercy, in Relation to his own Deserts. Hence that humble Speech of the last mentioned Divine,

(5.) The PAPIST yet further objects,

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 called 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 designed of God, nor suited in their own Nature, to answer every valuable Purpose; and viewed 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 designed and adapted for, the recovery of the divine Favor 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 donit jumble and blend them together in our Doctrine, without Distinction? Shall it be said, we despise Sanctification, because we donit 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, merely because we donit 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 mere 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 Virtue? 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, though' 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 considered 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 disposed 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 ;

But the PAPIST adds one Reflection more;

(6)

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 despised 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, maynit they be respectable in another? Tho' not at all influential to effect one Design, maynit 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 entirely 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; though' we decline trusting in them to recommend us to God, and entitle 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 gained 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 would effectually answer this blessed Purpose. Otherwise, for various excellent Purposes, he was bent upon diligently following every good Work, endeavoring 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 longed 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 show 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

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 Honors 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 donit set them up as the Cause, the Reason or antecedent Condition of it; we donit exalt 'em to a Rivalship with CHRIST'S Righteousness; we donit 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 ourselves, 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

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 enlarged upon. But I must only suggest the following Hints; which may the rather suffice, as I have endeavor'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 Labors 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 Honor 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 Carelessness get a Snare to his Soul? Here, omitting all that my own Thoughts 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 observed, touching

He begins the Application of his excellent Discourse with this Inference, which I shall repeat entire as worthy of our solemn Consideration, and what may be, if I mistake not, a Word in Season.

Further, From what has been discoursed, 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 completing the Sanctification of his People at present; that so the Righteousness which is of God by Faith, might have its due Honors reserved 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 called 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 unskillful 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 brought 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 required 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 ourselves 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 subdued 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 Honor 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 human Life, our indispensable Obligation to Obedience, and the absolute Necessity of practical Godliness and Honesty; though' not with any View to our acquiring a Right to Pardon and Peace with God, yet with a View to the Glory of God concerned 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 renounced all Hope of Acceptance and Reward merely 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 Thoughts.

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 excel 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 offered 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 forever and ever.