teousness of Christ, which he denies; who being at least the generality of all Protestant divines, they are represented either as so foolish as not to know what they say, or so dishonest as to say one thing and believe another. But he endeavours to justify his censure by sundry reasons; and first he says, 'that inherent righteousness can on no other account be said to be ours, than that by it we are made righteous; that is, that it is the condition of our justification required in the new covenant. This being denied, all inherent righteousness is denied.' But how is this proved? what if one should say, that every believer is inherently righteous, but yet that this inherent righteousness was not the condition of his justification, but rather the consequent of it, and that it is nowhere required in the new covenant as the condition of our justification, how shall the contrary be made to appear? The Scripture plainly affirms that there is such an inherent righteousness in all that believe; and yet as plainly that we are justified before God, by faith without works. Wherefore, that it is the condition of our justification and so antecedent unto it, is expressly contrary unto that of the apostle; 'Unto him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted unto him for righteousness;' Rom. iv. 5. Nor is it the condition of the covenant itself, as that whereon the whole grace of the covenant is suspended. For as it is habitual, wherein the denomination of righteous is principally taken, it is a grace of the covenant itself, and so not a condition of it; Jer. xxxi. 33. xxxii. 39. Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27. If no more be intended, but that it is as unto its actual exercise what is indispensably required of all that are taken into covenant, in order unto the complete ends of it, we are agreed. But hence it will not follow that it is the condition of our justification. It is added, 'that all righteousness respects a law and a rule, by which it is to be tried. And he is righteous, who hath done these things which that law requires by whose rule he is to be judged.' But 1. This is not the way whereby the Scripture expresseth our justification before God, which alone is under consideration; namely, that we bring unto it a personal righteousness of our own, answering the law whereby we are to be judged. Yea, an assertion to this purpose is foreign to the gospel, and de

structive of the grace of God by Jesus Christ. (2.) It is granted, that all righteousness respects a law as the rule of it; and so doth this whereof we speak, namely, the moral law, which being the sole eternal unchangeable rule of righteousness, if it do not in the substance of it answer thereunto, a righteousness it is not. But this it doth, inasmuch, as that so far as it is habitual, it consists in the renovation of the image of God, wherein that law is written in our hearts; and all the actual duties of it are as to the substance of them, what is required by that law. But as unto the manner of its communication unto us, and of its performance by us from faith in God by Jesus Christ, and love unto him, as the author and fountain of all the grace and mercy procured and administered by him, it hath respect unto the gospel. What will follow from hence? why that he is just that doth those things which that law requires whereby he is to be judged. He is so certainly. For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified;' Rom. ii. 13. 'So Moses describeth the righteousness of the law, that the man that doth those things shall live in them;' Rom. x. 5. But although the righteousness whereof we discourse, be required by the law, as certainly it is, for it is nothing but the law in our hearts, from whence we walk in the ways and keep the statutes or commandments of God; yet doth it not so answer the law, as that any man can be justified by it. But then it will be said, that if it doth not answer that law and rule whereby we are to be judged, then it is no righteousness; for all righteousness must answer the law whereby it is required. And I say it is most true, it is no perfect righteousness; it doth not so answer the rule and law, as that we can be justified by it, or safely judged on it. But so far as it doth answer the law, it is a righteousness, that is, imperfectly so, and therefore is an imperfect righteousness; which yet giveth the denomi nation of righteous unto them that have it, both absolutely and comparatively. It is said therefore, that it is the law of grace or the gospel from whence we are denominated righteous with this righteousness.' But that we are by the gospel denominated righteous from any righteousness that is not required by the moral law, will not be proved. Nor doth the law of grace or the gospel any where require of us,

or prescribe unto us this righteousness, as that whereon we are to be justified before God. It requires faith in Christ Jesus, or the receiving of him as he is proposed in the promises of it, in all that are to be justified. It requires in like manner 'repentance from dead works' in all that believe; as also the fruits of faith, conversion unto God, and repentance, in the works of righteousness, which are to the praise of God by Jesus Christ; with perseverance therein unto the end. And all this may, if you please, be called our evangelical righteousness, as being our obedience unto God according to the gospel. But yet the graces and duties wherein it doth consist, do no more perfectly answer the commands of the gospel, than they do those of the moral law. For that the gospel abates from the holiness of the law, and makes that to be no sin which is sin by the law, or approves absolutely of less intention or lower degrees in the love of God, than the law doth, is an impious imagination.

And that the gospel requires all these things entirely and equally, as the condition of our justification before God, and so antecedently thereunto, is not yet proved, nor ever will be. It is hence concluded, that this is our righteousness, according unto the evangelical law which requires it, by this we are made righteous, that is, not guilty of the non-performance of the condition required in that law. And these things are said to be very plain. So no doubt they seemed unto the author; unto us they are intricate and perplexed. However, I wholly deny that our faith, obedience, and righteousness, considered as ours, as wrought by us, although they are all accepted with God through Jesus Christ according to the grace declared in the gospel, do perfectly answer the commands of the gospel, requiring them of us, as to matter, manner, and degree, and that therefore it is utterly impossible that they should be the cause or condition of our justification before God. Yet in the explanation of these things, it is added by the same author, that our maimed and imperfect righteousness is accepted unto salvation, as if it were every way absolute and perfect; for that so it should be, Christ hath merited by his most perfect righteousness. But it is justification and not salvation that alone we discourse about; and that the works of obedience or righteousness, have another respect unto salvation, than

they have unto justification, is too plainly and too often expressed in the Scripture, to be modestly denied. And if this weak and imperfect righteousness of ours, be esteemed and accepted as every way perfect before God, then either it is because God judgeth it to be perfect, and so declares. us to be most just, and justified thereon in his sight, or he judgeth it not to be complete and perfect, yet declareth us to be perfectly righteous in his sight thereby. Neither of these I suppose can well be granted. It will therefore be said, it is neither of them; but Christ hath obtained by his complete and most perfect righteousness and obedience, that this lame and imperfect righteousness of ours should be accepted as every way perfect. And if it be so, it may be some will think it best not to go about by this weak, halt, and imperfect righteousness, but as unto their justification betake themselves immediately unto the most perfect righteousness of Christ, which I am sure the Scripture encou rages them unto. And they will be ready to think, that the righteousness which cannot justify itself, but must be obliged unto grace and pardon through the merits of Christ, will never be able to justify them. But what will ensue on this explanation of the acceptance of our imperfect righteousness unto justification upon the merit of Christ? This only so far as I can discern, that Christ hath merited and procured, either that God should judge that to be perfect which is imperfect, and declare us perfectly righteous when we are not so, or that he should judge the righteousness still to be imperfect, as it is, but declare us to be perfectly righteous with and by this imperfect righteousness. These are the plain paths that men walk in, who cannot deny but that there is a righteousness required unto our justification, or that we may be declared righteous before God, in the sight of God, according unto the judgment of God, yet denying the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto us, will allow of no other righteousness unto this end, but that which is so weak and imperfect as that no man can justify it in his own conscience, nor without a frensy or pride, can think or imagine himself perfectly righteous thereby.

And whereas it is added, that he is blind who sees not that this righteousness of ours is subordinate unto the righteousness of Christ, I must acknowledge myself other

wise minded, notwithstanding the severity of this censure. It seems to me, that the righteousness of Christ is subordinate unto this righteousness of our own, as here it is stated, and not the contrary. For the end of all is our acceptance with God as righteous. But according unto these thoughts, it is our own righteousnesses whereon we are immediately accepted with God as righteous.

Only Christ hath deserved by his righteousness, that our righteousness may be so accepted, and is therefore as unto the end of our justification before God, subordinate there

unto.

But to return from this digression, and to proceed unto our argument. This personal inherent righteousness, which according to the Scripture we allow in believers, is not that whereby, or wherewith, we are justified before God. For it is not perfect, nor perfectly answereth any rule of obedience that is given unto us, and so cannot be our righteousness before God unto our justification. Wherefore, we must be justified by the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us, or be justified without respect unto any righteousness, or not be justified at all. And a threefold imperfection doth accompany it.

First, As to the principle of it, as it is habitually resident in us. For, 1. There is a contrary principle of sin abiding with it in the same subject whilst we are in this world. For contrary qualities may be in the same subject whilst neither of them is in the highest degree. So it is in this case, Gal. v. 17. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh, and these are contrary one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.' 2. None of the faculties of our souls are perfectly renewed whilst we are in this world. The inward man is renewed day by day;' 2 Cor. iv. 16. And we are always to be purging ourselves from all pollution of flesh and spirit, 2 Cor. vii. 1. And hereunto belongs whatever is spoken in the Scripture, whatever believers find in themselves by experience of the remainders of indwelling sin, in the darkness of our minds, whence at best we know but in part, and through ignorance are ready to wander out of the way, Heb. v. 2. in the deceitfulness of the heart, and disorder of affections. I understand not how any one can think of pleading his own righte