they have unto justification, is too plainly and too ofte
pressed in the Scripture, to be modestly denied.
this weak and imperfect righteousness of ours, be es
and accepted as every way perfect before God, the
it is because God judgeth it to be perfect, and so
us to be most just, and justified thereon in his si
judgeth it not to be complete and perfect, yet d
to be perfectly righteous in his sight thereby.
these I suppose can well be granted. It will
said, it is neither of them; but Christ hath ob
complete and most perfect righteousness and c
this lame and imperfect righteousness of our
cepted as every way perfect. And if it h
some will think it best not to go about by
and imperfect righteousness, but as unto
betake themselves immediately unto the
teousness of Christ, which I am sure th
rages them unto. And they will be rea
righteousness which cannot justify
obliged unto grace and pardon throug1
will never be able to justify them.
this explanation of the acceptance
ousness unto justification upon th
only so far as I can discern, that
procured, either that God shoul
which is imperfect, and declare
we are not so, or that he sho
still to be imperfect, as it is, b
righteous with and by this im
are the plain paths that men
that there is a righteousness
or that we may be declare
sight of God, according
denying the imputation o
us, will allow of no othe
that which is so weak a
tify it in his own consc
can think or imagine 1

And whereas it is that this righteousr righteousness of C

US

ghte

dd duty of 'y cleaving > are as filthy . observed, that e the best of his To enter into judgn, that he hath and of him, as unto his wisest course (at least ellarmine), to renounce ad id mercy alone.

if the incursion of actual might us continually to pray -;' and 'if we say, that we ves;' for 'in many things we adence can be placed in this who plead for it in this cause, maimed, and imperfect?

e some say that they hey have no more conof growth in grace. And retence of ascribing our to. For were it so with From being justified thereon e hath been a sinner, which ut this vain imagination is so , and the experience of all that 1, and what it is to walk humbly I not insist on the refutation of it. at although this righteousness be of the moral law, yet is it the accondition of the new covenant, or enaw of grace, and all that is required of

holly takes away sin and the pardon of oth the conceit of sinful perfections which For if our obedience do answer the only f it whereby it is to be tried, measured, and > there no sin in us, nor need of pardon. No ired of any man to keep him absolutely free it that he fully answer, and exactly comply with, nd law of his obedience whereby he must be On this supposition therefore there is neither sin, need of the pardon of it. To say that there is still , and need of pardon with respect unto the moral God, is to confess that law to be the rule of our obece, which this righteousness doth no way answer; and refore none by it can be justified in the sight of God. 2. Although this righteousness be accepted in justified

ousness in the sight of God, or suppose that he can be justified by it upon this single account of the imperfection of its inherent habit or principle. Such notions arise from the ignorance of God and ourselves, or the want of a due considerational of the one and the other. Neither can I apprehend how a thousand distinctions can safely introduce it into any consideration in our justification before God. He that can search in any measure by a spiritual light into his own heart and soul, will find, God be merciful to me a sinner,' a better plea than any he can be furnished withal from any worth of his own. 'What is man that he should. be clean, and he that is born of a woman that he should be righteous;' Job xv. 14-16. xviii. 19. Hence saith Gregory in Job ix. lib. 9. cap. 14. Ut sæpe diximus omnis justitia humana injustitia esse convincitur si distincte judicetur.' Bernard speaks to the same purpose, and almost in the same words, Serm. 1. fest. omn. sanct. Quid potest esse omnis humana justitia coram Deo? nonne juxta prophetam, velut pannus menstruatus reputabitur; et si distincte judicetur, injustitia invenietur omnis justitia nostra et minus habens.' A man cannot be justified in any sense by that righteousness which upon trial will appear rather to be an unrighte

ousness.

2. It is imperfect with respect unto every act and duty of it, whether internal or external. There is iniquity cleaving. unto our holy things, and all our 'righteousnesses are as filthy rags;' Isa. lxiv. 6. It hath been often and well observed, that if a man, the best of men, were left to choose the best of his works that ever he performed, and thereon to enter into judgment with God, if only under this notion, that he hath answered and fulfilled the condition required of him, as unto his acceptation with God, it would be his wisest course (at least it would be so in the judgment of Bellarmine), to renounce it and betake himself unto grace and mercy alone.

3. It is imperfect by reason of the incursion of actual sins. Hence our Saviour hath taught us continually to pray for the forgiveness of our sins;' and 'if we say, that we have no sin we deceive ourselves;' for 'in many things we offend all.' And what confidence can be placed in this righteousness, which those who plead for it in this cause, acknowledge to be weak, maimed, and imperfect?

I have but touched on these things, which might have been handled at large, and are indeed of great consideration in our present argument. But enough hath been spoken to manifest, that although this righteousness of believers be on other accounts like the fruit of the vine, that glads the heart of God and man, yet as unto our justification before God, it is like the wood of the vine, a pin is not to be taken from it to hang any weight of this cause upon.

Two things are pleaded in the behalf of this righteousness and its influence into our justification. 1. That it is absolutely complete and perfect. Hence some say that they are perfect and sinless in this life. They have no more concern in the mortification of sin, nor of growth in grace. And indeed this is the only rational pretence of ascribing our justification before God thereunto. For were it so with any, what should hinder him from being justified thereon before God, but only that he hath been a sinner, which spoils the whole market. But this vain imagination is so contrary unto the Scripture, and the experience of all that know the terror of the Lord, and what it is to walk humbly before him, as that I shall not insist on the refutation of it.

2. It is pleaded, that although this righteousness be not an exact fulfilling of the moral law, yet is it the accomplishment of the condition of the new covenant, or entirely answereth the law of grace, and all that is required of us therein.

2

Ans. 1. This wholly takes away sin and the pardon of it, no less than doth the conceit of sinful perfections which we now rejected. For if our obedience do answer the only law and rule of it whereby it is to be tried, measured, and judged, then is there no sin in us, nor need of pardon. No more is required of any man to keep him absolutely free from sin, but that he fully answer, and exactly comply with, the rule and law of his obedience whereby he must be judged. On this supposition therefore there is neither sin, nor any need of the pardon of it. To say that there is still both sin, and need of pardon with respect unto the moral law of God, is to confess that law to be the rule of our obedience, which this righteousness doth no way answer; and therefore none by it can be justified in the sight of God.

2. Although this righteousness be accepted in justified

persons by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, yet consider the principle of it, with all the acts and duties wherein it doth consist, as they are required and prescribed in the gospel unto us, and they do neither jointly nor severally fulfil and answer the commands of the gospel, no more than they do the commands of the law. Wherefore, they cannot all of them constitute a righteousness consisting in an exact conformity unto the rules of the gospel, or the law of it. For it is impious to imagine that the gospel requiring any duty of us, suppose the love of God, doth make any abatement, as unto the matter, manner, or degrees of perfection in it, from what was required by the law. Doth the gospel require a lower degree of love to God, a less perfect love than the law did? God forbid. The same may be said concerning the inward frame of our natures, and all other duties whatever; wherefore, although this righteousness is accepted in justified persons (as God had respect unto Abel, and then unto his offering) in the way and unto the ends that shall be afterward declared; yet as it relates unto the commands of the gospel, both it and all the duties of it, are no less imperfect than it would be, if it should be left unto its trial by the law of creation only.

3. I know not what some men intend. On the one hand they affirm that our Lord Jesus Christ hath enlarged and heightened the spiritual sense of the moral law, and not only so, but added unto it new precepts of more exact obedience than it did require. But on the other they would have him to have brought down or taken off the obligation of the law, so as that a man according as he hath adapted it unto the use of the gospel, shall be judged of God to have fulfilled the whole obedience which it requires, who never answered any one precept of it, according unto its original sense and obligation. For so it must be, if this imperfect righteousness be on any account esteemed a fulfilling of the rule of our obedience, as that thereon we should be justified in the sight of God.

4. This opinion puts an irreconcilable difference between the law and the gospel, not to be composed by any distinctions. For according unto it, God declares by the gospel a man to be perfectly righteous, justified, and blessed, upon the consideration of a righteousness that is imperfect;