righteousness, therefore, even by his own implied definition of
righteousness, was not good, as is manifest these two ways -

1. His negative holiness was not universal.

2. His positive holiness was rather ceremonial than moral.

1. His negative holiness was not universal. He saith indeed, he was
not an extortioner, nor unjust, no adulterer, nor yet as this
Publican: but none of these expressions apart, nor all, if put
together, do prove him to be perfect as to negative holiness; that
is, they do not prove him, should it be granted, that he was as holy
with this kind of holiness, as himself of himself had testified.
For,

(1.) What though he was no extortioner, he might yet be a covetous
man; Luke xvi. 14.

(2.) What though, as to dealing, he was not unjust to others, yet he
wanted honesty to do justice to his own soul; Luke xvi. 15.

(3.) What though he was free from the act of adultery, he might yet
be made guilty by an adulterous eye, against which the Pharisee did
not watch (Matt. v. 28), of which the Pharisee did not take
cognizance.

(4.) What though he was not like the Publican, yet he was like, yea
was, a downright hypocrite; he wanted in those things wherein he
boasted himself, sincerity; but without sincerity no action can be
good, or accounted of God as righteous. The Pharisee, therefore,