notwithstanding his boast, was deficient in his righteousness, though
he would fain have shrouded it under the right definition thereof.

(5.) Nor doth his positive holiness help him at all, forasmuch as it
is grounded mostly, if not altogether, in ceremonial holiness: nay,
I will recollect myself, it was grounded partly in ceremonial and
partly in superstitious holiness, if there be such a thing as
superstitious holiness in the world; this paying of tithes was
ceremonial, such as came in and went out with the typical priesthood.
But what is that to positive holiness, when it was but a small
pittance by the by. Had the Pharisee argued plainly and honestly; I
mean, had he so dealt with that law, by which now he sought to be
justified, he should have brought forth positive righteousness in
morals, and should have said and proved it too, that as he was no
wicked man with reference to the act of wickedness, he was indeed a
righteous man in acts of moral virtues. He should, I say, have
proved himself a true lover of God, no superstitious one, but a
sincere worshipper of him; for this is contained in the first table
(Exod. xx.), and is so in sum expounded by the Lord Christ himself
(Mark xii. 30). He should also, in the next place, have proved
himself truly kind, compassionate, liberal, and full of love and
charity to his neighbour; for that is the sum of the second table, as
our Lord doth expound it, saying, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself;" Mark xii. 31.

True, he says, he did them no hurt; but did he do them good? To do
no hurt, is one thing; and to do good, is another; and it is possible
for a man to do neither hurt nor good to his neighbour. What then,
is he a righteous man because he hath done him no hurt? No, verily;
unless, to his power, he hath also done him good.