distinction have on the reputed righteous. On the other hand, there is another sort of men, who are far enough from being either religious or regular in their conduct; who are perhaps very indifferent as to the principles of religion, and not a little profligate in their practice; yet because they sometimes do some kind and generous things, and are not deaf to the calls of humanity and compassion, therefore flatter themselves that they are in a better state than mere righteous or just men; and consequently have no need of any more religion, or greater regularity. If the righteous be saved, whom they generally have in a very sufficient degree of contempt, what danger can there be of their own salvation, since they are of a rank and order much superior to the other? Their goodness far exceeds the righteousness of the other; for they do much more than strict justice requires; as their liberality to the poor, their generous hospitality, in short, their readiness to contribute to any good work, plainly demonstrate. Here then the love of their favourite sins, assisted by, and cooperating with self-deceit, will easily prevail with them to believe, that there is no necessity of amendment, or the reformation of their lives. If they have their vices, they have their virtues also; virtues of such high estimation in the sight of God, and so lovely, and of such good report with men, that there can be no fear, but that they will be sufficient to cover a multitude of sins.

We cut away the very ground on which both these sorts of men build all their false hopes and their confidence, when we tell them what is really the truth, that the scripture knows no such thing as a just or righteous man, but who is also a charitable,

merciful, and good one; and, on the other hand, allows no man to be good, who is not, or at least does not endeavour to be, holy in all manner of conversation: that the modern righteous man, who will not go one step further than the rigid rules of strict justice oblige him, is miserably deceived in applying the scripture-promises concerning the righteous to himself; since the scriptural character of a righteous man, and his own, are totally different; and that scripture itself has plainly declared, that he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercya: and, lastly, that no good-nature, or goodwill, no almsdeeds, or acts of generosity, will atone for an irreligious, an immoral, and wicked life. Though a person be never so compassionate and generous in his temper, ever so bountiful in his gifts, ever so ready to do kind and good offices, though he bestow all his goods to feed the poor, and besides that, has universal benevolence towards all mankind; yet if he be profligate in his life, and profane and immoral in his conversation, all his imaginary goodness and benevolence cannot save him, if St. Paul's doctrine be true, that without holiness no man shall see the Lorde.

As this popular prevailing distinction between the characters of a righteous and a good man may be thus pernicious to both sorts of persons concerned in it; this reason had weight enough with me to call it to account, and endeavour to refute it. Otherwise, had I judged it innocent, how groundless soever it might seem as to any foundation it has in the word of God, it would have passed uncensured.

c

I Peter i. 15.

d James ii. 13.

e Heb. xii. 14.

But, after all, give me leave to observe, that should the interpretation of the text, before given, not meet with that general approbation which, however, I think it deserves; still there is no necessity, in order to explain St. Paul's words, to recur to the distinction under consideration. There are several other expositions of the place; one of which, supported by the authority of commentators f of eminent note, I shall just remind you of, and conclude. By a righteous man then, St. Paul may mean a good man, such a man as the scripture represents the righteous man to be; but one with whom we have no connexion, and from whom we have received no favour or obligation. On the other hand, by the good man may be intended a good friend, a bountiful and generous benefactor, who has done us good services, or conferred on us great benefits. The sense then will be, that scarcely any one will die for a good man, abstractedly considered; one with whom he has nothing to do, and no reason to esteem and love particularly above any other righteous men; yet peradventure for a generous and good friend, for a bountiful and beloved benefactor, for such a good man as this, some would even dare to dies. That the word ayatos is capable of this sense, and is sometimes used in it, can hardly be doubted. And one would embrace any sense, or any interpretation of the text that has any sense in it, rather than suppose St. Paul

f Wolfii Cura Philolog. Knatchbull. Animadvers. in lib. Nov. Test. See also Estius in loc.

8 The late learned Dr. Heylyn, in his Interpretation of the New Testament, renders the text thus :-"Now scarcely will one die "for a just man: (though possibly one might be found, who "would have the courage to die for a benefactor.)"

would call a man righteous, who is only not mischievous; who has not one grain of real goodness, of the true love either of God or man in him; but only so much virtue or justice, (if justice and virtue it may be called,) as to keep himself clear from the lash and censure of the law. There is no such notion or character of a righteous man in scripture; and no such notion of a righteous man ever entered into the heart or head of this apostle.

SERMON XVIII.

1 TIMOTHY iii. 9.

Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. ALL the use I design to make of these words is to introduce a discourse upon the subject of the Athanasian Creed. It is appointed by our church to be read several times in the year, and amongst the rest on Trinity Sunday; it contains an excellent summary of the Christian faith, concerning the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, and the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore should not be repeated without understanding; and some persons are apt to express a dislike of it, though they pretend to believe the doctrines which it contains. Upon all which accounts it cannot be improper to make some observations upon it, partly to vindicate its use, and partly to explain its meaning.

It is no wonder that men, who disbelieve both the doctrine of the Trinity and the incarnation of the Son of God, should treat this exposition of these doctrines with contempt and scorn. Though this may be no very decent part with respect to others, it is however a consistent one with regard to themselves, as it is agreeable to their own principles. But with such men as these at present I have no concern; for be it remembered, that I am not now to

a Preached on that day.