person The like he saith afterward of the fault that it is a sinne still in it selfe remayning in the man till death but it is not imputed to him as being pardoned Here be quillets of very strange Doctrine the sinne is pardoned and yet the guiltines of it is not taken away Doth not a pardon take away from the fault pardoned all bond of punishment due vnto it and consequently all guiltines belonging to it Who can denie this vnlesse he knowe not or care not what he say If then Originall sinne be pardoned the guiltines of it is also remoued from it selfe Againe what Philosophy or reason alloweth vs to say that the offendour being pardoned for his offence the offence in it selfe remayneth guilty as though the offence seperated from the person were a substance subject to lawe and capable of punishment can Originall sinne in it selfe die the first and second death or be bound vp to them What sencelesse imaginations be these Againe how can the fault of Originall sinne remayne in the man renewed by Gods grace although not imputed can there be two contraries in one part of the subject at once can there be light and darknes in the vnderstanding vertue and vice in the will at the same instant can the soule be both truely conuerted to God and as truely auerted from him at one time is Christ now agreed to dwell with Belial and the holy Ghost content to inhabite a body subject to sinne all which must be graunted contrary to both Scripture and natural sence if we admitte the fault and deformity of sinne to remayne in a man renewed and indued with Gods grace vnlesse we would very absurdly imagine that the fault and guilt of sinne were not inherent and placed in their proper subjects but were drawne thence and penned vp in some other odde corner Remember also gentle Reader that here Master PERKINS affirmeth the power vvhereby the corruption of the hart raigneth in man is taken away in the regenerate which is cleane contrarie vnto the first proposition of his first reason following as shall bee there proued OVR DISSENT LET vs nowe come vnto the difference which is betweene vs. The Catholikes teach that Originall sinne is so farreforth taken away by Baptisme that it ceaseth to bee a sinne properly the effectes of it remayning are an inperfection and weakenesse both in our vnderstanding and will and a want of that perfect subordination of our inferiour appetite vnto reason as was and would haue beene in Originall iustice which make the soule apt and ready to fall into sinne like vnto tinder which although it bee not fire of it selfe yet is fit to take fire yet say they that these reliques of Originall sinne be not sinnes properly vnlesse a man doe yeelde his consent vnto those euill motions Master PERKINS teacheth otherwise That albeit Originall sinne bee taken away in the regenerate in sundry respectes yet doth it remayne in them after Baptisme not onely as a want and weakenesse but as a sinne and that properly as may be proued by these reasons Saint Paul saith directly 1. Rom. 7. It is no more I that doe this but sinne that dwelleth in me that is Originall sinne The Papists answere That it is called there sinne improperly because it commeth of sinne and is an occasion of sinne I approue this interpretation of Saint Paul as taken out of that auncient and famous Papist Saint Augustine Li. 1. cont duas Epist Pelag. cap. 10. Lib. 1. de nuptiis Concup cap. 23. who saith expresly Concupiscence whereof the Apostle speaketh although it be called sinne yet is it not so called because it is sinne but for that it is made by sinne as writing is called the hand because it is made by the hand And in an other place repeating the same addeth That it may also be called sinne for that it is the cause of sinne as cold is called sloathfull because it makes a man sloathfull so that the most profound Doctor Saint Augustine is stiled a formall Papist by M. PERKINS and shall be as well coursed for it by the playne circumstances of the place For saith he that Saint Paul there takes sinne properly appeares by the wordes following That this sinne dwelling in him made him to doe the euill which he hated Howe proues this that sinne there must be taken properly it rather proues that it must be taken improperly for if it made him doe the euill which he hated then could it not bee sinne properly for sinne is not committed but by the consent and liking of the will But Saint Paul did not like that euill but hated it and thereby was so farre off from sinning that he did a most vertuous deede in resisting and ouercomming that euill As witnesseth Saint Augustine saying Reason sometimes resisteth manfully Lib. 2 de Gen. cont Manich. cap. 14. and ruleth raging concupiscence which being done wee sinne not but for that conflict are to bee crowned This first circumstance then alleaged by M. PERKINS doth rather make against him then for him Now to the second O wreatched man that I am who shall deliuer me from this body of death Here is no mention of sinne howe this may be drawne to his purpose shall be examined in his argument where he repeateth it so that there is not one poore circumstance of the text which he can finde to proue Saint Paul to take sinne there properly Nowe I will proue by diuers that he speakes of sinne improperly First by the former part of the same sentence It is not I that doe it All sinnes is done and committed properly by the person in whome it is but this was not done by Saint Paul ergo Second out of those wordes I knowe there is not in me that is in my flesh anie good And after I see an other lawe in my members resisting the lawe of my minde Thus sinne properly taken is seated in the soule but that was seated in the flesh ergo it was no sinne properly The third and last is taken out of the first wordes of the next Chapter There is now therefore no condemnation to them that are in CHRIST IESVS that walke not according to the flesh c. Whence I thus argue there is no condemnation to them that haue that sinne dwelling in them if thy walke not according vnto the fleshly desires of it therefore it is no sinne properly For the wages of sinne is death this is eternall damnation Rom. 6. Nowe to M. PERKINS Argument in forme as he proposeth it That which was once sinne properly and still remayning in man maketh him to sinne and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and makes him miserable that is sinne properly But Originall sinne doth all these ergo The Maior which as the learned knowe should consist of three wordes contaynes foure seuerall pointes and which is worst of all not one of them true To the first that which remayneth in man after
Baptisme commonly called Concupiscence was neuer a sinne properly but onely the materiall part of sinne the formall and principall part of it consisting in the depriuation of Originall iustice and a voluntary auersion from the lawe of GOD the which is cured by the Grace of GOD giuen to the baptised and so that which was principall in Originall sinne doth not remayne in the regenerate neither doth that which remayneth make the person to sinne which was the second point vnlesse he willingly consent vnto it as hath beene proued heretofore it allureth intiseth him to sinne but hath not power to constrayne him to it as M. PERKINS also himselfe before confessed Nowe to the third and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne howe doth Originall sinne intangle the regenerate in the punishment of sinne If all the guiltines of it be remoued from his person as you taught before in our Consent Mendacem memorem esse oportet Either confesse that the guilt of Originall sinne is not taken away from the regenerate or else you must vnsay this that it intangleth him in the punishment of sinne nowe to the last clause that the reliques of Originall sinne make a man miserable a man may be called wreatched and miserable in that he is in disgrace with God and so subject to his heauy displeasure and that which maketh him miserable in this sence is sinne but S. Paul taketh not the word so here but for an vnhappy man exposed to the danger of sinne and to all the miseries of this world from which we should haue beene exempted had it not beene for Originall sinne after which sort he vseth the same word 1. Cor. 15. If in this life onely we were hoping in Christ we were more miserable then all men not that the good Christians were farthest out of Gods fauour and more sinnefull then other men but that they had fewest worldly comforts and the greatest crosses and thus much in confutation of that formall argument Now to the second Infantes Baptised die the bodely death before they come to the yeares of discretion but there is not in them anie other cause of death besides Originall sinne for they haue no actuall sinne Rom. 5. Rom. 5. and death is the wages of sinne as the Apostle saith death entred into the world by sinne Answere The cause of the death of such Innocentes is either the distemperature of their bodies or externall violence and God who freely bestowed their liues vpon them may when it pleaseth him as freely take their liues from them especially when he meanes to recompence them with the happy exchaunge of life euerlasting True it is that if our first parentes had not sinned no man should haue died but haue beene both long preserued in Paradise by the fruit of the wood of life and finally translated without death into the Kingdome of heauen and therefore is it said most truely of S. Paul death entred into the world by sinne Rom. 5. But the other place Rom. 6. the wages of sinne is death is fouly abused for the Apostle there by death vnderstandeth eternall damnation as appeareth by the opposition of it to life euerlasting and by sinne there meaneth not Originall but Actuall sinne such as the Romans committed in their infidely the wagis where of if they had not repented them had bin hell fire now to inferre that Innocents are punished with corporall death for Originall sinne remayning in them because that eternall death is the due hire of Actuall sinne is either to shewe great wante of judgement or else very strangelie to preuert the wordes of Holy scripture Let this also not be forgotten that he himselfe acknowledged in our Consent that the punishment of Originall sinne was taken away in Baptisme from the regenerate howe then doth he here say that he doth die the death for it M. PERKINS third reason That which lusteth against the spirite and by lusting tempteth and in tempting intiseth and draweth the hart to sinne is for nature sinne it selfe but concupiscence in the regenerate is such ergo Answere The first proposition is not true for not euery thing that intiseth vs to sinne is sinne or else the Apple that allured Eue to sinne had beene by nature sinne and euery thing in this world one way or an other tempteth vs to sinne according vnto that of S. Iohn All that is in the world 1. Epl. 2. is the Concupiscence of the flesh and the Concupiscence of the eyes and Pride of life So that it is very grosse to say that euery thing which allureth to sinne is sinne it selfe and as wide is it from all morall wisedome to affirme that the first motions of our passions be sins For euen the very heathen Philosophers could distinguish betweene sodaine passions of the minde and vices teaching that passions may be bridled by the vnderstanding and brought by due ordering of them into the ring of reason and so made vertues rather then vices And that same text which M. PERKINS bringeth to perswade these temptations to be sinnes proues the quite contrary God tempteth no man but euerie man is tempted Iacob 1. when he is drawen away by his owne concupiscence and is allured afterward when concupiscence hath conceaued it bringeth forth sinne Marke the wordes well First Concupiscence tempteth and allureth by some euill motion but that is no sinne vntill afterward it doe conceiue that is obtayne some liking of our will in giuing eare to it and not expelling it so speedely as we ought to doe the suggestion of such an enemie the which that most deepe Doctor Saint Augustine sifteth out very profoundly in these wordes Lib. 6. in Iul. cap. 5. When the Apostle Saint Iames saith euery man is tempted being drawne away and allured by his Concupiscence and afterward Concupiscence when it hath conceiued bringeth forth sinne Trulie in these wordes the thing brought forth is distinguished from that which bringeth it forth The damme is concupiscence the fole is sinne But concupiscence doth not bring sinne forth vnlesse it conceiue so then it is not sinne of it selfe and it conceiueth not vnlesse it drawe vs that is vnlesse it obtayne the consent of our will to commit euill The like exposition of the same place and the difference betweene the pleasure tempting that runneth before and the sinne which followeth after Vnlesse we resist manfully may be seene in S. Cirill Lib. 4. in Iohan. ca. â—1 so that by the iudgement of the most learned auncient Fathers that text of S. Iames cited by M. PERKINS to proue concupiscence to be sinne disputeth it very soundly to that reason of his Such as the fruit is such is the Tree I answere that not concupiscence but the will of man is the Tree which bringeth forth either good or badde fruit according vnto the disposition of it concupiscence is onely an intiser vnto badde Lib. 5 con Iulianum cap. 3. But S. Augustine saith That concupiscence
spirits that we are the sonnes of God and coheires of Christ with this condition If yet we suffer with him that we may be glorified with him So that the testimonie is not absolute but conditionall and then if we faile in performance of the condition God standes free of his promise and will take his earnest backe againe And so to haue receaued the earnest of it will nothing auaile vs much lesse assure vs of saluation This is the direct answere to that place although the other be very good that the testimonie of the spirit is but an inward comfort and joy which breedeth great hope of saluation but bringeth not assurance thereof This M. PERKINS would refute by the authority of S. Bernard in the place before cited Epist 107. see the place and my answere there The third reason is That which we must pray for by Gods commaūdement that we must beleeue but euery man must pray for saluation therefore we must beleeue that we shall haue saluation The proposition he confirmeth thus in euery petition must be two thinges one a desire of the thing we aske an other a particular faith to obtaine it which is proued by Christs wordes Whatsoeuer you shall request when you pray Marke 11. beleeue that you shall haue it and it shall be done This Argument is so proper for their purpose that we returne it vpon their owne heades We must pray for saluation therefore we are not yet assured of it For who in his wittes prayeth God to giue him that whereof he is assured already And a godly act of faith it is in that prayer to beleeue that God will giue that which he is assured of before hand such foolish petitions cannot please God and therefore after their doctrine it is to be denied that any faithfull man may pray for his saluatiō but rather thanke the Lord for it But to answere directly he who prayeth must beleeue he shall obtayne that which he prayeth for if he obserue all the due circumstances of prayer which be many but to this purpose two are required necessarily the one that he who prayeth be the true seruāt of God which first excludeth all those that erre in faith touched in these wordes What you of the faithfull shall desire when you pray shall be giuen you The other is when we request matters of such moment that we perseuer in prayer continue our suite day by day of these suites of eternall saluation we must take these words of our Sauiour to be spoken Luke 18. We must alwayes pray and neuer be wearie And then no doubt but we shall in the end receiue it But because we are in doubt whether we shal obserue those necessarie circūstances of prayer or no therefore we can not be so wel assured to obtayne our suite although we be on Gods parte most assured that he is most bountifull and readier to giue them we are to aske 1. Ioan 5. But saith M. PERKINS S. Iohn noteth out this particular faith calling it Our assurance that God will giue vnto vs whatsoeuer we aske according to his will But where finde we that it is Gods will to assure euerie man at the first entrance into his seruice of eternall saluation is it not sufficient to make him an assured promise of it vpon his faithfull seruice and good behauiour towardes him The fourth reason is Whatsoeuer God commaundeth that a man must and can performe But God commaundeth vs to beleeue our saluation ergo we must beleeue it The proposition is true yet commonly denyed by all Protestants for God commaundes vs to keepe his commaundements and they hold that to be impossible but to the assumption That God commaundes vs to beleeue our saluation is proued saith M. PERKINS by these wordes Repent and beleeue the Gospell Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici Where is it written in that Gospel beleeue your owne particular saluation shew vs once but one cleare text for it and we will beleeue it I doe beleeue in Christ and hope to be saued through his mercy and merits but knowe well that vnlesse I keepe his wordes I am by him likened to a foole Math. 7. Math. 26. Math. 25. that built his house vpon the sandes He commaundes me to watch and pray least I fall into temptation and else where warneth me to prepare oyle to keepe my lampe burning against his comming or else I am most certayne to be shut out with the foolish Virgins An hundred such admonitions finde we in holy Scriptures to shake vs out of this security of our saluation and to make vs vigilant to preuent all temptations of the enemie and diligent to trayne our selues in godly exercises of all vertue The fift and last reason is this The Papists teach assurance of hope Rom. 5. euen hence it followeth that he may be infallibly assured for the property of a true and liuely hope is neuer to make a make a man ashamed Answere hope indeede of heauen makes a man most couragiouslie beare out all stormes of persecution and not to be ashamed of Christs Crosse but to professe his faith most boldly before the most bloudy tyrants of the world our harts being by charity fortified and made inuincible And this is that which the Apostle teacheth in that place and saith before Ver. 2. that the faithfull glory in the hope of the sonnes of God And doe not vaunt themselues of the certainty of their saluation This certainty of hope is great in those that haue long liued vertuously specially when they haue also endured manifolde losses much disgrace great wronges and injuries for Christs sake for he that cannot faile of his word hath promised to requite all such with an hundred folde But what is this to the certainty of faith which the Protestants will haue euery man to be endued with at his first entrance into the seruice of God When as S. Paul insinuateth that godly men partakers of the holy Ghost Heb. 6 yea after they haue tasted the good word of God and the power of the world to come that is haue receiued besides faith great fauours of Gods spirit and felt as it were the joyes of heauen haue after all this so fallen from God that there was small hope of their recouerie CHAPTER 4. OF IVSTIFICATION M. PERKINS Pag. 60. FIRST I will set downe the Doctrine on both partes that it may be seene how farreforth we agree Secondly The mayne differences wherein we are to stand against them euen to death Our Doctrine touching the iustification of a sinner I propound in foure rules The first Rule That iustification is an action of God whereby he absolueth a sinner and accepteth him to life euerlasting for the righteousnes and merits of Christ 2. Rule That iustification stands in two thinges First in the remission of sinnes by the merite of Christs death Secondly in the imputation of Christs righteousnes which is an other action
all paine due to it The reason for vs which indeede is the very ground worke of satisfaction may thus be framed many after pardon obtayned of their sinnes haue had temporall punishment laide vpon them for the same sinnes and that by Gods owne order wherefore after the forgiuenes of the sinne and the eternall punishment of it through Christs satisfaction there remayneth some temporall paine to be endured by the party himselfe for the same sinne which is most properly that which we call satisfaction They deny that any man hath beene punished temporally for any sinne which was once pardoned we proue it first by the example of the Israelites whose murmuration against GOD Numb 14. was at Moyses intercession pardoned yet all the elder sort of them who had seene the miracles wrought in Egipt for their deliuerance were by the sentence of God depriued of the sight of the Land of promise and punished with death in the wildernesse for the very same their murmuration The like judgement was giuen against Moyses himselfe and Aaron for not glorifying God at the waters of contradiction Numb 20. Deut. 32. both of them had their sinne pardoned yet were they both afterward for the same debarred from the entrance into the holy land To this M. PERKINS answereth first that man must be considered in a two folde estate as he is vnder the lawe and as he is vnder grace In the former estate all afflictions were curses of the lawe in the latter they are turned vnto them that beleeue in Christ from curses into triales corrections preuentions admonitions instructions and into what you will else sauing satisfaction Now to the purpose Whereas God saith he denied the beleeuing Israelites with Moyses and Aaron to enter into the land of Canaan it cannot be proued that it was a punishment or penalty of the lawe laide vpon them the Scripture hath no more but that it was an admonition vnto all ages following to take heede of like offences as Paul writeth All these thinges came vnto them for examples 1. Cor. 10. and were written for our admonition Reply He that will not be ashamed of this audatious assertion needes not to care what he saith Hath the Scripture no more of their fact then that it was an admonition to others Turne to the originall places where the whole matter in particular is related First their murmuration then Moyses intercession for them and the obtayning of their pardon and lastly after all the rest Gods sentence of depriuation of them from entring into the land of promise for that their murmuration Numb 14. Numb 20. vers 24. Deut. 32.51 Againe Aaron shall not enter into the land because he hath beene disobedient to my voyce and of Moyses Because he hath trespassed against me at the waters of strife So that nothing is more cleare euen by the testimony of the holy Ghost then that their dayes were shortened and their hope of entrance into the land of promise cutte off in punishment of those offences which were before forgiuen them And these things being recorded as S. Paul testefieth for our admonition and instruction we are to learne thereby that God so dealeth daiely with all those sinners that he calleth to repentance Now to the next example which M. PER. maketh our third reason King Dauid was punished for his aduoultry after his repentance for the child died 2. Reg. 12. and was plagued in the same kinde of incest by Absolon And when he had numbred the people 2. Reg. 24. he was after his owne repentance punished in the death of his people M. PERKINS answereth that the hand of God was vpon him after his repentance but those judgementes which befell him were not curses to him properly but corrections of his sinnes Reply What dotage is this to graunt the very same thing which he would be thought to denie but yet in other tearmes that the simple whome onely he can beguile may not perceiue it If the hand of God were vpon Dauid correcting him for his sinne and that after his repentance did not Dauid then suffer temporall punishment for his sinnes before forgiuen Which is most properly to satisfie for them Yea ouer and beside this punishment inflicted by God he of his owne deuotion performed farre greater satisfaction by putting on sacke-cloath lying one the bare ground by watering his couche with teares and making ashes his foode and in this most pittifull plight he made most humble supplication vnto God to wash him more and more from his iniquity he neuer dreamed that this his satisfaction should be any derogation vnto the satisfaction of his Lord and Sauiour Psal 50. but in the Psalme saith That such an humble and contrite hart is a sweete sacrifice vnto God We denie not but the punishing of one is a warning admonition vnto an other to take heede of the like so may not they deny but that correction is to the party himselfe as an admonition to beware afterward so a correction punishment of the fault past Psal 50. Which S. Augustine vpon this verse of the Psalme Thou hast loued truth teacheth most playnelie saying Thou hast not left their sinnes whome thou didest pardon vnpunished for thou before didest so shewe mercy that thou mightest also preserue truth thou doest pardon him that confesseth his fault thou doest pardon him but so as be doe punishe himselfe and by that meanes both mercy truth are preserued Our fourth reason the Prophetes of God when the people were threatned with Famine the Sword the Plague or such like punishmentes for their sinnes did commonly exhort them to workes of penance as fasting prayer haire-cloath and the like to appease Gods wrath justly kindled against them which being performed by them God was satisfied So for example sake the Nimuites at Ionas preaching doeing penance in sacke-cloath and ashes turned away the sentence of God against them M PERKINS answereth that famine the plague and such like scourges of God were not punishments of sinnes but corrections of a Father Reply This is most flat against a thousand expresse textes of the Scripture which declare that for the transgressions of Gods commaundements he hath sent those punishments vpon the people of Israell And what is the correction of a Father but the punishing of a shrewde sonne for some fault committed yet in a milde sorte Or doth the Schoolmaster which is Caluins example whippe the Scholer or strike him with the ferula but to punish him for some fault So that great Rabbins seeme not to vnderstand what they say them selues when they admitte those scourges of God to be the corrections of a Father but not the punishment for a fault As though Fathers vsed to correct those Sonnes who neuer offended them Or Masters to beate such Scholers as committe no faultes But saith M. PERKINS these punishments be tending to correction not seruing for satisfaction what senceles ryming is this By due correction of
of God whereby he accounteth and esteemeth that righteousnes which is in Christ as the righteousnes of that sinner which beleeueth in him By Christs righteousnes we are to vnderstand two thinges first his sufferings specially in his death and passion secondly his obedience in fulfilling the lawe both which goe together for Christ in suffering obeyed and obeying suffered And the very shedding of his bloud to which our saluation is ascribed must not onely be considered as it is passiue that is a suffering but also as it is actiue that is an obedience in which he shewed his exceeding loue both to his father and vs and thus fulfilled the lawe for vs. 3. Rule That iustification is from Gods mercies and grace procured onely by the merite of Christ 4. Rule That man is iustified by faith alone because faith is that alone instrument created in the hart by the Holy Ghost whereby a sinner laieth holde of Christs righteousnes and applies the same to him selfe There is neither hope nor loue nor any other grace of God within man that can doe this but faith alone now of the Doctrine of the Roman Church Because M. PERKINS settes not downe well the Catholikes opinion I will helpe him out both with the preparation and justification it selfe and that taken out of the Councel of Trent Where the very wordes concerning preparation are these Sess 6. c. 6. Men are prepared and disposed to this iustice when being stirred vp and helped by Gods grace they conceiuing faith by hearing are freely moued towardes God beleeuing those thinges to be true which God doth reueale and promise â—â—â—â—ely that he of his grace doth iustifie a sinner through the redemption that is in CHRIST IESVS And when knowledging them selues to be sinners through the feare of Gods iudgementes they turne them selues to consider the mercie of God are lifted vp into hope trusting that God will be mercifull vnto them for Christs sake and beginning to loue him as the fountayne of all iustice are there by moued with hatred and detestation of all sinnes Finally they determine to receiue baptisme to beginne a new life and to keepe all Christs commaundements After this disposition or preparation followeth Iustification and for that euery thing is best knowne by the causes of it all the causes of Iustification are deliuered by the Councell in the next Chapter which briefly are these The finall cause of the Iustification of a sinner is the glorie of God the glory of Christ and mans owne iustification the efficient is God the meritorious CHRIST IESVS Passions the instrumentall is the Sacrament of Baptisme the onlie formall cause is inherent iustice that is Faith Hope and Charity with the other giftes of the Holy Ghost powred into a mans soule at that instant of iustification Of the iustification by faith and the second iustification shall be spoken in their places So that we agree in this point that iustification commeth of the free grace of God through his infinite mercies and the merits of our Sauiours Passion and that all sinnes when a man is justified be pardoned him The point of difference is this that the Protestants hold that Christs Passion and obedience imputed vnto vs becommeth our righteousnes for the wordes of justice and justification they seldome vse and not any righteousnes which is in our selues The Catholikes affirme that those vertues powred into our soules speaking of the formall cause of iustification is our iustice and that through that a man is iustified in Gods sight and accepted to life euerlasting Although as you haue seene before we hold that God of his meere mercie through the merits of CHRIST IESVS our Sauiour hath freely bestowed that iustice on vs. Note that M. PERKINS comes to short in his second rule when he attributeth the merits of Christs suffringes to obedience whereas obedience if it had beene without charity would haue merited nothing at Gods handes And whereas M. PERKINS doth say that therein we raze the foundation that is as he interpreteth it in his preface we make Christ a Pseudochrist we auerre that herein we doe much more magnifie Christ then they doe for they take Christs merits to be so meane that they doe but euen serue the turne to deface sinne and make men worthie of the joyes of heauen Nay it doth not serue the turne but only that God doth not impute sinne vnto vs. We contrarywise doe so highly esteeme of our Sauiours inestimable merits that we hold them wel able to purchase at Gods handes a farre inferiour justice and such merits as mortall men are capable of and to them doe giue such force and value that they make a man just before God and worthy of the Kingdome of heauen as shall be proued Againe they doe great iniury to Gods goodnes wisedome and justice in their justification for they teach that inward justice or sanctification is not necessary to justification Yea their Ring-leader Luther saith That the iustified can by no sinnes whatsoeuer except he refuse to beleeue lose their saluation Wherein first they make their righteous man Like as our Sauiour speaketh to sepulchers whited on the out side with an imputed justice but within full of iniquity and disorder Then the wisdome of GOD must either not discouer this masse of iniquity or his goodnesse abide it or his justice either wipe it away or punish it But say they he seeth it well enough but couereth it with the mantle of Christs righteousnesse Why can any thing be hid from his sight it is madnesse to thinke it And why doth he not for Christes sake deface it and wipe it cleane away and adorne with his grace that soule whome he for his sonnes sake loueth and make it worthy of his loue and kingdome What is it because Christ hath not deserued it So to say were to derogate from the infinite value of his merits Or is it for that God cannot make such justice in a pure man as may be worthy of his loue and his kingdome And this were to deny Gods power in a matter that can be donne as we confesse that such vertue was in our first father Adam in state of innocencie And M. PERKINS seemes to graunt Pag. 77. That man in this life at his last gaspe may haue such righteousnesse If then we had no other reason for vs but that our justification doth more exalt the power and goodnes of God more magnifie the value of Christs merits and bringeth greater dignity vnto men our doctrine were much better to be liked then our aduersaries who cannot alleage one expresse sentence either out of holy Scriptures or auncient Fathers teaching the imputation of Christs righteousnesse vnto vs to be our justification as shall be seene in the reasons following and doe much abase both Christs merits and Gods power wisdome and goodnesse Now to their reasons M. PERKINS first reason is this That which must be our righteousnesse before God must satisfie the iustice of