A treatise of justifying righteousness in two books ... : all published instead of a fuller answer to the assaults in Dr. Tullies Justificatio Paulina ... / by Richard Baxter.

Object. 4. You do seem to suppose that we have none of that kind of Righteousness at all, which con∣sisteth in perfect Obedience and Holiness, but only a Right to Impunity and Life, with an imperfect Inhe∣rent Righteousness in our selves: The Papists are for∣ced to confess, that a Righteousness we must have which consisteth in a conformity to the preceptive part of the Law, and not only the Retributive part: But they say, It is in our selves, and we say it is Christ's im∣puted to us.

Answ. 1. The Papists (e. g. Learned Vasquer in Rom. 5.) talk so ignorantly of the differences of the Two Covenants, or the Law of Innocency and of Grace, as if they never understood it. And hence they 1. seem to take no notice of the Law of Innocency, or of Nature now commanding our perfect Obedience, but only of the Law of Grace. 2. Therefore they use to call those Duties but Perfections; and the Commands that require them, but Counsels, where they are not made Conditions of Life: and sins not bringing Damnation, some call Venial, (a name not unfit) and some expound that as properly no sin, but analogically. 3. And hence they take little notice, when they treat of Ju∣stification, of the Remitting of Punishment; but by remitting Sin, they usually mean the destroying the Habits: As if they forgot all actual sin past, or thought that it deserved no Punishment, or needed no Pardon: For a past Act in it self is now no∣thing, and is capable of no Remission but Forgive∣ness. 4. Or when they do talk of Guilt of Pu∣nishment, they lay so much of the Remedy on Man's Satisfaction, as if Christ's Satisfaction and

Merits had procured no pardon, or at least, of no temporal part of Punishment. 5. And hence they ignorantly revile the Protestants, as if we denied all Personal Inherent Righteousness, and trusted only to the Imputation of Christ▪s Righteousness as justifying wicked unconverted Men: The Papists therefore say not that we are innocent or sinless, (really or imputatively); no not when they dream of Perfection and Supererrogation, unless when they denominate Sin and Perfection only from the Con∣dition of the Law of Grace, and not that of In∣nocency.

2. But if any of them do as you say, no wonder if they and you contend: If one say, We are In∣nocent, or Sinless in reality, and the other, we are so by Imputation, when we are so no way at all (but sinners really, and so reputed); what Reconcilia∣tion is there to be expected, till both lay by their Errour?