The true doctrine of justification asserted and vindicated, from the errors of Papists, Arminians,…The true doctrine of justification asserted and vindicated, from the errours of Papists, Arminians,…

¹To this it is answered very confidently by a distinction never heard of before, That God indeed knoweth the sins of believers, but he doth not see them, Hon. Comb p. 67, 68, 69, 70. and this distinction they plead so boldly for, that (they say) although all men, Devils and Angels, would gain-say it, yet it must stand; for the opening of this silly distinction, they express themselves thus; That although to see and know be all one in the pure uncompounded nature of God, yet they are not so to us; even as justice and mercy are all one in God,² but not to us, yea contrary; and the Author giveth two strong reasons (as he calls them) to §1prove this, first, The Scripture (saith he) distinguisheth them, now he argueth, that as it is a sin to distinguish where the Scripture doth not (and thereupon he instanceth in the distinction of the guilt of sin, and the nature of sin, making it a new distinction, and suspecting it for a corrupter of the Gospel, as if Christ had taken away the guilt of our sins, and not the sins themselves) so where the Scripture doth distinguish, there it is a sin for us not to distinguish. Now concerning the former, that there is in the Scripture a distinction between the guilt of sin, and sin it self, is in its due time to be proved.

¹To this it is answered very confidently by a distinction never heard of before, That God indeed knoweth the sins of believers, but he doth not see them, Hon. Comb p. 67, 68, 69, 70. and this distinction they plead so boldly for, that (they say) although all men, Devils and Angels, would gain-say it, yet it must stand; for the opening of this silly distinction, they expresse themselves thus; That although to see and know be all one in the pure uncompounded nature of God, yet they are not so to us; even as justice and mercy are all one in God,² but not to us, yea contrary; and the Author giveth two strong reasons (as he cals them) to §1prove this, first, The Scripture (saith he) distinguisheth them, now he argueth, that as it is a sin to distinguish where the Scripture doth not (and thereupon he instanceth in the distinction of the guilt of sin, and the nature of sin, making it a new distinction, and suspecting it for a corrupter of the Gospel, as if Christ had taken away the guilt of our sins, and not the sins themselves) so where the Scripture doth distinguish, there it is a sin for us not to distinguish. Now concerning the former, that there is in the Scripture a distinction betweeen the guilt of sin, and sin it self, is in its due time to be proved.