Use 8. See the infinite wisdom and sovereignty of Almighty God, that is able to bring light out of darkness, and to compass his own righteous judgments by the sinful advisings and undertakings of men. Indeed the Lord's sovereignty and dominion over the creature doth not in any thing more exalt itself, than in working in all the reason- ings, debates, consultations of men, to bring about his owm counsels through their free workings. That men should use, improve theii" wisdom, freedom, choice, yea, lusts, not once thinking of God ; yet all that while do his work more than their o\n\, — " this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes."
Of the last paii of my text I shall not speak at all; neither indeed did I intend.
OF TOLERATION;
THE DUTY OF THE MAGISTRATE ABOUT RELIGION.
The times are busy, and we must be brief. Prefaces for the most part are at all times needless, — in these, troublesome. Mine shall only be, that avsu tpoo//a/wi/ xai 'TcaSujv, " without either preface or solem- nity," I will fall to the business in hand. The thing about which I am to deal is commonly called, Tolera.tion in Religion, or toleration of several religions. The way wherein I shall proceed is not by contest, thereby to give occasion for the reciprocation of a saw of debate with any ; but by the laying down of such positive observations, as being either not apprehended or not rightly improved by the most, yet lie at the bottom of the whole difference between men about this busi- ness, and tend in themselves to give light imto a righteous and equi- table determination of the main thing contended about. And lastly, lierein for method I shall first consider the grounds upon which that non-toleration whereunto I cannot consent has been, and is still, en- deavoured to be supported ; which I shall be necessitated to remove, — I. By considering the arguments brought from holy writ ; II. From some other general observations. And then in order, —
III. I shall assert the positive truth, as to the substance of the business under contest.
All in these ensuing observations.
I. As to the first of these, —
1. Although the expressions of "toleration," and "non-toleration," wherewith the thing in controversy is vested, do seem to cast the affir- mative upon them who plead for a forbearance in things of religion towards dissenting persons, yet the truth is, they are purely upon the negation» and the affirmative lies fully on the other part ; and so the weight of proving, which ofttimes is heavy, hes on their shoulders. Though non -toleration sound like a negation, yet punishment (which terms in this matter are hodum/j,ovvra) is a deep affirmation. And, therefore, it sufficeth not men to say that they have consulted the mind of God, and cannot find that he ever spake to any of his saints or people to establish a toleration of error; and yet this is the first
in4 OF TOLERATION.
argument to oj^pose it produced in the late Testimony of the reverend and learned Assembly of the Church of Scotland.^ Affirmative pre- cepts must be produced for a non-toleration ; that is, the punishing of erring persons. For actings of such high concernment, men do gene- rally desire a better warrant than this, — "There is nothing in the word against them." Clear light is needful for men who walk in paths which lead directly to houses of blood. God hath not spoken of non-tole- ration, is a certain rule of forbearance; but God hath not spoken of toleration, is no rule of acting in opposition thereunto. What he hath spoken, one way or other, shall be afterward considered. Positive act- ings must have positive precepts and rules for them, as conscience is its own guide. If, then, you will have persons deviating in their appre- hensions from the truth of the gospel civilly punished, you must bring better waiTant than this, that God hath not spoken against it; or I shall not walk in your ways, but refrain my foot from your path.
2. That undoubtedly there are very many things under the com- mand of the Lord, so becoming our duty, and within his promise, so made our privilege, which yet, if not performed, or not enjoyed, are not of human cognizance, — as faith itself; yet because the knowledge of the truth is in that rank of things, this also is urged as of weight, by the same learned persons, to the business at hand.
3. Errors, though never so impious, are yet distinguished from
peace-disturbing enormities. If opinions in their own nature tend
to the disturbance of the public peace, either that public tranquillity
is not of God, or God alloweth a penal restraint of those opinions.
It is a mistake, to affirm that those who plead for toleration do allow
of punishment for offences against the second table, — not against the
first. The case is the same both in respect of the one and the other.
What offences against the second table are punishable ? Doubtless
not all, but only such as, by a disorderly eruption, pervert the course
of public quiet and society; yea, none but such fall under human
cognizance. The warrant of exercising vindictive power amongst men
is from the reference of offences to their common tranquillity. " De-