A sermon preached to the Honourable House of Commons, in Parliament assembled

1. Although the expressions of Toleration, and Non toleration wherewith the thing in controversy is vested, do seem ⟨p. 40⟩to cast the Affirmation 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) lies on their shoulders. Though non-toleration sound like a negation, yet punishment, (which terms in this matter are [Greek or Hebrew]) 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 argument to oppose it, produced in the late Testimony of the Reverend and learned Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Affirmative precepts must be produced, for a non Toleration, that is the punishing of erring persons. For actings, of such high concernment, men do generally desire a better warrant then 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-Toleratin, 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 afterwards considered.) Positive actings must have positive precepts, and rules for them, as conscience is its own guide. If then you will have persons deviating in their apprehensions from the truth of the Gospel, civilly punished, you must bring better warrant then this, that God hath not spoken against it, or I shall not walk in your ways, but refrain my foot from your path.

1. Although the expressions of Toleration, and Non toleration wherewith the thing in controversie is vested, doe seeme ⟨p. 40⟩to cast the Affirmation 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 lyes fully on the other part: and so the weight of proving (which ofttimes is heavy) lyes on their shoulders. Though non-toleration sound like a negation, yet punishment, (which termes in this matter are 〈non-Latin alphabet〉) is a deep Affirmation. And therefore it sufficeth not men to say, That they have consulted the minde of God, and cannot finde that hee ever spake to any of his Saints or people to establish a Toleration of errour: And yet this is the first argument to oppose it, produced in the late Testimony of the Reverend and learned Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Affirmative precepts must be produced, for a non Toleration, that is the punishing of erring persons. For actings, of such high concernment, men doe generally desire a better warrant then this, There is nothing in the Word against them. Cleare light is needfull for men, who walke in paths, which lead directly to houses of Blood. God hath not spoken of Non-Toleratin, is a certaine 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 afterwards considered.) Positive actings must have positive precepts, and rules for them, as conscience is its owne guide. If then you will have persons deviating in their apprehensions from the truth of the Gospell, civilly punished, you must bring better warrant then this, that God hath not spoken against it, or I shall not walke in your wayes, but refraine my foot from your path.