faculties, make no part in the faith of a Christian; but, on the other hand, Reason itself will direct us not to reject all information, though of many things we are not informed; the truest philosophy will require us to admit the testimony of others, as one method of information; and to be cautious how we oppose to a positive proof, perfectly understood, conjectures drawn from the analogy between cases very difficult to be compared, and frequently beyond the reach of human faculties. In all such instances, he is the best reasoner who most willingly submits to authority: he is the wisest man who, instead of permitting himself to wander in unknown paths, without either light to direct or strength to support his steps, humbly and attentively listens to his guide, and follows, with patience and perseverance, wherever he is called by the voice of HEAVEN.

i

CHARGE V. *

ON SUBSCRIPTION TO ARTICLES OF RELIGION.

DELIVERED IN THE YEAR 1772..

Reverend Brethren,

THE late attack on our ecclesiastical establishment deserves our most serious attention, not for the sake of censuring our adversaries, much less of insulting them on

"To propose the amendment of some particulars in the present Establishment, in order to the making it more. perfect, is what cannot well be complained of; but to propose a scheme, which cannot be admitted without the entire destruction and total abolition of the whole present constitution, can end in no good." HOADLEY.

their disappointment; but that we may satisfy ourselves, by a fair and impartial inquiry, whether Truth and Reason be with us or against us when we demand Subscription to Articles of Religion.

Let not this inquiry be confounded with another of a quite different nature. It is one thing to reform; it is another thing to abolish a National Church. Neither the truth nor the importance of the Articles of the Church of England is any way concerned in the present debate. The complaint made is general; the relief expected is not the improvement of our present Articles, but the removal of all. Nothing less will be accepted by the Petitioners than an admission into the ministry and preferments of the Church, without Subscription to any human formulary whatsoever.

They who understand the nature of their own petition, will readily agree with me, that the question between us amounts only to this:

Whether it be fit for government to employ and reward equally the ministers of all religions? or to support one religion only, and tolerate the rest? *

Let us examine the reasons on both sides.

I. If then the Magistrate supports without distinction every form of religion, we say, these three consequences will be unavoidable.

1. He must support opposite religions. 2. He must support hurtful religions. 3. He must support such religions as are directly subversive of his own authority.

* The late excellent Bishop Hoadley, in his Reply to Calamy, p. 521, expresses himself thus:

"I am not ashamed to own it as my judgement, that, "together with the most perfect Establishment that can be "framed by man, there ought always to be a Toleration "and protection for such weak and honest Christians as "are good and peaceable subjects to the Civil Constitu ❝tion."

No wonder these two things are joined together by that great writer. An Establishment without a Toleration is unjust; a Toleration without an Establishment is unintelligible.

1. And what, you will say, is the harm of supporting opposite religions? I answer, in one word, Universal Irreligion. The opinions of the people are, and must be founded more on authority than reason. Their parents, their teachers, their governors, in a great measure determine for them, what they are to believe, and what to practice. The same doctrines uniformly taught, the same rites constantly performed, make such an impression on their minds, that they hesitate as little in admitting the articles of their faith as in receiving the most established maxims of common life; and whilst they want the advantages of reflexion and study, they are at the same time free from the uneasiness and the mischief of dispute and doubt.

I would not be thought to prefer an implicit faith to a rational determination. I only deny the use of reason to the bulk of mankind on religious subjects, because they cannot use it; because many of them want capacity, most of them opportunity, to think and judge for themselves. They must be content, in all ordinary cases, with that religion which chance has thrown in their way,