The worthy & ingenious Mr Harrington in the second chapter of his third book of the art of law giving where he proposes prac<ti>cably the religious part of his model of goverment reasons thus for the necessity of a national religion.
“There is nothing (says he) more certain or demonstra<ble> to common sense than that the far greater part of mankind in matters of religion give themselves up to the publick leading. Now a national religion rightly established or not coercive is not any publick driveing b<ut> only the publick leading. If the publick in this case not lead such as desire to be led by a party whe<re> would be the liberty of conscience as to the state? W<hich> certainly in a well ordered common weal<t>h being the p<ublic> reason must be the publick conscience. Nay where <would> be the liberty of conscience in respect of any party wh<ich> should so proceed as to shew that without taking their libe<rty> of conscience from others they cannot have it themse<lves?> If the publick refusing liberty of conscience to a party wou’d be the cause of tumult how much more a par<ty> refusing it to the publick? And how in case of such a tumult shou’d a party defend their liberty of conscience or indeed their throats from the whole or far greater par<ty> without keeping down or tyrranizing over the whole or greater party by force of arms? These things being now understood it is no wonder that men living like men have not been found without a government or that any government has not been found without a national religion. That
[print edition page 88]
is some orderly or known way or publick leading <18> in divine things & the worship of God.<”>3 And having thus proved a national religion to be necessary he proposes. “That the national religion be excercised according to a directory in that case to be made & published by act of parliament. That the national minestry be permitted to have no other publick preferment or office in the common wealth. And that no religion being contrary to or destructive of Christianity be protected by or tolerated in the state but that all other religions be tolerated & protected by the council of religion. And that all professors of any such religion be equaly capable of all elections magistracys preferments & offices in the common wealth according to the orders of the same.”4
Mr Harrington very justly observes that in every state the greater part will always follow the publick leading in religion. And for this very reason nothing concerns the happiness of a government more than a right publick leading in religion. A publick leading there must be but then it ought to be of such a nature as is werth the following and by being followed wou’d be realy useful to the publick. And the question in politicks is to find out the publick leading in religion that would be the most advantageous and beneficial to the publick. Whatever establishments the majority are for the lesser party must needs submit
But the question about the religion of the state is, what should be the publick concience or reason. Or what publick leading in religion is wisest & fitest. Whither upon ballance of all consequences conveniencies & unconveniencies considering the nature of religion liberty truth error <tra?>de science & every thing that ought to be the care of <the> publick governours it be not the best part the state <19> can act to make liberty of examination & honest morals the only publick leading. If the goverment should endeavour after a publick following in any particular articles of faith or if it be not rather their business to promote charity and universal benevolence and for this effect to ma<i>ntain a national ministry whose work it shall be to enstruct in wholesome morals leaving it to such as have opportunity & capacity to examine into matters of faith & speculation & to
[print edition page 89]
think for themselves & borrow all the helps from others they can in their enquiries. Genuine <and> uncorrupted Christianity is indeed the best of all religions & good Christians will ever be the best & worthiest members of society. But neither the nature of the Christian institution nor the design of society allows <that> it be reduced to a parliamentary standart & made an engine or tool of state. In short the only usefull publick leading in religion <is the> care of liberty & of free examination and any other medling e<ver is> & ever must be pernicious to every thing that is valuable <to> mankind or that should be protected by society as the common rig<ht> & priveledge of reasonable creatures. The way to determine the question is to bring matters by fair count & reckoning to a just ballance of loss & gain & whoever wou’d shew that this or the other scheme of beleif should have a publick leading in any state must go to political arithmetick with it and take all things into the account which it is the design of any weel model’d society to cherish & promote. What I have attempted in this short essay is to shew that it is the entrest of society to make the publick leading the Protectrix of liberty & all honest good subjects whatever their schemes of Philosophy or faith may be and tho perhaps I have not been full enough in stating all the particulars which shou’d be brought into this account yet I have said enough to shew you, my Freind, what are my real sentiments of that affair and how I think the question ought to be managed.
[print edition page 90]
[print edition page 91]
A Philosophical Enquiry concerning the Connexion between the Miracles and Doctrines of Jesus Christ
[print edition page 92]
[print edition page 93]
NOTE ON THE TEXT
The first edition of the Philosophical Enquiry exists in two versions. The first printing was published by the London bookseller R. Willock in 1731 and cost six pence. The pamphlet was then reset and a second printing was published by Willock on 7 May 1731, which sold for one shilling.1 The second version incorporates minor changes in punctuation, spelling, and capitalization, as well as different textual ornaments and minor variations in accidentals. In both versions Turnbull used the pseudonym “Philanthropos” to sign the preface and was not named as the author on the title page or in the text.
The second edition of the Philosophical Enquiry was published by Willock in 1732 and sold for one shilling and six pence. Turnbull’s name appeared on the title page, and the fact that he was styled “A.M.” suggests that the pamphlet was published before he was given his honorary Doctor of Laws degree from the University of Edinburgh on 13 June 1732. The text of the second edition is reset. It is also thoroughly revised and substantially enlarged. In the preliminary matter, the preface is no longer signed “Philanthropos” and the advertisement has been reworded. In the main body of the pamphlet, Turnbull made numerous minor changes of punctuation and wording, expanded the text of some footnotes, inserted new footnotes, deleted some footnotes, and added sentences and paragraphs, as well as a new section in Part II, two new sections in Part III, and a set of six “Queries” at the end of the work.
The third edition of the Philosophical Enquiry, again published by Willock, bears a new title page. Turnbull has reworded and expanded the
[print edition page 94]
subtitle of the work and is now styled “LL.D.” The order of the preliminary matter has been altered, with the advertisement from the second edition now preceding the preface. Both have been reset with new ornaments and incorporate minor textual revisions. The “Advertisement to this Edition” has been added after the preface. Turnbull has not revised pages 1–86 (pp. 103–62) and they appear not to have been reset. The original page 87 (pp. 162–63) has been replaced with one and a half freshly set gatherings (pages 87–98; below pp. 162–70). Queries IV to VI have been reset, and Queries V and VI incorporate minor revisions. Turnbull has added Queries VII and VIII and reworded the concluding paragraph on page 89 (p. 163). The appendix (pages 89–98; below pp. 164–70) has also
