Philosophers on Quakerism: reason's role in a particular religion

Jack, Andrew (2023). Philosophers on Quakerism: reason's role in a particular religion. University of Birmingham. M.A.

Preview

Jack2023MAbyRes.pdf
Text - Accepted Version
Available under License All rights reserved.
Download (1MB) | Preview

Abstract

Chapter 1 is an introduction. I will examine the writings about Quakers of More, Locke, Leibniz and Hume, whether or not the writings are themselves philosophy. I explain why, except for what I say about them in chapter 1, Anne Conway, Princess Elisabeth and Spinoza are not otherwise within the scope of the thesis.

Chapter 2 examines More’s three criticisms of Quakers:

(1) Quaking is not a guide to divine inspiration or truth. He was right about this, but the objection became less important as Quakers stopped quaking.
(2) By ignoring reason and conscience, Quakers leave themselves open to supposed inspirations which are contrary to reason and good manners. Quakers behave badly, which is evidence that their supposed inspirations are not genuine. This is essentially the same objection as is made by Locke and Leibniz, whose writings we examine in chapter 2.
(3) The Quakers’ emphasis on Christ within (the light within) leads them to deny Christ without, the external, historical man who died, was resurrected, and is now in heaven. They deny what More considers to be essential to Christian faith. More’s interpretation of the early Quakers was correct, as his example of William Smith’s Quaker primer for children proves. Keith sought to answer More’s objection in an appendix to the second edition of his Immediate Revelation. As the Quakers’ thinking developed and (in the case of Smith) was posthumously ‘clarified’ i.e. corrected, they and More came to agree on the necessity of both Christ within and Christ without. So this objection also became less important.

Chapter 3 examines the writings of Locke and Leibniz, including their correspondence, relating to Quakers. Did Quakers really believe that their inspirations should be accepted without any check or test involving reason or scripture? Yes, as Barclay’s discussion of his second proposition in the Apology shows. Both Locke and Leibniz studied works by Barclay. Locke became very close friends with the Quaker, Benjamin Furly, but his consistent position was that Quakers were enthusiasts and, because of their refusal to test apparent inspirations using reason, vulnerable to delusions. Leibniz expressed the same position most clearly in a short piece on apologetic work drafted, perhaps, in 1685. Locke’s views were most fully expressed in Book four, chapter 19 (‘Of Enthusiasm’) of the 1700 edition of his An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, with which Leibniz agreed in this New Essays.

More, Locke and Leibniz were each Christians, and each was concerned to defend Christianity from Quaker enthusiasm. Chapter 4 examines Hume’s writings about Quakers in his essay “Of Superstition and Enthusiasm”, his History and a letter to the Quaker Elizabeth Shackleton. His portrait of early Quaker enthusiasm is very similar to that of his predecessors: the early Quakers were deluded enthusiasts whose pride led them to think they communicated directly with God. But his discussion serves quite a different purpose. Hume’s criticism of early Quaker excesses implies that they were foolish to follow biblical precepts. His discussion of the Quakers also implies that in a religious body in which belief is no longer supported by either superstition and priests, or the fires of enthusiasm, only reason remains, and belief in Christianity will fall away, leaving only something like deism or Confucianism.

Type of Work:

Thesis (Masters by Research > M.A.)

Award Type:

Masters by Research > M.A.

Supervisor(s):