Against "the mechanic philosophy": Coleridge and the Anglican anti-Lockean tradition

In his now classic study English Society 1688-1832 (1985), J.C.D. Clark emphasises the explicitly anti-Lockean nature of the dominant philosophy articulated by Anglican thinkers throughout the 18th century, from Bishops George Berkeley and Blackall in the earlier part of the century, to Horne and Horsley who revitalised the High Church tradition in the century's latter decades.  John Milbank identifies this legacy as one of the key aspects of Anglican resistance to "a dubious metaphysical and political Newtonianism" which characterised the post-1688 Whig oligarchy:

Many Anglicans tended often to resist the turning of Newtonian science into a crude metaphysics. They sustained a sense of a genuine divine transcendence beyond any immanent heights, so allowing for the equal closeness of God to all of his creatures ... many "country" as opposed to "court" Anglicans ... did not tend to accept the dead matter of the Newtonian universe but ... continued to insist on an animated, teleological and variegated natural order.

In his Lay Sermons (1817), Coleridge forcefully calls for a renewal of this philosophical tradition in the face of what he terms the "that system of disguised and decorous Epicureanism, which has been the only orthodox philosophy of the last hundred years", the philosophy of "Mr. Locke".  Coleridge quite clearly identifies this with the Whig oligarchy, regarding it as caught up with "all the causes, consequences, and accompaniments of the Revolution in 1688", and intrinsically related to "the spirit of enterprise and hazard in our commercial towns", the "sorcery of wealth".

Against "the vulgar appeal to common sense as the one infallible judge in matters" - also invoked, Coleridge notes with disapproval, by some "well-meant" apologetics for Christian orthodoxy, "of no permanent utility" - there is need for a retrieval of a philosophy which can "comprehend or reputably to defend the whole undiminished and unadulterated scheme of Catholic faith".  Coleridge identifies this with the philosophy defended by Anglican anti-Lockean thought:

Now it is not denied that the framers of our Church Liturgy, Homilies and Articles, entertained metaphysical opinions irreconcilable in their first principles with the system of speculative philosophy which has been taught in this country, and only not universally received, since the asserted and generally believed defeat of the Bishop of Worcester (the excellent Stillingfleet) in his famous controversy with Mr. Locke. Assuredly therefore it is well worth the consideration of our Clergy whether it is at all probable in itself, or congruous with experience, that the disputed Articles of our Church de revelatis et credendis should be adopted with singleness of heart, and in the light of knowledge, when the grounds and first philosophy, on which the framers themselves rested the antecedent credibility (may we not add even the revealability?) of the Articles in question, have been exchanged for principles the most dissimilar, if not contrary? 

... is it likely, that the faith of our ancestors will be retained when their philosophy is rejected,—rejected apriori, as baseless notions not worth inquiring into, as obsolete errors which it would be slaying the slain to confute? Should the answer be in the negative, it would be no strained inference that the Clergy at least, as the conservators of the national faith, and the accredited representatives of learning in general amongst us might with great advantage to their own peace of mind qualify themselves to judge for themselves concerning the comparative worth and solidity of the two schemes. Let them make the experiment, whether a patient re-hearing of their predecessors' cause, with enough of predilection for the men to counterpoise the prejudices against their system, might not induce them to move for a new trial; —a result of no mean importance in my opinion, were it on this account alone, that it would recall certain ex-dignitaries in the book-republic from their long exile on the shelves of our public libraries to their old familiar station on the reading desks of our theological students.

And so, against "the mechanic philosophy", Coleridge urges a rejection of the "abjuration of Plato and Aristotle, and ... contemptuous neglect of the Schoolmen and the scholastic logic".

Part of the reason for this post and recent posts on Coleridge has been to explore how he exemplified the possibilities for a 'non-Oxford Movement' renewal of the High Church tradition, amidst the political turmoil and cultural context which led to the Movement of 1833.  In other words, we can see in Coleridge how the Old High Church tradition could respond to changed times and circumstances.  1833 was not the only option for a restatement of the High Church tradition.

Coleridge's call for a retrieval of Anglican anti-Lockeanism has particular importance in not only echoing a very significant, vibrant aspect of the 18th century High Church tradition, but also - in a manner rather overlooked by the Oxford Movement - in emphasising the Church's need for a pattern of philosophical thought which challenged the philosophy which underpinned existing political, social, economic, and cultural dynamics, necessary if national life was to be sanctified.  We might suggest that this was not a pressing concern for the Movement precisely because it increasingly abandoned and rejected an understanding of the vocation of a national Church, the very 'Idea' which Coleridge sought to revitalise, the idea central to the High Church vision.