Jump to content

John Webster (minister)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For other uses, seeJohn Webster (disambiguation).

John Webster(1610–1682), also known asJohannes Hyphastes,was an English cleric, physician and chemist with occult interests, a proponent ofastrologyand a sceptic aboutwitchcraft.He is known for controversial works.

Life

[edit]

Webster was born atThornton in CraveninYorkshire.He claimed education at theUniversity of Cambridge.Although there is no evidence for this, his writing displays a learned style.[1][2][3]

Webster studied under the Hungarian alchemistJohannes Huniades(János Bánfi-Hunyadi), who is known to have lectured atGresham College.[3][4]

Webster became a curate inKildwickin 1634. He has been linked toRoger Brearley,theGrindletonianleader active at this period in Kildwick (three years earlier);[5]and classified as anAntinomian.During theFirst English Civil War,Webster left his position as a teacher inClitheroeand became a surgeon and army chaplain in the Parliamentarian forces. At a later point he was with the forces of ColonelRichard Shuttleworth.[3]In 1648 he became vicar atMitton.[3][6][7]From a Grindeltonian convert, he moved closer toQuakerviews.[8]He has been called aSeeker.[9]

Webster preached withWilliam Erberyon 12 October 1653 in a dispute with two London ministers atAll Hallows, Lombard Street.Disorder resulted after Erbery took a particularly aggressive line against the established clergy.[3][10][11]Webster had preached at All Hallows in 1652.[12]

In the late 1650s Webster was again in Clitheroe. In 1658 he was arrested and had papers seized.[13]He gave up the ministry, and practiced as a physician.[3]He died at Clitheroe[14]

Works on education

[edit]

InThe Saints Guide(1653) he rejected the worldly wisdom taught in schools as of no spiritual value. He made the case against any kind of university-educated clergy.Austin Woolrychconsiders this pamphlet, dated April 1653, was probably a response to the dissolution of theRump Parliament.[15][16]

TheAcademiarum Examenof 1654 made detailed proposals for the reform of the university curriculum; it was dedicated to GeneralJohn Lambert,a highly placed officer of theNew Model Army.While arguing as aBaconian,Webster wanted to combine ideas from the experimental philosophy of the time with those of astrology and alchemy.

Webster was interested in some of the ideas ofComenius,for example the idea of a "real character";he connected this withEgyptian hieroglyphs.[17]Behind this is the conception of anAdamic language,and the recovery of Adam's knowledge from before the fall.[18]He also advocated for the teaching of the works ofRobert Fludd,and others such asParacelsus.He was satisfied with neither the theological nor the medical training on offer.[19]

When theRoyal Societywas set up, after the Restoration, Webster welcomed it.[20]

Authors mentioned in theAcademiarum Examen

[edit]

TheExamenhas 11 chapters, and builds up to the discussion in Chapter X of what inAristotle’s teaching should be retained, and how amended. On the way, Webster introduces and marshals many modern authors, and a few scholastic and other medieval names, to illustrate his version of a new curriculum. Excluding classical authors and Church Fathers, at first appearance they comprise the following:

According toFrances Yates:

In the heart of Puritan England, this Parliamentarian chaplain produces a work that is right in the Renaissancemagico-scientifictradition, culminating in Dee and Fludd, and he thinks that this is what should be taught in the universities, together with Baconianism, which he sees as incomplete without such authors. Webster ignores the fact that Bacon expressly states that he is against the macro-microcosmic philosophy of the Paracelsians, and is under the impression that Bacon can be reconciled with it. And he seems to underline Bacon's omission of the Dee mathematics.[22]

Controversy over theAcademiarum Examen

[edit]

A reply from the Oxford academicsSeth WardandJohn Wilkins,inVindiciae Academiarum(1654) was used by them as an opportunity to defend a more moderate programme of updating, partly put in place already. Ward and Wilkins put the case that Webster was ignorant of recent changes, and inconsistent in championing both Bacon and Fludd, whose methods were incompatible.[14]Wilkins suggested Webster might be well matched withAlexander Ross:Ross was a most conservative supporter ofAristotle,who withGalenwas Webster's main target in the classical authorities, and Wilkins had defended the Copernican system against Ross in a long controversy running from the late 1630s to the mid-1640s.[23]

Ward and Wilkins used the same publication to argue against others (William DellandThomas Hobbes) who had been attacking the old universities of Cambridge and Oxford. Other opponents of theExamenwereThomas HallandGeorge Wither.[24][25]

The long-runningHobbes-Wallis controversywas a by-product of this debate. It has also been taken as symptomatic of a developing split separating on academic issues the circle ofSamuel Hartlib,close in views and sympathies to Webster, from those in the universities who in religious terms would be allies, on the issues of practical applications, and also the status of astrology, chemistry after Paracelsus and van Helmont, andpansophism.[26]

Other works

[edit]

He edited William Erbery's works and wrote his biography in 1658, asThe Testimony of William Erbery.[27]

Metallographia(1671) was a chemical work. It attributed tomineralsthe property of growth.[28]He had a corpuscle theory of matter, described as intermediate between those ofKenelm DigbyandHerman Boerhaave.[29]It also drew on the work ofRobert Boyle;but the strong influence was that ofJan Baptist van Helmont;[30][31]this book was one thatIsaac Newtonused in his own alchemical work.[14]Daniel Georg Morhofcriticised it as largely a compilation from German authors (Boyle was not mentioned); the views ofJohann Pharamund Rhumeliuswere given at length.[32]

HisThe Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft(1677) was a critical and sceptical review of evidence for witchcraft. According toHugh Trevor-Roper,this is not an innovative work, but at the level of that ofJohann Weyer.[33]He opposedHenry MoreandJoseph Glanvill,who were arguing for the reality of witches.[34]Webster went as far as suggesting that the Bible had been mistranslated to support that belief.[35]It was translated into German, being published in 1719 atHallewhereChristian Thomasiushad made his scepticism an academic point of view.[36]In the same year he defended the reputation ofJohn DeeagainstMeric Casaubon.He had recommended Dee in theExamen,and was a proponent ofnatural magic.[37]More edited Glanvill's earlier works on witchcraft, attacked by Webster, together with material of his own, as a reply, which appeared under Glanvill's name but after his death as the influentialSaducismus Triumphatus.[38]

References

[edit]
  1. ^"Webster, John (WBSR610J)".A Cambridge Alumni Database.University of Cambridge.
  2. ^Nicholas McDowell,The English Radical Imagination: Culture, Religion, and Revolution, 1630-1660(2003), p. 45.
  3. ^abcdef"Webster, John (1610-1682)".Dictionary of National Biography.London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900.
  4. ^Christopher Hill,The World Turned Upside Down(1971), p. 290.
  5. ^Christopher Hill,The World Turned Upside Down(1971), p. 82.
  6. ^Michael R. Watts,The Dissenters(1978), pp. 180-1.
  7. ^"Article | OGFB".Archived fromthe originalon 30 June 2009.Retrieved13 February2009.
  8. ^David Farr,John Lambert, Parliamentary Soldier and Cromwellian Major-general, 1619-1684(2003), p. 174.
  9. ^Christopher Hill,The World Turned Upside Down(1971), p. 191.
  10. ^Woolrych, p. 334.
  11. ^Jones, Robert Tudur (1959)."ERBERY, WILLIAM (1604 - 1654), Puritan and Independent".Dictionary of Welsh Biography.National Library of Wales.
  12. ^Dai Liu (1 January 1986).Puritan London: A Study of Religion and Society in the City Parishes.University of Delaware Press. pp. 110–111.ISBN978-0-87413-283-0.
  13. ^Christopher Hill,The Experience of Defeat(1994), p. 93.
  14. ^abcAndrew Pyle(editor),Dictionary of Seventeenth Century British Philosophers(2000), article on Webster, pp. 867-870.
  15. ^Allen G. Debus,The Chemical Philosophy: Paracelsian Science and Medicine in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries(2002), p. 394.
  16. ^Austin Woolrych,Commonwealth to Protectorate(2002), note p. 243.
  17. ^Christopher Hill, Intellectual Origins of the English Revolution, revisited(1997), note 112 on p. 96
  18. ^Peter Harrison,'Religion' and the Religions in the English Enlightenment(2002), p. 150-1.
  19. ^Christopher Hill,Change and Continuity in 17th Century England(1974), p. 172.
  20. ^Debus,The Chemical Philosophy,pp. 409-410.
  21. ^Hollandus was a fictional alchemist.
  22. ^Frances Yates,The Rosicrucian Englightenment(1986), pp. 186-7.
  23. ^Adrian Johns,Prudence and Pedantry in Early Modern Cosmology: The Trade of Al Ross,History of Science 35 (1997), 23-59.
  24. ^Allen G. Debus,Science and Education in the Seventeenth Century: The Webster-Ward Debate(1970).
  25. ^Nigel Smith,Literature and Revolution in England, 1640–1660(1994), p. 198.
  26. ^David C. Lindberg, Ronald L. Numbers,God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter Between Christianity and Science(1986), p. 211.
  27. ^Christopher Hill,A Nation of Change and Novelty(1993), p. 189.
  28. ^"Webster: Metallographia".Archived fromthe originalon 16 February 2009.Retrieved13 February2009.
  29. ^Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs,The Foundations of Newton's Alchemy: Or "The Hunting of the Greene Lyon"(1983), p. 81.
  30. ^Bruce T. Moran,Distilling Knowledge: Alchemy, Chemistry, and the Scientific Revolution(2005), p. 141.
  31. ^Joseph Stewart Fruton,Methods and Styles in the Development of Chemistry(2002), p. 14.
  32. ^Lynn Thorndike,History of Magic and Experimental Sciencevol. 12 (1923), pp. 263-4.
  33. ^Hugh Trevor-Roper.Religion, the Reformation and Social Change(1967), pp. 168-9.
  34. ^"The Decline of Witch Trials".
  35. ^Christopher Hill,The English Bible and the Seventeenth-Century Revolution(1993), p. 402.
  36. ^Ian Bostridge,Witchcraft and Its Transformations, c.1650-c.1750(1997), p. 235.
  37. ^Peter J. French (1972),John Dee: The World of an Elizabethan Maguspp. 12-3 and pp. 175-6.
  38. ^"Henry More".The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. 2020.

Further reading

[edit]
  • Thomas Harmon Jobe,The Devil in Restoration Science: the Glanvill-Webster Witchcraft Debate,Isis 72:3 1981
  • Peter Elmer,The Library of Dr. John Webster: The Making of a Seventeenth Century Radical(London, 1986).
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Webster_(minister)&oldid=1176319796"