Rationality and Revolution: Rereading Berkeley's Sermons on Passive Obedience

Field: Arts and Humanities (Social Sciences)

Rationality and Revolution:Rereading Berkeley's Sermons on Passive Obedience Scott Breuninger Although he famously railed against Locke in his Philosophical Commentaries that "We Irish think otherwise, "most discussions of Bishop George Berkeley's intellectual legacy have detached him from his Irish roots. He is typically located within the tradition of British Empiricism and cast as the middle link in a philosophical chain running from Locke to Hume.1 Born in Kilkrin, near Thomastown, County Kilkenny, the first twenty-eight years of Berkeley's life were spent in Ireland. Not only did this include his formal education at Kilkenny School and Trinity College, but also time spent as a fellow at Trinity. It was during this phase of his life that Berkeley wrote his major philosophical texts, which form the foundation of his reputation up to the present day. Still, despite the importance of this seminal period, there have been few inquiries into the impact of Ireland upon his early writings—a gap exacerbated by the paucity of intellectual histories focused on the era.2 A notable exception to this omission has been the work of David Berman, who has highlighted the flourishing of Irish thought in Dublin during Berkeley's formative years.3 Taking a cue from Berman, the Irish context of Berkeley's first foray into political issues, his sermons on Passive Obedience (1712), warrants further exploration. [End Page 63] Today, historians have a fairly good sense of the philosophical influences that helped shape Berkeley's early writings, such as the important roles played by Malebranche and Locke. However, there have been fewer investigations into those aspects of his work removed from the lofty realms of philosophy.4 While those seeking to explain Berkeley's moral thought have studied his sermons in Passive Obedience, or, the Christian Doctrine of not Resisting the Supreme Power, Proved and Vindicated upon the Principles of the Law of Nature (1712), attempts to place it within the intellectual and political contexts of the time have been scarce, and are typically limited to explorations of his "utilitarianism."5 As a whole, Berkeley's Passive Obedience sets forth an interpretation of the laws of nature that allowed him to defend a weak form of passive obedience, while simultaneously putting him at odds with key figures in the social contract tradition, particularly as expressed in the Irish context. In articulating this doctrine, Berkeley sought to develop a justification for the existing social order premised on individual obligations to God and reason. In this initial foray into the field of politics, we can see him beginning to apply his philosophical insights concerning reason and language to political issues. Nonetheless, this work resulted in a great setback to his career. As word of his sermons spread, Williamites came to see his advocacy of passive obedience as evidence that he harbored Jacobite sympathies. By publishing the full text of his sermons, Berkeley hoped to clear his reputation of this imputation, with little success—raising the question of why he committed them to print in the first place, Modern scholars seeking to assess Berkeley's sermons on passive obedience for evidence of his political views have offered a variety of opinions.6 Berman has argued that Berkeley may have been a Jacobite sympathizer in 1712, but that [End Page 64] he had had renounced these ideas by 1715 when he anonymously published his Advice to the Tories. Berman suggests that Berkeley's original aim in publishing Passive Obedience may have been to "encourage a Stuart return after Anne's death" which would "erase the moral blot of rebellion in 1688–89" and "resolve the problem of the Non-jurors."7 According to this reading, three events of late 1713 and 1714 could have inspired Berkeley to change his Jacobite inclinations. Not only had the Pretender refused to renounce Roman Catholicism, but George "came to the crown without force or artifice," and by 1715 members of both parties had taken the morally binding Oath of Allegiance.8 As evidence of this supposed change of heart, Berman notes that, despite passing through three editions between 1712 and 1713, Passive Obedience was not chosen by Berkeley for inclusion in his 1752 collection of...