Webster-Ward Debate

One of the central issues that separated enthusiastic writers in the 17th century from their critics was the proper role of human volition in cognition. Enthusiastic writers saw the human will as primarily a source of sin and error, and consequently the attainment of truth, virtue, and salvation required the renunciation of will. They believed that inspired and involuntary human activity directed by divine powers is to be preferred over our deliberate and willful conduct. Inspiration, in the words of Henry More, is “to be moved in an extraordinary manner by the power or Spirit of God to act, speak, or think what is holy, just and true” (ET 2), and the legitimacy and even superiority of inspiration in all areas, including cognition, is a central feature of enthusiasm. This assessment of the role of will in the human understanding is a stark contrast to the views of the critics of enthusiasm, such as Locke, who we just saw had a high regard for human voluntary activity, including voluntary intellectual activity and its products, but felt that unthinking and impulsive activity places the human understanding, as Locke writes, “in the dark, or in the power of the Prince of Darkness” (E 4.19.13).

The dispute over the role of human volition and its merits is especially vivid in the so-called Webster-Ward debate, which primarily consists of two pamphlets.