Abstract
The thought of Plato is closely allied at some points with that of his predecessors. It was Socrates who, so far as can be seen, created the conception of the soul which has ever since dominated European thinking. The idea that man has a soul, the seat of his normal waking intelligence and moral character stems from Socrates. This soul is either identical with him or the most important thing about him. A. E. Taylor argues that this idea did appear in the generation immediately subsequent to Socrates (in the literature of Isocrates, Plato and Xenophon) but was absent from the literature of earlier times. Thus he reasons that it must have originated in Socrates’ own generation and in that period there was no thinker to attribute it to others than Socrates himself. According to Taylor the fact that the idea of the soul was common ground for Isocrates, Plato and Xenophon means that it cannot be the discovery of any one of them.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
A. E. Taylor, Socrates (Boston, 1951), pp. 139–147. Cf. Taylor’s account of Socratic ethics, Ibid., pp. 148-162.
Whichcote, Works, II, 110-111, 122, 353; III, 255. The relation of Whichcote to his followers is remarkably similar to that of Socrates to Plato and others. In both cases the personal element is most important; for though neither man published anything, yet their thought survives through their successors, by virtue of the force of their personal example. The self-control of each through life and their calmness in the face of death, are similar. See Plato, Apology. Cf. Tillotson, Funeral Sermon, pp. 28-29. Particulars of classical sources used in this study will be found in the bibliography. English translations were used in all cases except where critical examination appeared necessary.
Cf. Plato, Cratylus, 402 A; Aristotle, Meta., 987a. The following works are suggested for a fuller analysis of the thought of Plato’s predecessors: J. B. Crozier, History of Intellectual Development, 2nd and revised ed. (London, 1902), I, 49-51; R. G. Collingwood, The Idea of Nature (Oxford, 1945), pp. 29-40; Frankford, H. and H. A.; Wilson, J. A.; Jacobson, Thorkild and Irwin, W. A.; The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man (Chicago, 1948), p. 377. Paul Friedlander, Platon: Seinwahrheit und Lebenswirklichkeit, 2nd ed. (Berlin, 1954), Chs. 1, 2, and 6. W. W. Jaeger’s, The Theology of the Early Greek Philosophers (New York, 1947) is basic reading.
Plato, Rep. vi, 508c.
Plato, Tim. 27C-29D. Cf. F. M. Cornford, Plato’s Cosmology (New York, 1957) pp. 2-33.
Plato, Theaetetus, 176a, b. Cf. Friedrich Solmsen, Plato’s Theology (Ithaca, 1942), pp. 149-174. His identification of good with God in Plato is not justified by evidence. See also, I. M. Crombie, An Examination of Plato’s Doctrines (New York, 1962), Vol. I, Chs. 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8. Armstrong holds that Plato’s Timaeus had more influence on early Christian writing than any other single Greek philosophical writing. See A. H. Armstrong and R. A. Markus, Christian Faith and Greek Philosophy (London, 1960) pp. 2-3.
Tim. 29D; Cf. Rep. X, 617E; Phaedo, 78-79, 105D; Laws X.
Whichcote, Ibid., I, 334 passim.
Whichcote, Ibid., III, 187; Cf. Meta, ii, 8.
Ibid., I, 334; Cf. Aristotle, Rhet. i, 4.
Ibid., pp. 314-315; Cf. Rhet., i, 9.
Ibid., II, 141; Cf. Aristotle, Eth. i, 1; Rhet. iii, 11.
Ibid., p. 51; Cf. Ibid., IV, 297; Eth. vi, 13.
Ibid., p. 391; Cf. Rhet. i, 6.
Ibid., IV, 18.
Ibid., pp. 288-289; Cf. Ibid., I, 178, 304; IV, 72 passim.
W. C. De Pauley, The Candle of the Lord: Studies in the Cambridge Platonists (London, 1937), PP. 35–36.
Leif Egg-Olofsson, The Conception of the Inner Light in Robert Barclay’s Theology (London, 1954) pp. 22–24.
Whichcote, Ibid., II, 52; Cf. Ibid., IV, 299.
Ibid., III, 143; Cf. Cicero, De Natura Deorum, ii, 6, 7. Cicero held that right knowledge is implanted in the soul by God and is innate within it. The rational part of the soul is, therefore, a consubstantial emanation from the divine World-reason. Right reason is a kind of divine revelation in man. See W. Windelband, A History of Philosophy, tr. J. H. Tufts (New York, 1893) p. 223. Cf. Markus in Armstrong and Markus, Ibid., pp. 100-101.
Ibid., II, 122.
Ibid., 159; Cf. Cicero, Letters to Atticus, ii, Ep. 1.
Ibid., p. 64; Cf. Ibid., III, 259. According to Whichcote, Aristotle observes that man is a “mild and gentle creature.” See I, 168. Cf. Aristotle, Eth. ii, 7, 10; iv, 5.
Ibid., IV, 10.
Ibid., p. 426; Cf. Ibid., II, 159 passim.
Ibid., III, 167. Whichcote observes that Seneca speaks of man’s soul as a “blast of God’s mouth.” See II, 43. Cf. Seneca, Ep. 31 and 93. Whichcote refers to Seneca elsewhere. Cf. IV, 18, 312. passim.
Charles Elsee, Neo-Platonism in Relation to Christianity, (Cambridge, 1908) pp. 32–34. Though the tendency to compare Plato and Moses, Socrates and Christ, is native to Neo-Platonism in Christian history (even among the Cambridge Platonists, i.e. More and Cudworth), Whichcote is cautious at this point. Therefore, it appears unnecessary to go deeply into Philo’s system which contributed much to this “allegorizing” tendency in Christianity. Cf. Charles Bigg, The Christian Platonists of Alexandria (Oxford, 1913) p. 32; Karl Bormann, Die Ideen und Logoslehre Philons von Alexandrien, (Monheim, 1955) and H. A. Wolfson, Philo (Cambridge, Mass., 1947), chs. 4-6. For an account of the influence of Greek ideas on Judaism between the first century B.C.E. and the fourth century C.E. in Palestine, see Saul Liebermann, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York, 1962).
See C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to John (London, 1935), p. 129. Concerning syncretistic tendencies in early Christianity, see the following: F. C. Grant, Hellenistic Religions (New York, 1953) pp. 152-196; W. L. Knox, Some Hellenistic Elements in Primitive Christianity (London, 1942), pp. 1-2; Johannes Weis, The History of Primitive Christianity, ed. F. C. Grant (New York, 1937), I, 440-441; Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion (Boston, 1958), p. 25. Rudolf Bultmann, Das Urchristentum (Munich, 1962), pp. 117-118; Werner Jaeger, Early Christianity and Greek Paideia (Cambridge, Mass., 1961).
Prov. xx, 27.
Whichcote, Ibid., II, 173.
Fridrich Ueberweg, A History of Philosophy, tr. G. S. Morris, 2nd ed. (London, 1875), I, 313. It is Ueberweg’s opinion that the influence of Plato upon the Church Fathers is often overrated. Of much greater consequence, he insists, was the direct influence which Platonism (and Stoicism), in their Jewish Alexandrian form, and in their combination and blending with Jewish ideas, exerted in shaping the doctrine contained in the New Testament writings of Paul and the Fourth Gospel, and so, in consequence of the canonical importance of these writings, in determining the creed of all Christendom. Subsequently, the ideas thus introduced into Christianity, having become common Christian property, served as points of union and departure for further studies. Etienne Gilson, The History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (London, 1955), pp. 93-94. W. R. Inge, The Philosophy of Plotinus (London, 1918), II, 227. When Whichcote attempts to distinguish between eternal rights and lesser of changeable rights, he quotes from Justin Martyr. See, IV, 108. Our author opposed the Gnostic tendency in his day just as vigorously as Martyr did in his with similar weapons. Cf. II, 319; III, 126; IV, 344-345. Hans Jonas, Ibid. and Prof. Gilles Quispel, visiting Professor of Church History at Harvard Divinity School during the academic year, 1964–65, describe Gnosticism as a religion in its own right. The present writer has not been convinced, however, that Gnosticism is not primarily a Christian “heresy.”
Elsee, Ibid., pp. 41-43; Cf. Bigg, Ibid., pp. n-14; Inge, Ibid., I, 99. Clement held the Platonic maxim, that “nothing is to be believed which is unworthy of God.” This maxim makes reason the judge of revelation. Cf. Bigg, Ibid. pp. 76-126; Inge, Ibid. p. 101; Egg-Olofson gives a valuable account of Clement’s views of Law and Philosophy as preparatory to the “perfect revelation in the Incarnate Word.” Further, Clement’s contribution to the notion of the relation of the Logos to human reason as well as the means whereby man is led to moral perfection by the Logos is set forth. See, Inner Light, pp. 37-39. Cf. Whichcote, Ibid., II, 316.
Origen, De Princ. i, 3, 8, ii, 9, 6; iii, 6, 1.
Ibid, iii, 10-15; Cf. Whichcote, Ibid., II, 25.
C. Cels. vii, 43.
Ibid. iv, 30; v. 43; vi. 2.
De Princ. ii, 1, 2, 10; Cf. C. Cels. iv. 99; Whichcote Ibid., IV, 15-16.
B. F. Westcott, Essays in the History of Religious Thought in the West (London, 1891), p. 236.
C. Cels. vi. 13.
Ueberweg, Ibid., pp. 240; Cf. Philip Merlan, From Platonism to Neoplatonism, 2nd ed., revised (The Hague, 1960) pp. 221-231.
Enneads, vi. 5, 6; Inge, Ibid., I. 49, 56; Windelband, Ibid. p. 370.
Whichcote, Ibid., II, 160.
See Infra, chs. IV, VI. When Whichcote refers to the Platonists, it is logical to suppose that he includes in this general appellation Plotinus and Neo-Platonism since his time as well as the similar trend of thought from Plato’s time. Cf. Whichcote, Ibid. II, 127; 177, 187, 300, III, 103; 120; IV, 70, 319 passim.
Gilson, Ibid. pp. 57-59. Cf. Jean Daniélou, Platonism Et Théologie Mystique: Essai Sur La Doctrine Spirituelle De Saint Grégoire De Nysse (Paris, 1944), pp. 50-65, 119-121.
Westcott, Ibid. pp. 156-191. Cf. Pseudo-Dents L’Aréopagite, Oeuvres Complètes, traduction par Maurice de Gandillac (Paris, 1953), pp. 140-146, 99-100. Boethius deserves mentioning as an exponent of the same tradition, see Gilson, Ibid. pp. 101-103.
A. C. McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought, (London, 1933), II, 172, 178-179. See also Aristotle Meta., xii. 7. Augustine, De Civ. Dei v. 9
Anselm, Cur Deus Homo?, esp. bk. II. There appears to be an affinity between Anselm’s theory of atonement and Whichcote’s, but this will be examined later. See Infra, ch. VI. It is valuable to compare Anselm’s thought with Augustine’s to see how they are related. Cf. Anselm, Monol. i, 17, 18-20. 29-31, 67-77 with Augustine, De Civ. Dei, xii. 25.
Cassirer, The Platonic Renaissance in England, tr. Pettegrove (New York, 1953), pp. 13–15, 32, 103-104. Cassirer does not hesitate to use the others, of the same school. For a brief synopsis of Cusa’s thought see Gilson, Ibid., pp. 534-536.
Gilson, Ibid. pp. 139-140, 150-152. Here our attention is called to a Platonic movement whose centre was the school of Chartes in the 12th century under a leader by the name of Chartes. This school is known mainly through John of Salisbury. See also, Ibid. pp. 431-37, where the same author speaks of what he calls “philosophical Augustinianism” kept intact by Albert the Great and his favorite pupil, Ulrich of Strasburg. Cf. Proclus, The Elements of Theology, ed. E. R. Dodds, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1963). Dodds considers this as one of the chief links between ancient and medieval thought and as the one genuinely systematic exposition of neoplatonic metaphysic which has come down to us (p. ix). He asserts that the thought of Proclus flowed into Christian history through the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite (pp. xxvi-xxvii). Cf. Raymond Klibansky, The Continuity of the Platonic Tradition During the Middle Ages (London, 1939), pp. 13-37.
Augustine, Conf. vii, 9; Cf. Whichcote Ibid. III, 25. Here Whichcote asserts that Augustine found the beginning of the first chapter of John among the Platonists. However, this is but a half-truth since he fails to tell us what Augustine certainly did not find, viz., the all-important doctrines of Incarnation and Atonement. Cf. Aug. De Div. Dei, viii, 4, 5, 12; ix-xii. See also, Erich Przywara, An Augustine Synthesis (New York, 1958), pp. 58, 175, 185. H. A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, 2nd ed., revised (Cambridge, Mass., 1964), pp. 257-286. Wolfson deals with the relation between the Logos and the Platonic Ideas in Justin Martyr, Clement, Origen, Augustine and other Church Fathers. He thus provides a conprehensive coverage of the subject. Cf. Ernst Hoffman, Piatonismus und Christliche Philosophie (Zurich, 1960), pp. 230-311.
Augustine, Trin. viii. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9; ix., xiii-xv.
Ibid., vii. 3.
Augustine, De Civ. Dei. xi-xiv.
Augustine, Trin. vii. 3, 5. Whichcote quotes Augustine a number of times. See his Works, I, 175-176 where he refers to Augustine (Ep. 50, 68 and 159); Whichcote, Ibid., I, 178 concerning the interpretation of scripture; Ibid. II, 396 regarding Augustine’s conversion (Conf. viii. 12); Ibid. III, 420 where Augustine is referred to as a “great father” (Cf. Ibid. IV-423), and Ibid., II, 350 concerning Augustine’s assertion that if we take away the grace and goodness of God we render Him impotent to do us good, and we remove human freedom as well as God’s power to command. Whichcote’s concept of happiness is from Augustine (Cf. Conf. i.i. with Works, IV, 31).
Robb, Neo-Platonism of the Italian Renaissance, (London, 1935) pp. 17–18.
W. Windelband, History of Ancient Philosophy, tr. by H. E. Cushman, (London, 1900), p. 383. While the present writer is aware that another great contribution of Augustine, viz., his doctrine of Predestination, has had tremendous consequences in the history of religious thought, it has been omitted here. The reason seems to be a logical one, viz., the positive, direct and constructive contribution of Augustine to Whichcote’s thought appears to be his Christian Platonic synthesis. However, the Predestination doctrine of Augustine, culminating in Puritanism in 17th century England, is a definite negative influence upon Whichcote. But it seems sufficient to consider this latter influence of Augustine when we come to an examination of Whichcote’s reaction to Puritanism; for it is the Puritan version of Augustine’s doctrine of Predestination, rather than the doctrine directly, that affects Whichcote. See Infra, ch. III.
Robb, Ibid., pp. 11-12.
Ibid., pp. 12, 18-20; 35, 41, 46-52, 60-63. Cf. Kristeller, The Philosophy of Marsilio Ficino, tr. by Virginia Conant (New York, 1943), p. 7.
Kristeller, Ibid. p. viii. Elsewhere Kristeller states that through his translations and commentaries, Ficino did for Plato, Plotinus and other ancient philosophers what the humanists did for the ancient Greek orators, poets and historians. Ibid. p. 11. Cf. Robb, Ibid. pp. 85-86. Kristeller adds that Ficino combines mediaeval Aristotelianism and the Christian-Platonism of the Church Fathers and Augustine. Ficino is also in direct contact with Plato and the ancient Neo-Platonists. Ibid. pp. 3-16, 23, 28; Cf. Jean Festugière, La Philosophie de l’Amour de Marsilo Ficin pp. 63-65, (Paris, 1941).
Robb, Ibid. p. 67.
Ibid., pp. 68-70. Festugière, Ibid., pp. 24-26.
Kristeller, Ibid., pp. 178, 197-198. 305; Cf. Cassirer, Kristeller, Randall, et al., The Renaissance Philosophy of Man, (Chicago, 1945), ch. III.
Robb, Ibid., p. 87 (from Ficino, Theologia Platonica, II, ii). Cf. Pico, “The very Elegant Speech on the Dignity of Man,” tr. by C. G. Wallis (Annapolis, Md., 1940).
Kristeller, Ibid., p. 253.
Ibid., Cf. (Jn. 1,:9); Augustine,Trin. vii, 3.5.
Robb, Ibid. p. 86 (from Ficino, Ibid. II, iv, 91).
Robb, Ibid. pp. 63-74. Cf. F. S. Ferré, The Finality of Faith and Christianity Among the World Religions (New York, 1963), p. 90.
Kristeller, Ibid. pp. 405-406.
Robb, Ibid., p. 63.
Kristeller, Ibid., pp. 28-29, 322-323.
Ibid., p. 28.
Robb, Ibid. p. 86. (from Ficino, De Christiana Religione, ch. xxiii, p. 25).
Kristeller, Ibid. p. 19. Cf. Preserved Smith, History of Modern Culture, (New York, 1930) p. 181.
Ernst Cassirer, The Platonic Renaissance in England, tr. by J. P. Pettegrove (New York, 1953) p. 24. Cf. Festugière, Ibid. pp. 40-43.
W. R. Inge, The Platonic Tradition in English Religious Thought (London, 1926), p. 36. Cf. Lewis Einstein, The Italian Renaissance in England (New York, 1902), pp. vii-viii, 179-228, 373-385.
Roberto Weiss, Humanism in England During The Fifteenth Century (Oxford, 1941) pp. 162–163. Cf. H. A. Gelder, The Two Reformations in the Sixteenth Century (The Hague 1961), chs. IV, V. See also, Paul Meissner, England Im Zeitalter von Humanismus, Renaissance Und Reformation (Heidelberg, 1952), pp. 31-35, 176-178, passim.
Weiss, Ibid., pp. 163-167. Doget became Provost of King’s College in 1499. Among other things, he studied Platonic writings diligently and produced a commentary on the Phaedo.
F. J. Powicke, The Cambridge Platonists, (London, 1926), pp. 12–13. According to this author, Andrew Downes (1549?-1628) was Greek Professor at Cambridge until 1625 after serving 17 years as professor. However, upon his enquiry at Emmanuel College, Queen’s College and the University Library, Cambridge, he discovered no evidence that they possessed any copy of the editions of Plato or Plotinus at the period in question. He concludes that there must have been some private copies. However, Weiss, Ibid., p. 163-165 reports that John Doget, Provost of King’s College, Cambridge, from 1499, found several books on the subject in King’s Library, among which were: Decembrio’s translation of the Republic and Bruni’s latinised Phaedrus together with other modern translations of Plato’s works. It is interesting that this Provost of King’s, Whichcote’s predecessor in the same position, should have attempted, though uncritically, to enlist Plato as an apologist for Christianity.
McGiffert, Ibid., pp. 381-383; Cf. Thomas Fuller, History of the University of Cambridge, new ed. (London, 1840); See also D. F. S. Thomson and H. C. Porter, eds., Erasmus and Cambridge (Toronto, 1963). This entire work contains a collection of Erasmus’ personal letters and papers during his stay at Cambridge University.
John Tulloch, Rational Theology and Christian Philosophy In England In the Seventeenth Century (London, 1872), I, 2.
McGiffert, Ibid., p. 389.
Tulloch, Ibid., I, 2-3.
Ibid., p. 38. For an account of the influence of Ficino and Erasmus upon Colet together with his fresh approach to Scriptural exegesis, see Cassirer, Ibid., pp. 12-14.
Colet’s place in the Platonic tradition is well established by Leland Miles in his, John Colet and The Platonic Tradition (Lasalle, 111., 1961). Cf. Cassirer, Ibid., pp. 7-9.
Tulloch, Ibid., I, 4-9; Cf. A. F. Mitchell, Minutes of the Westminister Assembly of Divines (London, 1874), pp. xvi-xviii. See also, Meissner, Ibid. pp. 467-514.
H. J. McLachlan, Socinianism in Seventeenth Century England (London, 1951), pp. 4–6, 30-33, 97-100. Socinius’ doctrines of the unipersonality of God and the humanity of Christ is foreign to Whichcote. See Ibid. p. 13.
A. W. Harrison, Arminianism, (London, 1937) p. 122. Cf. F. J. Powicke, John Norris of Bermerton (London, 1894), p. 129. See also R. L. Colie, Light and Enlightenment (Cambridge, Eng., 1957), pp. 23, 37, 144.
James Seth, English Philosophers and Schools of Philosophy (London, 1912), pp. 89–90.
Harrison, Ibid., pp. 166, 168-169; Cf. Ibid., pp. 131, 141-142, 153, 147, 176. See also Tulloch, Ibid., pp. 25-27. See Harrison, Ibid., pp. 141-143. Here is an account of the English reaction to Arminian ideas. It is important to note that John Goodwin, a vigorous Arminian, dedicated his book Redemption Redeemed to Whichcote and others at Cambridge.
J. R. H. Moorman, A History of the Church of England, (London, 1953), p. 202.
Tulloch, Ibid., pp. 51-52; II, pp. 82-83. Cf. John Hunt, Religious Thought in England, (London, 1870) I, 57.
Hunt, Ibid., pp. 58-60. One of the limits Hooker puts on reason appears to be his assertion that private reason should not depart from the decisions of public reason; for this departure leads to confusion. We are not to consider our yes as good as the nay of all learned men in the world. We should despise the judgment of grave and learned men. However, we are not to be tied to authority when there is reason to the contrary.
Cassirer, Ibid., p. 35-36.
Tulloch, Ibid., pp. 54-55.
Alfred Barry, Masters of English Theology, (London, 1877), PP. x–xii. For a fuller discussion on the struggle of Anglo-Catholics with the Puritans, and the subsequent triumph of Puritanism, see Tulloch, Ibid., pp. 57-59. See also Infra, Chap. III.
C. E. Whiting, Studies in English Puritanism, (London, 1931) pp. 233–234. This book contains a full description of the minor sects from 1660 to 1688 (pp. 233-322). Cf. H. G. Plum, Restoration Puritanism (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1943), p. 13.
Richard Baxter, Autobiography, ed. by J. M. L. Thomas, (London, 1931) pp. 72–74.
Tulloch, Ibid., pp. 64, 74. Cf. Arthur Galton, Our Outlook Towards English Roman Catholics and The Papal Court (London, 1902), pp. 104-106, 118-124.
J. J. De Boer, The Theory of Knowledge of the Cambridge Platonists, (Madras, 1931) pp. 9–10. Though De Boer is only concerned with Smith, Cudworth and Culverwel, I would maintain that his position is applicable to Whichcote also, though the reaction may have been stronger in these other writers.
A. N. Whitehead, Science and the Modern World, (Cambridge, Eng., 1926), pp. 11, 55-57. Cf. F. J. C. Hearshaw, ed., Social and Political Ideas of Some of the Thinkers of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (London, 1926), p. 32; R. S. Westfall, Science and Religion in Seventeenth Century England (New Haven, 1958), ch. V; Herbert Butterfield, The Origins of Modern Science 1300–1800 (New York, 1959) pp. 77-95. See also Robert Hoops, Right Reason in the English Renaissance (Cambridge, Mass., 1962) p. 175; Lydia Gysi, Platonism and Cartesianism in the Philosophy of Ralph Cudworth (Bern, 1962).
G. P. H. Pawson, The Cambridge Platonists (London, 9130) p. 19.
Cambridge Modem History, IV, 781-782, 791-792, 799. Cf. J. H. B. Masterman, The Age of Milton (London, 1897), pp. 221-222; Egg-Olofsson, Ibid., pp. 43-44; J. H. Muirhead, The Platonic Tradition in Anglo-Saxon Philosophy (London, 1931), pp. 25-26.
Seth, Ibid., p. 79. Cf. Charles de Rémusat, Histoire de la Philosophie en Angleterre depuis Bacon jusqu’à Locke (Paris, 1875), II, II; Gilbert Burnett, History of His Own Time (Oxford, 1838), I, 340-341; M. H. Carré, Phases of Thought in England (Oxford, 1949), p. 262; L. A. Selby-Bigge, ed. The British Moralists (Oxford, 1897), II, 286-288; C. M. H., IV, 291; J. B. Mullinger, History of Cambridge University (London, 1888), p. no.
Tulloch, Ibid., pp. 343-345. Cf. pp. 281, 288-290, 305, 318, 330-332, Volume I of Tulloch’s work is a valuable analysis of the thought of Falkland, Hales Chillingworth and other forerunners of the Cambridge Platonists. Cf. J. F. H. New, Anglican and Puritan (Stanford, 1964), p. 107.
Tulloch, Ibid., pp. 343-345, 379-408. Cf. John Hunt, Ibid. I, 340-341. For a comparative study of the thought of Whichcote and Taylor, see De Pauley, Ibid., pp. 41-43. Stillingfleet’s contribution to liberal thought appears more important when considered in the context of Latitudinarian thought, which follows the Cambridge Platonists School in the 17th Century rational tradition. See C. R. Cragg, From Puritanism to the Age of Reason (Cambridge, Eng., 1950), pp. 61-63.
See Infra, Ch. IX.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1968 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Roberts, J.D. (1968). From Athens to Cambridge. In: From Puritanism to Platonism in Seventeenth Century England. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9110-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9110-4_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8402-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9110-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive