Abstract
It appears significant that Bishop Westcott who has so much in common with Whichcote should accuse him of an inadequate doctrine of the Church1 and even attributes the transitoriness of Whichcote’s influence to this. We must admit together with Westcott that Whichcote has not spoken definitively concerning the nature of the Church. The reason seems to be that he has spoken mainly against popery and in defence of Christian tolerance. Thus, while accepting B. F. Westcott’s criticism, we must, in all fairness to Whichcote, portray him as a loyal member of the Church of England, but as one who deserves to be remembered most for his protest against religious intolerance among Roman Catholics and Protestants alike. Whichcote is true to his purpose and the contribution he makes to this aspect of Church life lives till this day.
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
Religious Thought in the West (London, 1891), pp. 393-394.
In order to understand fully the reason why Whichcote’s negative attitude toward Romanism was so passionate, one must take a look at the policy of the Roman Church at this time and pay special attention to its effects upon England. See Arthur Galton, Our Outlook Towards English Roman Catholics, and the Papal Court (London, 1902), pp. 104-124.
Whichcote, Aph. 68.
Works, I, 156-157.
Ibid., pp. 160-164.
Ibid., pp. 165-167.
Ibid., pp. 168-169. Whichcote’s general position here is reflected in Shaftesbury’s “lukewarm” attitude toward religion, see Infra, ch. X. Cf. John Smith, “Superstition,” Select Discourses ed. H. G. Williams, 4th ed. (Cambridge, England, 1859), pp. 28-30.
Ibid., p. 170. Cf. Aulén, The Faith of the Christian Church, tr. by Whalstrom-Arden (Philadelphia, 1948), pp. 394-397. Aulén’s position is more tenable and convincing than Whichcote’s. While Whichcote is true here to his general rational position, Aulén’s argument is more fundamental for he goes back to the Biblical record and the history of the early Church and points out that the Roman doctrine of trans-substantiation has substituted a “realism” for the original “symbolism” of the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. See also “Eucharist,” Catholic Encyclopaedia (New York, 1913), V, pp. 572-590. Whichcote is confused by the Roman distinction between “substance” and “accident” which makes it possible for bread and wine in the Eucharistic Celebration to be transformed substantially into the body and blood of Christ while the chemical properties of these elements remain unchanged. I share his like of comprehension, but, at the same time, I am impressed by the fact of Christ’s presence in the Eucharistic Feast. All basic Christian doctrines of the Eucharist are concerned with His presence; whether total or actual (Roman), real (Lutheran), mystical or spiritual (Calvinist), or symbolical (Zwinglian). The manner of His presence remains a mystery to all. If all Chistians, therefore, should center more of their attention on our common experience of the presence of the risen Lord in the celebration of Holy Communion greater progress could be made in the ecumenical dialogue and fellowship among Christians at the Lord’s Table. Observe the bitter conflict between Luther and Zwingli over the manner of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, see, Oskar Farmer, Zwingli: The Reformer, tr. by D. G. Sear (New York, 1952), pp. 113-114. Cf. Hubert Jedin, A History of the Council of Trent, tr. by D. E. Graf (Edinburgh, 1961), pp. 370-395.
Ibid., pp. 171-172, 189. Cf. “Probabilism,” Catholic Encyclopaedia, III, 441-446.
Ibid., p. 170.
Ibid., pp. 173-174. Cf. Ibid., II, 316; Aph. 502. See also, Henry More, “An antidote Against Idolatry,” Theological Works ed. Joseph Downing (London, 1708), pp. 773-775. All the Cambridge Platonists oppose Romanism since it threatens the very foundation of their ethical and religious structure.
Ibid., p. 180. Whichcote’s view of “implicit faith” is entirely different. By this concept, Whichcote refers to faith in God concerning things not yet revealed and concerning things revealed in Scripture which are beyond the comprehension of the unaided reason. Cf. Supra, ch. VI. See art. on “Faith,” Catholic Encyclopaedia, V, 752-754.
Art. “Merit,” Catholic Encyclopedia, X, 202.
Whichcote, Ibid., pp. 312-313.
Ibid., p. 276.
Ibid., IV, 271-272.
Ibid., II, 255. Cf. Ibid., I, pp. iii-iv. Whichcote’s Latin poem commemorating the death of Oliver Cromwell is mostly a protest against the Papacy. He describes the Lord Protector as his great ally in this cause. This is easily understood in view of the plea of Cromwell and Whichcote alike for religious toleration. It is worth remembering that Cromwell called Whichcote to his conference concerning toleration for the Jews. William Chillingworth, in many ways, a predecessor of Whichcote, devotes his work, The Religion of Protestants (London, 1886), to a position quite similar to Whichcote’s.
Ibid., III, 161; Cf. The Apostolic Ministry ed. by K. E. Kirk (London, 1946), pp. 40-41. Here a similar claim is made for the episcopal ministry or Essential Ministry which alone is considered valid.
Ibid., p. 387.
Ibid., II, 327. Cf. Whichcote, The Malignity of Popery, ed. by John Jeffery, (London-1717). For an account of “apostolic succession,” see, Roman view: Art. “Apostolic Succession,” Catholic Encyclopaedia, I, 641-643; other views, K. E. Kirk, Ibid., pp. 1-2, and A. G. Herbert, “Ministerial Episcopacy,” Ibid., pp. 493-494. Whichcote is quite modern here and anticipates though dimly the dialogue now in vogue between various branches of Christendom. One of the most decisive factors between Roman Catholicism and all other Christian bodies is “papal infallibility.” Likewise one of the most serious considerations between Anglicans and most Protestant bodies is “apostolic succession.” For a discussion between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy on the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, see Yves Conger, After Nine Hundred Years (New York, 1959), pp. 59-67 for the Roman view and John Mayendorff, The Orthodox Church (New York, 1962), pp. 208-31, for an Orthodox view. Those involved in discussions between Anglicans and Presbyterians in Great Britain as well as between Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Disciples of Christ and others in the United States must grapple with this problem if there is to be an ecumenical breakthrough. I am impressed with Bishop J. A. Pike’s suggestion that we get to the essentials of church structure. He distinguishes between various forms of episcopal ordination as follows: The first type is for the well-being of the church (de bene esse); the second type is for the fullness of the church (de plene esse), and the third is essential for valid ministry and sacraments (de esse), His views are similar to Whichcote’s, see Pike, A Time For Christian Candor (New York, 1964) ch. X. Cf. J. F. H. New Anglican and Puritan: The Basis of Their Opposition, 1558–1640 (Stanford, 1964), p. 107 and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Communion of Saints (New York, 1963). pp. 72-85.
Aph. 1107.
Ibid., 138.
Ibid., 1121.
Works, I, 175-192.
Edward Fowler, A Free Discourse Between Two Intimate Friends, 2nd ed. (London, 1671). See the title page. Cf. John Hales, “Schism and Schismatics,” (1642), in Several Tracts (London, 1677), Jeremy Taylor, Liberty of Prophesying, (London, 1834) first appeared, 1646.
Whichcote, Works, II, 324-325.
Ibid., p. 329. Cf. Fowler, Ibid., pp. 228-230. passim.
Aph. 921.
Christian Doctrine (Cambridge, 1956), pp. 160-161. Cf. Whichcote, Works, IV, 68.
S. P. (Simon Patrick), “A Brief Account of the Sect of Latitude-Men,” (1662) in The Phenix, (London, 1707), pp. 504–506.
Whichcote, Works, II, 330; Cf. W. L. Bradley, P. T. Forsyth: The Man and His Work (London, 1952), pp. 226-228. The most comprehensive study of the “images” of the church in the New Testament known to the writer is Paul S. Minear, Images of the Church in the New Testament (Philadelphia, 1960), see especially, pp. 11-27, pp. 173-220. See also, Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (London, 1957), pp. 174-195.
Aph. 248.
The Authorized Version for Whichcote.
Works, II, 123-124.
Ibid., p. 356.
Smith, Ibid., p. 37.
Whichcote, Ibid., IV 79; Cf. Ibid., III, 316-317.
Ibid., II, 101-103.
Ibid., III, 207; Cf. Henry More, “The True Grounds of the Certainty of Faith,” Ibid., pp. 765-770. Whichcote describes worship in the following Aphorisms: 474, 762, 806, 936, 961, 1009, 1013, 1116, 142, 143, 970, 1082, passim.
Ibid., IV, 116-117.
Aph. 976.
Ibid., 393. Whichcote’s general attitude concerning preaching is quite similar to that presented by H. H. Farmer in his Servant of the Word (London, 1941), pp. 14-15, 24-25. Cf. Dietrich Ritschl, A Theology of the Proclamation (Richmond, Va., 1960), pp. 67-78 and St. Francis de Sales, On the Preacher and Preaching, tr. by J. K. Ryan (New York, 1964), pp. 23, 32.
Works, III, 65; Cf. Whale, Ibid., p. 161.
Ibid., p. 262.
Ibid., p. 263.
Fowler, Ibid., pp. 117-118. Cf. Tillotson, The Funeral Sermon of … Whichcote (London, 1683), pp. 214-216.
Whichcote, Aph. 201. Cf. Ibid. 1120.
Ibid., 1082. Cf. Ibid. 970.
Ibid., 1074.
Works, II, 327. Cf. Friedrich Heiler’s psychological and phenomenological study of prayer. It is odd that Whichcote should have overlooked dedication and communion as vital to Prayer, see Prayer, tr. by S. Mc Comb and J. E. Park (New York, 1958), pp. 353-363. See also, W. N. Pittenger, Christian Affirmations (New York, 1954), pp. 52-63.
Ibid., I, 15-16. See Whichcote’s own prayers appended to Salter’s ed. of his Aphorisms and to Vol. IV of his Works. These prayers are a concise statement of his theology.
Ibid., III, 207-209.
The World and God (London, 1955), p. 128. Cf. Heiler, Ibid., p. 362. “Prayer is a living communion of man with God.”
Whichcote, Works, II, 325.
Some recent studies on the Lord’s supper are worth studying. Norman Hook attempts to present the scriptural basis of the doctrine for the sake of Christian unity in his, The Eucharist in the New Testament (London, 1964), p. lx. Joachim Jeremias relates the Lord’s Supper to the background of the Jewish Passover and to Christology in his The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, tr. by A. Ehrhardt (New York, 1955), p. 152, 159. B. J. Kidd discusses the concept of ex opere operato in his The Later Medieval Doctrine of Eucharistic Sacrifice (London, 1958), p. 44. G. H. Williams in his Anselm: Communion and Atonement (St. Louis, Missouri, 1960) links Anselm’s conceptions of incarnation and atonement with Holy Communion, see p. 64. Robert S. Paul in his The Atonement and The Sacraments (New York, 1960) attempts the more comprehensive task of relating historically and theologically the various views of atonement with the two sacraments recognized by reformation Christianity, viz., Baptism and Holy Communion.
Ibid., IV, pp. 179-180.
Ibid., p. 180.
Ibid., pp. 181-182. Cf. Cudworth, “The True Notion of the Lord’s Supper,” Works, Ist American ed. (Andover, 1837), II, 499-542. See also, Farmer, Ibid., pp. 72-74.
Whale, Ibid., p. 160.
It is encouraging to note the successful Protestant-Anglican-Orthodox-Roman Catholic worship service during the Faith and Order meeting of the World Council of Churches at Montreal during the summer of 1963. Perhaps this is an important step on the way to inter-Communion.
Whichcote, Works, IV, 182. Cf. T. F. Torrance and John Heron, eds., The Biblical Doctrine of Baptism: A Study Document issued by The Special Commission on Baptism of The Church of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1958). It states: “The heart of the New Testament teaching … is that in Baptism the person baptised enters into a vital personal relationship with the living Lord, and so has made available to him all that his Lord accomplished for men in his incarnation, life, death, resurrection, ascension, and the bestowing of the Holy Spirit,” p. 55. See also, A. H. Legg, “Christian Baptism,” The Sacraments, a report prepared by the Joint Theological Commission of the Church of South India and The Federation of Evangelical Lutheran Churches in India (Bangalore, India, 1956), pp. 99-127; Joachim Jeremias, The Origins of Infant Baptism, tr. by David Cairns (London, 1960), pp. 19-42. J. de Baciocchi, La Vie Sacramentaire De L’Église (Paris, 1958), pp. 63-96.
Letters to Young Churches (London, 1951), pp. 79-80.
Whichcote, Aph. 1127.
Ibid., 1054.
Ibid., 505.
Smith, Ibid., p. 1.
Whichcote, Works, I, 355; II, 8; IV, 103.
Ibid., pp. 377-378; Cf. Ibid., IV, 403.
Ibid., II, 23; Cf. Ibid., IV, 183.
It is necessary to point out that by disagreement, or difference among Christians, Whichcote means an unwholesome and odious division on non-essentials. He leaves ample room for a wholesome divergence of opinion in the Christian spirit. It is, indeed, unfortunate that various denominations within Protestantism were so belated in practicing this principle on the foreign mission field. It is regrettable that many “enthusiastic” religious sects still prefer to “go it alone” in their missionary program to the detriment of the entire Christian cause. My recent visit to Asia has enabled me to observe the situation firsthand. This situation, it appears to me, is being corrected more by the rise of nationalism in these areas than by Christian good-will. The fact is that many governments in Asia (i.e. Japanese, India) group most Christian bodies together under a Ministry of Religious Affairs. If the religious bodies want to remain in these countries to witness at all, they must, as a minority religion, do so along with other Christian bodies. In some cases the Roman Catholic Church has been granted a measure of autonomy because of its excellent contribution to education in underdeveloped countries. This I understand as a pragmatic rather than a religious concession. It is unfortunate that we have not worked out our internal differences as Christians; for now we must brace ourselves for an encounter with non-Christian religions which have now become aggressive in the propagation of their own beliefs not only in the East but in the West also. E. G. Parrinder compares the present impact of Eastern thought on the West with that of classical thought on Europe at the Renaissance. See his, “A Contribution to the Honest to God Debate,” W. F., No. 62 (March, 1965), p. 10. One of his concerns is that the scholars who entered into the debate with Bishop Robinson all but ignored all non-Christian religions making one slight reference to one other religion (p. 9).
Whichcote, Works, II, 25-26. The originality and courage of Whichcote’s views on Christian tolerance may be appreciated only against a background of a full realization of the religious situation in seventeenth century England. His tolerant spirit is thrown into a higher relief when we recall the fanaticisms and extravagances of almost every type of Christianity and the unwholesome effects of the bitterness thus produced.
Ibid., pp. 29-36; Cf. Aph. 136.
Here we are reminded of recent church theologies (i.e. Aulén, John Knox, Wingren, Barth) which are seen as correctives for the more individualistic approaches to theology. In Whichcote’s day most Puritans depended on the Holy Spirit to understand scripture. This was especially true of the Quakers and other similar groups. John Goodwin and Richard Baxter were exceptions among the Puritans — they considered reason as a criterion. Another possible criterion was the Church, provided it was not papist (Anglo-Catholic). See G. F. Nutall, The Holy Spirit In Puritan Faith and Experience (Oxford, 1946), pp. 22, 42-43, 45. Cf. Howard Watkin-Jones, The Holy Spirit From Arminius to Wesley (London, 1929), pp. 223-229.
Ibid., II, 36-38. Cf. Aph. 570, 637, passim.
Ibid., pp. 325-326.
Ibid., pp. 390-391. Cf. Supra, ch. VII, for a detailed account of Whichcote’s view of Christian morality.
Ibid., III, 33; Aphs. 588, 1036.
Ibid., p. 59. Whichcote’s contemporary John Milton was one of the greatest exponents of Christian liberty in seventeenth century England, De Doctrina Christiana, tr. by Charles Sumner (Cambridge, England, 1825), p. 424. This conception is set forth in Milton’s De Doctrina and briefly near the end of Paradise Lost ed. by G. M. Davis (London, 1931). Cf. Douglas Bush, Paradise Lost in Our Time (Ithaca, 1945), pp. 35-36.
Ibid., p. 60; Cf. More, Ibid.
Ibid., p. 269.
Ibid., IV, 201-203. Whichcote has sounded a significant warning for our age characterized so much by indifference to religion. Professor Matthew Spinka, of Hartford Seminary, used to say, “There are no more holy wars because no one cares enough for religion to fight about it.” On the other hand, one wonders if all the variations on the theme of the death of God, the fascination for Zen and Atheistic Existentialism is not a reflection of a deep spiritual hunger.
Cf. Heiler, Ibid., pp. 103, 136-170 where he discusses various psychological types of devotees — the philosophical, the mystical and prophetic.
Ibid., pp. 378-380.
Aph. 569.
Works, II, 26-27.
Ibid., pp. 27-28.
Ibid., p. 28.
Ibid., IV, 205.
Ibid., p. 211.
Ibid., 212.
Ibid., p. 214.
Tillotson, Ibid., p. 25.
Whichcote, Works, Ibid., pp. 380-382.
Ibid., pp. 284-286.
Ibid., I, 392.
Ibid., IV, 401.
Aph. 1042.
Ibid.
Tillotson, Ibid., pp. 28-29.
Whichcote, Aph. 981. Richard Baxter resembles Whichcote as a prophet of Christian tolerance, see F. J. Powicke, Richard Baxter Under the Cross (1662–1691) (London, 1927), pp. 231-260.
“Our Oneness in Christ and Our Disunity as Churches,” Report of Sect. I — Faith and Order, C. C., Vol. LXXI, No. 38, (Sept. 22, 1954), p. 1137.
Whichcote, Works, III, 252-253.
Ibid., p. 283.
Ibid., pp. 254-255.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1968 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Roberts, J.D. (1968). Religion of after-Revelation (III). In: From Puritanism to Platonism in Seventeenth Century England. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9110-4_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9110-4_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8402-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9110-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive