Advertisement

The Heritage of Patristic Platonism in Seventeenth Century English Philosophical Theology

  • D. W. Dockrill
Chapter
Part of the International Archives of the History of Ideas / Archives Internationales d’Histoire des Idées book series (ARCH, volume 150)

Abstract

“Christian religion was never bred up in the Peripatetick schoo.,” a certain S. P. of Cambridge wrote in 1662, “but spent her best and healthfullest years in the more Religious Academ., amongst the primitive Fathers: but the Schoolmen afterwards ravished her thence, and shut her up in the decayed ruines of Lyceu., where she served an hard servitude, and contracted many distempers”. But now, S. P. claims, “let her alone be Mistress, and choose her Servants where she best likes: let her old loving Nurse, the Platonick Philosoph. be admitted again into her family.”1

Keywords

Seventeenth Century Christian Doctrine Christian Teaching Christian Philosophy Divine Simplicity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    S. P., A Brief Account of the New Sect of Latitude-Me. (1662), ed. T. A. Birrell, (Los Angeles: William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, 1963), p. 24. Birrell argues that S. P. is Simon Patrick.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Augustine, The City of Go., trans. H. Bettenson, (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1972), bk. viii, ch. 11, p. 313. The affinity of pagan and Christian teaching: see D. P. Walker, The Ancient Theolog. (London: Duckworth, 1972);Google Scholar
  3. 2a.
    H. Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Traditio. (New York: Oxford 1966).Google Scholar
  4. 2b.
    H. More, Conjectura Cabbalistic., p. 43, in A Collection of Several Philosophical Writing. (1662), (New York: Garland Publishing, 1978), 2.Google Scholar
  5. 3.
    Augustine, The C’ity of God, op. cit., bk. 8, ch. 11, p. 313. B. Whichcote, The Work. (Aberdeen: Alexander Thomson, 1751), 2, p. 172.Google Scholar
  6. 3a.
    T. Browne, The Work., ed. G. Keynes, (London: Faber and Faber, 1964), 3, p. 206; Browne, ibid., goes on to say “yet not a little is valuable. Do not then bid farewell to his entire work”; cf. Browne’s Religio Medic. (London: Dent, 1965), pp. 16–17; see also R. Cudworth, T.I.S.U., pp. 53–5, and H. More (on Socinianism and Aristotelianism), The Conway Letter., ed., M. Nicolson, rev. S. Hutton, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), pp. 204, 208. Recent bibliographies of seventeenth century English Platonists: see the new edition of Ueberweg, Grundriss Der Geschichte Der Philosophie: Die Philosophie Des 17. Jahrhunderts, Band 3: Englan., ed., J-P Schobinger, (Basel: Schwabe and Co., 1988), G. A. J. Rogers et al., pp. 213–90; and R. Crocker, “A Bibliography of Henry More”, S. Hutton, ed., Henry Mor. (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1990), pp. 219–46.Google Scholar
  7. 4.
    On Patristic Platonism see: C. A. Biggs, The Christian Platonists of Alexandri. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913);Google Scholar
  8. 4a.
    R. Arnou, “Platonisme des Pères”, Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholiqu., eds. A. Vacant, E. Mangenot, É. Amann, (Paris: Letousey et Ané, 1903–1950), 12;Google Scholar
  9. 4b.
    H. A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Father. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956), 1;Google Scholar
  10. 4c.
    A. H. Armstrong and R. A. Markus, Christian Faith and Greek Philosoph. (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1960);Google Scholar
  11. 4d.
    W. Jaeger, Early Christianity and Greek Paidei. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969); H. Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition, op. cit., and “Christian Platonism in Origen and in Augustine”, Heresy and Orthodoxy in the Early Churc. (Aldershop, Hamp.: Variorum, 1991);Google Scholar
  12. 4e.
    A. H. Armstrong, ed., The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosoph. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967); A. H. Armstrong, “St Augustine and Christian Platonism” (1966), Plotinian and Christian Studie. (London: Variorum, 1979);Google Scholar
  13. 4f.
    J. Daniélou, Theologie du judéo-christianisme. Histoire des doctrines chrétiennes avant Nicé. (Tournai: Desclée, 1961) eng. trans.: A History of Early Christian Doctrine Before the Council of Nicae., 2, (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1973);Google Scholar
  14. 4g.
    R. Williamson, Jews in the Hellenistic World: Phil. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 4h.
    D. J. O’Meara, ed., Neoplatonism and Christian Though. (Ithaca: State University of New York, 1982);Google Scholar
  16. 4i.
    S. Lilla, Clement of Alexandri. (London: Oxford University Press, 1971);Google Scholar
  17. 4j.
    H. Crouzel, Theologie de l’image de Dieu chez Origèn., (Paris: Aubier), 1956), eng. trans., Orige., (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1989). On the bearing of Platonism on dogmatic concerns in seventeenth century England, see my “The Fathers and the Theology of the Cambridge Platonists”, Studia Patristic., 17, ed., E. A. Livingstone, (Oxford: Pergamon, 1982), pp. 427–39. S. Hutton, “The Neoplatonic Roots of Arianism: Ralph Cudworth and Theophilus Gale”, in Socinianism and its Role in the Culture of XVIth to XVIIIth Centurie. (Warsaw & Lodz: 1983), and my “The Authority of the Fathers in the Great Trinitarian Debates of the Sixteen Nineties”, Studia Patristic., 18, pt. 4, ed. E. A. Livingstone, (Leuven: Peeters, 1990).Google Scholar
  18. 5.
    Plato, The Timaeu., trans., H. D. P. Lee, (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1965), p. 42; The Republi., trans., F. M. Cornford, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951), p. 215; The Essential Plotinu., trans., E. O’Brien, (New York: New American Library, 1964), p. 80.Google Scholar
  19. 6.
    Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, The Writings of Clement of Alexandri., trans., W. Wilson, (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1882), 2, pp. 264, 270; cf. Plotinus, Ennead. 6.8.13. See E. A. Osborn, The Philosophy of Clement of Alexandri. (Cambridge: University Press, 1957), ch. 2;Google Scholar
  20. 6a.
    R. Mortley, From Word to Silenc. (Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1986), 2, ch. 2; A. H. Armstrong, “The Escape of the One”, Studia Patristic., 13, ed., E. A. Livingstone, (Berlin: Akademie, 1975), pp. 86–7;Google Scholar
  21. 6b.
    G. C. Stead, “The Concept of Mind and the Concept of God in the Christian Fathers” (1982), Substance and Illusion in the Christian Father. (London: Variorum, 1985).Google Scholar
  22. 7.
    Robert Greville, The Nature of Trut. (1640), (London: Gregg, 1969), pp. 100, 104; cf. T. Browne, Religio Medici, op. cit., pp. 10ff; see J. Wallis, Truth Trie. (London: S. Gellibrand, 1643),Google Scholar
  23. 7a.
    R. E. L. Strider, II, Robert Greville, Lord Brook. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958), chs. 7–10.Google Scholar
  24. 7b.
    N. Culverwell, An Elegant and Learned Discourse of the Light of Natur. (1652), eds., R. A. Greene and H. MacCallum, (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1971), p. 127.Google Scholar
  25. 7c.
    Peter Sterry, The Appearance of God to Man in the Gospel, and the Gospel Chang. (London: 1710), p. 185; cf. V. De Sola Pinto, Peter Sterr. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1934), ch. 3.Google Scholar
  26. 7d.
    Thomas Jackson, A Treatise of the Divine Essence and Attribute. (1628), Work. (Oxford: University Press, 1844), 5, pp. 23, 8; cf. S. Hutton, “Thomas Jackson, Oxford Platonist…”, Journal of the History of Idea., 39, 1978.Google Scholar
  27. 8.
    T. Jackson, Works, op. cit., 5, pp. 23ff; cf. Pico Della Mirandola, On Being and the One, in On the Dignity of Man…, (Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill, 1965); Aquinas, Summa Theologia. la. 13. 11. T. Jackson, The Knowledge of Christ Jesu. (1634), ibid., 7, p. 282. On this high doctrine of transcendence and its problems, see, e.g., R. Mortley, From Word to Silence, op. cit.; J. M. Rist, Plotinu. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), pp. 32ff;Google Scholar
  28. 8a.
    W. J. Hankey, God in Himsel. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), pp. 93–4;Google Scholar
  29. 8b.
    D. W. Dockrill and R. Mortley, eds., The Via Negativa, Prudenti., (Auckland), Supplementary Number, 1981.Google Scholar
  30. 9.
    Origen, Contra Celsu., trans. and ed. by H. Chadwick, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), p. 425. Concerning Origen’s unease, see R. Mortley, From Word to Silence, op. cit., 2, pp. 72ff; cf. R. Williams, Ariu. (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1987), pp. 204ff. D. Hume, Hume on Religio., ed., R. Wollheim, (London: Fontana, 1963), pp. 131, 133. R. Cudworth, T.I.S.U., pp. 205, 558, but note that he also draws attention to statements which qualify such claims in the pages cited; see also pp. 407, 583–6. For More, see The Immortality of the Sou. (London: W. Morden, 1659), bk. 1, ch. 4. On the importance of Origen for the Cambridge Platonists see my “The Fathers and the Theology of the Cambridge Platonists”, Studia Patristic., 17, 1982, pp. 427–39.Google Scholar
  31. 10.
    R. Cudworth, T.J.S. U., pp. 584, 587; contrary to scripture, p. 585; cf. Henry More, The Immortality of the Soul, op. cit., bk. 1, ch. 4, and D.D. The First Thre., (London: J. Flesher, 1668), sig. A2v-3r, pp. 54–7; J. Smith, Select Discourse. (1660), ed., H. G. Williams, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1859), pp. 130–2, 141. See also: G. C. Stead, “Divine Simplicity as a Problem for Orthodoxy”, The Making of Orthodox., ed., R. Williams, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); A. H. Armstrong, “The Escape of the One”, Studia Patristic., 13, ed. E. A. Livingstone, op. cit., pp. 83–4. On the question whether the Cambridge Platonists were successful in constructing a non-sceptical theory of religion, see R. H. Popkin, “The Incurable Scepticism’ of Henry More,… Pascal and… Kierkegaard”, Scepticism from the Renaissance to the Enlightenmen., eds., R. H. Popkin and C. B. Schmitt, (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1987). For attacks on divine command theories of good and right, see: T. Jackson, Divine Essence and Attribute., pt. 1, ch. 13, Works, op. cit., 5; R. Cudworth, T.I.S. U. pp. 204–6, 872–4, 888–90, 896–7, and T.E.I M.. H. More, An Account of Virtu. (1666), eng. trans., (London: B. Tooke, 1690), e. g., pp. 81–2; J. Smith, Select Discourses, op. cit., pp. 154–63.Google Scholar
  32. 11.
    On the Platonic roots of the doctrine of divine simplicity, see A. C. Lloyd in The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosoph., ed., A. H. Armstrong, op. cit., p. 307; see also D. Gallop’s edition of Plato, Phaed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975), pp. 137–8. Aquinas’s teaching on divine simplicity, e.g., Summa Theologia., 1 a. 3, is strongly echoed in doctrines of God in the first half of the century; see P. Miller, The New England Min. (Boston: Beacon, 1968), pp. 10ff, ch. 4. The Spirit of Nature: H. More, The Immortality of the Soul, op. cit., bk. 3, chs. 12, 13 and An Explanation of the Grand Mystery of Godlines. (London: W. Morden, 1660), p. 458, on the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Nature; Plastic Nature: R. Cudworth, T.I.S. U., pp. 146–74, 683–7, 840–1, 844–5. See alsoGoogle Scholar
  33. 11a.
    R. D. Bedford, The Defence of Trut. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1979), pp. 105–10, and W. B. Hunter Jr., “The Seventeenth Century Doctrine of Plastic Nature”, Harvard Theological Revie., 1950, 43. The Demiurge: seeGoogle Scholar
  34. 11b.
    A. E. Taylor, Plato, The Man and His Wor. (New York: Meridian Books, 1958), p. 442. R. Cudworth, T.I.S.U., op. cit., p. 587.Google Scholar
  35. 12.
    T. Jackson, The Original of Unbelie. (1625), ch. 41, Works, op. cit., 4. E. Stillingfleet, Origines Sacra. (1662), (London: H. & G. Mortlock 1709), p. 300. See alsoGoogle Scholar
  36. 12a.
    J. Norris, The Theory of the Ideal or Intelligible Worl. (London: S. Manship & W. Hawes, 1701–04), pt. 1, pp. 262ff; R. Cudworth, T.I.S.U., sig. *2r, **v, p. 147; for More’s views of Descartes see A. Gabbey, “Philosophia Cartesiana Triumphata” in Problems of Cartesianis., eds., T. M. Lennon, J. M. Nicholas, J. W. Davis, (Kingston & Montreal: McGill & Queens Universities, 1982); see also A. Gabbey, A. Rupert Hall, J. Henry, in S. Hutton, ed., Henry More, op. cit.. Stillingfleet’s early views, Origines Sacrae, op. cit., pp. 253–60, 294–6, and later views, in the continuation, pp. 80–3, 86, 93–116. Stillingfleet’s very cautious involvement with Platonism is noted by W. C. de Pauley, The Candle of the Lor. (London: S. P. C. K., 1937), pp. 206ff; see Origines Sacra., pp. 315–20. Descartes: Philosophical Writing., trans., E. Anscombe and P. Geach, (London: Nelson, 1964), p. 94.Google Scholar
  37. 13.
    H. More, M. G., p. 223; cf. B. Whichcote, Works, op. cit. 1, p. 65, 4, p. 152 & J. Worthington, The Great Duty of Self-Resignatio. (London: W. Kettilby, 1689), pp. 31–2; J. Smith, Select Discourses, op. cit., pp. 116ff. R. Cudworth, T.I.S.U., p. 767. The soul’s immortality: see, e.g.,Google Scholar
  38. 13a.
    H. More, The Immortality of the Sou. (1659), op. cit., which is available in A. Jacob’s critical edition of the 1662 version, (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1987); R. Cudworth, ibid., pp. 845–72; J. Smith, “On the Immortality of the Soul”, ibid., E. Stillingfleet, Origines Sacrae, op. cit., bk. 3, ch. 1. On opposition to Hobbes, seeGoogle Scholar
  39. 13b.
    S. I. Mintz, The Hunting of Leviatha. (Cambridge: University Press, 1962).Google Scholar
  40. 14.
    H. Hallywell, Deus Justificatu. (London: W. Kettilby, 1668), p. 260.Google Scholar
  41. 14b.
    P. Sterry, The Rise, Race and Royalty of the Kingdom of God in the Soul of Ma. (London: T. Cockerill, 1683), p. 131.Google Scholar
  42. 14c.
    H. More, An Antidote Against Atheis. (2nd. ed., London: W. Morden, 1655), p. 62. J. Smith, Select Discourses, op. cit., p. 63; cf. B. Whichcote, Work., 2, p. 173. R. Greville, The Nature of Truth, op. cit., pp. 1–2. R. Cudworth, T. I. S. U., p. 204. H. More, E. T. (1656; 1662), p. 45, in C. S. P. W. (1662), op. cit., 1. cf. alsoGoogle Scholar
  43. 14d.
    G. Rust, A Discourse of the Use of Reaso. (London: W. Kettilby, 1683), pp. 34, 60–1 (Hallywell’s comment), &Google Scholar
  44. 14e.
    J. Worthington, The Doctrine of the Resurrectio. (London: A. Churchill, 1690), pp. 144–5. On enthusiasm, see my “Spiritual Knowledge and the Problem of Enthusiasm in Seventeenth Century England”, The Concept of Spiri., eds., D. W. Dockrill and R. G. Tanner, Prudenti. Supplementary Number 1985; R. Crocker, “Mysticism and Enthusiasm in Henry More”, in S. Hutton, ed., Henry More (1614–1687), op. cit., and his paper in this volume.Google Scholar
  45. 15.
    [G. Rust?], A Letter of Resolution Concerning Orige. (1661), (New York: Facsimile Text Society, 1933), p. 25. On the authorship of this anonymous work, traditionally ascribed to Rust, see C. F. Mullett’s comments in, “A Letter by Joseph Glanvill on the Future State”, The Huntington Library Quarterl., 1, no. 4, 1938, pp. 447–50. E. Stillingfleet, Origines Sacrae, op. cit., p. 263; cf. p. 260. R. Greville, The Nature of Truth, op. cit., p. 14. H. More, Immortality of the Soul, op cit., p. 500. Cf. R. Cudworth, T.I.S. U., sig. ***r. Google Scholar
  46. 16.
    Origen, Contra Celsu., trans. and ed., H. Chadwick, op. cit., p. 157. H. More, M.G., p. 46. On Plotinus see R. T. Wallis, Neoplatonis. (London: Duckworth, 1972), pp. 77ff; cf. A. H. Armstrong, ed., in The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy, op. cit., ch. 14, pp. 255–6;Google Scholar
  47. 16a.
    R. J. O’Connell, St. Augustine’s Early Theory of Ma. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1968), pp. 152–55. Plotinus, Ennead., trans. A. H. Armstrong. (Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press and Heinemann, 1966–88), 4, pp. 399, 413; 5, p. 11; 4, pp. 413, 415.Google Scholar
  48. 17.
    H. More, Conjectura Cabbalistic. (1662), p. 167, in C.S.P. W., 2. Concerning Plotinus, More writes: “Plotinu. be of another minde, and conceives that the Soul at the height is joyned with God and nothing else, nakedly lodged in his arms” (ibid., p. 167); see also R. Cudworth, T.I.S. U., p. 784, J. Smith, Select Discourses, op. cit., pp. 164–5. H. More, The Immortality of the Soul, op. cit., p. 332; on the doctrine of the embodied soul see Appendix II in Proclus, The Elements of Theolog., ed., E. R. Dodds, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963). H. More, The M. G., p. 56; cf., p. 34. R. Cudworth, T. F. (London: J. W. Parker, 1838), p. 65. Origen on the fall: souls were “seized with weariness of the divine love and contemplation, and changed for the worse”, (On First Principle., trans., G. W. Butterworth, [New York: Harper & Row, 1966], p. 125). More links the soul’s choice to a desire to explore the opportunities for earthly pleasures brought about by its ability to take a terrestrial body, “the lascivient Life of the Vehicle”, (Conjectura Cabbalistic., p. 26, ibid.). Google Scholar
  49. 18.
    The Immortality of the Soul, op. cit., pp. 332, 309, 488, 330. Cf. J. Smith, Select Discourses, op. cit., pp. 114ff, 163–4; B. Whichcote, Works, op. cit., 2, pp. 160–1, 165, 172–3, 176; R. Cudworth, T.I.S.U., p. 795. On muddiness, see W. K. C. Guthrie, Orpheus and Greek Religio. (New York: Norton, 1966), p. 160. Sexual intercourse: H. More (1686) in J. Norris, Theory and Regulation of Lov. (London: S. Manship & W. Hawes, 1694), pp. 161–2; for a more positive view of conjugal relations see Mrs Worthington’s letter to her husband in The Diary and Correspondence of Dr John Worthingto., ed., James Crossley, Vol. 2, pt. 1, The Chetham Societ., O. S., 26, 1855, p. 132; cf. B. Whichcote, Works, op. cit., 2, pp. 175–6, 3, p. 278, 4, pp. 248–50, 252–5, 319ff, and J. Worthington, The Great Duty of SelfResignation, op. cit., p. 32. At death: see The Immortality of the Soul, op. cit., pp. 326ff, bk. 3, ch. 5, pp. 523–4, and M. G.., bk. 1, chs. 6, 7, and bk. 6, chs 1–11; cf. R. Cudworth, T.I.S.U., pp. 799ff.Google Scholar
  50. 19.
    H. More, M. G. op. cit., pp. 224, 17, 16; on p. 20, More provides a paraphrase of II Corinthians 5:1–6 to bring it into line with his anthropology. Conjectura Cabbalistic., pp. 55, 50, in C. S. P. W., 2. Cf. J. Smith, Select Discoures, op. cit., pp. 172–9, 387–9, 394. On the theory of scriptural interpretation in Philo, Clement and Origen, see references to allegorism in the works of C. A. Biggs, R. Williamson, H. A. Wolfson (ch. 2 §2), mentioned in ft. nt. 4, and R. P. C. Hanson’s study of Origen, Allegory and Even. (London: SCM. 1959).Google Scholar
  51. 20.
    H. More, “The Preface General”, p. vii; on p. viii he says divine sagacity is needful if one “may freely look about him everywhere” in the field of truth, an echo perhaps of Republi. 516-c and Phaedru. 248b-c; (C.S.P.W., 1); Conjectura Cabbalistic., p. 2, ibid., 2; The mystagogus, M. G.., pp. 459–63; cf. “Dedication”, Conjectura Cabbalistic., sig. Eer, A Modest Enquiry into the Mystery of Iniquit. (London: W. Morden, 1664), pp. 100–1, with reference to Origen, Contra Celsu., VI. 13, and A Brief Discourse of the True Grounds of Fait., pp. 484–86, 489, in D.D., The Two Las. (London: J. Flesher, 1668). Conjectura Cabbalistic., p. 54, as above. Cf. J. Smith, Select Discourses, op. cit., pp. 173–77. On this religious tradition see the works by C. A. Biggs, R. Williamson (pp. 59–62), S.R.C. Lilla (ch. 3§2), H. Crouzel (ch. 6), J. Daniélou (chs. 19, 20) and, W. Jaeger (pp. 56–7), mentioned in ft. nt. 4.Google Scholar
  52. 21.
    On More’s illuminism, see R. Crocker’s paper in this volume and C. A. Staudenbaur, “Galileo, Ficino, and Henry More’s Psychathanasia”, Journal of the History of Idea., 19, (1968). J. Smith, Select Discourses, op. cit., p. 21. J. Locke, An Early Draft of Locke’s Essa., eds., R. I. Aaron and Joycelyn Gibb, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936), p. 125. [E. Fowler], The Principles and Practices of Certain Moderate Divines of the Church of Englan. (London: Lodonick Lloyd, 1670), p. 7.Google Scholar
  53. 22.
    T. Jackson, The Original of Unbelief, Works, op. cit., 4, p. 84. E. Stillingfleet, Origines Sacrae, op. cit., p. 260.Google Scholar
  54. 23.
    N. Culverwell, An Elegant and Learned Discourse of the Light of Nature, op. cit., p. 80; cf. Lady Ann Conway’s letter to More and his response, Select Letter., 6& 7, in R. Ward, The Life of Dr Henry Mor. (London: Joseph Downing, 1710). [G. Rust?], A Letter of Resolution Concerning Origen, op. cit., p. 33; cf. J. Glanvill, Lux Orientali. (London: 1662), written to supplement More and Rust(?) (sig. Bvff) and defend providence (sig. Br), and H. Hallywell’s letter to More, 17 March, 1672: “I have alwayes looked upon the Doctrine of Preexistence not only as very exact and concinnous in it selfe, but hugely agreeable with the Phenomena of Providence in ye World.” (Ms 21, Christ’s College Library, Cambridge); see also Hallywell’s A Private Letter of Satisfaction to a Frien. (n. p., 1667), pp. 2ff where the doctrine is to be inferred. Whether or not Rust is the author of A Letter… Concerning Orige., he would seem to be knowledgeable, as might be expected, about the details of the views More was sponsoring: see C. F. Mullett, “A Letter by Joseph Glanvill on the Future State”, The Huntington Library Quarterl., 1, no. 4, 1938. H. More, M. G., op. cit., p. 22.Google Scholar
  55. 24.
    Biblical texts: Jn. 3:13, Phil. 2:6–8. Patristic precedents for the pre-existence of the soul, see H. More, “Preface General”, pp. xx-xxv, C.S.P.W., 1. note E. Warren’s comments, No Praeexistenc. (London: Samuel Thomson, 1667), ch. 8. R. Cudworth, T.I.S.U., p. 798, more strongly expressed pp. 43–4. Stillingfleet’s view (Origines Sacrae, op. cit., pp. 315–17) is that the value of the Platonic tradition was much improved by the teaching of Ammonius Saccas of Alexandria (c. 175–242 AD) as expressed in his pupils because he knew the scriptures as well as Platonism. Stillingfleet, ibid., pp. 319, 318–19, cf. p. 260. See S. Hutton, “Edward Stillingfleet, Henry More, and the Decline of Moses Atticus”, Philosophy, Science and Religion in England 1640–170., eds., R. Kroll, R. Ashcraft, P. Zagorin, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).Google Scholar
  56. 24a.
    T. Gale, The Court of the Gentiles, Pt. (2nd ed., London: Thomas Gilbert, 1676), p. 273; like Stillingfleet, Gale (pp. 262–4), gives Ammonius Saccas a central place in improving the Platonic tradition. On Gale, see S. Hutton reference in ft. nt. 4, and G. A. J. Rogers (pp. 278–9) in ft. nt. 3, and E. N. Tigerstedt, “The Decline and Fall of the Neoplatonic Interpretation of Plato”, Commentationes Humanarum Litteraru., 52, 1974, pp. 45–7.Google Scholar
  57. 25.
    For reasons of length, it has not been possible to consider the views of seventeenth century Platonists on the will, the problem of evil, and soteriology. On the will, see my “Spiritual Knowledge and the Problem of Enthusiasm”, The Concept of Spiri., eds., D. W. Dockrill and R. G. Tanner, Prudenti., Supplementary Number 1985, p. 151; on soteriology, “‘No Other Name’: The Problem of the Salvation of Pagans in Mid-Seventeenth Century Cambridge”, The Idea of Salvatio., eds., D. W. Dockrill and R. G. Tanner, Prudenti., Supplementary Number, 1988.Google Scholar
  58. 26.
    For Origen’s lack of interest in the doctrine of anamnesi., see H. Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition, op. cit., p. 115, and “Christian Platonism in Origen and Augustine”, p. 222, Heresy and Orthodoxy in the Early Church, op. cit.. cf. H. Crouzel, Orige., eng. trans., (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1989), ch. 6. On the Forms and divine ideas, see A. H. Armstrong and R. A. Markus, Christian Faith and Greek Philosoph., op. cit., chs. 1–3 (A.H.A.). Edward Herbert, De Veritat. [1625] trans. M. H. Carré, (Bristol: Bristol University Press, 1937), chs. 5, 9. T. Jackson, The Original of Unbelief, Works, op. cit., 4, p. 86. J. Smith, Select Discourses, op. cit., p. 171. On the doctrine of innate knowledge in this period, see J. W. Yolton, John Locke and the Way of Idea. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), ch. 2.Google Scholar
  59. 27.
    H. More, C.S.P.W., “The Preface General”, p. v, in vol. 1, Conjectura Cabbalistic., p. 3, in vol. 2; cf. A Modest Enquiry into the Mystery of Iniquity, op. cit., p. 97. (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, op. cit., 2, p. 277; Origen, Genesis Homily 1, Homilies on Genesis and Exodu., trans., R. E. Heine (Washington D.C.: Catholic Institute of America, 1982), p. 65). E. Stillingfleet, Origines Sacrae, op. cit., p. 2, but note p. 233. R. Cudworth, True Intellectual System, op. cit., p. 861; see pp. 730–8, and T.E.I.M., op. cit., pp. 134–5.Google Scholar
  60. 28.
    N. Culverwell, An Elegant and Learned Discourse of the Light of Nature, op. cit., p. 82. T. Jackson, Works, op. cit., 4, pp. 98–9. H. More, An Antidote Against Atheis., p. 17, in C.S.P.W. 1. For Plato’s peremptory rejection of innate knowledge and the inadequacy of his argument, see D. Bostock, Plato’s Phaed., p. 61, and Plato, Phaed., ed., D. Gallop, op. cit., p. 134. H. More, ibid. See also on innate knowledge: T. Jackson, The Original of Unbelief, Works, op. cit., 4, chs. 12–15; E. Stillingfleet, Origines Sacrae, op. cit., pp. 1–6, 231–6; R. Cudworth, T.E.I.M., e. g, pp. 128–9, 214ff., 286–9.Google Scholar
  61. 29.
    H. More, ibid., p. 149; The Immortality of the Soul, op. cit., p. 255.Google Scholar
  62. 30.
    T. Jackson, The Original of Unbelief, Works, op. cit., pp. 86, 84. E. Stillingfleet, Origines Sacrae, op. cit., pp. 1–6. Note Sir Thomas Browne’s remark: “Some Divines count Adam thirty years old at his Creation, because they suppose him created in the perfect age and stature of man.” (Religio Medici, op. cit., p. 44).Google Scholar
  63. 31.
    Augustine, City of Go., 8. 7, op. cit., p. 309; cf. E. Gilson, Introduction à l’étude de saint Augusti., (Paris: Vrin 1969) eng. trans., The Christian Philosophy of St Augustin., (London: Gollancz, 1961), ch. 5 #2, and R. J. O’Connell, St Augustine’s Early Theory of Man, op. cit., pp. 154–5, 166–8. Greville: R. Greville, The Nature of Truth, op. cit., pp. 45–6; Greville goes on to say, “And therefore I wholly subscribe to the Platonists, who make all scienti. nothing but reminiscentia”, but as J. Wallis points out (Truth Tried, op. cit., pp. 45–6) Greville’s claims are not consistent with such a view, for he seems to treat reminiscence and acts of recollection as ways in which the acquisition of knowledge appear. to us for “these are but a Phaenomenon “.(Greville, ibid., p. 46). Norris and More: see the Norris-More letters in J. Norris, The Theory and Regulation of Love, op. cit., esp. pp. 121–2; Norris, Reason and Religio. (London: S. Manship, 1689), pp. 14; cf.Google Scholar
  64. 31a.
    F. J. Powicke, A Dissertation of John Norris of Bemerto. (London: Philip, 1894), ch. 6. For Norris’s opposition to innate knowledge, see his Cursory Reflections Upon a Book call’d “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding”, (London: S. Manship, 1713), pp. 15–16.Google Scholar
  65. 32.
    J. Norris, ibid., pp. 82;185;187; An Essay Towards the Theory of the Ideal or Intelligible World, op. cit., Pt. 2, pp. 551, 552, 551. In Pt. 2, ch. 13, Norris provides a list of Augustine’s statements on epistemology. On Norris’s use of St Augustine see F. J. Powicke, ibid., pp. 104ff; for Augustine’s influence on the French thinkers who influenced Norris, see H. Gouhier, Cartésianisme et Augustinisme au XVIIe Siècl. (Paris 1978). On Norris, see C. J. McCracken, Malebranche and British Philosoph. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), and Stuart Brown’s chapter XIV in this volume.Google Scholar
  66. 33.
    On the reception of Malebranche’s philosophy in Britain and Norris’s works see C. J. McCracken, ibid., pp. 3ff. J. Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understandin., ed. P. H. Nidditch, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), p. 542; cf.Google Scholar
  67. 33a.
    E. Stillingfleet, The Bishop of Worcester’s Answer to Mr Locke’s Lette. (London: H. Mortlock, 1697), pp. 47ff, esp. pp. 54–5. Concerning the controversy whether matter might think, seeGoogle Scholar
  68. 33b.
    J. Yolton, Thinking Matte. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1984).Google Scholar
  69. 34.
    G. W. Leibniz, Nouveaux Essais sur l’entendement humai., (Paris, G.F., 1966) eng. trans.,Google Scholar
  70. 34a.
    P. Remnant and J. Bennett: New Essays on Human Understandin., (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), Preface, 44, 47. R. Cudworth, T.I.S. U., p. 584.Google Scholar
  71. 35.
    G. Berkeley, Philosophical Commentaries, Notebook., 682, 715, The Works of George Berkele., eds. A. A. Luce & T. E. Jessop, (London: Nelson, 1948–57), 1, p. 83, 87; Alciphro. (1732), Work., 3, p. 159, cf. Principles of Human Knowledg., #148, Work., 2, pp. 108–9; Three Dialogues, Work., 2, p. 212. Cf. A. A. Luce, Berkeley and Malebranch. (1934) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967); C. J. McCracken, Malebranche and British Philosophy, op. cit., ch. 6.Google Scholar
  72. 36.
    R. Cudworth, T.I.S. U., pp. 146–7. G. Berkeley, Philosophical Commentaries, Noteboo. A, 485, 695, Works, op. cit., 1. pp. 61, 85. Providentially minded views: see, e.g., E. Stillingfleet, Origines Sacrae, op. cit., pp. 253–60, 294–6, [1697] continuation, pp. 80–3, 86, 93–116. Note A. A. Luce, ibid., pp. 82–3, 111ff.Google Scholar
  73. 37.
    Berkeley, letter to Sir John James, Works, op. cit., 7, pp. 143, 144; admiration of Plato, see letter to Sir John Percival, Dec. 27, 1709, ibid., 8, pp. 28–9. Siris, ibid., 5, #266, p. 125; #352–3, pp. 158–9; #266, p. 125; #363, pp. 162–3. On the disputed question whether Berkeley was right to link his philosophical views with the Platonic tradition, see: M. Burnyeat, “Idealism and Greek Philosophy: What Descartes Saw and Berkeley Missed”, Philosophical Revie., 91, 1982; R. Sorabji, “Gregory of Nyssa: The Origins of Idealism”, Time, Creation & the Continuu. (London: Duckworth, 1983); H. M. Bracken, “Realism and Greek Philosophy: What Berkeley Saw and Burnyeat Missed”, George Berkele., ed., D. Berman, (Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 1986). Berkeley seems to have been unaware of the family resemblance between his idealism and that suggested by St Gregory Nyssa; see Sorabji, ibid., for texts and discussion, and the comments by W. Moore, Select Writings and Letters of Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, Nicene and Post-Nicene Father., 5, [1892; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1971], pp. 18–19. On the differences between Berkeley and the Cambridge Platonists, seeGoogle Scholar
  74. 37a.
    J. Wild, George Berkele., (1936; New York: Russell and Russell, 1962), pp. 71–7. For positive views of the relation between Siris and Berkeley’s early philosophy, see A. A. Luce, “The Unity of Berkeley’s Philosophy”, Min., N. S., 46, 1937, especially Pt. 2, and P. S. Wenz, “Berkeley’s Christian Neo-Platonism”, Journal of the History of Idea., 37, 1976.Google Scholar
  75. 38.
    Berkeley, “the wisest heathen”: “Discourse to Magistrates” (1738), Works, op. cit., 6, p. 210. Siri., #332, Work., 5, p. 151; cf. #331, pp. 150–1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. W. Dockrill

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations