This concluding chapter offers some final thoughts on the nature of Cambridge Platonism in light of the analysis provided in the main body of the book. It is argued that while there are real and significant differences in the way each of the Cambridge Platonists engage with Platonic ideas and texts, they share a core set of distinctive philosophical intuitions that set them apart quite clearly as a distinct school of Christian Platonists. It is this philosophical framework that binds Whichcote, More, Cudworth and Smith together into a coherent group of philosophers, even when the diversity of their motivations and intellectual orientations are taken into account.

The introduction considers the place of the Cambridge Platonists in the history of philosophy, and particularly the development of contemporary philosophy of religion. Although often forgotten today, the Cambridge Platonists exerted a direct influence on many of the most important philosophers of early modernity, including Leibniz, Locke and Hume. While their Platonism can make them seem antiquated and out of step with philosophical currents that ultimately proved more influential to our own time, the Cambridge Platonists were recognised by their contemporaries as some of the most important philosophers of their age and still lay claim to our attention as some of the first modern philosophers of religion.

This chapter first investigates the meaning of ‘revelation’ in ancient Christianity and ancient non-Jewish and non-Christian religions, especially in ‘pagan’ Platonism of the early imperial period. ‘Revelation’ was characterised by the stress on authoritative sources of revealed knowledge (e.g., the Bible, the Chaldaean Oracles). The objective is to argue that ‘pagan’ Platonists faithful to Plato (and commenting just on Plato) cannot be simplistically opposed to Jewish or Christian Platonists faithful to the Bible (and commenting exclusively on the Bible). The chapter examines how philosophical allegoresis was applied by Stoics and Platonists – ‘pagan’, Jewish, and Christian Platonists – to their authoritative texts and revelations. This study provides an accurate examination of the conceptual and methodological intersections between the works of ‘pagan’ and Christian Platonists, and points to cases that break the binary between ‘pagan’ commentaries on ‘pagan’ authoritative texts and Christian commentaries on Scripture. It will also suggest that Amelius commented on the Prologue of John in light of his previous knowledge of Origen’s Commentary.

Generations of Christians, Janet Soskice demonstrates, once knew God and Christ by hundreds of remarkable names. These included the appellations ‘Messiah’, ‘Emmanuel’, ‘Alpha’, ‘Omega’, ‘Eternal’, ‘All-Powerful’, ‘Lamb’, ‘Lion’, ‘Goat’, ‘One’, ‘Word’, ‘Serpent’ and ‘Bridegroom’. In her much-anticipated new book, Soskice argues that contemporary understandings of divinity could be transformed by a return to a venerable analogical tradition of divine naming. These ancient titles – drawn from scripture – were chanted and sung, crafted and invoked (in polyphony and plainsong) as they were woven into the worship of the faithful. However, during the sixteenth century Descartes moved from ‘naming’ to ‘defining’ God via a series of metaphysical attributes. This made God a thing among things: a being amongst beings. For the author, reclaiming divine naming is not only overdue. It can also re-energise the relationship between philosophy and religious tradition. This path-breaking book shows just how rich and revolutionary such reclamation might be.

This chapter considers the often overlooked historical contributions and contemporary importance of traditions of Christian Platonism within the development of the natural sciences. After introducing key conceptual elements, it considers the salience of Christian Platonic approaches for a variety of scientific fields including mathematics, biology, psychology, and ecology.”

This chapter frames the complex and contested concept of Christian Platonism explicated throughout this volume. Here, it is introduced as an object of theological and philosophical contention, the subject of historical and conceptual communication, and a theme of compulsory knowledge for the student of intellectual history.

The conclusion argues for an earlier date (first half of the fourth century CE) than the editor of the text Waszink assumed, and locates Calcidius in the strand of the tradition called Middle Platonism.It also states that Calcidius' commentary does not present a Christian worldview, though he makes a few concessions to a Christian audience, addressed in the second person.