“To Treat of God from Phenomena”

Ducheyne, Steffen

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2126-5_6

Steffen Ducheyne²

Part of the book series: Archimedes ((ARIM,volume 29))

896 Accesses

Abstract

In Part II I have analysed Newton’s method of acquiring knowledge about the empirical world. As his manuscripts testify and as research over the last decades has made abundantly clear, Newton did not, however, limit himself to the sort of knowledge obtained by a methodized study of the empirical world alone. He equally accepted that, by carefully studying the scriptures and by taking into account the results harvested by natural philosophy, knowledge could be obtained about the divine creator, his providence, and his dominion over the world and his servants. In this chapter, my focus is on the nature of the rapport between Newton’s theology and natural philosophy. Although it is not my current endeavour to offer a detailed chronological account of Newton’s theological work, this chapter is thoroughly based on his theological manuscripts.

For the manuscripts not pertaining to the Portsmouth and Macclesfield Collection, I have relied on the transcriptions provided by The Newton Project (http://www.newtonproject.ic.ac.uk) – although I should note that I have converted The Newton Project’s text-editorial conventions into my own. I have also followed The Newton’s Project’s dating of Newton’s theological manuscripts. The material drawn from the Of the church at the Bodmer Foundation in Geneva results from my own inspection of the original. For Royal Society Gregory Ms. 247 I have compared Schüller, “Newton’s Scholia from David Gregory’s Estate” against the original and I will follow Schüller’s excellent transcriptions of this notoriously difficult material.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 129.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
For the editorial details, see: Cohen, Introduction to Newton’s “Principia”, pp. 240–245, 249–251 and Westfall, Never at Rest, pp. 744–751. For a catalogue of extant and related manuscript material, see Appendix 1.
2.
While the 16 Queries added to the first edition of The Opticks (1704) did not contain any theological material (OE ₁, pp. 132–137), Questiones 20 and 23 of the first Latin edition of The Opticks (1706) did (OEL ₁, pp. 314–315, 343–348, respectively). The Queries crystallized in their final form in the second edition of The Opticks (1717).
3.
To fulfil his requirements as Lucasian Professor, Newton was preparing to take up holy orders in the early 1670s. Due to the intervention of Isaac Barrow, Newton and all future Lucasian Professors were exempted from this obligation in April 1675 (Westfall, Never at Rest, p. 333). Newton was, however, not exempted from the requirement of preparing a divinity act, in which he was to consider “the orthodox case against Socinianism” (Mandelbrote, “‘Than this noting can be plainer:’ Isaac Newton reads the Fathers”, p. 283). When preparing for this task, Newton got his first taste of scholarly theological discussions and at the same time he was exposed to heterodox theology. At the time, divinity acts were increasingly neglected and ultimately Newton never kept his (Westfall, Never at Rest, pp. 184–185). Traditionally, Newton’s heterodoxy has been dated as early as 1673 (ibid., p. 332). Scott Mandelbrote has correctly pointed out, however, that it is quite difficult to date the start of Newton’s own closet heterodoxy exactly (Mandelbrote, “‘Than this noting can be plainer:’ Isaac Newton reads the Fathers”, p. 283). There is no clear-cut manuscript evidence that supports Westfall’s early dating of Newton’s heresy. See Buchwald and Feingold, Newton and the Origin of Civilizations, Chapter 4 for further elaboration. On the Lucasian statutes, see Stewart, “The Lucasian Statutes: Translation and Introduction”.
4.
Yahuda Ms. 1 [Untitled treatise on Revelation; ca. 1670s–1680s], Yahuda Ms. 2.1 [Part of a treatise on interpreting the symbolism of Biblical prophecy; 1670s], Yahuda Ms. 2.2 [Incomplete chapter Quod Bestia bicornis locata sit ut Draco; late 1670s–early 1680s], and Keynes Ms. 1 [Tuba Quarta; ca. 1675–1680].
5.
Yahuda Ms. 2.3 [Various text on Revelation, Solomon’s Temple and Church history; late 1670s–early 1680s], Yahuda Ms. 12 [Treatise on Church History; late 1670s], Ms. 28b [Fragments on the kingdoms of the European tribes, the Temple and the history of Jewish and Christian Churches; ca. 1675–1685], and Ms. 29 [Fragments on Church history, mainly concerning Athanasius; ca. 1675–1685].
6.
Yahuda Ms. 28a [Jottings on chronology; ca. 1675–1685].
7.
In the 1670s, Newton also made notes from the French Jesuit Petavius (1583–1652) on the Council of Nicaea (325) (Keynes Ms. 4 [1670s]) and he finished an exposition of 2 Kings, 17: 15–16 (to wit: “And they rejected his statutes, and his covenant that he made with their fathers, and his testimonies which he testified against them; and they followed vanity, and became vain, and went after the heathen that were round about them, concerning whom the LORD had charged them, that they should not do like them. And they left all the commandments of the LORD their God, and made them molten images, even two calves, and made a grove, and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served Baal.”). See Yahuda Ms. 21 [Exposition on 2 Kings 17:15–16; 1670s], Babson Ms. 437 [Part of an Exposition of 2 Kings 17:25–26; 1670s], and Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center Ms. 130 [Exposition on 2 Kings 17:15–16; 1670s]. All scriptural references in this chapter are taken from Carroll and Prickett, eds., The Bible, Authorized King James Version with Apochrypha.
8.
Yahuda Ms. 16 [Rough draft portions of and notes for Theologiæ Gentilis Origines Philosophicæ and The Original of Monarchies; 1684–1690], Yahuda Ms. 17 [Three bundles of notes on the ancients’ physico-theology, related to Theologiæ Gentilis Origines Philosophicæ; 1680s and early 1690s], and Yahuda Ms. 33 [Notes on ancient Greek, Roman and Egyptian deities; 1680s]. Newton owned the 1641 edition of Vossius’ De theologia Gentili, et physiologia Christiana, which shows signs of extensive dog-earing (Harrison, The Library of Isaac Newton, p. 258 [item n° 1697].
9.
Yahuda Ms. 2.4 [1680s–1690s].
10.
James White Library ASC Ms. N47 HER [Prophesies concerning Christs 2nd coming; early-1680s], Yahuda Ms. 9 [mid-late 1680s] and Keynes Ms. 5 [Two draft theological treatises; ca. mid-1680s and ca. 1705–1710].
11.
Yahuda Ms. 2.5b. Newton’s preoccupation with theological matters in the 1680s can also be seen from De gravitatione et aequipondio fluidorum (CUL Add. Ms. 4003; see, furthermore, Section 6.4.2 in this chapter and Section 3.3 in Chapter 3) and from his letter to Thomas Burnet on January 1680/1 (Newton, Correspondence, II, pp. 329–335; see furthermore, Mandelbrote, “Isaac Newton and Thomas Burnet”).
12.
Keynes Ms. 2.
13.
Keynes Ms. 10 [ca. early 1690s]. See also Williams Andrews Clark Memorial Library Ms. **N563M3 P222 [ca. early 1690s]. See Iliffe, “Prosecuting Athanasius: Protestant Forensics and the Mirrors of Prosecution” and, especially, Delgado-Moreira, “Newton’s ‘Paradoxical Questions concerning the Morals & Actions of Athanasius and his Followers’ and its Intellectual Origins”, for ample discussion.
14.
See Newton to Locke, 14 November 1690, Newton, Correspondence, III, pp. 83–129, Newton to Locke, ? November 1690, ibid., III, pp. 129–144 and New College Library Ms. 316(4) [Various drafts and copies of the Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture and related material; 1690–91]. In this material, Newton argued that several Trinitarian passages in the Bible, including 1 John 5:7 [“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”] and 1 Timothy 3:16 [“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory”], were corruptions inserted afterwards. See, furthermore, Champion, “Acceptable to inquisitive men”.
15.
Babson Ms. 434 [after 1690]. Cf. Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center Ms. 132 [Notes on the Temple of Solomon and a tabular comparison of measurement systems; probably after 1690]. Babson Ms. 434 has been transcribed in Morano and Sánchez Ron, Isaac Newton, El Templo de Salomón and Morano, Isaac Newton, El Templo de Salomón.
16.
Cohen, Introduction to Newton’s “Principia”, pp. 188–189; Westfall, Never at Rest, pp. 510–511. See, furthermore, Appendix 2 to this chapter.
17.
Yahuda Ms. 41 [Draft chapters of a treatise on the origin of religion and its corruption; ca. early 1690s].
18.
Yahuda Ms. 4 [1693 and earlier].
19.
New College Library Ms. 361(3) [Papers relating to chronology and Theologicæ Gentilis Origines Philosophicæ; after 1693]. For Newton’s preoccupation with theological matters in the 1690s, see, furthermore, his letters to Richard Bentley, which we have discussed in Section 1.7 in Chapter 1.
20.
E.g., Keynes Ms. 11 [Twenty-three queries regarding the ‘‛ομουσιος; early 1700s], Ms. 146 [Chap. 1. The Original of Monarchies; 1701–1702], Yahuda Ms. 6 [The syncronisms of the three parts of the prophetick interpretation; after 1700], Yahuda Ms. 8 [Notes on prophesies; post-1710], Babson Ms. 438 [Draft notes on early Church rites and the Creed; probably 1710 or later], Yahuda Ms. 435 [Fragmentary draft on the chief rulers of ancient synagogues; 1710 or later], Keynes Ms. 3 [Irenicum, or Ecclesiastal Polyty tending to Peace; post-1710], Ms. 6 [Seven statements on religion; post-1710], Ms. 7 [A short Schem of the true Religion; post-1710], Ms. 8 [Twelfe articles on religion; post-1710], and Ms. 9 [Three paragraphs on religion; post-1710].
21.
Yahuda Ms. 15 [Drafts on the history of the Church; 1710s], Bodmer Ms. [Of the church; ca. 1710], and CUL Add. Ms. 3989 [Of the church, partly in another hand].
22.
Yahuda Ms. 25 [Draft passages on chronology and biblical history; after 1710], Yahuda Ms. 26 [Draft chapters of The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended; post-1710], and Yahuda Ms. 27 [Seven drafts of Newton’s defence of The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended; after 11 November 1725]. For related earlier material, see New College Library Ms. 361(1) [Drafts of the Short Chronicle and Original of Monarchies; 1701–1702] and Ms. 361(2) [Miscellaneous papers apparently comprising drafts of or notes for The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended].
23.
Yahuda Ms. 7 [Miscellaneous drafts and fragments on phrophesy, principally Daniel and Revelation; post-1700].
24.
Newton, The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended and id., Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John.
25.
Newton to Cotes, 2 March 1712/13, Newton, Correspondence, V, pp. 384–385.
26.
See Section 4.9 in Chapter 4.
27.
Cotes to Newton, 18 March 1712/13, Newton, Correspondence, V, pp. 391–394. For Newton’s reply on 28 March and on 31 March, see respectively: ibid., V, pp. 396–399 and pp. 400–401.
28.
Ibid., V, p. 392.
29.
See Section 4.9 in Chapter 4.
30.
See Knoespel, “Interpretative Strategies in ‘Theologiae gentilis origines philosophiae’”; Markley, “Newton, Corruption, and the Tradition of Universal History”; and, Mandelbrote, “Isaac Newton and the Flood”.
31.
Especially not after the pioneering work of J. E. McGuire on Newton’s metaphysics (McGuire, Tradition and Innovation).
32.
Dobbs, The Janus Faces of Genius, pp. 202–206. See, furthermore, Dobbs, “Newton’s Alchemy and His ‘Active Principle’ of Gravitation”.
33.
Although De Smet and Verhelst provide convincing evidence for their claims on Philo (De Smet and Verhelst, “Newton’s Scholium Generale”, esp. p. 8), similar evidence seems to be lacking for their claims on the Cambridge Platonists and Justus Lipsius. They have merely succeeded in demonstrating vague parallelisms. Characteristic of this is their conjectural conclusion on Ralph Cudworth: “It is clear that despite the absence of explicit proof, there are sufficient similarities and parallels to suggest that Newton’s debt to Cudworth was greater than one might be led to believe from his manuscript Out of Cudworth.” (ibid., p. 13).
34.
Snobelen, “God of Gods, and Lord of Lords”, p. 170. Note that Snobelen’s title refers to Deuteronomy 10: 17. On Newton’s heterodoxy, see Iliffe, “‘Those whose business it is to cavell:’ Newton’s Anti-Catholicism”. On the background of seventeenth-century natural philosophy cum theology, see Mandelbrote, “The Uses of Theology in Seventeenth-Century England”.
35.
Snobelen, “God of Gods, and Lord of Lords”, pp. 191–196. Notwithstanding parallels with Socinian authors, Newton was not a full-blown Socinian (Snobelen, “Isaac Newton, Socinianism, and ‘The One Supreme God’”, pp. 241–242, 255–265, 275–283). Newton owned Samuel Crell’s Initium evangelii S. Joannis Apostoli ex antiquitate ecclesiastica restitutum (1726) (Harrison, The Library of Isaac Newton, p. 127 [item n° 459]), Georgius Eniedinus’ (né: György Enyédi) Explicationes locurum Veteris & Novi Testamenti, ex quibus Trinitatis dogma stabiliri solet (1670) (ibid., p. 137 [item n° 557]), Jonas Schlichting’s (né: Jonasz Szlichtyng) Commentarius in Epistolam Hebræos (1643) (ibid., p. 234 [item n° 1470]), and Faustus Socinus’ (né: Fausto Sozzini) De Iesu Christi filii Dei natura sive essentia (1627) (ibid., p. 130 [item n° 495]). Newton and Samuel Crell actually met in 1726 (and perhaps on other occasions as well). During that meeting Crell requested Newton’s help to fund the publication of his Initium Evangelii S. Joannis Apostoli, which appeared later that year (Snobelen, “Isaac Newton, Socinianism and ‘The One Supreme God’”, pp. 248–249). The letter which Crell send to Newton before this meeting is transcribed and translated in ibid., pp. 294–295.
36.
Cf. Keynes Ms. 3 [Irenicum, post-1710], pp. 29, 35, 47–48; Keynes Ms. 7 [A short Schem of the true Religion; post-1710], f. 1^v; and, Yahuda Ms. 12 [Treatise on Church History; late 1670s], f. 1^r. In an entry “Deus pater” Newton wrote that “There is one Body, one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling One Lord, one Faith, one Baptisme, One God & Father of all, who is above all & through all & in you all. Eph 4.6.” (Keynes Ms. 2 [Theological Notebook, ca. 1684–1690], part 1, p. XI). In this manuscript, Newton also sharply contrasted “the only true God” with “Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent” (ibid.). In a different manuscript, Newton called God’s son “the Man Christ Jesus” (Keynes Ms. 8 [Twelve articles on religion; post-1710], f. 1^r [italics added]). Newton, furthermore, urged that a proper monarchy requires the dominion of only one God (cf. “Poterit autem et ad istum modum dici unum esse principium Deitatis, non duo, propria Monarchia unius dominatus haberi debet” (Keynes Ms. 2 [Theological Notebook, composed ca. 1684–1690], part 2, p. 14; see also the entry “De Deo uno” on p. 85)). Newton’s radical subordinationist view of Christ is especially clear in the manuscript Of the Church (Bodmer Ms. [ca. 1710]; see Snobelen, “‘God of Gods, and Lord of Lords’”, esp. pp. 181–186). For further details on the Bodmer manuscript, see Ducheyne, “Isaac Newton’s ‘Of the church’”.
37.
Cf. Iliffe, “Prosecuting Athanasius: Protestant Forensics and the Mirrors of Prosecution”, p. 125. For an excellent study on Newton’s heretical position, the tradition on which drew, the selected few to whom he privately entrusted his theological views, and his strategies of concealment, see Snobelen, “Isaac Newton, heretic: the Strategies of a Nicodemite”. See, furthermore, Delgado-Moreira, “Newton’s ‘Paradoxical Questions concerning the Morals and Actions of Athanasius and his Followers’ and its Intellectual Origins”, pp. 35–45. Newton concealed his heretical position for obvious legal and social reasons, but also because of Newton’s conviction that theology (the “strong meats”) “should only be handled by the experienced and mature members of the remnant, and, even then, only in private” (ibid., p. 407). For proper contextualisation of Newton’s rapport with Socinianism, see id., “Isaac Newton, Socinianism and “The One Supreme God”, esp. 255–265, and, furthermore, id., “To us there is but one God, the Father”. While it is definitely correct that Newton used Socinian terminology in the General Scholium, we should not neglect the possible significance of other anti-Trinitarian strands (for instance, to name but one: dynamic monarchianism) for the development of Newton’s theology. Newton was, for instance, clearly aware of the work of Paul of Samosota and Theodotus of Byzantium. He refers to the later in Yahuda Ms. 15 [ca. 1710s], f. 105^r, f. 122^r, 126^r and to the former in Yahuda Ms. 15, f. 7^r, ff. 9^r/10^r, f. 18^v–19^r, f. 26^r, ff. 37^r–38^r, f. 117^r, f. 126^v, f. 131^r–v, f. 132^r, f. 136^r, f. 151^r, f. 161^r, f. 192^v, Keynes Ms. 4, ff. 25^r/26^r, f. 28^r, and, Williams Andrews Clark Memorial Library Ms. **N563M3 P222 [ca. early 1690s], f. 39^r, f. 41^r, f. 82^r. In general, Newton was well in tune with the patristic literature. In similar vein, Scott Mandelbrote and Raquel Delgado-Moreira have recently argued that Newton’s Socinian sympathy should be set within a more complex process of appropriation of texts for anti-Trinitarian purposes (Mandelbrote, “‘Than this noting can be plainer:’ Isaac Newton reads the Fathers” and Delgado-Moreira, “Newton’s ‘Paradoxical Question concerning the Morals and Actions of Athanasius and his Followers’ and its Intellectual Origins”, pp. 34, 38–40). See, furthermore, Manuel, The Religion of Isaac Newton, p. 58.
38.
See especially Manuel, The Religion of Isaac Newton, pp. 16–17, 20–22, 40, 74–76; Force, “Newton’s God of Dominion: The Unity of Newton’s Theological, Scientific and Political Thought”, esp. pp. 78–83; id.., “The Nature of Newton’s ‘Holy Alliance’ between Science and Religion”; id., “Natural Law, Miracles, and Newtonian Science”; Stewart, “Seeing Through the Scholium: Religion and Reading Newton in the Eighteenth Century”, pp. 128–131; McGuire, “The Fate of the Date: The Theology of Newton’s Principia Revisited”; and, Snobelen, “God of Gods, and Lord of Lords”. In Tempus et locus, Newton listed a number of diverging views concerning God’s agency in the physical world – he himself obviously endorsed the second of each disjunct: “Let them consider whether it is more agreeable to reason that God’s eternity should be all at once (totum simul) or that his duration is more correctly designated by the names Jehovah and “he that was and is and is to come”; (1) that the substance of God is not present in all places, or that the Jews more correctly call God Place, that is the substance essential to all places in which we are placed and (as the Apostle says) in which we live [and move] and have our being; (2) that God is everywhere as regards power and nowhere [as regards] substance, or that God’s power should subsist everywhere in the divine substance [as its] proper sub[strate], and exists [nowhere separately], and have [no medium] by which it be propagated from its proper substance [into external places]; (3) that place itself and thus the [omnipresence] of God was created in finite time, or that [God was everywhere from] eternity; (4) that all the properties created things [argue imperfections to the extent] that they are absolutely removed from God, [or that creatures share so far as possible the attributes of God (as fruit] the nature [of the tree, and an image the likeness of man,) and by sharing tend towards perfection, and to that extent God be discerned in the more perfect creatures as in a mirror; (5) that the more perfect God is he who produces the more imperfect and fewer creatures, or he who produces more perfect and countless ones; (6) that the Creator’s power is infinite, and the possibility of creating only finite, or that the power of God in no wise extends to that what is impossible; (7) that a dwarf-god should fill only a tiny part of infinite space with this visible world created by him, or that the best and greatest God willed everywhere what was good, <and> did everywhere what he willed.” (McGuire, “Newton on Place, Time, and God: An Unpublished Source”, pp. 121/123).
39.
See Snobelen, “Isaac Newton, heretic: the Strategies of a Nicodemite”, p. 386, footnote 41 for further references to Newton’s manuscripts. Cf. Bodmer Ms., f. 402^r: “Ego et pater unum sumus. Ego in patre & pater in me. Qui videt me videt patrem. Sed his non denotatur essentialis unitas sed moralis tantum. Joan 10.30 & 14.9, 10, 11, 20 & 17.18, 21, 22, 23.” On Yahuda Ms. 15.5, f. 97^r, Newton remarked that corruptions originate by “turning of the scriptures from a moral to a ↓& monarchical to a physical &↓ metaphysical ↓& physical↓ sense.”
40.
Yahuda 15.5, f. 98^r.
41.
See, especially, Snobelen, “Isaac Newton, Heresy Laws and the Presecution of Dissent”. It is telling that when William Whiston went public with his own heretical views, at the danger of revealing Newton’s theological inclinations, Newton kept his lips sealed and ultimately their friendship went cold (Snobelen, “William Whiston, Isaac Newton and the Crisis of Publicity”).
42.
Bodmer Ms., f. 390^v. Cf. Yahuda Ms. 15.3 [early 1710s], f. 44^r: “We are forbidden to worship two Gods but are not forbidden to worship one God, & one Lord in our worship: one God for creating all things & one Lord for redeeming us with his blood.”
43.
See: “Hic est ille qui a Judaeis diu expectatus venit mortali corpore per aquam in baptismo et immortali dein corpore per sanguinem effusum, et subsecutam resurrectionem a mortuis […]” (CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 244^v [additions and corrections intended for the second edition of Principia]).
44.
Bodmer Ms., f. 16^r. The differentiation between the visible Prince and the invisible God was a common theme in contemporary anti-Trinitarian literature (e.g., Sandius, Nucleus historiæ ecclesiasticæ, Liber I, p. 153: “Deum Patrem autem invisibilem nunquam visum, de quo dictum: Deum nemo videbit & vivet.” and Crellius, Initium Evangelii S. Joannis Apostoli, Pars I, Caput III, p. 6). See, furthermore, Dobbs, The Janus Faces of Genius, p. 214.
45.
Keynes Ms. 3, p. 14. On Yahuda 15.4, f. 68^r [early 1710s], Newton wrote: “Idolatry is the worshipping of a fals God a God who is not what your worship supposes him to be, a vanity fictitious God, a Vanity.” On Bodmer Ms, f. 29^r, Newton listed several other examples of idolatry, for instance: the worship of Ghosts or Deamons, the veneration of image or dead men, divination by Oracles, the sacrifice of animals or stars (or intelligences seated in them), charms, spells, enchantments or invocations of the dead, the attribution of supernatural powers or operations to substances, and, finally, submitting to “the carnal desires of the flesh” (unless for “the lawful procreation of children”). The worship of images, the Holy Ghost and Saints was considered idolatrous in Stillingfleet, A discourse concerning the idolatry practised in the Church of Rome, Chapters I and II. Newton owned the 1671 edition of this work (Harrison, The Library of Isaac Newton, p. 244 [item n° 1561]).
46.
Babson Ms. 438, f. 1^r.
47.
On baptism, see Yahuda Ms.15.5 [early 1710s], f. 86^r.
48.
Bodmer Ms., f. 32^r. Cf. Yahuda Ms. 15.6 [early 1710s], f. 109^r: “He is simple not compound. He is all like & equal to himself, all sense all spirit, all perception all Ennœa, all λόγος all ear, all eye, all light. He is all sense w^ch cannot be separated from it self, nor is there any thing in him w^ch can be emitted from any thing else.”
49.
Ibid., f. 16^r. Cf. Yahuda Ms. 15.3 [early 1710s], f. 65^r.
50.
Keynes Ms. 8, f. 1^r [post-1710].
51.
CUL. Add. Ms. 3965, f. 420^r [ca. 1715–1716]. On CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 542^r [ca. 1692–1693], Newton wrote that the most perfect idea of God is as one, simple and indivisible substance. See, furthermore, McGuire, “Newton on Place, Time, and God: An Unpublished Source”, pp. 122/123.
52.
Bodmer Ms., f. 402^v.
53.
The final manuscript version of the theological portion of the General Scholium appears in Newton’s list of corrections for the second edition (CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 526^r–v and again on f. 539^r–v).
54.
Newton, The Principia, p. 940.
55.
CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 542^r [additions and corrections intended for the second edition of Principia].
56.
Ibid.
57.
See Snobelen, “God of Gods, and Lord of Lords”, pp. 177–178.
58.
Royal Society Gregory Ms. 247, f. 7^r–v reads: “Therefore, the body of the celestial sphere, which the world-soul fashioned to participate in its immortality, in order that it should never cease living, is always in motion and does not know how to rest, since the soul itself, by which the sphere is impelled, is never at rest. And slightly later: Even when [Cicero] called the outermost sphere, which so revolves, the supreme God, this does not imply that he believed it to be the first cause and all-powerful God. For the sphere itself, which is the sky, is the creation of the soul, and soul proceeded from the mind, and mind from God, who is truly the supreme: indeed, he called it supreme with respect to the other spheres lying beneath, […]” (Schüller, “Newton’s Scholia from David Gregory’s Estate”, p. 245). Schüller’s translation of “Igitur et caeleste corpus quod anima futurum sibi immortalitatis particeps fabricata est, ne unquam vivendo deficiat semper in motu est et stare nescit, quia nec ipsa stat anima qua impellitur. Et Paulo post: Quod autem [Cicero] extimum globum qui ita volvitur summum Deum vocavit, non ita accipiendum est, ut ipse prima causa et Deus ille omnipotentissimus existimetur, cum globus ipse quod caelum esse animæ sit fabricata; anima ex mente processerit, mens ex Deo, qui vere summus est procreata sit.” (ibid., p. 244). In Query 31, Newton recorded: “And yet we are not to consider the World as the Body of God, or the several Parts thereof, as the Parts of God. He is an uniform Being, void of Organs, Members or Parts, and they are his Creatures subordinate to him, and subservient to his Will; and he is no more the Soul of them, than the Soul of Man is the Soul of the Species of Things carried through the Organs of Sense into the place of its Sensations, where it perceives them by means of its immediate Presence, without the Intervention of any third thing. The Organs of Sense are not for enabling the Soul to perceive the Species of Things in its Sensorium, but only for conveying them thither; and God has no need of such Organs, he being every where present to the Things themselves.” (Newton, The Opticks, p. 403). See Vassányi’s Anima Mundi: The Rise of the World Sould Theory in Modern German Philosophy for useful background on the anima mundi theory.
59.
This is almost certainly a sneer at the Cartesians and Leibniz’s intelligentia supra-mundana.
60.
Newton, The Principia, pp. 940–941. In the third edition, Newton added that “God is one and the same God always and everywhere.” For several biblical references that concur with Newton’s theological stance, see Snobelen, “God of Gods, and Lord of Lords”, p. 177.
61.
Quoted from McGuire, “Space, Infinity and Indivisibility: Newton on the Creation of Matter”, p. 147.
62.
CUL Add. Ms. 4003, p. 12 (= f. 9^v). Here Newton was careful enough to add “tanquam” and not to commit himself to an ontological emanation or the view that God is dependent on space and time (pace Carriero, “Newton on Space and Time: Comments on J. E. McGuire”). Yahuda Ms. 15.1, f. 7^r, 15.5, f. 87^v, 15.6–7, f. 83^v, f. 88^r, f. 108^r, f. 111^v and Bodmer Ms., f. 116^r, f. 147^r, f. 400^r, f. 410^r contain fierce criticism of emanationist cosmogonies which would compromise God’s unity. See Goldish, “Newton’s Of the Church: Its content and Implications”, p. 163; Castillejo, The Expanding Force in Newton’s Cosmos, p. 65 ff. Were Newton omits “tanquam” on two occasions nothing suggests an ontological emanation but rather a logical relation (cf.: “Deus est ubiq, mentes creatæ sunt alicubi, et corpus in spatio quod implet, et quicquid nec ubiq nec ullibi est id non est. Et hinc sequitur [And hence it follows] quod spatium sit entis primariò existentis effectus emanativus.” (ibid., ff. 17^r/18^r [italics added]; Janiak, ed., Newton, Philosophical Writings, p. 25) and “Deniq spatium est æternæ durationis et immutabilis naturæ, idq quòd sit æternis et immutabilis entis effectus emanativus. Siquando non fuerit spatium [If ever space had not existed], Deus tunc nullibi adfuerit, et proinde spatium creabat postea ubi ipse non aderat, vel quod non minùs absonum est, creabat suam ubiquitatem.” (ibid., f. 19^r [italics added]; Janiak, ed., Newton, Philosophical Writings, p. 26)).
63.
For discussion of the sources on which Newton drew, see: Arthur, “Newton’s Fluxions and Equally Flowing Time”, pp. 323–351, esp. pp. 330–333 and Ducheyne, “J. B. Van Helmont’s De tempore as an Influence on Isaac Newton’s Doctrine of Absolute Time”. For an excellent overview of the intellectual context of Newton’s views on space, see McGuire and Slowik, “Newton’s Ontology of Omnipresence and Infinite Space”. I shall address Newton’s views on space and time in more detail in Section 6.4.2 to this chapter.
64.
CUL Add. Ms. 4003, p. 18 (= f. 12^v).
65.
Newton, The Principia, p. 941. The Cohen-Whitman edition here translates “relationem non habent ad servos” as “do not have reference to servants.” A translation more close to the original would be “do not have a relation to servants.” Snobelen discusses several examples of compatible manuscript material (see Snobelen, “God of Gods, and Lord of Lords”, pp. 180–186). For Descartes’ idea of God, see Beyssade, “The Idea of God and the Proofs of His Existence”.
66.
Cf.: “Hypoth 5. The essential properties of bodies are not yet fully known to us. Explain this by y^e cause of gravity, & by y^e ↓metaphysical↓ power of bodies to cause sensation, imagination & memory & mutually to be moved by o^r thoughts.” (CUL Add. Ms. 3970, f. 338^v [ca. 1700–1704]).
67.
Newton, The Principia, p. 942 [italics added].
68.
This material was added in the third edition of the Principia (cf. CUL Adv.b.39.2, interleaved page between pp. 482–483; CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 494^v [additions and corrections intended for the third edition of the Principia]).
69.
Keynes Ms. 3, p. 35 [post-1710].
70.
For Leibniz’ famous criticism of the “sensorium” Newton ascribed to God, see Newton, Correspondence, VI, pp. 212–214.
71.
CUL Add. Ms. 3970, f. 286^r [ca. 1700–1704].
72.
This is another sneer at Descartes’ view that only efficient and not final causes are desirable in natural philosophy. The page of Newton’s 1656 copy of Descartes’ Principia Philosophiae (Wren Library, NQ.9.116, p. 8) which contains this statement (Pars prima, ¶ XXVIII) is dog-eared.
73.
Newton, The Principia, p. 943. In the second edition Newton had written “experimental philosophy.” Cf. CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 152^v [notes on comets; revisions intended for the second edition of the Principia].
74.
CUL Add. Ms. 3970, f. 242^v, cf. f. 243^r [italics added; ca. 1700–1704].
75.
Newton, The Opticks, pp. 405–406.
76.
Scilicet: “Collocavit igitur Deus Planetas in diversis distantiis a Sole, ut quilibet pro gradu densitatis calore Solis majore vel minore fruatur.” (Koyré, Cohen and Whitman, eds., Principia mathematica, II, pp. 582, footnote concerning lines 31–36 of page 405 of the third edition of the Principia; Newton, The Principia, p. 813). This statement occurred in Corollary 5 to Proposition VIII of Book III. The reference to God was deleted in all later editions.
77.
Hall and Hall, eds., Unpublished Scientific Papers of Isaac Newton, p. 352, cf. p. 349; CUL Add. Ms. 3965.12, f. 357^r.
78.
CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 366^v.
79.
Cf. Keynes Ms. 3 [Irenicum; post-1710], p. 43.
80.
Hall and Hall, eds., Unpublished Scientific Papers of Isaac Newton, p. 348, footnote 1; CUL Add. Ms. 3965.12, f. 359^r. Newton’s view of science as a progressive ascent to causes of increasing generality which ultimately reveals the highest and most general cause is also given in Query 31 of The Opticks (Newton, The Opticks, p. 404).
81.
The references to the ancients (Pythagoras, Cicero, Thales, Anaxagoras, Virgil, Philo, and Aratus) were not included here (Newton, The Principia, pp. 941–942, footnote j; cf. CUL Adv.b.39.2, interleaved page between pp. 482–483).
82.
Cf. Keynes Ms. 8 [Twelve articles on religion, post-1710], f. 1^r.
83.
This reference is discussed in Crellius, Initium Evangelii S. Joannis Apostoli, Pars I, Caput III, pp. 6–7, Caput XXXIV, p. 174, and Pars II, Caput XXIII, p. 412 ff.
84.
This reference is mentioned in: Biddle, The Apostolical and True Opinion concerning the Holy Trinity (= Wren Library, NQ.9.32¹; Harrison, The Library of Isaac Newton, p. 142 [item n° 604]), p. 15. John Biddle (1615–1662) was a(n in)famous Unitarian (Iliffe, “Prosecuting Athanasius: Protestant Forensics and the Mirrors of Prosecution”, pp. 117–118).
85.
This and the two following references are mentioned in: [Biddle], A Confession of Faith, Touching the Holy Trinity (= Wren Library, NQ.9.32²; Harrison, The Library of Isaac Newton, p. 142 [item n° 604]), p. 16. 1 Timothy 1: 17 is also mentioned in Crellius, Initium Evangelii S. Joannis Apostoli, Pars I, Caput XLVI, p. 263 and Pars II, Caput XXVIII, p. 453, Caput XLVII, pp. 544–545, and, Dissertatio I, p. 556.
86.
Also mentioned in Keynes Ms. 2, f. 12^r: “Who is y^e Image of y^e invisible God, the first born of every creature. For by him ↓[God y^e Father]↓ were all things created that are in heaven & y^t are in earth visible & invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities or powers, all things were created by him & for him. And he is before all things & by him all things consist. And he ↓[Christ]↓ is y^e head of y^e body the church, who is the beginning, y^e first born from y^e dead; that in all things he might have y^e preeminence. For it pleased y^e Father y^t in him should all fulness dwell Colos 1.15.” This reference is also listed in Newton’s collection of biblical references related to Trinity in Of the church (Bodmer Ms., f. 406^r).
87.
This prima facie strange reference relates to the fact that in the Bible mortal beings are sometimes called “gods.” In the second edition Newton wrote: “And in this sense princes are called gods, Psalms 82.6 and John 10.35. And Moses is called a god of his brother Aaron and a god of king Pharaoh (Exod. 4.16 and 7.1)” (ibid., p. 941, footnote g).
88.
See Popkin, “Newton as a Bible Scholar”.
89.
See footnotes 87–89.
90.
Also referred to in Keynes Ms. 2 [Theological Notebook, ca. 1684–1690], part 1, p. 12^v.
91.
Also referred to in ibid., p. XII.
92.
In the second edition of the Principia Newton referred to Acts 17: 27–28, John 14: 2, Deuteronomy 4: 39 and 10: 14, Psalms 139: 7–9, I Kings 8: 27, Job 22: 12–14 and Jeremiah 23: 23–24. In the third edition, he omitted John 14: 2 (Newton, The Principia, p. 942, footnote j). The latter group is identical to the references given in the E-version.
93.
Cf. Snobelen, “God of Gods, and Lord of Lords”, p. 170, cf. p. 180, footnote 43.
94.
See, furthermore, Mandelbrote, “Eighteenth-Century Reactions to Newton’s Anti-Trinitarianism”. In the postscript (pp. 36–40) to Some Brief Critical remarks on Dr. Clarke’s Last Papers (1714), for instance, John Edwards revealed Newton’s anti-Trinitarian agenda. On p. 36 Edwards noted: “I HAD observ’d before that ’twas Dr. Clarke’s Notion that [God] is a Relative Word, and a Word of Dominium and Power. I have since found that this is borrow’d from Crellius, De Deo ejusq; Attributis, cap. xiii. who uses the like Instances to prove it that the Dr. doth. In the same Place, Crellius affirms, Dei vox Potestatis imprimis & Imperij nomen est. But further, I have found, that our Celebrated Philosopher and Matematician, Sir Isaac Newton, hath taken up these odd Notions at the end of his Philosoph. Nat. Princip. Mathemat. Edit. ult. pag. 482. Deus est vox Relativa: – Deitas est Dominatio Dei, saith he.” G. W. Leibniz also pointed to the Socinian underpinnings of Newton’s notion of God (Alexander, ed., The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence, p. 19). On CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 547^r [additions and corrections intended for the third edition of Principia; italics added], Newton reacted to such allegations, as follows: “⁵ In argumentis pro existentia Dei, Deus ita definiendus est ut a Natura [two illegible words] sapientissima potentissima et summe ↓absolute↓ perfecta distinguatur. […] Id quod fit attribuendo ipsi vitam voluntatem & dominium. […] Unde definiendo significationem ↓antiquam↓ vocis Dei, ↓scripsi↓ in Scholio sub finem Libri Principiorum scripsi in hæc verba. Vox Deus passim significat Dominum, sed omnis Dominus non est Deus. Dominatio Entis Spiritualis Deum constituit, vera verum, summa summum, ficta fictum. Et ex dominatione vera sequitur Deum esse verum esse vivum, intelligentem et potentem; e↓x↓ t reliquis perfectionibus summum esse vel summe perfectum. Spectant hæc verba non ad [illegible word] doctrinam de Trinitate ut aliqui somniant, non ad existentiam ↓cultum↓ Dei alicujus a summo diverso non ad religione non ad religionem, (quæ utique ↓in↓ Philosophia tractari non debe n t), sed ad antiquam significationem vocis Dei, quatenus a natura diversus est solummodo exhibent ↓ut existentia Dei in hoc sensu demonstretur doceatur↓.” (On the same folio, Newton added: “⁴ Doctrina de resurrectione hominum longe antiquissima est. Quaestiones ↓autem↓ de origine materiæ, de immortabilate animæ ac de resurrectione hominum locum non habent in Philosophia.”) However, in view of the biblical references which Newton deleted from the final edition of the General Scholium and in view of his statement that God exists always without succession of persons (“sine successione Personarum”) and is present everywhere without division in persons (“sine divisibilitate in personas”), Newton’s account here is not exactly reliable.
95.
Westfall, Never at Rest, p. 749.
96.
Shapiro, “Newton’s ‘Experimental Philosophy’”, p. 186. The earliest usage of “experimental philosophy” dates back to 1706 in a draft of a paragraph in Query 23 (CUL Add. Ms. 3970, f. 243^r; ibid., p. 189). Stephen D. Snobelen has also pointed to the impact of Leibniz’ 1712 attack on Newton (Snobelen, “God of Gods, and Lord of Lords”, p. 174; see, furthermore Westfall, Never at Rest, pp. 729–732).
97.
CUL Add. Ms. 3970, f. 480^v. On CUL Add. Ms. 3968, f. 257^r [post-1710], Newton called Leibniz’ method “a Romantic method of philosophy.”
98.
CUL Add. 3970, f. 338^r [ca. 1700–1704; italics added].
99.
See the draft of Newton to Cotes, 28 March 1713, Newton, Correspondence, V, pp. 398–399.
100.
Shapiro, “Newton’s ‘Experimental Philosophy’”, p. 191.
101.
Ibid., p. 197.
102.
Ibid., pp. 211–215.
103.
On the priority dispute see Hall, Philosophers at War, Whiteside’s editorial introduction to Part 2 of Whiteside, ed., The Mathematical Papers of Isaac Newton, VIII, pp. 469–538, and Westfall, Never at Rest, Chapter 14. On the Clarke-Leibniz correspondence, see Koyré and Cohen, “Newton and the Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence”.
104.
CUL Add. Ms. 3968, f. 587^v [crossed-out section; 1714].
105.
CUL Add. Ms. 3968.39, f. 586^v, quoted from Shapiro, “Newton’s ‘Experimental Philosophy’”, p. 205.
106.
For the original Latin text of Leibniz’ Tentamen, see Gerhardt, ed., Leibnizens Mathematische Schriften, VI, pp. 144–161; for its translation, see Meli, Equivalence and Priority, pp. 126–142.
107.
Meli, Equivalence and Priority, p. 128, cf. p. 129. Cf. CUL Add. Ms. 3968, f. 74^r [ca. 1712]. See, furthermore, Meli, Equivalence and Priority, p. 42.
108.
Newton, Correspondence, VI, pp. 116–122. See, furthermore, Koyré and Cohen, “Newton and the Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence”, pp. 118–122.
109.
Ibid., VI, p. 116. For additional background, see Meli, Equivalence and Priority, pp. 186–190.
110.
Farrer and Huggard, eds., Theodicy, p. 85. On the Théodicée, see Shapiro, “Newton’s ‘Experimental Philosophy’”, p. 200ff and Cohen, “Newton’s Copy of Leibnitz’ Théodicée”. Newton owned original 1710 edition of the Théodicée (Harrison, The Library of Isaac Newton, p. 177 [item n° 935]).
111.
Newton came across this letter only ten days before he sent his final changes for the second edition of the Principia to Cotes on 28 March 1713 (Shapiro, “Newton’s ‘Experimental Philosophy’”, p. 201; Cotes to Newton 18 March 1712/13, Newton, Correspondence, V, pp. 392–393).
112.
Newton, Correspondence, V, p. 299. See, furthermore, Dobbs, The Janus Faces of Genius, pp. 230–233.
113.
For a recent interpretation of Newton as a mind-body substance monist, see Dempsey, “Written in the Flesh: Newton on the Mind-Body Relation”.
114.
Janiak, ed., Newton, Philosophical Writings, pp. 125–126 [italics added]. In his first reply to Leibniz, Clarke pointed out that: “The Notion of the World’s being a great Machine, going on without the Interposition of God, as a Clock continues to go without the Assistance of a Clockmaker; is the Notion of Materialism and Fate, and tends, (under pretense of making God a Supra-Mundane Intelligence,) to exclude Providence and God’s Government in reality out of the World. […] If a King had a Kingdom, wherein all Things would continually go on without his Government or Interposition, or without his Attending to and Ordering what is done therein; It would be to him, merely a Nominal Kingdom; nor would he in reality deserve at all the Title of King or Governor.” (Clarke, ed., A Collection of Papers, which passed between the late Learned Mr. Leibniz and Dr. Clarke, pp. 15/17).
115.
Newton, The Principia, p. 939. In his early years Newton favoured Descartes’ vortex theory (McGuire and Tamny, eds., Certain Philosophical Questions, pp. 357, 363–365).
116.
Guicciardini, Newton on Mathematical Certainty and Method, Chapters 4–6. See the Section 2.4.3 in Chapter 2.
117.
Ibid., p. 72.
118.
Ibid., p. 67.
119.
Ibid., p. 79.
120.
Translation of: “Quod in Metafysica docetur ↓& si a relevatione [missing word: “divina”?] deducitur religio esse↓, si a Phaenomenis per sensus quinque externos, deducitur a Physicā pertinet, si a revelatione divina, religio ↓est↓; si a cognitione actionum internarum mentis nostræ per sensum reflexionis, philosophia est de sola mente humana & ejus ideis ↓tanquam Phaenomenes internas↓ & ad Physicam ↓item↓ pertinet. De Idearum objectis disputare nisi quatenus sunt phaenomena somniamus ↓somnium est↓. Ideoque a Phaenomenis in omni Philosophia incipiendum est. In omni Philosophia incipere debemus a Phaenomenis, & nulla admittere ↓rerum↓ principia nullas causas nullas explicationes nisi quæ per phaenomena stabiliuntur.” (CUL Add. Ms. 9597.2.11, f. 2^r [italics added]; cf. Cohen’s translation in Newton, The Principia, p. 54). This text is to be found on a half-sheet folio which contains “2” in the right corner. It is blank on the verso side.
121.
Newton interpreted the notion “phenomena” broadly as to include not only what can be known by the five senses but also “things internal which we contemplate in our minds by thinking” (McGuire, Tradition and Innovation, p. 132; cf. CUL Add. Ms. 3970, f. 621^v).
122.
On CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 421^r [additions and corrections intended for the second edition of Principia] Newton wrote: “Phænomena voco ↓non solum↓ quæcunque apparet vel ↓sed etiam↓ (sensu laxiore) quæcunque sentiri possunt, sive sint res externæ quæ per sensus quinque innotescunt, sive internæ quas in mentibus nostris intuemur ↓cogitando↓. Ut quod ignis calidus est, aqua humida est, aurum grave est, sol lucidus est, Ego sum et cogito [end of text]”. On ibid., f. 422^v he wrote: “Hæc omnia sensu laxo sensibilia sunt et sensu laxo Phænomena vocari possunt. Proprie sunt Phænomena ↓proprie dicuntur,↓ quæ videri possunt sed vocem accipio sensu laxiore.” (cf. ibid., f. 420^r).
123.
Newton to a Friend, 14 November 1690, Newton, Correspondence, III, pp. 83–129. Cf. Snobelen, “Isaac Newton, Heretic: the strategies of a Nicodemite,” pp. 401–402. See, furthermore, Parker, “Newton, Locke and the Trinity.”
124.
Locke, An Essay concerning Human Understanding, II.i, §§ 3–4, pp. 104–105, § 24, pp. 117–118, II.vii, § 10, p. 131. See Ducheyne, “The Flow of Influence: From Newton to Locke … and Back”; Rogers, “The System of Locke and Newton”; and, id., “Locke’s Essay and Newton’s Principia”, for further details.
125.
Harrison, The Library of Isaac Newton, pp. 180–181 [items n° 966–978].
126.
Newton owned the 1690 edition of the Essay.
127.
Newton owned the 1701 fourth edition of Locke’s De intellectu humano. Newton’s only remaining private copy contains no signs of reading (Wren Library, NQ.11.27).
128.
In Newton’s famous letter to Locke, in which Newton apologized for accusing Locke of embroiling him “wth woeman” during his depressive breakdown, Newton wrote: “For I am now satisfied that what you have done is just and I beg your pardon for my having hard thoughts of you for it & for representing that you struck at ye root of morality in a principle you laid down in your book of Ideas & designed to pursue in another book & that I took you for a Hobbist.” (Newton to Locke, 16 September 1693, Newton, Correspondence, III, p. 280).
129.
Rémond de Montmort, Essai d’analyse sur les jeux de hazard, pp. 396–398 [italics added]. Newton owned both the 1708 as well as the 1713 edition of this work (Harrison, The Library of Isaac Newton, p. 194 [item n° 1098]).
130.
CUL Add. Ms. 3968, f. 469^r. Newton’s draft letter is 2.25 folios long and ends on f. 470^r.
131.
“Ad explicanda Phænomena nullas inducit vires præter vim inertiæ vim gravitatis & vim electricam quæ vires in Gallia non damnantur.” (ibid., f. 469^r).
132.
“3. Demonstravit Newtonus motus ↓omnes↓ Planetarum Cometarum et Maris nostri ex gravitate sola in spatijs non resistentibus necessario consequi idque quam accuratissime; perturbari vero per hypotheses vorticum. Vide Opticem Quæst. 20. p. 313. Et Princip. Philos. p. 355 & 481. D. Leibnitius vim gravitatis et Hypothesin Vorticum ↓cum vi gravitatis↓ conciliare conatus est sed frustra.” (ibid.).
133.
Ibid.
134.
Ibid., f. 469^v.
135.
Translation of: “Supponit Author cum D. Leibnitio aliam in rerum natura nullam esse vim præter motum […], id est, nihil omnino in rerum natura dari præter materiam et motum, nullas esse causes finales, omnia fato regi, Deum esse intelligentiam supra-mundanam, totam philosophiam naturalem in eo versari ut per hypotheses explicemus quomodo omnia per materiam et motum absque providentia et causis finalibus produci potuerunt.” (ibid., ff. 469^r–469^v).
136.
It was precisely the lack of proper (mathematical) demonstrations that led to the downfall of proper natural philosophy: “Defectu demonstrationibus haec philosophia intermissa fuit eandemque non inveni sed vi demonstrationum in lucem tantum revocare conatus sunt.” (CUL Add. Ms. 3968, f. 109^r [early 1710s]).
137.
Translation of: “[…] sperat Author ut Philosophia Newtoni in Phaenomenis per Demonstrationes Mathematicas fundata rejiciatur & omnes tandem conveniant in Philosophia quam Geometræ in Hypothesibus ad notiones Metaphysicæ sanæ aptatis fundabunt. Metaphysica in In Hypothesibus Idearum Idaeis innatis, Philo↓so↓phia Newtoni in Phaenomenis ↓per mathematicis Demonstrationibus↓ fundatur. Idææ innatæ sunt hypotheses & vult author noster Philosophiam naturalem in hypothesibus me[ta]physicis fundari. Et phaenomenis ac demonstrationibis per hypotheses metaphysicas fundari; […]” (CUL Add. Ms. 9597.2.14, f. 4^r ).
138.
McGuire, Tradition and Innovation, p. 129; Gerhardt, ed., Die Philosophischen Schriften von Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, IV, pp. 468–470.
139.
CUL Add. Ms. 3970, f. 621^v.
140.
Descartes’s words are: “Quae pauca sufficere mihi videntur, ut ex iis tanquam causis omnes qui in hoc mundo apparent effectus secundum leges naturae supra expositas oriantur. Et non puto alia simpliciora, vel intellectu faciliora, vel etiam probabiliora rerum principia posse excogitari. Etsi enim forte etiam ex Chao per leges naturae idem ille ordo qui jam est in rebus deduci posset, idque olim susceperim explicandum; quia tamen confusio minus videtur convenire cum summa Dei rerum creatoris perfectione, quam proportio vel ordo, & minus distincte etiam a nobis percipi potest, nullaqua proportio, nullusve ordo simplicior est, & congenitu facilior, qua ille qui constat omnimoda aequalitate: idcirco hic suppono omnes materiae particulas initio fuisse, tam in magnitudine quam in motu, inter se aequales, & nullam in universo inaequalitatem relinquo, praeter illam quae est in situ Fixarum, & quae unicuique coelum noctu intuenti tam clare apparet, ut negari plane non possit. Atque omnino parum refert, quid hoc pacto supponatur, quia postea juxta leges naturae est mutantum. Et vix aliquid supponi potest, ex quo non idem effectus (quanquam fortasse operosius) per easdam naturae leges deduci possit: cum enim illarum ope materia formas omnies quarum est capax, successive assumat, si formas istas ordine consideremus, tandem ad illam quae est hujus mundi poterimus devenire: adeo ut hic nihil erroris ex falsa suppositione sit timendum.” (Descartes, Œuvres de Descartes, VIII, pp. 101–103).
141.
Translation of: “Et Metaphysicam sanam intelligit Cartesianam: Qua ubique asseritur Ens absolute perfectum existere, idque ab ejus Idæa, ab existentia necessaria in Idæa illa inclusâ & ab homine authorem habente Cartesius probat. Verum Ens illud a Natura sapientissima omnia procreante & nihil frustra faciente, diversum esse nusquam demonstrat. Scilicet in Metaphysica sua se authorem habere istumque Authorem esse Deum; in Principijs Philosophiae (Part III sect 47) materiam in forma quacunque positam, ope legum naturæ formas omnes quarum est capax successive assumere, tandemque ad illam quæ est hujus mundi devenire statuit. Sic nec vim aut facultatem cogitandi rem cogitantem esse aut rem omnem extensam extentionem esse, aut existentionem rem mobilem esse, aut motum corporum in sola translatione relativa sine vi inertiae consistere, aut rem cogitantem nulli spatio praesentem esse, aut Deum non esse omnipræsentem per substantiam suam aut nos Idæas habere substantiarum Cartesius alicubi probavit. Hæc omnia sunt meræ hypotheses.” (CUL Add. Ms. 9597.2.14, f. 4^r). An earlier variant is contained on the aforementioned CUL Add. Ms. 3968, f. 469^v.
142.
See Janiak, ed., Newton, Philosophical Writings, pp. 14–22.
143.
Descartes’s ideas on motion can be found in Le Monde (1632), but are perhaps presented more clearly in the Principia philosophiae (1644). For a good exposition of Descartes’s conservation laws, see, e.g., Garber, Descartes’ Metaphysical Physics, esp. Chapters 6–9.
144.
For a recent biography on Henry More, see Crocker, Henry More, 1614–1687.
145.
More wrote: “For that admirable Master of Mechanics Des-Cartes has improved this way to the highest, I dare say, that the wit of man can reach to in such Phaenomena as he has attempted to render the causes of.” (More, The Immortality of the Soul, Preface, p. 32). Also see More’s utterance that “Moses has been aforehand with Cartesius” (More, Conjectura Cabbalistica or, a Conjectural Essay of Interpreting the Minde of Moses According to a threefold Cabbala: viz. Literal, Philosophical, Mystical, or, Divinely Moral, p. 151).
146.
In the Cartesian systema mundi God would be nowhere (“nullibi”). More therefore called René Descartes a “nullibist.” See Cassirer, The Platonic Renaissance in England, p. 149 and Koyré, From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe, p. 139.
147.
Descartes, Œuvres de Descartes, VIII, pp. 62–65.
148.
CUL Add. Ms. 3970, f. 619^r.
149.
Translation of: “Metaphysicæ Metaphysica ↓ubique↓ ab antiqua Gentium Theogonia originem habuit qua ubique Gentes Solem Lunam stellas, ↓elementa↓ Deos omnes, ↓Intelligentias↓ animas humanas animalia & omnia mundi [illegible word] quæ in rerum natura sunt vel partes esse Dei summi vel ↓ejus↓ potentias ↓esse↓ fingebant. adeoque naturam ipsam esse Deum Unde consequens est quod ipsa rerum Natura sit Deus summus. In hac Philosophia[m] ↓Gentes↓ idolatriam suam fundebant. Et Moses [illegible word] ↓abrogando↓ cultum partium [illegible word] a Dêo conditarum hanc Philosophiam damnavit stellarum partium mundi, damnavit hanc philosophiam ac Dom. Deum omnipræsentem a Natura rerum natura diversum stabilivit.” (CUL Add. Ms. 9597.2.14, f. 4^r [1717]). Judaism occupied an important place in Newton’s reconstruction of the Ur-religion for by “reading the Law and Prophets in the Synagogues, those books have been kept freer from corruption than the Hagiographia” (Newton, Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John, p. 13; cf. Bodmer Ms., f. ii^r). Furthermore, in Bodmer Ms., f. 1^r, cf. 21^v, Newton wrote: “The true religion was propagated by Noah to his posterity, & when they revolted to the worship of their dead kings & thereby denyed their God & ceased to be his people, it continued in Abraham & his posterity who revolted not.”
150.
Newton often stressed God’s free will. For instance, Newton wrote “² Materia non est æterna sed originem habuit a voluntate Dei” and “³ Animæ humanæ sunt immortales, non per causas naturales sed per voluntatem Dei.” (CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 547^r). On ibid., f. 542^r (ca. 1692–1694), in a crossed-out section, Newton commented on God as a substance (“substantia”), as follows: “quæ tota intelligit […] quod in singulis ejus locis agitur, […] cujus vis […] tota in singulis locis viget, […] ↓quæ↓ possibilia omnia semper et ubique pro arbitrio suo in actum deducere potest, ↓& libere agit↓ quæ optima omnia ↓sunt↓ et rationi maxime consentatea […] et fato cæco […] adduci non potest ut aliquod aliter agat.” On ibid., f. 542^v, he wrote: “Certe potentia creandi non major ↓esse↓ potest in Deo quam possibilitas in creaturis, ideoque aut hæc infinita est aut illa tantum finita. [Nam Dei potentia ad impossibilia non extenditur.]” On one occasion, Newton wrote that God had freely chosen the laws of nature (“Natura legibus ↓semper↓ obtemperat, Deus libere eligit.. et leges constituit.” (ibid., f. 496^r)). Similarly in Dibner NMAHRB Ms. 1031 B, f. 4^v, Newton wrote: “The world might have been otherwise then it is (because there may be worlds otherwise framed then this) Twas therefore noe necessary but a voluntary & free determination y^t it should bee thus. And thus a voluntary [cause must bee a God]. determination implys a God. If it be said y^t y^e w^ld could bee noe otherwise yⁿ tis because tis determined by an eternall series of causes, y^ts to pervert not to anwser y^e 1^st prop: ffor I meane not y^t y^e [world] might have been otherwise notw^thstanding the precedent series of causes, but y^t y^e whole series of causes might from eternity have beene otherwise here, <because they as well as, deleted> ↑ because they may be otherwise ↓ in other places” (quoted from Dobbs, The Janus Faces of Genius, p. 266). Unfortunately, this material has not received proper attention by recent scholars writing on early modern theological voluntarism (e.g., Harrison, “Voluntarism and Early Modern Science”, esp. pp. 75–76, in which Harrison tries to temper Newton’s theological voluntarism on the basis of an unrelated excerpt on moral laws from Newton’s Of the church (cf. Harrison, “Was Newton a voluntarist?”, p. 42), and, Henry, “Voluntarist Theology at the Origins of Modern Science: A Response to Peter Harrison”, pp. 86, 88, 89, in which Henry seeks to emphasize Newton’s voluntarism – alas, without taking the manuscript material referred to above into consideration).
151.
CUL Add. Ms. 3970, f. 244^v [ca. 1704–1706].
152.
See Iliffe, “‘Those whose business it is to cavell:’ Newton’s Anti-Catholicism’” and id., “Prosecuting Athanasius: Protestant Forensics and the Mirrors of Prosecution”. With respect to the corruption of Trinity, the 1669 edition of Christoph(orus) Sand(ius), Nucleus historiæ ecclesiasticæ provided Newton with a lot of historical information (Harrison, The Library of Isaac Newton, p. 232 [item n° 1444]).
153.
On Newton’s belief in the prisca sapientia, see, e.g., Yahuda Ms. 41; McGuire and Rattansi, “Newton and the ‘Pipes of Pan’”; Manuel, The Religion of Isaac Newton; Rattansi, “Newton and the Wisdom of the Ancients”; Dobbs, The Janus Faces of Genius; id., The Foundations of Newton’s Alchemy; Goldish, Judaism in the Theology of the Sir Isaac Newton; Markley, “Newton, Corruption, and the Tradition of Universal History”; Haycock, “The Long-lost Truth: Sir Isaac Newton and the Newtonian Pursuit of Ancient Knowledge”; Snobelen, “‘The true frame of Nature:’ Isaac Newton, Heresy, and the Reformation of Natural Philosophy”, esp. 234–242; and, Mandelbrote, “Isaac Newton and the Flood”.
154.
For the theological context of Query 31, see, furthermore, Snobelen, “‘The Light of Nature:’ God and Natural Philosophy in Isaac Newton’s Opticks”.
155.
Newton, The Opticks, pp. 405–406. This excerpt was added to the 1706 edition of Newton’s Optice.
156.
Yahuda Ms. 1.1, ff. 12^r–19^r. See, furthermore, Newton, Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John, pp. 16–23.
157.
See Section 3.2 in Chapter 3.
158.
Snobelen, “‘God of Gods, and Lord of Lords’”, p. 200; id., “To Discourse of God: Isaac Newton’s Heterodox Theology and His natural Philosophy”, pp. 46–47. In the latter article, Snobelen further strengthens his claim that “[T]he same methods [...] could be applied in the study of both Books” (ibid., p. 47) by referring to the following quotation from the scholium to the Definitions: “Accordingly those who there interpret these words as referring to the quantities being measured do violence to the Scriptures. And they no less corrupt mathematics and philosophy who confused true quantities with their relations and common measures.” (Newton, The Principia, p. 414). Cf. Force, “Newton, the ‘Ancients’, and the ‘Moderns’”, p. 244..
159.
Snobelen, “To Discourse of God: Isaac Newton’s Heterodox Theology and His natural Philosophy”, p. 46. It has also been suggested that “Newton’s method of fluxions is inevitably connected with his theory of the continuous dominion of God since the creation” and that “Newton’s calculus is based on the continuity of flow as supervised by the God of Dominion operating in his generally provident mode of creator and preserver of the current state of natural law” (Force, Newton’s God of Dominion, p. 88). Force’s suggestions have recently been further developed by Leshem, Newton on Mathematics and Spiritual Purity, Chapters 3 and 4 and Ramati, “The Hidden Truth of Creation: Newton’s Method of Fluxions”. All Leshem/Ramati establishes is that Newton could have attributed theological significance to the method of fluxions. Evidence that he did so is lacking.
160.
Yahuda Ms. 1.1, f. 8^r.
161.
Yahuda Ms. 1.1, f. 14^r. Similarly in Dibner NMAHRB Ms. 1031 B, Newton wrote: “Tis suitable w^th infinite wisdom […] not to multiply causes w^thout necessity” (quoted from Dobbs, The Janus Faces of Genius, p. 265). Dobbs dates this manuscript to 1672 (ibid., p. 257); the dating provided by The Newton Project is 1670–1675.
162.
Yahuda Ms. 15.1, f. 11^r [1710s]. On Keynes Ms. 3, p. 2 [post-1710], Newton added: “The first Principles of the Christian religion are founded, not on disputable conjectures ↓conclusions or humane sanctions, opinions or conjectures↓, but on the express words of Christ & his Apostles; & we are to hold fast the form of sound words. It is not enough that a Proposition be true or in the express words of scripture: it must also appear to have been taught from the beginning ↓days of the Apostles↓ in order to baptism & communion.”
163.
On Newton’s work on prophecy, see Manuel, The Religion of Isaac Newton, Chapter 4; Castillejo, The Expanding Force in Newton’s Cosmos, Chapter 2; Popkin, “Newton’s Biblical Theology and His Theological Physics”; Hutton, “The Seven Trumpets and the Seven Seals: Apocalypticism and Christology in Newton’s Theological Writings”; id., “More, Newton, and the Language of Biblical Prophecy”; Iliffe, “‘Making a Shew’” Kochavi, “One Prophet Interprets Another: Sir Isaac Newton and Daniel”; Mandelbrote, “Isaac Newton and Thomas Burnet”; id., “A Duty of the greatest Moment;” and, id., “Isaac Newton and the Exegesis of the Book of Daniel”. On Joseph Mede’s (and Henry More’s) influence on Newton’s prophetical work, see Hutton, “More, Newton, and the Language of Biblical Prophecy” and Iliffe, “Making a Shew”. Cf. Yahuda, 1.1, f. 8^r.
164.
Yahuda Ms. 1.1, f. 1^r [italics added].
165.
Ibid., ff. 1^r–2^r [italics added].
166.
Ibid., f. 9^r.
167.
Ibid., ff. 5^r–6^r [italics added].
168.
Mamiani, “To twist the meaning: Newton’s regulae philosophandi revisited”, esp. pp. 11–12.
169.
Ibid., p. 10.
170.
Ibid., p. 11.
171.
Mamiani’s move to account for the content of Rules III and IV on the basis of the law of connection and Sanderson’s characterisation of induction, respectively, is even less convincing (ibid., pp. 11–12).
172.
James E. Force has, furthermore, argued that in Rule IV Newton “noted the methodological impact for human knowledge of a physical nature subservient either to God’s ordinary or to his extraordinary acts of will” (Force, “Newton’s God of Dominion”, p. 89). As we have seen in Section 3.2 in Chapter 3, Newton’s fourth rule referred to the demand that objections should be drawn from phenomena and to the fact that in the Principia Newton proceeded along a series of approximations – Force, however, remains silent about this technical context. To the best of my knowledge, in none of Newton’s manuscripts is Rule IV (or its adumbrations) discussed in a theological context.
173.
Delgado-Moreira, “Newton’s Treatise on Revelation”.
174.
Cf. Snobelen, “God of Gods, and Lord of Lords”, pp. 200–202.
175.
Delgado-Moreira, “Newton’s Treatise on Revelation: The use of mathematical discourse”, p. 225.
176.
Ibid., p. 230, cf. p. 234. See, furthermore, her paper “Newton on the Civil and Religious Origins of Humanity”. Delgado-Moreira has thereby tempered some of the claims made in Mamiani, “The Rhetoric of Certainty: Newton’s Method in Science and the Interpretation of the Apocalypse”.
177.
Yahuda 1.1, f. 18^r–19^r [italics added].
178.
Delgado-Moreira, “Newton’s Treatise on Revelation”, p. 245.
179.
Transcribed and translated in McGuire, “Newton on Place, Time, and God: An Unpublished Source”.
180.
Janiak, ed., Newton, Philosophical Writings, p. 14.
181.
Cf. Newton, The Principia, p. 409.
182.
Janiak, ed., Newton, Philosophical Writings, pp. 11–12.
183.
Ibid., p. 14.
184.
Compare with Palter, “Saving Newton’s Text”, p. 408 and Steinle, Newtons Entwurf “Über die Gravitation… .,” pp. 18–19.
185.
Janiak, ed., Newton, Philosophical Writings, pp. 14–16.
186.
Ibid., p. 17; CUL Add. Ms. 4003, f. 6^r.
187.
Janiak, ed., Newton, Philosophical Writings, pp. 16–17.
188.
Ibid., p. 18.
189.
Ibid.
190.
Ibid., p. 20.
191.
Ibid., p. 19; CUL Add. Ms. 4003, p. 8.
192.
Janiak, ed., Newton, Philosophical Writings, p. 31.
193.
Ibid.
194.
Ibid., p. 19; CUL Add. Ms. 4003, p. 8.
195.
See, furthermore, Stein, “Newton’s Metaphysics”, p. 265 and Palter, “Saving Newton’s Text”, pp. 411–412.
196.
CUL Add. Ms. 4003, p. 11.
197.
Ibid., p. 10.
198.
Janiak, ed., Newton, Philosophical Writings, pp. 20–21.
199.
Ibid., p. 21 [italics added]; CUL Add. Ms. 4003, p. 12.
200.
This statement was later repeated in McGuire, “Newton on Place, Time, and God: An Unpublished Source”, pp. 116/117 and Clarke, ed., A Collection of Papers, which passed between the late Learned Mr. Leibniz and Dr. Clarke, p. 73, p. 129.
201.
Janiak, ed., Newton, Philosophical Writings, p. 25 [italics added].
202.
Ibid. [italics added]; CUL Add. Ms. 4003, p. 19.
203.
McGuire, Tradition and Innovation, p. 31.
204.
Ibid.
205.
Newton, The Principia, p. 941 [italics added]; Koyré, Cohen and Whitman, eds., Principia mathematica, II, p. 761.
206.
Newton, The Principia, p. 942; Koyré, Cohen and Whitman, eds., Principia mathematica, II, p. 762.
207.
Here I am indebted to McGuire and Slowik, “Newton’s Ontology of Omnipresence and Infinite Space” for their characterization of space and time as external propria and their development of its theological implications. See, furthermore, McGuire, Tradition and Innovation, Chapter 1.
208.
Des Maizeaux, ed., Recueil de diverses pièces.
209.
CUL Add. Ms. 9597.2.14.2, [f. 1^r] [period after the Clarke-Leibniz correspondence; italics added]. In a variant, Newton wrote that space and time are “modes of existence in all beings & ↓unbounded↓ consequents of the existence of a Being w^ch is really, & necessarily & substantially Omnipresent and Eternal; w^ch existence is neither ↓a↓ substance attribute nor a quality, but the existence of a substance with all its attributes properties & qualities, & accidents [S^r D^r Clarks 4^th Reply § 10.] & yet is so modified by place & time ↓duration↓ that they ↓these modes↓ cannot be rejected without rejecting the ↓the↓ existence.” (C.U.L. Add. Ms. 3965, f. 270^r [period after the Clarke-Leibniz correspondence]).
210.
I.e., pace Stein, “Newton’s Metaphysics”, p. 271. See Slowik, “Newton’s Metaphysics of Space”, p. 442 and McGuire and Slowik, “Newton’s Ontology of Omnipresence and Infinite Space”.
211.
Janiak, ed., Newton, Philosophical Writings, p. 28; CUL Add. Ms. 4003, p. 22.
212.
Janiak, ed., Newton, Philosophical Writings, pp. 27–28.
213.
For Newton on atheism, see Keynes Ms. 7, f. 1^r.
214.
Janiak, ed., Newton, Philosophical Writings, p. 31; CUL Add. Ms. 4003, p. 26.
215.
See, furthermore, McGuire, Tradition and Innovation, Chapters 1 and 4, id., “Predicates of Pure Existence: Newton on God’s Space and Time”, and id., “The Fate of the Date: The Theology of Newton’s Principia Revisited”.
216.
Cf. the conclusions reached in Janiak, Newton as Philosopher, Chapter 5.
217.
Newton, The Principia, pp. 408–409; Koyré, Cohen and Whitman, eds., Principia mathematica, I, p. 46.
218.
Stein, “Newtonian Space-Time”, p. 269 and Barbour, Absolute or Relative Motion?, I, p. 617 ff.
219.
Newton, The Principia, p. 409.
220.
Ibid., p. 411.
221.
Ibid. Only God can distinguish between true and apparent motion (Cohen, “Isaac Newton’s Principia, the Scriptures, and the Divine Providence”, p. 528).
222.
Newton, The Principia, pp. 411–412 [numbers and italics added]; Koyré, Cohen and Whitman, eds., Principia mathematica, I, pp. 49–50.
223.
Newton, The Principia, pp. 412–413; Koyré, Cohen and Whitman, eds., Principia mathematica, I, pp. 50–51.
224.
Janiak, Newton as Philosopher, pp. 137–138. Consequently, Leibniz’ relativism was not at all Newton’s target.
225.
Rynasiewicz, “By their Properties, Causes and Effects: Newton’s Scholium on Time, Space, Place and Motion – I”, esp. p. 137; id., “By their Properties, Causes and Effects: Newton’s Scholium on Time, Space, Place and Motion – II”, pp. 295–306; and Barbour, Absolute or Relative Motion?, I, pp. 635–637.
226.
Stein, “Newtonian Space-Time”, p. 271.
227.
DiSalle, Understanding Space-Time, p. 13. See, furthermore, Kerszberg, “The Cosmological Question in Newton’s Science”, pp. 76–79.
228.
Newton, The Principia, p. 412; Koyré, Cohen and Whitman, eds., Principia mathematica, I, pp. 50–51
229.
Janiak, Newton as Philosopher, p. 136. See Belkind, “Newton’s Conceptual Argument for Absolute Space”, esp. 285–288 for an additional perspective.
230.
Bear in mind that Newton accepted Galilean relativity explicitly in Corollaries 5 and 6 to the laws of motion (Newton, The Principia, p. 423).
231.
DiSalle, “Newton’s Philosophical Analysis of Space and Time”, p. 39.
232.
DiSalle, Understanding Space-Time, pp. 21–22, 25; McGuire, Tradition and Innovation, p. 5.
233.
Newton, The Principia, p. 410.
234.
DiSalle, “Newton’s Philosophical Analysis of Space and Time”, p. 49. Note that DiSalle’s approach does thereby not deny Newton’s theological motivations for endorsing absolute space and time: “Asking this question about Newton’s theory does not deny its connection with his profound metaphysical convictions – not only about space and time, but about God and his relationship to the natural world. On the contrary, it illuminates the nature of those convictions and their relationship to Newton’s physics.” (ibid., p. 38; cf. id., Understanding Space-Time, p. 40).
235.
Funkenstein, Theology and the Scientific Imagination, pp. 90–96. A central thesis of Funkenstein’s book is that seventeenth-century natural philosophers often defended their scientific ideas by means of theological arguments and vice versa. This idea will be taken up again in the following section.
236.
Newton, The Principia, p. 941.
237.
It is also significant that Newton corrected the statement, occurring in the second edition of the Principia, that “to treat of God from phenomena is certainly a part of experimental philosophy,” into “to treat of God from phenomena is certaintly a part of natural philosophy” in the third edition (Newton, The Principia, p. 943).
238.
Dobbs, The Janus Faces of Genius, pp. 253–254 [underscore added]; cf. Dobbs, “‘The unity of thought:’ An integrated view of Newton’s work”. Cf. Force, “Newton’s God of Dominion”, p. 94.
239.
Force, “Newton, the ‘Ancients,’ and the ‘Moderns’”, p. 257.
240.
Force, “Newton’s God of Dominion”, p. 78. A different voice was raised by Richard S. Westfall, who noted that “even if we grant the influence [of Newton’s theology on his experimental philosophy], we remain still on a plane of high generality from which it is difficult if not impossible to demonstrate an influence on some concrete element of his science.” (Westfall, “Newton’s Theological Manuscripts”, pp. 139–140).
241.
Force, “Newton’s God of Dominion”, p. 87.
242.
Snobelen, “God of Gods, and Lord of Lords”, p. 197.
243.
Ibid., p. 204. It should be noted that in his recent “The Theology of Isaac Newton’s Principia mathematica” Snobelen has fine-tuned his tackle on the matter.
244.
Iliffe, “Abstract considerations: Disciplines and the Incoherence of Newton’s Natural Philosophy”, p. 428.
245.
Ibid.
246.
Ibid., p. 451.
247.
Keynes Ms. 6, f. 1^r [post-1710]. Cf. CUL Add. Ms. 3965.13, f. 547^r [additions and corrections intended for the third edition of the Principia]: “In Philosophia ↓tractanda↓ abstinendum est a religione, in religione ↓tractanda↓ abstinenda est a philosophia.” It is significant to note that this statement occurs in a draft scrap containing statements on “deus” as a “vox relativa”. See, furthermore: “If you would know the meaning of the several names given to Christ in preaching the Gospel, you are not to have recourse ↓not↓ to Meth↓a↓physicks & Philosophy but to y^e scriptures of the old Testament. ffor Christ sent not his disciples to pre↓a↓ch Metaphysicks & Philoso to y^e common people & to their wives & children, but instructed the expounded to them the scriptures of the ↓out of Moses &↓ the Prophets ↓& Psalms↓ the things concerning himself & opened their understanding that they might understand the scriptures & then sent them to teach all nations what he had taught them. And the Apostle bids us beware of vain philosophy.” (Keynes Ms. 3 [Irenicum], p. 32).
248.
CUL Add. Ms. 3970, f. 242^v [post-1704].
249.
Newton, The Principia, p. 814, footnote c.
250.
In Cohen, “Isaac Newton’s Principia, the Scriptures, and the Divine Providence”, p. 530 my suggestion is found untenable on the gounds that “Newton eliminated the reference to God in this corollary in the interleaved copy of the Principia in his private library, apparently long before he had even contemplated a General Scholium” (cf. Snobelen, “The Theology of Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica”, p. 388). Cohen has, furthermore, suggested that “Newton might very well have concluded that this topic either required a more considerable discussion, perhaps with further examples, or else should not be mentioned at all” (ibid.). I am not entirely convinced that Newton’s deletion of this excerpt prior to the composition of the General Scholium rules out my interpretation: even without the plans for a General Scholium Newton might have decided that it is better not to brush on such theological topics in experimental philosophy.
251.
Westfall correctly noted the following on Newton’s interest in theology: “Newton’s interest in theology was not a private idiosyncrasy but a reflection of a general problem that occupied nearly every scientist of the late seventeenth century and every thinking person beyond the scientific community.” (Westfall, “Newton’s Scientific Personality”, p. 56).
252.
Snobelen, “The Theology of Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica”, pp. 382–385.
253.
Dobbs, The Janus Faces of Genius, p. 211.
254.
Ibid., Chapter 2 and p. 147.
255.
Newton, The Principia, pp. 942–943.
256.
Ibid., p. 414. Cohen has recorded several early precursors of this excerpt (Cohen, “Isaac Newton’s Principia, the Scriptures, and the Divine Providence”, pp. 527/535).
257.
See the discussion in Snobelen, “The Theology of Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica”, pp. 399–401.
258.
See Appendix 3 for its full transcription and Cohen, “Isaac Newton’s Principia, the Scriptures, and the Divine Providence” for further background.
259.
CUL Add. Ms. 4005, f. 39^r. See, furthermore, Snobelen, “‘Not in the Language of Astronomers:’ Isaac Newton, the Scriptures and the Hermeneutics of Accommodation”. In the following excerpt Newton again separated the literal-natural from the moral or allegorical sense: “But men of corrupt minds, not attending to the relation w^ch the names of Christ have to the prophesies concerning him, [illegible] & w^ch the several parts of scripture have to one another; but taking things in a litteral & philosophical ↓natural↓ sense w^ch were spoken allegorically & w ^th re ↓morally↓ with relation to piety & virtue, & wresting the expressions of scripture to the opinions of philosophers, have brought into the Christian religion many philosophical opinions to w^ch the first Christians were strangers. So where Christ saith This is my body, meaning a type of his body, the Romanists Catholicks understand it litterally as if the bread was transubstantiated changed into Christs body in a litteral sense. Where Christ saith, The father is greater then I, meaning in power, some have thence inferred that the Son is a part of the father.” (Yahuda 15.3, f. 47^v).
260.
CUL Add. Ms. 4005, f. 41^r.
261.
By which I mean those parts of Newton’s works in which he developed arguments based on (physico-)mathematics and empirical observation to reach conclusions about the empirical world or those parts in which he explicated the laws and concepts required for a physico-mathematical and empirical study of nature. I use ‘natural philosophy proper’ as synomymous with ‘experimental philosophy’ or ‘the demonstrative part of natural philosophy’. ‘Natural philosophy’ refers to those parts in Newton’s work in which he reaches conclusions about the empirical world without restricting himself to physico-mathematical or empirical arguments alone. Thus, while the Definitions in the Principia pertain to experimental philosophy, Newton’s theological and ontological discussion of space and time pertains to natural philosophy.
262.
For the translation see Newton, The Principia, pp. 939–944. The numbering of the paragraphs is mine.
263.
Koyré, Cohen and Whitman, eds., Principia mathematica, II, p. 759.
264.
Newton, The Principia, p. 940.
265.
Koyré, Cohen and Whitman, eds., Principia mathematica, II, p. 760.
266.
Newton, The Principia, p. 940.
267.
Ibid.
268.
Ibid., p. 941.
269.
Ibid., pp. 941–942.
270.
Ibid., p. 942. Further draft material related to this is on CUL 9597.2.18.97, [ff. 2^r].
271.
Newton, The Principia, p. 943.
272.
Ibid., p. 944, footnote p.
273.
Ibid., p. 943.
274.
All five holograph drafts to the Principia were written before January 1712/13 (Hall and Hall, eds., Unpublished Scientific Papers of Isaac Newton, p. 349). I have followed the Halls’ division into paragraphs. In Cohen-Whitman’s recent translation the division in paragraphs differs slightly.
275.
A relevant variation occurs near the end of the paragraph where Newton wrote, but later crossed out: “At motus illi ↓sub initia↓ ex causis mere mechanicis sub initia oriri non potuere.” (CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 357^r).
276.
It should be noted that this manuscript contains but a small portion on God’s dominion: “Hic omnia regit non ut anima mundi sed ut natura De universorum Dominus. Omnipraesens est et in ipso ↓continentur &↓ moventur universa idque sine resistentia cum ↓sit Ens non corporeus neque↓ corpore restiatur.” (CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 357^r).
277.
Namely, “Caeterum causam gravitatis nondum exposui neque exponendā suscepi siquidem ex phaenomenis colligere nondum potui ↓enim↓. Non oritur ex vi centrifuga vorticis alicujus siquidem non tendit non ad axem vorticis sed ad centrum Planetae.” (CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 357^r).
278.
A noticable difference is: “Nam hypotheses seu physicas seu mechanicas seu qualitatum occultarum fugiunt praejudica fugio. Praejudicia sunt et scientiam pariunt.” (CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 357^v; cf. Hall and Hall, eds., Unpublished Scientific Papers of Isaac Newton, p. 353).
279.
Here Newton pointed to the similarity between electricity and gravity as inter-particular forces.
280.
These experiments are not included in any later version. See Hall and Hall, eds., Unpublished Scientific Papers of Isaac Newton, pp. 354–355. They occur, however, on CUL Add. Ms. 3968, f. 260^v.
281.
Cf. Newton, The Opticks, pp. 392–394.
282.
Hall and Hall, eds., Unpublished Scientific Papers of Isaac Newton, pp. 350–351, cf. pp. 354–355.
283.
In the published version, the following sentence was added at the end of this paragraph: “Et ne fixarum systemata per gravitatem suam in se mutuo cadant, his eadem immensam ab invicem distantiam posuerit.” (Koyré, Cohen and Whitman, eds., Principia mathematica, II, p. 760).
284.
It contains several sentences on the dominion and omnipresence of God. Newton wrote that “simili consilio constructa, suberunt Unius dominio” [Newton initially wrote “unius” and capitalized it afterwards] (f. 359^r). On f. 359^v, one relevant sentence was added: “Et haec de Deo, de quo utique ex Phaenomenis disserere, ad Philosophiam experimentalem pertinet. Ex Phaenomenis prodeunt proximae rerum causae: ex his causae superiores donec ad causam summā perveniatur.” (ibid.; cf. Hall and Hall, eds., Unpublished Scientific Papers of Isaac Newton, p. 348). The penultimate sentence is somewhat different (but not relevantly different) from the published version and the paragraph is shorter than in the published version. Hence, in ¶ 4 between the penultimate and the last sentence of the B-version, the following text is omitted: “A caeca necessitate metaphysica, quae utique eadem est semper et ubique, nulla oritur rerum variatio. Tota rerum conditarum pro locis ac temporibus diversitas, ad ideis & voluntate entis necessario existentis solummodo oriri potuit. Dicitur autem deus per allegoriam videre, audere, loqui, ridere, amare, odio habere, cupere, dare, accipere, gaudere, irasci, pugnare, fabricare, condere, construere. Nam sermo omnis de deo a rebus humanis per similitudinem aliquam desumitur, non perfectam quidem, sed aliqualem tamen.” (Koyré, Cohen and Whitman, eds., Principia mathematica, II, pp. 763–764; this corresponds to the Newton’s additions in his private copy of the the second edition of the Principia (CUL Adv.b.39.2, inserted folio between pp. 482–483)). A scrap draft of the omitted text can be found on CUL 3965.13, f. 543^r–v. Newton refers to the following scriptural references: “Act. 17.27, 28, Deut 4.39. & 10.14. I King. 8.27. Job. 22.12. Psal. 139.7. Jer. 23.23, 24.” (CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 359^v; cf. CUL Adv.b.39.2, interleaved folio between pp. 482–483).
285.
This paragraph is shorter than the published version and continues on f. 361^v. The most notable sentences are: “Causam vero harum proprietatum ejus ex phaenomenis nondum potui invenire. Nam hypotheses seu mechanicas seu qualitatum occultarum fugio. Praejudicae sunt et scientiam pariunt. Sufficiat ↓Satis est↓ quod gravitas revera detur, & agat secundum leges a nobis expositas & ad maris nostri corporum coelestium et maris nostri sufficiat motus omnes sufficiat.” (CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 361^v; cf. Hall and Hall, eds., Unpublished Scientific Papers of Isaac Newton, p. 356). On a separate scrap, Newton wrote: “Leges motuum ex phaenomenis & proprietates gravitatis ex alijs Phaenomenis his Legibus per Inductionem in haec philosophia & vero generalibus habentur cum nulla occurat Objectio ex Phaenomenis derivantur.” (CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 544^r).
286.
It is shorter and essentially makes two points: that we do not know the substances of things (“Substantias rerum non cognoscimus. Nullas habemus earum ideas.” (CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 361^r; Hall and Hall, eds., Unpublished Scientific Papers of Isaac Newton, p. 356)) and that we only know the properties of things.
287.
It adds nothing important to the previous paragraph.
288.
In this paragraph Newton observed that we only see the figures and colours of things, hear but the sounds which objects produce, touch but the external surfaces of objects, smell but their odours, and taste but their tastes.
289.
For the transcription of these propositions, i.e. ¶ 9–15, see Hall and Hall, eds., Unpublished Scientific Papers of Isaac Newton, p. 357. Newton gives only the propositions but not their proofs. After having shown that gravity exists and acts according to the inverse-square law, Newton also wished to establish the laws and effects of other attractive forces, viz. electricity and magnetism (cf. “superest ut vires reliquas attractivas, vis scilicet electrica et vis magnetica, examinentur, ut earum leges et effectus [varias] ad motus [minimarum particularum materiae corporeae] minimorum corporum in dissulatione, fermentatione, vegetatione, [digestione, praecipitatione, separatione,] & similibus operationibus [observentur] inveniantur” (Newton, Correspondence, V, p. 113)). Newton listed five experiments: “1. Vitrorum parallelorum. 2. Inclinatorum. 3. fistularum. 4. Spongiarum. 5. Olei malorum citriorum.” (f. 361^v).
290.
This paragraph starts on f. 362^r. The biblical references which Newton included are: “Act. 17.27, 28, Psal. 139.7. Deut 4.39. & 10.14. I King. 8.27 Job. 22.12. Jer. 23.23, 24. + [VI] John 1.18 & 5.37 1 John 4.12. 1 Tim. 1.17 & 6.16. Col. 1.15” and, additionally, “Exod. 28.4”, “Deut. 4.12, 15, 16”, and “Isa 40.18, 19” (CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 362^r).
291.
The main point is that the motion of the celestial bodies can only be explained by postulating attraction over great distances. Newton noted in the middle of this paragraph: “certe causae finales in Philosophia naturali locum habent” (CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 362^r; cf. Hall and Hall, eds., Unpublished Scientific Papers of Isaac Newton, p. 358).
292.
This paragraph continues upside-down on f. 362^r.
293.
¶ 19–24, which contain only the propositions but not their demonstrations, are mentioned in ¶ 6 of the published version (Koyré, Cohen and Whitman, Principia mathematica, II, pp. 764–765). For a transcription of these propositions, see Hall and Hall, eds., Unpublished Scientific Papers of Isaac Newton, p. 359.
294.
Folio 364^r–v is blank.
295.
It is identical to the published text but the paragraph is left unfinished and ends with: “Et si stellae fixae sint centra similium systematum suberunt haec omnia ↓simili consilio constructa suberunt suberunt↓ unius dominio.” (CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 363^r).
296.
Newton included the following biblical references: “Act. 17.27, 28 Deut 4.39, & 10.14. I King. 8.27. Job. 22.12. Psal. 139.7. Jer. 23. 23,24.” (CUL Add. Ms. 3965.13: f. 363^r). On f. 363^v, Newton added: “6 John 1.18 & 5.37. Col. 1.15. 1 Tim. 1.17 & 6.16. 1 John 4.12.”
297.
The content of this paragraph is, albeit identical to the published version, much shorter – especially, near the end of the paragraph. It did not yet contain Newton’s famous line: “Rationem vero harum gravitatis proprietatum ex phaenomenis nondum potui deducere, & hypotheses non fingo.” (Koyré, Cohen and Whitman, eds., Principia mathematica, II, p. 764).
298.
This paragraph is much shorter than in the published version.
299.
The text of this paragraph is almost identical to the final version, but it is much briefer. It starts with: “Nam Deus est vox relativa & ad servos referetur: & Deitas est dominio Dei in servos.” and ends with “Æternus est & infinitus, omnipotens & omnisciens, id est [:] durat ab aeterno in aeternum, & adest ab infinito infinitum.” (CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 363^r).
300.
It is identical to the published text but the paragraph is left unfinished and ends with: “Et si stellae fixae sint centra similium systematum, haec omnia simili consilio constructa suberunt Unius dominio: praesertim & [end of text]” (CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 365^r; Koyré, Cohen and Whitman, eds., Principia mathematica, II, p. 760).
301.
The text is identical to the published version, but ends with: “Hunc cognoscimus solummodo per ejus proprietates & attributa et per elegantes & opt[imas] rerum structuras & causas finales.” (CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 365^v; cf. Koyré, Cohen and Whitman, eds., Principia mathematica, II, p. 763). Newton listed the following biblical references: “Act. 17.27, 28, Deut. 4.39, & 10.14. I King. 8.27. Job 22.12. Psal. 139.7. Jer. 23.23, 24” (ibid.).
302.
It is somewhat shorter than the published version and the sole relevant difference is: “Causam vero harum gravitatis proprietatum ex phaenomenis nondum potui deducere, & hypotheses seu mechanicas seu qualitatum occultarum non sequor.” (CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 365^v).
303.
CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 539^r further contains two redundant sentences. An identical paragraph can be found in Newton’s “Corrigenda et addenda in Lib. III. Princip.” (ibid., f. 526^r–v).
304.
This is clearly the draft of CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 270^r, f. 271^r and f. 272^r.
305.
Albeit that this paragraph it is shorter. The text stops at “Haec enim Lucretius ex mente veterum discuit Lib I vers 601.” (CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 268^r).
306.
In the top of this folio Newton wrote: “see y^e backside”. The paragraph is continued on CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 268^v. There is a slight variation at the end: “Et hic est motus declinationis quem Epicurus dedit atomos.” (cf. Casini, “Newton: The Classical Scholia”, p. 37).
307.
It is continued on CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 269^r.
308.
This paragraph is transcribed in Casini, “Newton: The Classical Scholia”, p. 38.
309.
The following two paragraphs are on CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 268^v.
310.
It is most likely a draft of Royal Society, Gregory Ms. 247, ff. 11–12, since it omits much of the ancient references (for the translation of this piece, see McGuire and Rattansi, Newton and the “Pipes of Pan,” pp. 115–117). A notable variation is: “Talis erat mystica illa Veterum Philosophia: estque hypothesis omnium simplicissima et eo nomine maxime philosophica. Sed et pia satis, si modo omnis huic Spiritui intelligendi et volendi potestas conedatur, astris autem nulla. Imò pientissima quatenus Deum a Philosophia naturali abesse non sinit.” (CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 268^v).
311.
Schüller, “Newton’s Scholia”, pp. 230–238. Cf. Memoranda by David Gregory, 5–7 May 1694, Newton, Correspondence, III, pp. 334–340 [transcription of Royal Society, Gregory Ms. 247, ff. 68–69].
312.
It contains a note on the Egyptians and their symbolic use of the ouruborus in their rites (CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 268^v).
313.
The following three paragraphs are actually three separate notes (the last one being written upside down).
314.
Schüller, “Newton’s Scholia”, pp. 230–232.
315.
Ibid., pp. 234–236.
316.
Note that folios CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 270^v, f. 271^v and f. 272^v are left blank.
317.
For its transcription, see Casini, “Newton: The Classical Scholia”, pp. 27–28 and Schüller, “Newton’s Scholia”, pp. 222–223.
318.
The last paragraph ends abruptly and misses some of the final sentences of the corresponding first paragraph in Gregory Ms. 247, f. 9^r.
319.
See Casini, Newton: “The Classical Scholia”, pp. 25–26; Schüller, “Newton’s Scholia”, pp. 218–220.
320.
The text has been shuffled around, but no relevant differences can be found. It is similar to Royal Society, London, Gregory Ms. 247, f. 8^r and f. 9^r. For the transcription, see Casini, “Newton: The Classical Scholia”, pp. 25–27; Schüller, “Newton’s Scholia”, pp. 218, 220, 222.
321.
The first paragraph on this folio contains Newton’s remarks on Proposition VII of Book III of the Principia. The second paragraph contains Newton’s remarks on Proposition VIII.
322.
See Casini, “Newton: The Classical Scholia”, pp. 30–31; Schüller, “Newton’s Scholia”, pp. 230–231.
323.
It misses the references to Macrobius, Proclus, and Eusebius (Casini, “Newton: The Classical Scholia,” p. 31) – however, these are given in a separate paragraph on CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 278^v.
324.
As Newton used the envelope of a letter sent to him to take these notes, this paragraph continued in several directions on the folio: horizontally, vertically and upside-down.
325.
See Casini, “Newton: The Classical Scholia”, pp. 31–32; Schüller, “Newton’s Scholia”, pp. 234–235.
326.
CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 328^r.
327.
This paragraph is shorter, but contains no relevant variations.
328.
This paragraph is continued on CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 640^v.
329.
It omits several quotations from Lucretius.
330.
The last two paragraphs have been crossed out.
331.
CUL Add. Ms. 3965, f. 542^v. This agrees with Cohen’s dating of this manuscript to the early 1690s (Cohen, “Isaac Newton’s Principia, the Scriptures, and the Divine Providence”, p. 542). This brief and incomplete text is written on the backside of material related to Tempus et locus and is written with the same pen and handwriting. It contains a brief defence of heliocentrism (cf. “12. Nihil obstare quo minus Terra pro lege Planetarum circa solem moveatur. Diluuntur objectiones ex sacra litteris.”).
332.
Some words are missing since the lower corners of these folios are damaged by fire. A transcription of this manuscript has previously appeared in: Cohen, “Isaac Newton’s Principia, the Scriptures, and the Divine Providence”, pp. 544–548. It is currently featured on The Newton Project’s website. I am indebted to Stephen D. Snobelen for allowing me to compare my own transcription with his and for discussion on the matter.
333.
The title of this section is written in the right margin of f. 39^r.
334.
Cf. Keynes 106, f. 6^v [1681/2]: “As to Moses I do not think his description of y^e creation either Philosophical or feigned, but that he described realities in a language artificially adapted to y^e sense of the vulgar. Thus where he speaks of two great lights I suppose he means their apparent, not real greatness. So when he tells us God placed those lights in y^e firmam[en]t, he speaks I suppose of their apparent not of their real place, his business being not to correct the vulgar notions in matters philosophical but to adapt a description of y^e creation as handsomly as he could to y^e sense and the capacity of y^e vulgar.”
335.
Cf. Newton’s accommodationism in his letter to Thomas Burnet on January 1680/1 (Newton, Correspondence, II, pp. 333–334).
336.
The remainder of the crossed-out text continues in the right margin in a 90° angle to the text.
337.
The title of this section is written in the right margin of f. 40^r.
338.
The title of this section is written in the right margin of f. 41^r.
339.
References a-g are in the right margin of f. 39^r.
340.
This biblical reference is on f. 39^v.

References

Newton, I. 1704. The opticks, or, a treatise of the reflections, refractions, inflections and colours of light; Also two treatises of the species and magnitude of curvilinear figures. London: Printed for Sam. Smith, and Benj. Walford.
Google Scholar
Newton, I. 1717. The opticks, or, a treatise of the reflections, refractions, inflections and colours of light, the second edition, with additions. London: William and John Innys.
Google Scholar
Crell, S. [under the pseudonym: L[ucas] M[ellierus] Artemonius] 1726. Initium Evangelii S. Joannis Apostoli ex Antiquitate Ecclesiastica restitutum, Indidemque Nova ratione Illustratum. London: s.n.
Google Scholar
Edwards, J. 1714. Some brief critical remarks on Dr. Clarke’s last papers. London: Printed; and Sold by Ferdinando Burleigh.
Google Scholar
Leibniz, G.W. 1689. Tentamen de motuum caelestium causis. Acta Eruditorum February:82–96.
Google Scholar
Leibniz, G.W. 1710. Essais de Theodicée. Amsterdam: apud Isacum Trojel.
Google Scholar
Descartes, R. 1644. Principia philosophiae. Amsterdam: apud Ludovicum Elzevirium.
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Centre for Logic and Philosophy of Science, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050, Brussels, Belgium
Steffen Ducheyne

Authors

Steffen Ducheyne
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steffen Ducheyne .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ducheyne, S. (2012). “To Treat of God from Phenomena”. In: “The main Business of natural Philosophy”. Archimedes, vol 29. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2126-5_6

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2126-5_6
Published: 25 July 2011
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2125-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2126-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics