Snobelen 2001 Theology in General Scholium

7/28/2019 Snobelen 2001 Theology in General Scholium

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/snobelen-2001-theology-in-general-scholium 1/41

"God of Gods, and Lord of Lords": The Theology of Isaac Newton's General Scholium to thePrincipiaAuthor(s): Stephen D. SnobelenReviewed work(s):Source: Osiris, 2nd Series, Vol. 16, Science in Theistic Contexts: Cognitive Dimensions (2001),pp. 169-208Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/301985 .

Accessed: 20/01/2013 11:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Osiris.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloade d on Sun, 20 Jan 2013 11:41:0 5 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hss

http://www.jstor.org/stable/301985?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/301985?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hss

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress



"God of gods, nd Lord of ords"The Theology f saac Newton's eneral

Scholium othe rincipia

By Stephen . Snobelen*

For the LORDyour God is God of gods, and Lord of ords.Deuteronomy 0. 17

And he said unto hem, nto you t s given o know he mysteryof the kingdom f God: but unto hem hat re without, ll thesethings re done n parables:That seeingthey may ee, and notperceive; nd hearing hey mayhear, nd not understand.

Mark 4.11-12

NEWTON'S GENERAL SCHOLIUM

The General Scholium othe Principia Mathematica as been characterized s "pos-sibly hemost famous f all Newton's writings." If this s so, the General Scholium

is the best-known ortion f one of the most mportant orks n the history f sci-ence. There can be no doubt that the Scholium contains three of Newton's mostfrequently ited ines. t is here hat he proclaims hat he most beautiful ystem fthe Sun, Planets, nd Comets, could only proceed from he counsel and dominionof an intelligent nd powerful eing." The General Scholium also offers he pro-nouncement hat iscoursing f God "from he ppearances f things, oes certainlybelong to Natural hilosophy," long with Newton's ften misunderstood laim thaton the cause of gravity e would "frame no hypotheses" hypotheses onfingo).2

*Department f History nd Philosophy f Science,University f Cambridge, ree SchoolLane,Cambridge K CB2 3RH

For helpful omments nd advice, would ike to thank ean-Franqoisaillon,Bruce Brack-enridge, ndrew unningham, otiFeingold, im orce, MichaelHunter, ob liffe, cott Mandel-brote, imon Schaffer, aul Simons, arry tewart, nd Paul Wood.Researchwasmade possiblethrough Social Sciencesand Humanities esearchCouncilof Canada DoctoralFellowship,QueenElizabeth I British olumbia entennial cholarship, nd the British ouncil. alsograte-fully cknowledge he ondation artin odmer, eneva; he yndics f theCambridge niversityLibrary; heJewish ational nd University ibrary, erusalem;nd the Provost nd Fellows ofKing'sCollege,Cambridge, or ermission oquotefrommanuscriptsn their rchives. ranscrip-tions rom ewton's anuscriptsepresent eletions s strike-outs,nd nsertions re nclosedwithinangle rackets. ranslations rom atin exts remy wn where omodern ranslationsre vailable.

IBernard ohen, ntroduction oNewton's rincipia Cambridge: ambridge niv.Press, 971),p. 241. Gale Christianson oncurs Christianson, n the Presence of the Creator: Isaac Newton andHis Times New York: ree Press, 984], p. 531).

2 Isaac Newton, The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy by Sir Isaac Newton: Trasis-lated ntoEnglish byAndrew Motte, 1729, 2 vols. hereafter Motte, Principles"), reprinted ith ntro-duction y . Bernard ohen London: Dawsons, 968),vol.2, pp. 388,392. haveutilized his irst

? 2001byTheHistory f Science Society. ll rights eserved. 369-7827/01/1601-0001$2.00

Osiris, 001,16:00-00 169








170 STEPHEN D.SNOBELEN

Althoughwell known, his heologically harged ppendix dded to the econd edi-tion of the Principia has nevertheless ot been well understood y most of ts read-ers, and both hefull range nd the exact character f ts theology ave ong proved

elusive to those who have sought omprehension. ncreasing ccess to crucial andclarificatory anuscript vidence, long with new research nto Newton's heologi-cal thought ver the past two decades, has brought s closer to this goal.

This essay begins with a summary f the more transparent atural heologicalapologetics of the General Scholium. Then follows an exposition f the distinctlybiblical character f Newton's resentation f God therein. his leads into n explo-ration f some of the pparent nitarian urface eatures f the writing.3 ext followsan examination f the relationship etween Newton'sprivate apers and the publicexpression f his faith n the General Scholium-an examination hatnot only con-

firms unitarian resentation f God, but establishes hatNewton has alsowritten

into this document dvanced antitrinitarian eachings nd hermeneutics. fter his,I provide further larity y showing hat lements f Newton's heological nd lin-guistic rgumentation re identical o those found n a certain trand f contempo-rary eretical nitarian heology. hese analogiesallow us to move beyond hebroadgeneralization hat heGeneral Scholium s compatible with unitarian onceptionof God to a much more precise characterization f its actively eretical heology.then xplore reas of nteraction etweenNewton's heology nd his natural hilos-ophy and argue pace Richard Westfall) hat t does make sense to talk about theimpact of the former n the atter. inally, discuss the wider mplications f thepresence of heresy t the conclusion of the Principia for Newton'sprivate gendasin both natural hilosophy nd religion.

Having commencedwith he external ayer, herefore, e move from he naturaltheological hrough he biblical, unitarian, nd then the specialized antitrinitarianlayers othe core of Newton's mbitious programme. s can be seen, the structureof this essay resembles that of a Russian doll. But this s only because Newton

complete nglish ranslationf thePrincipia ecause ts tyle nd orthographyohere est with helanguage f the ther ighteenth-century ources cite.Until ecently,he tandard ditionwasFlor-ianCajori's arly wentieth-centuryevision f Motte's ranslation. ajori's ightly evised ext f heGeneral Scholium can be found n Sir saac Newtons Mathematical Principles ofNatural Philosophy,trans.A. Motte nd E Cajori,2 vols. hereafter Motte-Cajori, rinciples") Berkeley nd LosAngeles:Univ. f California ress, 934;1962),2:543-7.TheMotte-Cajori ranslationf the Gen-eral Scholium is also reproduced n Newton's hilosophy of Nature: Selections romHis Writings, d.H. S. Thayer New York: Hafner, 1953), pp. 41-6, and Newton: Texts, Backgrounds, Commentaries(Norton ritical dition), d. I. Bernard ohen nd Richard . Westfall NewYork:Norton, 995),pp.339-42(inthe atter, ewton's otes re omitted). or the riginal atin extwith pparatus, eethe variorum dition, saac Newtons Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica, d. AlexandreKoyr6 nd . Bernard ohen, vols. Cambridge: ambridge niv. ress, 972),vol.2, pp. 759-65.Valuablebackground nd additional ext-critical aterial an be found n Cohen, ntroduction oNewton's rincipia cit. n. 1), pp. 240-51. Finally, heGeneral cholium an be read n the om-pletely ew ranslation f . Bernard ohen ndAnneWhitman, hich ppearedwhile wasrevisingthis essay: Isaac Newton, The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, NewTranslation by I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman, ssisted by Julia Budenz (hereafter Cohen-Whitman, rincipia") Berkeley nd LosAngeles:Univ. f California ress, 999),pp.939-44.

3In this ssay use "unitarian" o refer enerally oa non-Trinitarian heological osition hattreats odasa single erson usually heFather lone).Theterm nthis orm anthus tand or oththepre-Trinitarianheology f Judaism nd the ntitrinitarian ositions f theologiansikeNewton.The form Unitarian" s reserved ormembers f the nsipient nd inchoate enominationn theBritish ontext.








THE THEOLOGY OF NEWTON'S GENERAL SCHOLIUM 171

himself rafted he General Scholium n the same manner: onstructing ayers ofmeaning ranging rom he explicit o the ncreasingly eiled, from he exoteric othe esoteric, nd from he public to the private. Access to the deeper meanings of

the document n the arly ighteenth entury epended ither n the discernment freaders r on direct nowledge f Newton's rivate houghts. While we cannot hopeto gain the evels of understanding f meaning nd intention njoyedby astute on-temporary eaders nd the uthor's heological nterlocutors, aluable guides can befound oday n Newton's ecently eleased manuscripts nd an awareness f the peri-od's contested heological dynamics.

Loaded as it s with natural hilosophical nd theological pologetics, heGeneralScholiumoffers hose who study he nteraction f science and religion significantand particularly ich xample from he early ighteenth entury. t is perhaps n thisdocument and certainly mong his public writings) hat we see most clearly theinterrelationship etween the natural philosophical and theological elements ofNewton'sprogramme. he significance f the General Scholium s also seen in itsposition within hePrincipia. Appearing s it does at the end of the second 1713)and third 1726) editions of the work, he Scholium acts as a conclusion for thebook as a whole and a potent ummary f Newton's main agendas.And its range sbreathtaking. n one short iece of not quite 1,450 words,4 Newton rapidly movesthrough litany f subjects, ncluding ometography, ravity, lanetarymotion, hedesign rgument, heplurality f worlds, pace, tides, ctive powers, nd electricity.He also manages to discount Cartesian ortices, lace himself n the vacuist-plenistcontroversy, ay out an agenda for experimental hilosophy, nsert counterblastagainst Gottfried eibniz on the cause of gravity, nd advocate a natural hilosoph-ical methodology ased on induction. On this basis alone the General Scholiumwould rank s one of the most powerful, ensely written, nd polemically hargeddocuments n the history f science. But there s more: for, s already dumbrated,among this mpressive ist Newton also embeds a series of profound heologicalthemes-including ideas that go well beyond then tandard reatments f the de-sign argument.

Two recent tudies have advanced considerably ur understanding f this atterdimension f the GeneralScholium.First, n an essayon Newton'sGod of dominion,James Force has pointed o the antitrinitarian ature f some of ts anguage.5 ec-ond, Larry tewart as presented detailed ccount of how the Scholium was readand understood s a heterodox ocument y the more perceptive mong Newton'sfriends nd foes alike. Stewart lso builds a strong ase to show that Newton wasalmost certainly sing his General Scholium to support ublicly his ally Samuel

In the hird atin dition.James . Force, Newton's odofDominion: he Unity f Newton's heological, cientific, nd

Political Thought," n idem and Richard H. Popkin, Essays on the Context, Nature, nd Influence f

Isaac Newton's heologyDordrecht: luwer, 990),pp. 75-102. See also idem, The Nature fNewton'sHolyAlliance'between cience ndReligion: rom he cientific evolution oNewton(andBack Again)," nRethinkinghe cientific evolution,d.Margaret .Osler Cambridge: am-bridgeUniv.Press, 000), pp. 247-70; dem, 'Children f the Resurrection' nd Children f theDust':Confronting ortality nd mmortality ithNewton ndHume," n Everything onnects: nConference ith ichard . Popkin, d. idem nd DavidS. Katz Brill:Leiden,1999),pp. 119-42;idem, Newton, heLordGod of srael nd Knowledge f Nature, n Jewish hristians nd Chris-tian Jews: From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, d. Richard H. Popkin and G. M. Weiner(Dordrecht: luwer, 994),pp. 131-58.








172 STEPHEN D. SNOBELEN

Clarke, whose unorthodox cripture-Doctrine f the Trinity ad appeared n 1712.6By interpreting he more oblique language of the Scholium through ewton's essallusive unpublished manuscripts nd adding to this nsight rovided by hitherto

unexploited arallels from he theology f the Radical Reformation, extend thefindings f these ground-breaking tudies by demonstrating hatNewton not onlymust have ntended he General Scholiumto present northodox heological, hilo-sophical, nd linguistic rgumentation, ut that n so doing he was informed y oneof the most heretical movements f the period. The additional larity rovided bythis vidence sheds further ight n the purpose of the General Scholium:Newton'sdeclaration f his commitments o a programme ntegrating is newly recoverednatural hilosophy nd a biblicist, ntitrinitarian aith.7

THE PRINCIPIA AND THEARGUMENT FROM DESIGN

In his famous etters o Richard Bentley, who had sought Newton's dvice whilepreparing is own Boyle Lectures for publication, Newton told his younger am-

6 Larry tewart, Seeing hrough he cholium: eligion nd ReadingNewton n the EighteenthCentury" ist.Sci.34 (1996):123-65.Seealsohis earlier SamuelClarke,Newtonianism,nd theFactions f Post-Revolutionaryngland" J. Hist. deas 42 (1981):53-72. n both tudies, tewartpoints o exactparallels etween he heology f the General cholium nd arguments resentednthe Newtonian amuelClarke's cripture-Doctrine f the Trinity London,1712). f there re anylingering oubts hatNewton nd Clarkewere inging rom he ame hymn heet, dditional x-

amples f nalogies etween ewton's eneral cholium ndClarke'swritings rovidedn the res-ent ssay will, hope,put hem o rest. larkewas one of Newton's most ntimate ssociates uringthe 171Os nd 1 20s. Clarke nd nother fNewton's isciples,WilliamWhiston, ame otheologicalpositions imilar o Arianism hrough ontactwith Newton. n these wo, ee J. P. Ferguson, nEighteenth Century Heretic: Dr. Samutel Clarke (Kineton, U.K.: Roundwood, 1976), and James E.Force, Willian Whiston:Honest Newtonian Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985).

7 Although umerous cholarly reatments f the natural hilosophicalmaterial n the GeneralScholium re available, part rom hose ublished yForce nd Stewart here re few ubstantivestudies f ts heology bywhich mean heology roper s opposed onatural heology), espite hefact hatNewton learly elieved his ynamic obe integral ohisoverall ndeavor. ere t s worthnoting hat 8 percent f the General cholium 842 outof 1,447words, n the hird atin dition)deals directly ith heology. .E. McGuire's ecent ssay The Fate of the Date: The Theology f

Newton's Principia Revisited," n Osler, Rethinking he ScientificRevolution cit. n. 5), pp. 271-95,and Tradition nd Innovation: Newton'V etaphysics f Nature Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1995), treat, nteralia, Newton's heology f spaceandtime n both hePrincipia enerally ndtheGeneral choliumspecifically.horter reatmentsf spects f the heology f theGeneral cholium anbe also foundin Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs, The Janus Faces of Genius: The Role of Alchemy n Newton's Thought(Cambridge: ambridge niv. Press, 1991). pp. 35-7, 83, 190-3, 195, 197-8,200-1, 205, 224,226-9, 243-4; RichardH. Popkin, Newton's iblicalTheology nd His Theological hysics," nNewton'v cientific nd Philosophical Legacy, ed. P. B. Scheurer nd G. Debrock (Dordrecht: Kluwer,1988),pp. 81-97,on pp. 91-4; MichaelJ. Buckley, Godin the Project f Newtonian echanics,"in Newton and the New Direction n Science, ed. G. V. Coyne,M. Heller, nd J. Zyciiski (VaticanCity: pecolaVaticana. 988), pp. 85-105;DerekGjertsen, heNewton andbook London:Rout-ledge& KeganPaul, 1986),pp. 463-4, Richard . Westfall, ever t Rest:A Biography f saacNewtonCambridge: ambridge niv. ress, 980), p. 352, 748-9,825-6;I. Bernard ohen, IsaacNewton's Principia, the Scriptures, nd the Divine Providence:' in Philosophy, cience, and Method,ed. Sidney Morgenbesser, atrick uppes, nd Morton White NewYork: t. Martin's, 969),pp.523-48,onpp.523-5;LouisTrenchard ore, saac Newton: Biography 1934;NewYork: over,1962), p.552-5.Cajori'snotes n the heologicalortions f he General cholium nMotte-Cajori,Principles, :668-70,offer omeuseful ackground. hepioneer f studies f the General choli-um's heologys FrankManuel,whowasthe irst oemphasize he owerfully ebraic ature f thistext see Manuel,TheReligion f saac Newton Oxford: larendon, 974],pp. 16-17,20-2, 40,74-6). Fora recent verview f some of the natural hilosophicalspects f theGeneral cholium,see I. Bernard ohen, The Concluding eneral cholium," n his excellent Guideto Newton'sPrincipia' hat recedes he1999 ranslationCohen-Whitman, rincipia, p. 274-92).








THE THEOLOGY OF NEWTON'SGENERAL SCHOLIUM 173

bridge olleague that e had composed the Principia with n aim to promote aturaltheology: When I wrote my treatise bout our Systeme, had an eye upon suchprinciples s might work wth onsideringmen, for he beleife of a Deity & nothing

can rejoyce me more then to find t usefull for that purpose."8Newton also toldBentley hat he was "forced o ascribe" the design of the solar system to ye coun-sel & contrivance f a voluntary gent" and, similarly, hat ye motions wch yePlanets now have could not spring rom ny natural ause alone but were mprestby an intelligent gent."9 hus, with Newton'shelp, Bentley put to use the physicsof the Principia to serve the ends of religion when his lectures were published n1693.10This was but the first xample of many uch uses of this work. The nextcame in William Whiston's 696 NewTheory f the Earth the first ull-length op-ularization f Newtonianism in which Newton's disciple demonstrated he greatutility f the Principia for buttressing he design argument."' Whiston went on toextend the use of Newton's physics for natural heologicalpurposes n his 1717Astronomical rinciples f Religion. 2Nevertheless, hefirst dition f the Principiadisplays ittle utward vidence of religious ontent. ndeed, the 1687 edition on-tains nly solitary eference o God (as creator) nd a singlemention f Scripture. 3

This may at first eem surprising, s many eventeenth-century orks hat reatednatural hilosophy, ncluding Descartes' Principia philosophiae 1644), aboundedwith direct eferences oGod and theology. wo things eed to be said here. First,as Andrew Cunningham has recently rgued, explicit references o theologicalagendas in such works were not deemed a necessary mperative n an age wheneveryone nderstood hatnatural hilosophywas at ts fundamental evel about Godand His works; heonly time he acit heological genda needed to be stated penlywas when the discipline ppeared under threat f appropriation y irreligious n-terests.14 econd, it is also apparent hat Newton characteristically acted with

I Newton o Bentley, 0 Dec. 1692,TheCorrespondencef ir saac Newton, d.H. W.Turnbull,J. E Scott, . Rupert all et al., 7 vols. Cambridge: ambridge niv.Press, 961),vol.3, p. 233(the our etters ppear n pp. 233-56). Newton'setters oBentley ere ublishedn 1756; reprintwith an introduction y Perry Miller is in Isaac Newton's apers and Letters on Natural Philosophy

and RelatedDocuments, d. I. Bernard ohen, nd ed. (Cambridge, ass.:Harvard niv. Press,1978),pp.269-312.9 Newton o Bentley, 0 Dec. 1692,Correspondencecit.n. 8), 3:234.10Richard Bentley, A Confutation f Atheism rom the Origin and Frame of the World London,

1693).These ectures re reproducedn Cohen,Newton's apers cit.n. 8), pp. 313-94."William Whiston, A New Theory of the Earth, from ts Original, to the Consummation f All

Things London, 696).12 William Whiston, Astronomical Principles of Religion, Natural and Reveal'd (London, 1717).

Whistonater onfirmed his olemical seofNewtonn both his ook ndhisNewTheoryWilliamWhiston, Collection f Authentick ecords London, 728],vol. II, p. 1073).James orcehasprovided ogent eadings f Whiston's atural heological seof Newton n his development f thedesign rgument. ee Force, Newton'sSleepingArgument' nd the Newtonian ynthesis f Sci-ence and Religion," n Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: A Longer View of Newton and Halley,ed. Norman .W Thrower Berkeley ndLos Angeles:Univ. f California ress, 990),pp. 109-27,on pp. 123-5 n. 13).Seealso idem, Linking istory nd Rational cience n the Enlightenment:William Whiston's Astronomical Principles of Religion, Natural and Reveal'd"; introduction o thereprint f Whiston, Astronomical Principles of Religion, Natural and Reveal'd (Hildesheim: Olms,1983),pp. 1-7 ; and dem,WilliamWhistoncit.n. 6), pp. 54-7.

13 Newton xpunged he rief eferenceoGod n the econd nd third ditions, lthough he ra-sure till eft ehind hehint t design; hemention f Scripture asretained ithout lteration. eeCohen, IsaacNewton's rincipia, he criptures, nd heDivineProvidence"cit.n. 6), pp. 525-30.

1 Andrew unningham, Howthe PrincipiaGot ts Name; or, TakingNatural hilosophy eri-ously," ist. ci. 29 (1991):377-92, n pp. 382-3.









caution nd forbearance. is acknowledgment o Bentley hat cited arlier emon-strates his, s does a reply he made a short while ater o a probing uestion fromWhiston. The latter ells us that when he asked Newton why n the first dition f

the Principia he did not draw out arguments for he dvantage f Natural Religion,and the nterposition f the Divine Power and Providence n the Constitution f theWorld,"Newton told him that [h]e saw those Consequences; but thought t betterto let his Readers draw them first f themselves."15

It was only after he Principia began to be used for materialist nterests by JohnToland), nd then ttacked y Leibniz for not only ntroducing ccult qualities n itsexplanation f the ause of gravity, ut also presenting low view of God as creator,that ts author was moved to make what was implicit xplicit.'6 f his comment oWhistonwassincere,Newtonmayhavecometo realize that n overly ubtle trategy

on natural heologywas fraught with danger and that readers of his great workneeded counsel, guidance, nd even positive ermonizing o stay n the right ath.Moreover, n the changingworld f the early ighteenth entury, t was less possibleto take the goals of natural hilosophy or granted. or, n addition o the recentattacks on his natural philosophy, Newton and his closest followers had becomeincreasingly xercised over the perceived rise in Deism and unbelief.8 Already nthe 1706Latin edition f his Opticks,Newtonhad inserted our iscussions f natu-ral theology rawn ut of his natural hilosophy.9And so it was that when he ap-pended the General Scholium to the new edition f the Principia n 1713,Newtonstated forcefully here hat he solar system ould only have proceeded "from hecounsel and dominion f an intelligent nd powerful eing" and that he universe fstars must be all subject o the dominion f One."20Additionally, t the beginning

5 Whiston, uthentick ecords cit. n. 12),vol. I, p. 1073.16For these ackground ontexts whichmust e taken longwithNewton's robablemotivation

to support larke's cripture-Doctrine) ee Stewart, SamuelClarke" cit. n. 6), pp. 54-7; Westfall,Newtoncit. n. 7), pp. 730-4, 744;andMotte-Cajori, rinciples, :688-9.Leibniz's ndirect ttackon Newtonwas published n the Memoirs f Literature, onday, May1712,vol. I, pp. 137-40.Ironically, ith espect o Leibniz, heGeneral cholium tself ave the Hanoverian hilosopherfurther aterial o attack, nd many f the ssuesraised n both hePrincipia nd ts concluding

General choliumwere layed ut n the ubsequent eibniz-Clarke ebatesA Collection fPapersWhichPassed between the Late Learned Mr Leibnitz, nd Dr. Clarke, in the Years 1715 and 1716.Relating to the Principles of Natural Philosophy nd Religion [London, 1717]; see especially pp. 51,53, 357,where larke uotes rom woportions one theological nd one natural hilosophical) fthe document). n these elebrated ebates, eeEzio Vailati, eibniz nd Clarke:A Study f TheirCorrespondenceNewYork:Oxford niv. ress, 997); Steven hapin, OfGodsandKings:Natu-ral Philosophy nd Politics n the Leibniz-Clarke isputes," sis 72 (1981):187-215;TheLeibniz-ClarkeCorrespondence,d. H.G.AlexanderManchester, .K.: Manchester niv. ress, 956).

1"With egard o the eligious nd natural heologicalConsequences"f the Principia,Whistonwas happy o say hatNewton did ngreatmeasure" imself raw hese ut long fterwardsn thelater ditions f hisPrincipia, n that dmirable eneral cholium t ts onclusion; nd elsewhere,in his Opticks" Whiston, uthentick ecords cit. n. 12],vol.2, pp. 1073-4).

IxForcedetails he fforts f theNewtonians histon ndClarke

ocombat eism and nfidelity,fromWhiston's ewTheory 1696)to Clarke's oyleLectures 1705)and beyond. ee Force, TheNewtonians ndDeism," nForce ndPopkin, ssayson Newton's heologycit.n. 5), pp. 43-73.

19n the final ditions, hese are found n Queries 28 and 31 (Newton, Opticks, r a Treatise f theReflections, efractions, nflections Colours of Light 1706; New York: Dover, 1952], pp. 369-70,400,402-4, 405-6).The third iscussion ontains trong arallels othe reatment f the niformityof design nNewton, ing'sCollege,Cambridge, eynesMS7, p. 1.

211 Motte, rinciples, :388-9; Motte-Cajori, rinciples, :544; Cohen-Whitman, rincipia, .940.Additional larity n Newton's eelings boutnatural heologyanbe found nhismanuscripts.In his "Short chem f the rueReligion," ewton escribes theism-the esult f the ejection fthe design rgument, hich hould e accepted y all thinking en-as "se[n]seless nd odious"








THETHEOLOGY OFNEWTON'SGENERALSCHOLIUM 175

of the treatise, ewton's ditor Roger Cotes expanded on the anguage and naturaltheological hemes f the Scholium n his preface. Cotes wrote hat he Principiahad opened up the secrets f the world, nd thus we may now more nearly ehold

the beauties of Nature, nd entertain ur selves with he delightful ontemplation;and, which s the best and most valuable fruit f philosophy, e thence ncited hemore profoundly oreverence nd adore the great Maker and Lord of all."2' To this,Cotes adds the declaration, He must e blind who from hemost wise and excellentcontrivances f things annot see the infinite Wisdom and Goodness of their Al-mighty reator, nd he must be mad and senseless, who refuses o acknowledgethem."22 nd thus, Cotes concludes, Newton's istinguished ork will be the safestprotection gainst the attacks f atheists, nd nowhere more surely han from hisquiver can one draw forth missiles against the band of godless men."23 herefore,whatever mendations ewton had made to the physics nd mathematics, he econdedition, ramed s it was between he ignposts f the preface nd GeneralScholium,was a much more overtly pologetic nd carefully heologically ositioned reatise.24With ts explicit xpressions f the argument rom esign, he preface nd GeneralScholium served to articulate n unequivocal terms he natural heologicalaimsNewton claimed for he Principia.

THE GOD OF THE GENERAL SCHOLIUM

Immediately fter his introduction f the design argument, ewton moves seem-

ingly uite naturally o a discussion of God and His attributes:ThisBeinggoverns ll things, ot s the oul of theworld, ut s Lord ver ll: And naccount f hisdominion e s wont o be called LordGod ccVToKpcxTw~p,or UniversalRulerForGod sa relative ord, ndhas a respect oservants; ndDeity s the omin-ion of God not verhis own body, s those magine hofancy od to be the oulofthe world, ut ver ervants. he supreme od s a Being ternal, nfinite, bsolutelyperfect; ut being, owever erfect, ithout ominion,annot e said o be LordGod;forwesay,myGod,your od, heGod of srael, heGodof Gods, ndLord f Lords;butwe do not ay,my ternal, our ternal, he ternal f srael, he ternal f Gods;we do not ay,my nfinite, r my Perfect: hese are titles which ave no respect o

servants. he wordGodusually ignifies ord; but very ord s not God. t is thedominion f a spiritual eingwhich onstitutes God;a true, upreme r maginarydominionmakes true, upreme r imaginary od.And from is true ominion tfollows, hat he rueGod is a Living, ntelligent, nd Powerful eing; nd from isother erfections,hat e s Supreme r most erfect.25

(Newton, eynesMS7, p. 1). Thismanuscript atesfrom round he ime f the econd dition fthe Principia.

21Motte, Principles, [xxv] (Roman numerals ssigned from hebeginning f the preface);Motte-Cajori, Principles, 1xxxii; Cohen-Whitman, rincipia, p. 398. The title Maker and Lord ofall"also appears ntheGeneral cholium Motte, rinciples, :390; Motte-Cajori, rinciples, :545;Cohen-Whitman, rincipia, p. 941).

22Motte, Principles, I:[xxv];Motte-Cajori, rinciples, I:xxxii-xxxiii; ohen-Whitman, rin-cipia, p. 398.

23 Motte-Cajori, rinciples, xxxiii; ohen-Whitman, rincipia, . 398. The final aragraph fCotes'spreface s absent rom he 1729edition.

24LiketheGeneral cholium, otes'spreface ontains atent ttacks n Leibniz ndCartesianism(A.Rupert all, saacNewton: dventurern Thought Oxford: lackwell, 992], p. 363;Westfall,Newton cit.n. 7], pp. 749-50).

25 Motte, Principles, 2:389; Motte-Cajori, rinciples, 2:544-5; Cohen-Whitman, rincipia,pp.940-1.Quotations rom heGeneral cholium re from he inal, hird dition; ignificant iffer-encesbetween he1713 and 1726editions illbe noted.








176 STEPHEND. SNOBELEN

It s at this uncture hat he GeneralScholiumdeparts ecisively rom ther ontem-porary resentations f natural heology. n formulating hematerial ust quoted andthat which follows, Newton has three principal objectives. First, he is careful to

show that is conception f God is far emoved rom hat f the Deists. Second, andpartly o serve heend of the first bjective, e couches his language of the Deity nterms nambiguously iblical. Third, he introduces ntitrinitarian ermeneutics ounderpin characterization f the Father lone as the One True God.

The God of the General Scholium has a continuing nd active relationship ithHis creation. eibniz had criticized ewton's hysics or ts upposed mperfections,which required God to ntervene ccasionally o set nature ack on course.26 atherthan backing away from his putative heoretical nfelicity, ewton takes the highground nd affirms God of dominion: This Being governs ll things, ot as the

soul of the world anima mundi],ut as Lord over all [universorum ominus]:And

on account f his dominion eis wont obe called Lord God tavcxtoKpatop [dominusdeuspantokratir], r UniversalRuler Imperator niversalis]."27 Neither s the word"God" a bare, bstract oncept. Rather, t obtains ts meaning nd significance romits relations: For God is a relativeword, nd has a respect oservants; nd Deity sthe dominion f God, not overhis own body, s those maginewho fancy God to bethe soul of the world, but over servants."28 The supreme GodI' Newton professes,"is a Being eternal, nfinite, bsolutely erfect; ut," Newton adds, "a being, how-ever perfect, ithout ominion, annot be said to be Lord God."29A God, Newtondeclares, without ominion, rovidence, nd final auses, is nothing lse but Fateand Nature."') Moreover, he Scholium places stress on the counsel and will ofGod.3' This voluntarist onception f God as an active, willful God of dominionestablishesNewton'sposition s opposingDeism.2 His is neither he abstract eityof the ancient philosophers or the remote, mpersonal God of contemporary e-ists,33 nd this Newton s intent n making bsolutely lear to his readers.

26 In Leibniz's iew, is own System f thePre-establish'd armony" as much obe preferredto the conclusion hat whenGod created heWorld, e made an imperfect achine" Leibniz,Memoirs of Literature cit. n. 16j, p. 140).

27 Motte, rinciples, :389;Motte-Cajori, rinciples, :544;Cohen-Whitman, rincipia, . 940.2XMotte, rinciples, 2:389;Motte-Cajori, rinciples, 2:544; Cohen-Whitman, rincipia, p. 940.29 Motte. Principles, :389; Motte-Cajori, rinciples, :544; Cohen-Whitman, rincipia, p.

940-1.ThusNewton s not ompletely atisfied ith escartes' hilosophicalonception f Godasan infinite nd absolutely erfect eing; hese redicates re acceptable nd meaningful nlywhenconjoinedwith henecessary orrelative f real nd ctive ominion. n Descartes' deaofGod, eeJean-Marie eyssade, The deaof Godandthe Proofs f HisExistence,' n TheCambridge om-panion oDescartes, d. John ottinghamCambridge: ambridge niv. ress, 992), pp. 174-99.

Mottes Principles, 2:391; Motte-Cajori, Principles. 2:546; Cohen-Whitman, Principia, p. 942.31Motte, Principles, :388.391; Motte-Cajori. rinciples, :544,546; Cohen-Whitman, rin-

cipia,pp.940,942.-' FrankManuelwasamong hefirst opoint oNewton's owerful ense f thedeity s a Godof

dominion. n early xample f this an be found nManuel's rilliant orrective f Westfall's laiminthe 1950s hat ewton idnotuse "dominion" ith espect o Godto "mean irect nd mmediategovernance." s Manuel ightly tates, Newton onsistently aintainedhe ontrary osition n allhis historical nd prophetic orks" Manuel, saac Newton, istorian Harvard: elknap, 963],p. 295, n. 73). The most omprehensivetudy f this feature f Newton's heology an be foundin Force's ssay Newton's odof Dominion" cit. n. 5).

33A specific, ontemporaryarget f his resentationanalsobefound nLeibniz. heconclusionof Newton'sAccount f the BookEntituled ommerciumpistolicum" akes lainNewton's is-dain for whathe perceived o be Leibniz's remote, onintervening od (Intelligentia upramun-dana.)For the ext f An Account.' ee Cohen ndWestfall, ewton cit. n. 2),pp. 161-4.








THETHEOLOGY OF NEWTON'SGENERAL SCHOLIUM 177

One of the most striking eatures f the God of the Scholium s His thoroughlyHebraic and biblical character. ewton eft no doubt that his God was none otherthan the God of Israel." Every ast example of divine names, titles, nd attributes

given n the Scholium s a direct uotation rom, r unambiguous llusion to, Scrip-ture. ome of the expressions, uch as "Lord God," "the God of srael," my God,"and "your God," occur in Scripture ar too commonly o list n detail. Other ex-amples are worthy f special consideration. he title Lord God mavToKpUxwp" c-curs six times n the New Testament, olely in the Book of Revelation a bookwhich held a particular ascination or he prophetically indedNewton.34 he termltQVTOKpUtop is found our dditional imes n ts wn n theGreek ew Testament,for a total of ten occurrences all but one of which appear in the Apocalypse.35Newton has taken one of the more distinctive itles, God of gods, and Lord oflords,"36 traight rom Deuteronomy 0.17. As for the title Lord of lords" whenappliedto the Father), t appears n Psalm 136.3and 1 Timothy .15. The Scholium's"Maker and Lord of all things" inds verbal parallel n Proverbs 2.2: "The richand poor meet together: he LORD is the maker of them ll." Of course, the Biblealso commonly haracterizes od as Maker and Creator. he title Lord over all"used in the Scholium comes directly romRomans 10.12,and the nearly denticalvariant Lord of all" (also a component f the expression the Maker and Lord ofall things," ust cited) appears n Joshua 3.11, 13 and Zechariah 6.5, and has closeparallels n Micah 4.13 and Zechariah .14. The similar itle Lord over us" appearsin Psalm 12.4.Finally, ll of the many ttributes f God that Newton ists such as"eternal," infinite," perfect," omnipotent," omniscient;' "omnipresent" arewell attested n the Bible. Some of these appear n exactly he same form s in theScholium,while others, uch as the phrase everlasting oeverlasting," ccur n nearparallels Psalms 41.13, 90.2, 93.2).37 t is noteworthy, lthough erhaps not overlysurprising, hat many of these expressions nd noomina acra appear in propheticportions f the Bible that Newton had studied ntensively, nd in which he Deity sportrayed articularly trongly s a God of absolute dominion.38

But Newton s even more specific.The presentation f God in the Scholium sstrictly nitarian nd monotheistic n the Hebraic sense.39 ewton's genda s appar-ent from he second time he refers o God, where he uses the term One" (Unus).While Trinitarians hen nd now also affirm he fundamental monotheistic ictum

34 Thesixexamples f this itle re n Rev.4.8, 11.17,15.3,16.7,19.6, nd21.22.35 The four ccurrences re n 2 Cor. 6.18,Rev. 1.8,16.14, nd 19.15.36 Thisphrasewas nserted nto he1726edition.37 Motte nd most ther ranslatorsf theGeneral cholium ave enderedhe atin abXterno n

eternum"s "from ternity oeternity," ut ince hisphrase ses the djective eternus (eternal)rather han ts ognate bstract oun eternitas eternity), t s probably estgiven s "from verlast-ing o everlasting"n English.Notonlywasthis ow he xpression asfirst ranslatednto nglishin 1713 on this ranslation, ee below),but his endition rovides stronger inkwith he wordingof thePsalms n the KingJames ersion, hichNewton sed nd to which e sevidently lluding.ThatNewton s translating nto atin rom he English fresh, ather han imply aking hewordingfrom he Vulgate, s made pparent ythe onsistent seof aeculum (age)for heHebrewW6a-mntheLatinversion's enditions f Psalms 1.13,90.2,and93.2.

38 Newton ddsto thenumerous iblical llusions n the cholium o essthan welve irect crip-tural eferencesn the ccompanying otes hatwere nplaceby he hird dition, hus urther ettinghimself part ublicly rom he Deists ndestablishing is commitment o Christian evelation.

39 Cf.Popkin, Newton's iblicalTheology"cit.n. 7). p. 93.









that God is One,Newtondeploys his erm o the xclusion f any anguagedenotingtri-unity. ut the use of this eemingly nnocuousword s a hint hat might ot ppearto have signified nything, f t were not for he fact hatNewton adds a technical

argument bout the meaning f the term God." Newton's rgument hat God" is arelative erm s not solely an argument bout God's relationship o His creation. Atits core, this argument s antitrinitarian n intent. he standard rinitarian ositionis that he erm God" is absolute nd refers traightforwardly onature nd essence.Newton, n the other hand, argues that he word s relative, btaining ts meaningfrom power and dominion. To support his contention, n the third dition of thePrincipia Newton dded a note o the General Scholium hat upplies hermeneuti-cal apparatus oshow how beings other han he One" can be called "God" withoutmaking hem very God" (see Figure 1.40 He does this by drawing ttention o loci

biblici where rdinary umanbeings are called "God" in an official ense. As New-ton argued, nly "true" nd "supreme" i.e., absolute) power and dominion made atrue nd supreme God, and, as the note on the term God" further mplies, elativepower nd dominion such as that ranted o esser uthorities ike angels and kings,who represented he true God) made honorary r delegated "Gods."Although notdirectly tated, he ntended orce f Newton's rgument s that he term God" canbe applied to Christ without making he atter very God of very God."'41 ndeed,without hisunstated onclusion Newton's ntire xercise f contending or he rela-tive meaning f "God" would be redundant.

In arguing hat God" is a term efined y relations, Newton pecifically ejectsabsolute definitions f God, such as "eternal," infinite," nd "perfect."42 e cer-tainly ccepts these terms s attributes f God and says so in the Scholium.But heis also quite clear that hey re inadequate s synonyms or God,"because they onot xpress relations.Moreover, hesewords re problematic s fixed efinitions orthe term God" in a second way, ince, n the strictest ense, there an be no de-grees of eternity, nfinity, nd perfection, nd hence their meanings annot pply tobeings other han heOneTrueGod who nevertheless re sometimes alled "God"in an honorary ense. For Newton this ncludes the person of Jesus Christ, who,although owhere xplicitlymentioned n the General cholium, ppears s an ellip-

411The note b. in the 1726edition) eads s follows: 'Dr.Pocockderives he LatinwordDeusfrom heArabic u, (inthe blique asedi,)which ignifies ord.And n this ense Princes recalledGods,Psal. lxxxii. er. . and John . ver. 5. AndMoses s called a Godto his brother aron, nda God to Pharaoh Exod. v. ver. 16. and vii. ver. 1 )]. And n the amesensethe souls of deadPrinceswere ormerly, y theHeathens, alledgods,but falsly, ecauseof their ant f dominion"(Motte, rinciples, :389,n. a [I have orrected hemisprint x. 7.8in the 1729 dition o the orrectreading, Ex. 7.1]; Motte-Cajori, Principles, 2:544, n. I. Cohen-Whitman, Principia, p. 941, n. g).Bythus inking he erm God"to theword Lord" nboth ismain ext just quoted) ndthis ddednote.Newton trengthens iscasefor he elative uality f the erm God," ince venTrinitarians

would ccept hat heword Lord" usedof both he ne trueGodandhumans)muchmore traight-

forwardly efers ofunction, s opposed o essence. headdition f this notewasa daringmove nthe part f Newton, hen n hiseighty-fourth ear, nd t went longway oward larifying urtherthemeaning f themain ext f theGeneral cholium.

4' It must e stressed hatNewton's oint oesnot relate omere usage.Trinitarian xegetes l-lowed hat he erm God" soccasionally sed ntheOld and New Testaments f humanudges ndkings. nstead, ewton's acit ontention s that rinitarians adnot recognized he mplications fthis usagefor how the erm hould e handled enerally nd, more pecifically, ow t should eusedof Christ.

42 Motte. Principles, 2:389; Motte-Cajori, rinciples. 2:544: Cohen-Whitman, rincipia, pp.940-1.








PH1LOSOPH1A $ATtTRALISDI

flic omnia egit onut aninia rnzndi,ed tuniverforurnoImpr minus. t propter omininniwarn,ominusverCahs. dens Iiw4 dICk ilet. Warn ens Lvoxrelativa ad ferv2osefertur: deiras.eIt ominarioci, non n corpus. ropriwn 4ifentiuntuibusdens ft nimamundi, ed nOrvos, leus utunuistt ns ter.nurn, nfinitum,bfolureerfektuni:ed nsutenuqueerfeduniLuedotninioon eftAominizsens I)icimusnini ens oens,dens eller, ensfrvzela, dens osizzw& doniinusoininorurn:fednon icimusrcrnus eus) reiusve0er, ernu

Ifrtwiis,arernus eoruto; on ictums tfinits neusyel rfettns tens.H appellarioneselarionemon tabent>d fervos. Vo 4eus af.fizu6Ognifieisornihun fed nnis otnint)s

'' non ft ens. oitintio enri. piituJis e.ce 4r4ca&ui c4i ebPq s nut oniurwr era erun futtna zmnnzn,zdoininum Llgruficat.Etj fl&nzzt. enonevea feqntrttrtir dd, jaIm. zz4Y. .& denut ernni0 vimn, atfigenreri po.

tentem; z,reliquis rfetiozbtts nniuxnregis frar4vwkixd hr. ef1i, e! epefekIuni. nus ell&in.

z4,&vii .)Eteodeminimortii finitus,mniporensconinxfcens,d li,durarab rerno n nusv& *deff 1, nlinitoabnttr ii led Uret 4eiedtrri enwiu. innituni: tnn & oturtiaognofeir,qut fiuntAnt ieri oWunr. n eli arerni.tas& infiniras,ed rnus &finirus non li durario fpariurn, ed urat adett, Dur fniper, adelt iqne, ezifaendo emper ubique, urr kent $p.titnnn*Iituit, uniunaqntquepariiarticuI k & iwuzuqtaodque4r.4onisindivi.flbileiosnenrurnbiqse ete spum wniuntabriaor cdominuson rit uffq1em,fss* Qoutisniuta.e4rieni.verllseniporibus,indivedls wruurti ugan eademeli parfonandwifililis.arre itiar nzelv in4uiaione o,exiflenresn paio, eur inperlna. mulpisat rin4io jus.n.gitanre; ninkominusn ul$luitiaogirsne4eiOxktnisome,quarertuse fenticus,linnns dezn nio duranre ita ua nomnibus lingulisenfunmnrani., Dens li nuns ideut ensfeniper, ubique.Ounipzfens At9I)per virta:,mokmn,ederiamner ubftessstiam:amnl'rns ineubilanriaub0tlereon o

tell.

Figure 1. Pagefrom heGeneral cholium nthe hird 1726) edition fNewton'srincipiashowing henote n the erm God"added othat dition. Cambridge niv. ibraryIV]4.4.Courtesy f he yndics f Cambridge niversity ibrary.)









sis.43Perhaps hemost vert ttack n the Trinity omes when Newton akes Lock-ean turn nd states hat while we can have deas of God's attributes, e do not have"any dea of the substance f God.:44 nstead, we know God "only by his most wise

and excellent ontrivances f things."45 ewton wants to banish all metaphysicaldiscussions bout God's nature. s we will see, his expressed gnosticism bout thenature nd substance f the Godhead also fits he antitrinitarian rofile.

DECODING THE PUBLIC GENERAL SCHOLIUMWITHNEWTON'S PRIVATE WRITINGS

It hardly needs saying that one reason why Newton does not express his heresyexplicitly n the General Scholium s because he was writing public document nan age in which denial of the Trinity was prohibited y law.46 will demonstrateequally important albeit ess immediately ractical) easonsfor his lack of direct-ness ater n this ssay, ut the rich verlay f biblical anguagemayhavebeen meantto operate at one level as a cover for his unorthodox ubtext n case of exposure.The clever arrangement nd uxtaposition f scriptural extswas, after ll, a ploywith long history mong dissenters nd heretics. n any event, Newton also sin-cerely believed that his doctrines were biblical. Despite Newton's fforts t obscur-ing his ntent, owever, t s possible to confirm hereading f the Scholium's heol-ogy outlined arlier by interpreting t through he ens of more candid and explicitparallels n a series of documents dating rom efore nd during heperiod of the

Scholium's omposition in which Newton discusses n a much ess guarded man-ner themes ound n this work.47See Figure 2.)

13I suggest hat ne reason why Christ s not mentioned y name n the General cholium sbecause t wouldhavebeen xtremely ifficult orNewton o do so without aking isantitrinitari-anism bvious.Christ's pparent bsence rom his ocument as nothing odo with ny ncipientDeismor supposed emotion f the Saviour n Newton's ersonal hristology. irst,Newtonwasemphatically ot Deist.Second,Christ ppears irectly n many f theparallels othe cholium nNewton's npublished anuscriptssee below for xamples). urthermore, ven n the publishedGeneral cholium, woof the biblical eferences iven,John 0.35 note on God)and John 4.2(note n the heology f space) actually ecord hewords f Christ. oth f these erses ppeared n

the 1726 dition or he irst ime; ohn 0.35when henote n God was added, ndJohn4.2when

Newton xpanded henoteon space. Both the 1713 and 1726 versions f the note on spacearegiven nCohen-Whitman, rincipia, p. 942-3, n. .)

44 I am referring ereboth oLocke'sbelief n the human nability oarrive t deas of real sub-stances including hose f spiritual eings), nd his distinction etween rimary nd secondaryqualities, he atter f which ears strong imilarity o Newton's istinction etween he bsoluteandrelative. orboth ocke andNewton, econdary r relative ualities re those btained hroughsensation, xperience, r experiment. ocke'sdivision etween rimary nd econdary ualities s adistinction etween eality nd appearance; he ormer e.g., ize, hape,hardness) re realqualitiesresiding n the bject,whereas he atter e.g.,color, ound, aste) re derived rom xperience ndare variable. See John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, d. Peter H. Nidditch[1690,Oxford: larendon, 975],1.4.18, .8.8-26,2.13.18-19, .23.2, .3.11-18).

45 Motte, rinciples, :391;Motte-Cajori, rinciples, :546;Cohen-Whitman, rincipia, . 942.46 I deal withNewton's ttempts o confine isheresy o the private phere n Snobelen, Isaac

Newton, Heretic: The Strategies f a Nicodemite:" Brit. J. Hist. Sci. 32 (1999):381-419.47 A series f five rafts A-E) of theGeneral cholium anbe found nCambridge niv. ibrary

(hereafter UL)MS.Add. 3965, fols. 57-65 see Figure ), with artial ranscriptionsnd transla-tions n A. Rupert Hall and Marie Boas Hall, Unpublished cientific apers of saac Newton Cam-bridge: ambridge niv. Press, 1962),pp. 348-64. Although hesedrafts ffer ome nsight ntovariant ording nd additionalmaterial, he heologicalmaterial argely onforms o the final ub-lishedversion nd is every it as terse. he past difficulties n the decipherment f the GeneralScholium elate rimarily o ackof ccessto Newton's npublished anuscriptreatises n theologyandchurch istory. f themanuscripts sedbelow, heKeynesMSSweremade vailable oscholars








THETHEOLOGYOF NEWTON'SGENERALSCHOLIUM 181

First, n many places in his private apers Newton uses and delimits hemeaningof language that ppears n the General Scholium. n the case of the title God ofgods, and Lord of lords," we have clear evidence that Newton was perfectly on-

scious of its source, s he quotes and gives the reference or histitle n his manu-scripts, long with isting n addition ll four f the other iblical occurrences f theshorter itle God of gods."'48n a manuscript ating rom he same period n whichthe Scholium was drafted, ewton defines he phrase "God of gods" as referringunivocally o"God the father .. the ancient f days"-thus explicitly enying llbut the most subordinationist f Trinitarian eadings of this biblical expression.49Citing 1 Corinthians .5-6 in another manuscript, ewton s quite clear that he"God of gods," he One God, is the Father lone, and for his reason t s wrong o"connumerate imwith ther Gods."'51' imilarly, henNewtonuses the Greek ermntLVTOKpUTOwp in the

cholium,e know rom is manuscripts hat e is referring

only to the Father, ot to Christ r the Holy Spirit. This is explicitly ntitrinitarian,as Trinitarians f his age contended hat histitle was also used of Christ. Newtonbelieved that heOne True God

is Onc~fltp6 7TcVTOKpUTOp the ather lmightyndominion,he irst uthor f ll thingswho bears fatherly ffection owards ll his ofspring, reigns ver hem with nuniversalnvinciblerresistible ominion, the on is heir f all things oweshisfather he uty f son.Thefather s the ncient fdays&hath ife n himself riginallyessentially independentlyrom ll eternity, hath iven he on tohave ife n him-selfJohn . 26. The father ath nowledge prescience n himself communicatesknowledge prescience o the on,Apoc.1. 1.& 5. 3,7, 9 &Mark13. 32.5'

For Newton, here ould be no doubt hat he "one God the God of the Patriarchs"was none other han

the father hohath ife n himself hath iven heSonto have ife n himself, heauthor f ife o all intelligent eings, heAlmightyor universal ominion onarch)IT(VOIKpCUTOp, (that s) the upreme universal ovemour f theUniverse, hemakerofheaven earth (of) all things herein isible invisible.52

There is no co-equality here; the General Scholium's "Being [who] governs llthings" s the Person of the Father lone.

There are other uch clarifications. or example, Newton'smanuscripts emon-strate hathe believed that he Father nd Son were united n power and dominion

in the ate 1940s, heYahudaMSSin the arly 1970s, heBodmerMS in 1991, nd Sotheby's ot255in 2000.

48 Newton, eynesMS 3, pp. 29, 47. The versesgiving Godof gods"are Josh. 2.22,Psalm136.2,Dan.2.47and 11.36 see Newton, eynesMS3,pp.29 [where ll four erses re recorded];ibid., . 47; and Newton,MS "Additional hapters," ol.72v,FondationMartin odmer, eneva,where he Josh., salms, nd Dan. 11.36references re given). oth KeynesMS 3 and theBodmerMSdatefrom he amegeneral eriod n which he General choliumwas formulated.

4 Newton, ahudaMS 7.1k,fol. r.Newton dentifies he God ofgods" xclusivelys the atherin even greater etail n KeynesMS3, p. 29.

51)Newton, odmerMS,"Additional hapters" ol.73r.51 Newton, odmerMS 1, fols. 1r-1 r. OnnuvXoVKcp~tTops a term eserved xclusively or he

Father, eealsoNewton, odmerMS 1,fols. 18r, 0r,BodmerMS 2, fol. 43r,BodmerMS 3, fol.20r, odmerMS5A,fol.9r,YahudaMS 15.3,fol.46v, ndYahudaMS 15.5, ol.97r.

52 Newton, eynesMS 3.p. 43.








&1L

2h ii; i?6iJ/t4A* 2/It dA) () 44c44 vt 4

1k' a eIf r)fr/ yzcL-A-

h6L/4L 44c44

.(Vi.

r41 4*ci- ca4 f) 41 *a.a

.

AS& ArA7Y4'L4,YA 44i- na4 .7AAd, cf% #h* A/&4#4>

0' ?LL4 Aa.p r, d

. f4.r.

.C)(. ..- A *67A

*?&1-'A /y'.

___ .; 41L )L 4)4 4A9C

tI1.. .*t.sr-L4A-it.f

i /t*44- * 4 __-# ... 1 J 7

Figure 2 Page from manuscript Draft D" of the General Scholium showing biblicalreferences t bottom ight. Cambridge Univ.Library MS Add. 3965 fol 363r Courtesy fthe Syndics f Cambridge University ibrary.)









but not in nature r essence. In one passage, he writes hat his great foes in the(Trinitarian) omoousianparty made the father son one God by a metaphysicalunity f substance," when the Father nd Son were actually one God by a Monar-

chical unity, n unity f Dominion."" Newton's pecifically ntitrinitarian otiva-tion behind alkof God's substanceprovides revealing ackdrop ohis expresseddenial n the Scholium hatwe can have"any dea of the ubstance f God." He goeson to argue that the word God relates not to the metaphysical ature f God but tohis dominion.... It is a relative word & has relation ous as the servants f God."As a king nd his regnant on are considered ne king, o God and His Son can becalled one God because of their monarchical nity, ut not "upon account of theirbeing consubstantial." ewton then dds, with vident cerbity, hat he "heathensmade all their Gods of one substance& sometimes alled them ne God & yetwerepolytheists.... Nothing," ewton concludes, can make two persons one God butunity f dominion."54 n his "Of the Church," which dates from he same period asthe Scholium,Newtonwrites, If t be said, &the my) father re one" [John 0.30],the Hornoousians take t in a metaphysical ense for one in substance, hoChristinterprets t of a moral unity r unanimity" John 7.21-2].7 Shortly hereafter, espelledout a revealing nalogy o the misuseof the erm God": "If a spiritual eingbe called an Angel, they understand he word n an absolute & metaphysical ensefor a Being of a certain pecies whereas the word s relative & moral, denotingservant whom his Lord sends upon messages."56 ewton had attacked uch corrupthermeneutics n an earlier manuscript: The grand ccasionof errors n the faith asbeen the turning f the scriptures rom moral to (& monarchical o a physical&) metaphysical & physical) ense & this has been done chiefly y men bred up inthe metaphysical) heology f the heathens hilosophers . (the Cabbalists & (ye)Schoolmen)."7 Newton's rgument hus erves s a gloss on the corrupt rinitarianhermeneutics f both the fourth entury nd his own day, n abiding fixation n hisprivate tudies.8 t was their mistake n taking he name "God" as a consistentlyabsolute term enoting ssence and then llowing the communication f this falseand metaphysical meaning o Christ, which n turn ed to the ntroduction f theidolatrous otion hatChrist was "very God."

Elsewhere n his treatise Of the Church," Newton states hat God is a relativeword & signifies much the same thing with Lord, but in a higher ense. For (a)God & his servants re related oone another much after he same manner .. as aLord & his servants." ewton then xplains that t s "[i]n this sense [that]Angelswho have dominion ver man are called Gods in scripture.?59 ere Newton s think-ing of such examples as the name-bearing ngel of the theophany t the burning

53Newton, ahudaMS 15.5, ol.154r cf. Newton, ahudaMS 15.5,fol. 8v).11Newton, ahudaMS 15.5,fol. 154r.Newton lsomakes he laim hat inking odsmetaphysi-

callyby ubstances pagan nYahudaMS 15.3, ol. 6v. Further iscussion n absolute ndrelativeaspects f the names f God can be found n a section ntitled De nominibus ei" in Newton'sCommonplace ook KeynesMS2, pp. 83-4).

` Newton, odmerMS5A,fol. 8r the quare-bracketedeferencesre my own).SeealsoNew-ton, ahudaMS 15.5, ol. 7r.

56 Newton, odmerMS 5A.fol. 8v.5' Newton, ahudaMS 15.5.fol. 7r.ax ee,e.g.,Newton, odmerMS,andNewton, ahudaMS15,Jewish ational ndUniv. ibrary,

Jerusalem. he atter manuscript ontains rafts f the ormer.59Newton, odmerMS,"Additional hapters" ol.73r.Newton lsewhere rites hat [a]ngels

arecalledGods" nPsalms 7.7and 8.5 Keynes MS2, fol.XXVIIIr).









bush n Exodus 3, but t s evident hat his ame reasoning an be used to explainthe occasional use in Scripture f the term God" for Christ. n his "Irenicum,"Newton tates hat [w]e maygive the nameof Gods to other eings as is frequently

done in scripture" nd goes on to write ut the texts nd references f biblical ex-amples where both men and angels took on the names of God, including not onlyExodus 3.2, 6, but lso Exodus 4.16, Exodus 7. 1, Psalms 82.6, and John 0.34-5the atter our eferences ppearing, s we have seen, n the publishedGeneral Scho-lium. n this manuscript ewton brings ut unambiguouslywhat s only hinted tin the Scholium: "Angels& Princes who have power & dominion ver us we maycall Gods but we are to have no other ods in our worship ut him who n the fourthcommandment s ealled said to have made the heaven& earth;which s the haracterof God the father."60 en and angels can certainly e referred o as "Gods," but

direct worship s expressly orbiddenf all but the

Father,Who alone is truly od.6'

(See Figure 3.)More extended arallels exist s well. At several points n his papers on theology

and Church history ewton writes ut n nucleusmaterial hatwas finally ublishedin the General Scholium. One of the more extensive xamples s found n his "Ofthe Church":

If God be called 6 JaVtOKpdtop the mnipotent, hey i.e., heHomoousians]ake tin a metaphysicalense orGodspower reating ll things ut f nothing: hereast smeant rincipally f his universal rresistible onarchial ower to teach us obedi-ence.).ffor ispower f reating s mentionedntheCreed istinctly. If the ather rSonbe calledGod:they ake hename n a metaphysicalence, s if t signified odsmetaphysical erfections f nfinite ternal mniscient mnipotent: hereas t relatesonly o Gods dominionoverus) to teach s obedience. he word Godis relativesignifies hesame thing with Lord & King but n a higher egree. As we say my Lordour Lordyour ord, he upreme ord, he ord f he arth, heKing f Kings&Lordof Lords, he ervants f the Lord, serving ther ords; o we saymyGod ur God,your od, he upreme od, heGodof he arth he GodofGods, he ervants f God,serving ther ods: butwedo not ay,my nfinite, ur nfinite our nfinite, he upremeinfinite, he infinite f the earth, he infinite r infinites, he servants f the infinite,serving ther nfinites.When the Apostle told the Gentiles that he Gods whom they

worshipped erenotGods,he did not mean hat heywerenot nfinites,for heGen-tilesdid not ake hem o be such:)buthe meant hat hey adno power& dominionoverman. heywere alseGods;not als nfinites utvanities alsly upposed ohavepower dominion verman."

Here material hat made its way into the General Scholium is set in the broadercontext f a more transparent nd elaborate passage that reveals both ts unitariannature nd its polemical, anti-Athanasian dge. Newton specifically ejectsmeta-physical nterpretations f God's relationship oHis Son and goes on, as in the Scho-

60 Newton, eynesMS3,p. 47, represented s Figure (cf.YahudaMS 15.3,fol. 6v).61 In a more echnical iscussion f the ignificationf Eh-6;2Newton istinguished etween he

meanings f rthrous nd narthrous heoswhenhewrote hat 'O OF6;is an ndividual signifiesthe upreme od when imited ono other ence: ?06 is a species as Origen& Epiphanius ellus) & (may) ignify ny divineBeingwt' dominion. or Elohim. c,; Deus,God are words f(dominion have) he ame ignificationth (theword) ordbut n a higher egree" Sotheby's ot255.9,fol.2v,private ollection; ranscriptionsrom otheby's ot 255 courtesy f J.-F. aillon).

62 Newton, odmerMS,5A, fol.9r; earlier ersions f this material ppear nYahudaMS 15.5.fols.98r and 154r. or another xample f Newton n the falsedominion f the pagangods, eeYahudaMS 15.4, ol. 8r.








" ~~~~~~~~~~L . .....

4igT_

__ L ~~~~~~w~~~A~irek-,

IrvingI

' '4

,_,O ~ j7.r.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~......

S.~~~~~dy~ ~~-

Nk ~~~ ~ ~...

CY~g._

Figue 3 Pag fiom Nwto "Irnicm shwin parlles t th Gnra Shli

(Kng~ oleg, amrige Kyns S , . 7.Cortsyofth Povstan Fllwso

(King'sCollege, Camhridge.)ensM ,p 7 orey ftePootadFloso









lium, oexplain the relative ature f the erm God."Moreover, e also extends hisanalysis to demonstrate hy the gods of the pagans are false: unlike the true Godand His Son, they njoy neither nherent ordelegateddominion. he same point s

made in the added note to the third dition, when Newton comments hat lthoughthe heathen alled "the ouls of dead Princes" gods, this was false, becauseof theirwant of dominion."63 ere there s more heresy han ntitrinitarianism. n speakingof dead men's souls as false and imaginary ods, this final ine of the added notesummarizes wo other unorthodox heologicalpreoccupations f Newton's manu-scripts, ince Newton was both a mortalist and thus denied that human souls livebetween death and resurrection) nd a rejecter f the iteral xistence of demons(evil spirits). or Newton, neither isembodied ouls nor demonshad any real exis-tence. t was for these reasons that he heathen dolaters alled the souls of deadprinces gods in vain: only a real God could have real dominion.64

The conclusion s inescapable: Newton was taking heological deas from is pri-vate studies nd embedding hem n the General Scholiumto his Principia, herebycracking pen a window o the world n his heresy.65 s Frank Manuelhas observed,the reiteration f these deas "in so many ther ontexts n the manuscripts levatesthe final ffirmations f the General Scholium bovethe evel of a piece de circons-tance merely ncident o his tragi-comic attle with Leibniz."66nstead, hese deaswere already n integral nd central art f Newton's heology efore he publishedthe second edition of his Principia. However contemporaries ead the document(and most saw nothing miss), its ideas are clearly rooted n heresy. nterpretedthrough is more explicit private manuscripts, he ntended meanings ehind New-ton's oblique discussionsof substance nd dominion n the Scholium are revealed.A Trinitarian ould not have written he General Scholium.

EXEGETICAL AIDS FROM NEWTON'S FRIENDS AND FOES

Not only do Newton's manuscripts onfirm hat his General Scholium containedantitrinitarian easoning, ut additional orroborative vidence s provided yNew-ton's contemporary ollowers n the one hand, and his enemies on the other. Our

first itness s Newton's heologicaldisciple Samuel Clarke. Like Newton, Clarkebelieved that God "is a Term xpressing ominion,"67 riting hat t s "Dominionand Authority; hich alone is that which makes God to be God, (in the moral or

63 Motte, rinciples, 2:389,n. a; Motte-Cajori, rinciples, :544, n. *: Cohen-Whitman,rincipia,p. 941,n. g.

64 OnNewton'smortalism, eeNewton, Paradoxical uestions oncerning emorals actions fAthanasius," S,William ndrews larkMemorial ibrary, osAngeles, ols. 4r-55r; ahudaMS7.2e,fol. 4v; Newton, orrespondence f Newton cit. n. 8), vol.3, pp. 336,339;James . Force,"TheGodof Abraham nd saac (Newton),"'n The Booksof Nature nd Scripture, d. idemnndRichard . Popkin Dordrecht: luwer, 994), pp. 179-200 especially . 184,where orcepointsto the elationshipetween ewton's od of dominion ndhismortalism);dem, Confronting or-tality nd mmortality ithNewton nd Hume" cit. n. 5), pp. 119-42.A particularly triking x-ampleof Newton's enial f the xistence f evil spirits ccurs n YahudaMS 9.2, fols. 19v-21 .Seealso Snobelen, Isaac Newton, eretic" cit.n. 46),pp. 387-8.

65 Westfall asnot quiteright, herefore, oconclude hatNewton idnot publish ntitrinitariantheology nd hat e"kept heunorthodox spects f hisreligion ohimself" Westfall, ewtoncit.n. 7),pp.653,828).

66 Manuel,Religion fNewton cit. n. 7),p. 21.67 Samuel Clarke, Observations on Dr Waterland's econd Defence of his Queries (1724), in The

Works f Samuel Clarke, D.D., 4 vols. (London, 1738), vol. 4, p. 499.








THE THEOLOGY OF NEWTON'SGENERAL SCHOLIUM 187

religious ense of the Word,) taV'CVOKpaTCop,upreme ver ll. . . 'Tis Dominiononly, hat makesGod to be God to us; and therefore heScripture o frequently sesthe Word avcvOKp-cwop, Supreme ver all, as equivalent o the Title, God."68 n his

1712 Scripture-Doctrine, e expresses explicitly conclusion that s only mpliedin the General Scholium:

Thereason why he on n theNewTestaments sometimes tiledGod, s not o muchuponAccount f his metaphysical ubstance, ow Divine oever; s of his relativeAttributes nddivine uthority ver S.69

Clarke also employed he same linguistic rgumentation s Newton to show that"God" was a relative erm. n responding o Francis Gastrell, who correctly er-ceived that larke's heology endered he ermGod "a Word of Office nly, s Mas-ter and King is" and that t "signifies omething istinct rom he Divine Nature,"Clarke wrote,

That he WordGod n Scripture,s indeed lways relativeWord f Office, ignifyingpersonal ominion, ignity, r Government;s evident rom ence; hat n ikemanneras wesay,MyMaster, y Father, y King, nd he ike; othe cripture eaches s tosay lso, MYGod,TheGod of srael, nd he ike: Whereas nthe ther ide we cannotsay,MyDivineNature, heDivineNature f srael, r the ike.7

Agreeing with Newton that only the Father was properly God, Clarke argued nprint or this position, writing hat "[t]he Father (or First Person) is, absolutelyspeaking, he God of the Universe; he God of Abraham, saac and Jacob; the Godof srael; of Moses, of the Prophets nd Apostles; and the God and Father of ourLord Jesus Christ" nd that [t]he Scripture, hen t mentions he One God, or theOnlyGod, always meansthe SupremePerson of the Father."71 arshaling videncefrom cripture nd the arly fathers, larke also asserts hat he tcZVTOKpcZT1ps theFather lone.7' Furthermore, e comes to the same conclusion as Newton on theunity f the Father nd Son, arguing hat heirs s not a unity f substance but oneof monarchy: he Son acts as vicegerent or he Father.73

We now come to William Whiston, whose views on the Godhead were, likeClarke's, lmost ndistinguishable rom hose of Newton, nly much more vocallyexpressed.As with Clarke, oomany xamples of parallels xist to list onvenientlyhere. Four examples from publication hat ppeared shortly efore the secondedition f the Principia will serve s illustrations. irst, Whiston resented n argu-ment, imilar o Newton's, n the communicability f the divine names and titles,writing hat

68 Samuel Clarke, Dr Clarke sAnswer o the Remarks of the Author f Some Considerations on-cerning he Trinity, nd the Waysof Managing That Controversy, n Works cit. n. 66), vol. 4, p. 355.

69 Clarke, cripture-Doctrine cit. n. 6),pp. 296.7( Clarke. r. Clarke sAnswer, n Works cit.n. 67),vol.4, p. 352. Gastrell, hohaddelivered he

BoyleLectures n 1697,wasat the ime ishop f Chester.71 Clarke, cripture-Doctrine cit. n. 6), pp. 244-5.72 Ibid.,pp.62-4.73 Ibid.,pp. 332-3. Soon after he ublication f the General cholium, larke's riend ohn ack-

son ascertained he ommon ause of Newton ndClarke,writing o the atter, About year goeconsulted he cholium f Sr saacNewton's rincip: Mathemat: oncerning he rueNotion f God,andfound t exactly greeable o your cripture octrine" Jackson oClarke, 0 Jan. 1716,CULMSAdd.7113/18).









the NameJehovah o way relates o the Substance f God; and s one of the mostcommunicable,s to the on, of all the est; nd while ts Communicationohimnomore mplies ny uch quality r Sameness,han he ommunicationfother f God'sNames oAngels, o Moses, oMagistrates, r the ike, mplies, hat ll those eingsare n ome ort qual o, nd onsubstantial ith im lso.And heReader s to upposethe same Observation, s to other f the Names of God also.74

For Whiston, ike Newton, he title God of gods" refers pecifically nd uniquelyto the Father.75 histon lso expressedhimself imilarly o his mentor n the bibli-cal term aavtoKp twp.76 Finally,Whiston's wn analysisof the distinction etweentrue gods and false gods bears a remarkable esemblance o that of the GeneralScholiuml Published xamples ike these from larke and Whiston known here-tics and disciplesof Newton would have gone a long way toward cting s exeget-

ical aids to the reading of the General Scholium. But the next example may haveoffered he most transparent lue.From the very moment t was published, Whiston ecognized he antitrinitarian

nature f the General Scholium nd that t expressed heologicalnotions dear to hisown heart. o quick was Whiston o see the apologeticvalue of the document hathe produced translation f the theological ortion f the General Scholiumwithindays of ts release, publishing t as an appendix oa work hat ttacked he Athana-sian doctrine f the Trinity. f the ocationof the translation ithin n antitrinitarianwork was not enough to reveal Whiston's nderstanding f the General Scholium,his own prefatory emarks ffer more than hint f this. Newton, Whiston wrote,was giving he world n the Scholium "his most serious and inmost Thoughts" e-garding God himself, nd his Unity, upremacy, ominion, nd other Attributes,"along with the proper cripture cceptation f the Word God, when pply'd to anyother han the Supreme Being himself."'78 oming from Whiston, who was at thetime being prosecuted ordenying heTrinity, hesewords ould have had only onemeaning. he appendix s dated 6 July 713: Whiston hushad produced he ransla-tion within s little s four r five days of receiving he second edition f the Prin-cipia from otes.79 Whistonwent n to republish his ranslation n the woeditionsof his Astronomical rinciples fReligion 1717and 1725).8() This was not ll. WhenHenry Pemberton ailedto epitomize heGeneral Scholium n his View f Newton'sPhilosophy 1728), Whiston ompensated or he oss by publishing sixteen-page

74 William Whiston, An Account of the Convocations' Proceedings with Relation to Mr. Whiston(London, 71 ), pp. 71-2.

75 Ibid., . 79; cf. dem, rimitive hristianity eviv'd London, 712),vol.V,p. xxiii.76 Whiston, An Account of the Convocations' Proceedings cit. n. 74), pp. 106-7.77 Ibid.,pp. 107-8.78 Whiston, Three Essays. I. The Council of Nice Vindicated from he Athanasian Heresy. II. A

Collection of Ancient Monuments Relating to the Trinity nd Incarnation, nd to the History of theFourth Century f the Church. III. The Liturgy f the Church of England Reduc'd Nearer to thePrimitive tandard London,1713),pp. 29-31 (app. to pt. ). Whiston ppears ohave dded thisappendix o unsold opies of his Council fNice Vindicated, hich s dated 1 May 1713.Thismayexplainwhymany opies of thiswork ack the ppendix, hich s almost ertainly he irst nglishtranslation rom he General cholium.

79 Whiston eceived is unbound opyof thenew dition n the inal ays f June r the irst aysof July, ossibly eforeNewton imself Bentley o Newton, 30 June 713],CorrespondencefNewton cit.n. 8], vol. 5, pp. 413-14).

80 Whiston, stronomical rinciples of Religion (1717)(cit.n. 12),pp.237-40, 2nd d., 1725).








THETHEOLOGY OFNEWTON'SGENERAL SCHOLIUM 189

addendum containing revised translation f the General Scholium, along withtheologicalmaterial rom Newton'sOpticks nd the recently ublished Chronologyof Ancient KingdomsAmended.This quarto booklet was meant to be bound with

copies of Pemberton's masculated work and was advertised s such.8'An octavoedition was published he following ear.82 See Figure 4.)Someof the more perceptive nemiesof heresy were no less astute n recognizing

the difference etween he God of essence and the God of dominion. William Ste-phens, n a sermon n the eternal eneration f the Son, spoke of those, who, while"they do not Deny that heFather nd Son are one God, yet have plac'd this Unityof the Godhead, not, as it ought o have been) in an Unity f Substance; but, n anUnity f Monarchv nd Government; nd make theTrinity f Persons o be no other-wise one God, than s they re oint Possessors of the one Authority nd Dominionof the Universe."83 tephens ffirms hat he fourth-century rthodox efenders fthe Nicene faith abored to show "that he Word God is not a Name of Office ndAuthority, ut of Being and Substance; that s does not denoteRuler,Governour; ndthe ike; but a Nature and Essence, Infinite, ternal, nd Divine, n that Person ofwhom t s predicated."84 imilarly, ewton's moral" nterpretation f John 0.30(cited earlier) an be contrasted ith hat f an anonymous rinitarian uthor who,in 1714,wrote hat his ame passage teaches that God and Christ re "One in Na-ture, Essence and Power."5 Another ontemporary bserver not only specificallyidentified he language of the General Scholium as antitrinitarian ut recognizedthat t paralleled the arguments f Clarke's Scripture-Doctrine. anuscript notes

xl Whiston, ir Isaac Newtons Corollaries from His Philosophy nd Chronology, n His Own Words(London, 728);DailyPost,29Apr. 1728.

82 Whiston as not he nly ne to produce n English ranslationf the General cholium uringthis eriod. ohnMaxwell, n engraver ssociatedwithWhiston's ublisher ohn enex nd an evi-dent ympathizer ith larke's octrine, ublished complete ranslation n 1715 A Discourse on-cerning God; wherein the Meaning of His Name, His Providence, the Nature and Measure of HisDominionAre Consider'd; with ome Remarks upon the Rights f the Creatures, nd the Doctrine ofAbsolute Reprobation. To which s Subjoin'd a Translation f Sir Isaac Newton'sGeneral Scholiumat the End of the Second Edition of his Principia concerning he Cartesian Vortices, nd concerningGod; as also a Short Account of the Cape of Good Hope [London, 1715], pp. 98-106; see also LarryStewart, The Rise of Public Science: Rhetoric, Technology, nd Natural Philosophy in NewtonianBritain, 660-1750 Cambridge: ambridge niv. Press, 1992],pp. 187-8).Maxwell'snow raretranslation eceivedmuchwider overage n the ublication f most f the heological ortion t thefoot f a new edition f Whiston's roadsheet, he"Schemeof the Solar System" Mr Whiston'sScheme of the Solar System pitomis d. To Wch. Is Annex'd a Translation f Part of yeGeneral Scho-lium at xv"nd of y" Second Edition of Sr. Isaac Newton'sPrincipia. Concerning God [London, c.1721)(seeFigure ).The material ited ommences ithNewton's iscussion f beauty nddesignin the olar ystem, hich rovides n obvious inkagewithWhiston's ngraving f the rbital athsof planets nd comets. hat he itedportion lso includesNewton's iscussion f the meaning f"God" shows hat Whiston, r perhapsMaxwellhimself, aw as perfectly atural he uxtapositionof the heology f theGeneral cholium with n mage howing he ivine armonyndunity f thesolar ystem. urthermore, free ranslation fportions f he General cholium, longwith xcerptsfromMaxwell's reatise, aspublished n the rticle God" nEphraim hambers' yclopedia; r,an Universal Dictionary of the Arts nd Sciences (London, 1728). This use of the General Scholiumwas recently rought o the ttention f scholars y Force n his "Newton, heLordGodof sraelandKnowledge f Nature" cit. n. 5),pp. 149-50.

8 William Stephens, The Divine Persons One God by an Unity f Nature (Oxford, 1722), p. 4.Stephens as Vicar f Bampton ndone-time ellow f Exeter ollege,Oxford.

X Ibid.,p. 5.85 The Equality of the Son and the Holy Ghost with he Father, n the Ever-Blessed Trinity London,

1714), ig.A3v.








W-WHISTONSSCHEME f he OLAR SY STEM IYPiTOMISD.TOWsniu_ATrXlatonofprtof erlfzzm. atyrnd yfccond ditionlof fr.LwAret ncipia.Ceern Gad

v..1

iaV7 k4~ h _ _ _ s

Ei

,~~~~~.8.w#..,- ....... .:/.........,.

Sosusea t~z F-^~ / . 5E; S*@ .8 8 ---- /7P 4

M- QVAVS< X .-. t

0-0Tis ot oegn Sytaotelntad E nszeoreouree sApe ?seeei hi lv n v?

tv~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~n... q~.I. ..... t Fe"'-924

MUA..... Sy _

Cometsouldote roducecut andnsen lF foss UseFnpirehenef .ci.mi lnular.1lte ContrivanceanDomnioon ofudte~igeunt 4m hehtreu Lvivint&Istef*e AIBri,,AArn~aR&ie;wer f .zeiv4iue=andRwerfudlkin ~nvf h ane estmue ,fonimuosodhrwrfceonh~nat sthe dttudog Actton,.Butafmeraananer tthe^entersf uch ms~ithefeloanunmeonru yerfectHeis& t C* notile ht f

Suweiste47 OnnpewadOnp~~'as'(nsiraanr~otous unjasowna As

Pwninf~ae~flheJ scofo-\ ''nda anlton tocen ',anlr a\i n has-' o ColonaS tooeith

P~ethw ver _Cven mweomy otion f hemansmeraw heAwpzf mu W&OcoIwi and.n fiAn*a

notas, cabe HesnvEenfi~yrn~i~r1sn ies wlself deftituto f anBoay =ano-f~='C?UO ~ei~suaolfneis notDuatiou Or Boyhapbke,=An thereforecaumothbeeon,

and reanfeo is oosonoone swoat o ecsflo Spaeeouuchelnolnresadiezfet.RHe auk he -4nor touchedooo n*ght obeworlip.LordGodanov1x~t etnwfllopr sea- saudis ycefence-eewheranl6y x ed under heRe fentatoo fanythislGtfiw odhiaaRftalaareewrd,andlhaellelaitoonsSerifeioinocutesa poreulWe avLdea of ho.Attrohuteo,hbutrauu:And dieDeityis he~mpiueofGod~notose ztiionsdSpscedEllvt ndlnfinity.Vher weknownotatal wtsat s eke Sulofanc of

hi k oAo ieorA thsuehslrae. nnoslMseefonnrtoaseewyvOAei sadColoursaf Bodes,we hewr *l Sounds,?Te~~s'w6oodis mmsia,*iiieAhcrante w am dLodofde Unrsor we trochonIy oeoutward Sudacessre so

but,!B1 -ffetwowk &ainotbe oA no r. el onlOdonrs Fa taft Wfs bnuwelmwi

Ve~szAoNonoi 6-FoYrwesy Ay hofre. ess _f taocViren4la hs ntlaoyfnerrenct the nward,jaeyvurCd'm4isex s Sf S neSu o ockltaewe saYNots-Comet4 ena4MePeswabf/W anno h n otiaitoducce on the ulsianeeoWebnowlyim

dAmontn/ urfn;d~mIioofffjurnitfiAud, trelmodi"iv nkold, knlnowEx4,w1di~wc Mcoimrn~

,o/;wed?(4nofo z y4 a~ywdu4 *hshtonyoiAsberea anertihdtans ffis nods'nlfres the s*ons f w;cssdoy~taesaibtwneoeAdmaedf X

.ThewordGoder BodiesHiiderdohrye. me veleboE iiueoenspLordidlsutcveteordlisnotnotte osnzupr fenelfo fis eIhlAst morsotoaultanfe S-teof

ruepiucofastwutlin4outntoa%Go4 toekopees uteod fl tte.andse.

In X4?4t#O'5 res Wlll-j4u l Ol*to~ desXOlltD3,,,i,, aaot~o:Ferte ty, m, C."r4.eW *uIot.UMdiobl At af e~ -irA.

Figure 4. A John enex astronomical hartfrom heearly 1 720s with WilliamWhiston'"Schemeof the Solar System" nd part of John Maxwell's translation rom heGeneralScholium Univ. of LondonLibrary, Goldsmith Library f EconomicLiterature, roadside

Colleztio37N.VtL- Coutesy.%f th Universit f4 Lon"<-ukdon.) v8



THE THEOLOGYOF NEWTON'SGENERAL CHOLIUM 191

written n one of the ast flyleaves f a copy of the second edition f the Principiaconclude that he Scholium

seems esign'd o giveCountenanceoDr.Clarke's cheme. hat Gentleman akes heWordGod to be only Relative erm. e tells us, t s never ntended o signify heDivineNature, r the bstract etaphysical ttributes f God, but nly hisAttributesrelative o Us, as his Dominion, uthority c. It s one of hischief ositions, hat heSon s stiled od, not pon heAccount fhisSubstance rEssence, owdivine oever;butbecause f hisAuthority ver s.86

It is instructive hat he author f these observations ad no trouble erceiving heimplications f Newton nd Clarke's analysis for he deity f Christ. hus, some ofNewton's more theologically stute contemporaries aw through he obscure lan-

guage of the Scholium o dentify ts ntent, roviding et ne more wayof verifyingthe antitrinitarian ature f the Scholium.87 ome-including both Newton's up-porters nd enemies did indeed recognize he covert ssault on the Trinity n theGeneral Scholium.88n the next ection, focus on one particularly lluminating x-ample.

SOCINIANISM IN THE SCHOLIUM

Thus far have shown hat Newton's rivate manuscripts ontain nambiguous nti-trinitarian heology nd that he ame deas (albeit n more oblique form) made theirway nto he General cholium, husdemonstrating hat his document ontains nti-trinitarian rgumentation. he evidence behind this syllogism, nd the conclusionitself, take to be overwhelming nd incontrovertible. ut I believe t s possible tobe even more pecific. he theology resented n the Scholium s certainly ompat-ible with Arianism which taught supreme high God and a lesser, reated god,Christ and we know from is manuscripts hat he Christology t which Newtonarrived losely resembled his fourth-century octrinal osition. But there s evi-

86Annotations t the nd of the econd dition f the Principia, niversity f Toronto SCI 1713

ed.,copy 1). n making hese oints, he nnotator efers o page 296 of Clarke's cripture-Doctrine,a portion f which s quoted t the beginning f the present ection see n. 69).Theseannotationswerefirst rought o light n 1996 by Larry tewart, hosuggests hat he nnotator asTrinityCollegefellow ames aine,who, s a note o he nnotations eveals, ad nturn aken he ommentsfrom 1720work y John umming see Stewart, Seeingthrough heScholium" cit.n. 6], pp.134-8).

87 Another oteworthyxample f this an be found na clever etter ritten o Henry embertonandpublishedn the 0 May1731 ssueof theGrub-Street ournal. heanonymousuthor rovidesan English ranslation f the mostheavily heologicalection f the General cholium nd entitlesit "TheNEWTONIANREED."In a probing refatory ppeal,the writer sks Pemberton who, salreadymentioned, hose o omit heGeneral cholium rom is View) to explain y a short om-ment, hemeaning f the ollowing reed;which, t s imagined, aswritten ySir SAACNEWTON,in mitation f S. ATHANASIUS'Sreed, o convince heworld, hat isReligionwasas much bovethat f the vulgar, s hisPhilosophy." he translation iven s that f Whiston, ikely aken rom isCorollaries f 1728 r 1729 the ublication f which y hehereticWhistonmay lso have rovideda pivotal lue to this writer s to the General cholium's meaning). his example rom heGrub-Street ournal, longwithAndrewMotte's ranslation f 1729,brings oten he number f Englishtranslations rom he General Scholium published between 1713 and 1731 (six of which were byWhiston).

X8It would e pointless orme to go over n detail round lready andled n a masterful ay byStewart, who was the first o provide conclusive evidence for what want to argue was a successful(albeit minority) eadingof the General Scholium. I therefore efer he reader to his "Seeing throughthe cholium" cit. n. 6) and "SamuelClarke" cit.n. 6).









dence that Newton appropriated deas from nother on-Trinitarian octrinal radi-tion as well. Our first lue comes from he pen of the fiery alvinist divine JohnEdwards. n a postscript o a 1714 work gainst Clarke, Edwardsnot only accused

Newton n print f attacking heTrinity n the General Scholiumbut also raised thespecter f Socinianism.89 dwards was an old war horse who had long fought heinfiltration f Socinian heresy nto England, nd it s true hat he was not coy aboutthrowing ut slanderous abels. But Edwards also knew his Socinianism well andadded substance to his charge by contending hat Newton's inguistic rgumentsabout God in the General Scholium, ike those n Clarke's Scripture-Doctrine, adbeen taken straight rom he thirteenth hapter f the Socinian Johann rell's DeDeo et ejus attributis ConcerningGod and his attributes).911 o one has yet ollowedthrough with he mplications f this llegation; want to argue that we must ake

it seriously.We have already seen that Newton dissented rom he Trinitarian iew that heterm God" is absolute nd refers o essence, rguing nstead hat he word s relativeand has reference o dominion. rell makes the very ame point n chapter 3 of hisDe Deo, where he writes,

because he erm od .. is fond f .. additional lause[s].. which elation ssigni-fied o he thers, s whenGod s said obe Godof his r hat .. it s easily nderstood,that hat erm sneither ynature articular, or oes t ignify od's ssence tself....Why herefores God so frequently alledGodof hese r hose? ertainly ecause he

term od s principally name f ower nd empire.9'This s precisely heposition Newton rticulates n the GeneralScholium.The char-acterization f "God" as a relative word s, as Edwardsnoted, xpounded n chapter13 of Crell's De Deo.92And, as Edwards mplied, o is the God of dominion.93 e

19The Socinians or PolishBrethren) ere biblicist, ntitrinitarian ovement f the ixteenth-and seventeenth-centuryadical Reformation. hey wereviewed n Newton's ime s even moreradical han heArians. ee ThePolish Brethren, d. G. H. Williams Missoula,Mont.:ScholarsPress, 980), ndG.H.Williams, heRadicalReformation, rd d. Kirksville, o.: Sixteenth en-tury ournal, 992).Here t s also worth oting hat eibniz, oo, did not shrink rom ccusingNewton f Socinianism-even f he didso on an incorrect ssumptionA Collection fPapers cit.n. 16], p. 31).An earlier nd briefer resentation f the ase for ocinian ontent n the GeneralScholium an be found n Snobelen, IsaacNewton, eretic" cit. n. 46), pp. 406-7.

90John Edwards, Some Brief Critical Remarks on Dr Clarke's Last Papers (London, 1714),pp. 36-7.Later n the postscript dwards harges hatNewton's rguments n the General choliummirror ot nly hose f Clarke ut hose f Whiston s well p. 40).

9' Crell, e Deo etejusattributis n.p.,n. p., 1631, col. 100 quotations rom rell ranslated romLatin).Chapter 3 s entitled De nomine -6;" (Concerning henameGod).Theportion ited yEdwardss italicized.

92 Crell,DeDeo(cit.n. 90),cols. 89-102.93Ibid., ols. 101-2;seealsochap.23, "DePotestate ei" (Concerning hepower f God),cols.

161-91.Edwards oeson to argue gainst hedeficiencies f "dominion" s a definition or hedeity, utting orwarderms uch s "goodness," holiness,"mercifulness,"nd benignity" s moreappropriate nd also contending hat dominion" ouldnot holdfor ll time, ince"Godhad notDominion, hen here erenone o haveDominion ver." e also attempts oexpose nother oten-tial weakness n Newton's rgument y claiming hat f "Dominionmakes God," hen he term(with ts despotic onnotations,n classical usage)wasmore pt for the God of this World," .e.,Satan Edwards, ome Brief CriticalRemarks cit. n. 89], pp. 39, 40). By this point n his life,however, ewton adcometo reject literal evil, ossibly npart ecause f the ogic f hisviewson God'sdominionseemy Lust, ride ndAmbition:saacNewton n the Devil," orthcoming).








THE THEOLOGY OF NEWTON'S GENERALSCHOLIUM 193

also observes that Newton shares his usage of the epithet Supreme God" (Deussummus) n the GeneralScholiumnot only with he Arians but lso with he Socini-ans, both of which traditions eed to employ the qualification ummus to distin-

guish the Father rom he Son, who [sic] they hold to be an Inferior od."94 ut theparallels with Socinian theology xtend ven farther hanEdwardshimself nsinu-ates. Crell discusses the relative nature f God's names and titles by showing, ikeNewton, how commonly God is called the God of "this or that," tating hat Godalone . . . is said to be 'powerful ne,' because He has empire lone by himself, ndindeed over all things, nd whoever has power by himself, hat s), has it either yHis gift, r at east by His permission."9 n language highly eminiscent f Newton,Crell explains that his erm pertains irst o loftiness, hen o breadth f the sameempire, ecause he is King of kings, Lord of the dominant, ord of hosts, God ofgods, and finally od and head of Christ imself."96 rell's final oint here s crucial.Both he and Newton want to show that nly the Father s supremely nd uniquelyGod and that He is Himself heGod of Christ the principal ntitrinitarian onclu-sion intended y the argument rom herelative ature f God's titles.

The additional note that Newton added to the General Scholium n 1726 pointsout that Princes re called Gods,Psal. lxxxii.ver. . and John . ver. 5.AndMosesis called a God to his brother aron, and a God to Pharaoh (Exod. iv. ver. 16. andvii. ver. ).7 7 This otherwise nexplicablenotion hat ersons ther han he upremeGod can be called "God" is also another tandard ocinian position hat s presentedin the very hapter f Crell'sDe Deo identified y Edwards.98 oreover, hree f thefour roof exts hatNewton mployed osupport he rgument re also found n thischapter.99 urthermore, heargument bout false gods and idolatry s also virtuallyidentical o what we find n another f Crell's writings."0 hus, even after eingaccusedof Socinianism,Newton dded to the hird dition f the GeneralScholiumfurther deas that esemble ocinian teachings. uch close parallels cannot be coin-cidental.'("Nor does the fact hat Newtondoes not ppear to have possesseda copyof Crell's De Deo argue against his.His close friend nd neighbor amuel Clarkehad at least one copy of the Bibliotheca Fratrum olonorum, which ncluded the

Edwards, onmerief ritical enmarks cit. n. 90). p. 39. Newton sesthe itle eus summusthree imes n the General cholium with he hird xample n the material dded n 1726 to thenote on space) (Motte, Principles, 2:389-90, 390, n. b; Motte-Cajori, Principles, 2:544-45, 545 n. *;Cohen-Whitman, rincipia, p. 940, 942,942.n. ). As Edwards mplies, t s not only he impledeployment f this eeminglynnocent erm ut he ntent ehind he sage that s crucial.

15 Crell, e Deo (cit.n. 91), cols. 173-4.'6 Ibid., ol. 174.97 Motte, rinciples, :389, l.a (with x. 7.8 in the 1729 dition nce gain orrected o Ex. 7.1);

Motte-Cajori, rinciples, :544,n. *; Cohen-Whitman, rincipia, . 941, n. g; cf. Newton, eynesMS3, p. 45r: BodmerMS5B,fol. 8r.

9XCrell,De Deo(cit.n. 91), cols. 94-9.`9Ibid.. ols. 94-6, 99.""'Johann Crell, The Twio ooks of John Crellius Francus, touching One God the Father (Kosmo-

burg London], 665).p. 5.'MWithout pecifically entioning heGeneral cholium, ther erceptive heological riters,such s William tephens, lso recognized hat hese rguments, irst resented ytheArians n thefourth entury, adbeenmore ecently evived ythe ocinians Stephens, heDivinePersons cit.n.831, .5). In fact, t s much more ikely hat tephens ad been xposed othese eachings irectlyor ndirectly hrough ontemporaryocinian ndUnitarian riters or their etractors) han yread-ing he more imited rian orpus.









work.'02 ven without rell's De Deo, both the theological easoning nd the con-stellation f biblical texts re all Socinian topoi typical f their ermeneutical ro-file.103 dwards was right: here s Socinianism n the General Scholium.'04

Other vidence helps to confirm hat Edwards uspected. Newtonbegan no laterthan 1690an engagement with ocinian theology hatwas to last for he rest f hislife.105 he Socinians were the eading and most ntellectual ntitrinitarian ove-ment of the seventeenth entury, nd it is thus not surprising o find hat Newtonexhibited n interest n their iews. In 1689 Newton began a series of theologicalexchanges with Locke, whose intense nterest n Socinianism s established ndwhose collection f Sociniana totaling o less than orty-three orks is remark-able for ts size and scope. Newton also had access to the excellent ollection ofSocinianworksheld at Trinity ollege.' 6Newtonhimself wned at east eight oci-nian books, along with another hree Socinian-influenced itles by TransylvanianUnitarian Gy6rgy nyedi, German Arian Christopher and, and English UnitarianJohn iddle. 07As late as 1726 Newton both met with nd patronized he communi-cant Polish Brother amuel Crell. And parallels with Socinian theology bound nNewton'sprivate manuscripts. ewton's nterest n Socinianism hus may not havebeen limited o appropriating ttractive ntitrinitarian rgumentation. ocinianismwas a complete doctrinal ystem, nd other distinctive nd often northodox heo-logical beliefs formed n integral art of the theological rationale, ncluding mor-talism, he denial of the eternity f hellfire, elievers' baptism, he separation fchurch nd state, renicism, nd the advocacy of religious toleration. ll of theseelements ccur in Newton's thought. urther nalogies with Socinianism exist inNewton'sview of church history, is antitrinitarian extual riticism, nd his scrip-tural hermeneutics. one of this proves hatNewton derived his thoughts n everyone of these eachings irectly rom ocinian texts, s opposedto ndependent tudy.What s certain s that no other Christian octrinal radition including rianism-

102 SeeSnobelen, TheLibrary f SamuelClarke;' nlightenment nd Dissent 16 1997):185-97.103 E.g.,the rgument or he elativity f the erm God," asedon the seof thisword orudges,

kings, nd angels,was paradigmatic f Socinian pologetics.Cf. Williams, hePolishBrethren,[cit.n. 88],pp.316,392-3, 398, 560;TheRacovian atechism, rans. homas Rees[London, 818],pp. 29, 34, 57, 151, 196; Stanislaw ubieniecki, istory f the Polish Reformation, d. G.H.Williams Minneapolis: ortress, 995],p. 163; Paul Best, Mysteries iscovered London, 647],pp. 4-6 [Best was an English ocinian onvert], ohann rell, OneGodthe Father cit. n. 1001,pp. 13-22, 190, 214, 222). Likewise, ll of the verses hat Newton ites n his note n God werestandardly eployed s proof exts y antitrinitarian pologists f the period nd were usedmuchmore requently y hem han y heir rinitarian ounterpartscf.Lubieniecki, istory f he olishReformation, p. 161-5; Williams, The Polish Brethren cit. n. 89]. p. 104).

1()4This s not o ay hat t wasNewton's rimary ntention opresent ocinianismn the rincipia,nor hat Newton imself as a Socinianunlike he ocinians, e held o the premundane xistenceof Christ), nly hat eused-along with is own nnovation-the ophisticated oolsof Socinianexegesis ofurther isbroader oalsfor heGeneral cholium.

'01 Sources ndfurther etail n this anbefound nSnobelen. Isaac Newton, eretic" cit.n.45).pp. 383-9.

106 Ibid.,p. 385.Through he 1660s ndperhaps s late s the arly 670s, Newton's oomsnthecollegewere ituated nder his ibrary see LordAdrian, Newton's ooms n Trinity" otes ndRecords f heRoyal ociety f London 8 [1963]: 7-24, ndAPerspective iewvf Wy Great ourtof Trinity ollege n Cambridge 1740],which hows he ocation f the ld ibrary).

107imple wnership fbooksdoesnot, f ourse, ecessarilymply ssent otheir ontents; anyorthodox ivines lso possessed Socinianworks.Newton's tatus s an antitrinitarian, owever,coupledwith he arallels etween ocinian heology ndhisown, tronglyndicates hat is ttitudetoward uchworkswouldhavebeenof an entirely ifferent rder rom hat f the rthodox.








THETHEOLOGY OFNEWTON'S GENERALSCHOLIUM 195

more losely matched Newton's elief ystem n its entirety. ut another way,New-ton and the Socinians shared common heological thos.

I present his dditional ackground etail because I am aware that ome may be

reticent o accept the claim that ocinian (or, even more generally, ntitrinitarian)hermeneutics nderpin he GeneralScholium nd that hey o so in a deliberate way.It is thus mportant oexamine the alternatives. ne option, o argue that Newtonwasnot n antitrinitarian t all, s no longer enable, ow that is private manuscriptsare available.108n any ase, Newton was an astute heologian nd would hardly avedared to present deas he knew would be taken s antitrinitarian f he had not beenthoroughly ommitted o them. Another ossibility s that e was so used to thinkingin non-Trinitarian odesof thought hat he was actually not conscious that he hadpresented northodox heology n this public document. here re a number f seri-ous difficulties ith his proposal. First, he fastidious Newton, who characteristi-cally wrote ut draft fter raft f his writings n order o get his wording ust right,was not prone overbal lips.The five urviving rafts f the GeneralScholium howthat he rewrote his document xtensively. e was also well awareof the dangers farticulating eresy openly. That much is made clear by his life-long Nicodemitestance. Furthermore, hedeliberateness f Newton's writing s underscored y hisaddition of an antitrinitarian ote to the 1726 edition, ven after he document'sSocinian language had been exposed by Edwards. take the strongest lternativeexplanation o be the possibility hat here s not a shred of Socinianism strictlyconstrued) n the Scholium but that he antitrinitarian deas expressed here re in-formed y Arianism nothing more, nothing ess. While it is certainly rue hat tis not lways asy to distinguish etweenArian nd Socinianapologetics, here tandagainst hispossibility t least four bjections.First, Newton owned and read Soci-nian books, and was thus familiar with heir heology. econd, closer parallels withat least some of the deas in the Scholium such as the relativity f the term God")are to be found n Socinian writings f the seventeenth entury han n the Ariantreatises f the fourth entury. hird, t was possible for well-informed ontempo-rary heologian uch as Edwards to identify ocinian content. Fourth, leadinghistorian f Arianism, Maurice Wiles, has concluded that Newton'sChristology sa mixture f both Arian and Socinian strands.'09 inally, ne could argue that tis possible that heanalogies with Socinianism re purely oincidental nd derive

'01 This has not topped homasJ. Pfizenmaier rom ecently ttempting o do this very hing(Pfizenmaier,Was saacNewton n Arian?" .Hist. deas 58 [19971:57-80).

1')9 Maurice Wiles, Archetypal Heresy: Arianism through he Centuries Oxford: Oxford Univ.Press, 996),pp.83-4. The fact hat nalogies o Socinian hought an also be found n the writingsof Clarke ndWhiston, s Edwards orrectly bserved, oes not militate gainst he onclusion hatNewtonwas informed y Socinian s well as Arian heology. lthough othClarke nd Whistonwereknown s Arians, either as so in the lassical ense.Moreover, ith llowances or omeindependent hought, othmenhadgone hrough heir eretical atechumenatest the eet f New-tonhimself, hose ngagement ith ocinianism ad begun ongbefore. n the ase of Clarke, hetheological ontact ontinued or he rest f Newton's ife Snobelen, IsaacNewton, eretic" cit.n. 45], pp. 383-9, 402-3, and dem, Caution, onscience nd the Newtonian eformation: hePublic and Private Heresiesof Newton, Clarke and Whiston," nlightenment nd Dissent 16[1 97]:151-84).Although oth larke nd Whiston ublicly ttacked ocinianism nd, ikeNewton,werenot ocinian ntheChristologicalense, hiswould ot have revented hem rom ppropriatingSocinian rguments consciously r not). inally, nthis egard, t s not ncidental hat larke lmostcertainly wned he omplete orks f the ocinians see n. 102).









exclusively romNewton's wn considerable ndependent heological esearch. uteven if this ong shot were true Newton believed n a vacuum, but did not ive inone), what appreciable difference ould there be between what s (and what was

seen to be) at east functionally ocinian, f not lso genetically o? The argumenta-tion, n this ase, would occupy place theologically quivalent oSocinianism; histheologywould, n turn, ontinue o be unequivocally ntitrinitarian; nd we wouldstill ome back to the original onclusion: the General Scholiumto Newton's rin-cipia is a heretical ocument hrough nd through.

NATURAL PHILOSOPHY, THEOLOGY, AND THE "FLOW OF INFLUENCE"

It is one thing o discuss the character f the theology f the concluding ppendixto Newton's greatest work on natural hilosophy, ut quite another o demonstratelinkages etween hisdistinctive heology nd his natural hilosophy. ewton chol-ars n the past haveconsidered range of possibilities: hatNewtonkept his naturalphilosophy nd theology eparate; hat influence" lowed rimarily rom is naturalphilosophy o his theology; hat he reverse dynamic was mostly rue; that ross-fertilization ccurred; r that both Newton's heology nd natural hilosophy werepart f a broader, ommonproject."00RichardWestfall pted for he econd scenarioand, after tating hathe was not convinced hat Newton's heologyhad made anysignificant mpact on his natural hilosophy, rote hat we are more ikely o findthe flow of influence moving from cience, the rising nterprise, oward heology,the old and (as we know from indsight) ading ne."' I Newton, f course, did notenjoy the advantage of this present-centered indsight. n another lace, Westfallreiterates is claim that Newton's heology id not nfluence is natural hilosophy,but, istinguishing etween religion" nd "theology,' oncedesthat [t]he nfluenceof his religion n his science is, I believe, universally dmitted, nd I do not chal-lenge that onclusion."But he goes on to say,

Histheology, ywhich mean xplicitly isArianism nd he ssociated nterpretationof the prophecies,s another atter. erhapswe can find choes of the ArianGodinthePantocrator f the General cholium," ut his eaves s still n such high evel

"' It s reasonable o questionwhether t makes ense o speakof nfluence t all when onsider-ing a period n whichnatural hilosophicalnd theological oncerns o often nterpenetratedt ahigh evel onthis, eeCunningham,How the rincipia ot tsName" cit.n. 14],p. 382).AsMar-garet .Oslerhas recently hown, he onflict, armony, nd segregationist etaphors sed n thehistoriographyf cience ndreligion end opresume n essentialist iewofnatural hilosophyndtheology, s if these wo fieldswere omehow utonomous ntities, otprone ochange ver ime,whereas n fact heboundaries ereporous nd shifting. nstead, sler rticulates more lexiblemetaphor f "appropriation-and-translation"n which natural hilosophers ometimes ppropriateideas developed n religion r theology, ranslate hem nto he anguage f natural hilosophy,nduse them osolveproblems n the new context." his model tresses continuity f meaning t adeep evel" Osler, MixingMetaphors: cience nd Religion r Natural hilosophy ndTheologyin Early ModemEurope," ist. ci. 36 [1998]:91-113,n pp. 101,102;for eneral ackground, eealso John H. Brooke, Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives Cambridge: CambridgeUniv. ress, 991], p. 16-51).Theappropriation-and-translationodel omes loseto encapsulat-ingNewton's wn nterprise, lthough heharmony etaphor lsohasmerit n this aseandwas, sOslerpoints ut, newithwhichNewton imself ouldhavebeen ympatheticp. 106).

Richard . Westfall, Newton's heologicalManuscripts" n Contemporary ewtonian e-search, d.Z. Bechler Dordrecht: eidel,1982),pp. 129-43,on p. 140.Force rgues correctly, nmyview) gainstWestfall's tated osition n his "Newton's od of Dominion"cit.n. 5).








THE THEOLOGYOFNEWTON'SGENERAL CHOLIUM 197

ofgenerality hat t tells s very ittle. f we want o descend o thedetails f Newton'sscience, s it s found n the Principia nd he Opticks, am unable o trace ny ineofinfluence hat as substance.2

It is surprising hat scholar who had such an intimate nowledgeof Newton'stheologicalmanuscripts ould arrive t such an conclusion. With he heology f theScholium further larified y Newton's private papers, along with the added evi-dence of affinities ith ocinianism,"3 ll of which provides more precise under-standing f the theology f the General Scholium,we are prepared o revisit West-fall's conclusion.

TakingWestfall's ivisionbetween religion" nd "theology" o refer o a distinc-tion between the widely held natural hilosophical ommitments nd devotion othe study f nature, n the one hand, nd that f dogmatic heology both generally

biblicist nd specifically nitarian), n the other, ur present oncern s mainly withthe atter. While it may make less sense to speak of natural heology impacting"natural hilosophy t a time when natural heological resuppositions ere alreadyintegral o both heconcepts nd culture f natural hilosophy, hefarther e departfrom atural heology n the direction f theology roper especially when we arriveat highly nconventional heology) he more t becomes ustifiable oprioritize heimpact f the one fieldupon the other. he difference ere s between nternal oex-isting ynamics hat re almost lways)part f the ame mix, nd external, ariable,and independently xisting deas that have the potential obe used to shape in dis-tinctive ays from he outside. n discussing he ways n which Newton's istinctivetheology elated o his natural hilosophy, want o contend ot merely or he weakargument f similarity f style nd coincidence of method but also for the strongargument hat nterpenetration xisted t a fundamental evel between he cognitivecontent f the theological and natural philosophical features f Newton's grandstudy."'4 hat his theology hould sometimes nform is natural hilosophy houldnot strike s, a priori, s a surprising ynamic or n age in which tudies f God'sWord nd Works had not yetbifurcated othe xtent hat heywould n ateryears. 15

Newtonmovesfreely etween reas of thought e todaywould abel and demarcateas religious, hilosophical, nd scientific. till, t is alwayseasier to give assent tothe plausibility f nteraction han o demonstrate t conclusivelywith ctual cases.In what follows, begin with examples that upport he weak argument nd thenmove on to discuss the evidence for he strong rgument.

112 Richard . Westfall, Newton nd Christianity,"nFacets of Faith and Science, vol.3: TheRoleof Beliefs in the Natural Sciences: The Pascal Centre, d. J. M. van der Meer (Ancaster, Ontario,Canada:PascalCentre Lanham,Md.:Univ. ress fAmerica, 996),pp. 63-74, on p. 72.

113 Westfall id not eekto explore ontact etween ewton's hought nd contemporary adicaltheology, nd this emains neof the hief efects f his work n Newton's heology.

114 At he ame ime, donotwant o draw sharp istinction etweenmethod nd ontent, ecauseit s plain hat heformer anhelp oshape he atter and hence vendatacanbe "theory aden").Thus t s easy to seehowNewton'smethod f natural hilosophy ouldhelpdetermine he ontent.If, however, ewton's atural hilosophicaltylewas n turn nformed y theological ractice, hisin tself would how n ndirect nfluence f the heological n the natural hilosophical ontent.

115 Although ntegration as still hedominant heme n relations between" atural hilosophyand theology n the arly ighteenth entury, hefact hatNewton inds t necessary oassurehisreaders n the General cholium hat iscoursing f Goddoesbelong o the omain f experimental(secondedition) r natural third dition) hilosophy Motte, rinciples, :391-2;Motte-Cajori,Principles, :546;Cohen-Whitman, rincipia, . 943) doesnevertheless emonstrate oth hat heassumption as already n dispute nd that Newton nd otherswereperfectly ble to articulatedistinction etween hese ields f endeavor.









THE HERMENEUTICS OF SCRIPTURE AND NATURE

Moving hrough he ame ayers f ncreasing pecificity ound n the GeneralScho-lium that range from natural heology o antitrinitarianism, e will examine thequestion f nteraction nd mpact. As Westfall's omments just quoted) mply, ewtoday would doubt hatNewton's dvocacy of the design argument nd his belief nGod played an active role in his natural hilosophy. or this reason, we need notlong be detained with this first ayer, ther han to note that hese commitmentswould have served oprovide powerful motivation or Newton to search out thewonders f creation s a high priest f nature."6 More needs to be said, however,when we come to scriptural nterpretation. ecently ome scholars have pointedto analogies between Newton'sbiblical hermeneutics nd his natural hilosophicalmethodology."17 Here Newton's four Rules of reasoning n philosophy" from hePrincipia) re relevant. n rules I and II, Newton rgues for he unity f phenomenain nature nd asserts hat ne infers eneral principles rom he observation f spe-cifics."8Sor example, n book III of his Principia, Newton famously emonstratesthat unar motion beys the nverse-square aw and then, pplying ules , II, III, andIV, goes on to extrapolate rom his pecific ase a general principle hat pplies toall planetary motion universal ravitation." This procedure s roughly nalogousto one of Newton's undamental rinciples f scriptural ermeneutics, n which oneworks outward rompassages that re easily understood o induce the meaning fthe more ambiguous texts. n a significant rophetic manuscript rom he 1670s,Newton ays down several "Rules of Interpretation" ntended o determine whenan interpretation s genuine & of two nterpretations hich s the best."''20Similarly,in his antitrinitarian Two Notable Corruptions" f 1690, Newton declared that"in disputable laces" of Scripture e loved "to take up wth what can best under-stand." 21

A desire for implicity s also found n Newton's eading f nature, nd he writesin rules and III of his "Rules of reasoning n philosophy" hat Nature s pleas'dwith implicity" nd "wont o be simple."22Now recognized s common motifs n

116 On this ole, eeH. Fisch, TheScientist s Priest: Note n Robert oyle'sNatural heology,"Isis 44 (1953):252-65; Peter Harrison, The Bible, Protestantism nd the Rise of Natural Science(Cambridge: ambridge niv. ress, 998),pp. 198-9,203.

117 See especially orce, Newton's od of Dominion" cit. n. 5), pp. 89-90, and M. Mamiani,"TheRhetoric fCertainty: ewton's ethod nScience nd nthe nterpretationf he Apocalypse,"in Persuading cience, d. M.Pera nd W.R. Shea Canton, hio:ScienceHistory, 991),pp. 157-72.On the lose methodologicalnd onceptual elationshipn the arlymodern eriod etween heinterpretation f the booksof nature nd Scripture, eeHarrison, heBible,Protestantismnd theRise of Natural Science (cit. n. 116).

18 Mottes Principles, 2:202-5; Motte-Cajori, Principles, 2:398-400; Cohen-Whitman, Principia,pp.795-6.

119Motte, rinciples, 217-220;Motte-Cajori, rinciples, 2:409-10,413;Cohen-Whitman, rin-cipia,pp. 805-6. Compare hiswith he following hat avid Gregory ecorded fter discussionwithNewton: Thebestway f overcoming difficult robleme s to solve t n some particular asycases.Thisgivesmuch ight nto he eneral olution. y this way ir saac Newton aysheovercamethe most difficult hings" W. G. Hiscock, ed. David Gregory, saac Newton, nd Their Circle [Ox-ford: rinted or he Editor, 937],p. 25).

120 Newton, ahudaMS 1I.1, fol. Or.121 Newton, TwoNotableCorruptions."n Correspondencef Newton cit. n. 8), vol. 3, p. 108;

cf.Newton. eynesMS5, fols. r-2r.122 Motte, Principles, :202-3; Motte-Cajori, rinciples, :398; Cohen-Whitman, rincipia,

pp.794-5 (second uotation romMotte-Cajori).









the history f science, the desire for implicity nd the principle f parsimony lsomanifest hemselves n Newton's criptural tudieswhenhe contends or hese dealsagainst backdrop f corrupting nd complicating nfluences rom hilosophy nd

metaphysics.'23 Newton wrote that "[t~he human race is prone to mysteries, ndholds nothing o holy and perfect s that which cannot be understood.... It is theconcern f theologians hat he conception of God] be made as easy and reasonableas possible."''24 ike Galileo before him, Newton believed that cripture s reason-able and composed n the tongue f the vulgar.'25 hus, there s an expectation hatthe Bible is written n plain and lucid language. Newton's rofessed esire to avoidintroducing ypotheses nto natural hilosophy ligns with his suspicion bout n-fusing metaphysics nto cripture. ewton ought certain method f nterpretationfor the study f biblical prophecy, o that he "ye iberty f wresting t to private

imaginations might] be) cutof[f]."'26 He also contended hat ne should "prefer

(chose) [sic] those nterpretations ch are most according o ye itterall meaning fthe scriptures.' 27 Newton would admit no conjectures n theology: The first rin-ciples of the Christian eligion re founded, oton disputable onclusions pinionsor conjectures r (on) humane [human] sanctions, but on the express words ofChrist & his Apostles."28 Here strict iblicism ounds a lot like strict mpiricism.These were, f course,methodological deals, so the fact hatNewtondid not lwayshold to them n no way detracts rom what should now be obvious: Newton em-ployed imilar trategies n his interpretation f the books of Scripture nd nature.

Newton was also conscious that uch nteraction xisted n his own work. n out-lining series of principles or the exegesis of biblical prophecy n the 1670s, heoffers n implicit ffirmation o this effect when comparing he interpretation fScripture ith hat f nature. eginning with variation n Ockham's azor, estatesthat t s important

[t]oprefe choose)those inerpations constructions) ch without training educethings othegreatest implicity .. Truth s ever o be found n simplicity, not n e

multiplicity confusion f hings. s ye world, ch to ye naked ye xhibits he reatestvariety f objects, ppears ery imple n ts nternall onstitution hen urveyed y

philosophic nderstanding, so much e impler yhowmuch hebetter t s under-

stood, o it s nthese isions.t s e perfection f41God'sworks hat hey re ll donewthye reatest implicity. e is ye God of order not onfusion. nd herefore s theythatwould nderstand e frame f yeworldmust ndeavouro reduce heir nowledgeto all possible implicity,o it must ein seeking o understand hese isions.129

In this nalogy,God guarantees hat oth Scripture nd nature an be understood ythe human mind. What s more, both God's Word nd God's Works were given nd

23 This s not osay that Newton imself id not devote ime o musing n his own version f

metaphysics. .E. McGuire as n fact ublished n entire ook on Newton'smetaphysics f nature

(McGuire, Tradition nd Innovation cit. n. 7]).124 Newton, ULMSAdd.3965,fol.546r trans. rom atin).25 Newton, ahudaMS 15.5,fol.99r.Newton lsewhere rote hat cripture oesnot peak in

the anguage f Astronomersas [some] hink) ut n that f ye ommon eople owhom heywerewritten" Newton, ULMSAdd.4005,sec.7, published n Cohen, IsaacNewton's rincipia, heScriptures, ndtheDivineProvidence"cit.n. 7],p. 544).

126 Newton, ahudaMS li.a, fol. Or.127 Ibid., ol.12r.128 Newton, eynesMS3, p. 13.129Newton, ahudaMS 1. a, fol. 14r.









made n sucha way that hey re at the fundamental evel simple nd uncomplicated,and thus both hould be approached with he ame method.While the pervasivenessof the parsimony rinciple n the history f science allows for the possibility hat

what we are seeing here s cross-fertilization r even the mpact of natural hiloso-phy on theology, he pivotal ink for Newton in this place, at least) is not somephilosophical bstraction f parsimony ut the "God of order" Who ensures thatthese things re so.

Over a decade later, n the first dition f the Principia, Newton makes anotherdeliberate ssociation between scriptural ermeneutics nd natural philosophicalmethod. n the Scholium to his Definitions t the beginning f his work, Newtondistinguishes etween bsolute nd relative ime, pace, place, and motion. He con-cludes that relative uantities, re not the quantities hemselves, hose names they

bear, but those sensible measuresf

them."He goes on to say, [I]f the meaning f

words s to be determin'd y their se; then by the names Time, Space, Place andMotion, heir sensible]measures re properly o be understood; nd the expressionwill be unusual, nd purely Mathematical, f the measured uantities hemselves remeant." 31) t this point Newton brings n the analogy of scriptural ermeneutics:

Uponwhich ccount, hey o strain heSacredWritings sacrae litterae], who thereinterpret hosewords or he measur'd uantities. ordo those ess defile he urity fMathematicalndPhilosophical ruths, ho onfound eal uantities hemselves iththeir elations ndvulgarmeasures.31

Thus, as early as 1687Newton employed rguments bout the need to distinguishthe relative rom he absolute n nature imilar o those he was to use twenty-sixyears ater with respect o the term God" in his General Scholium.And this mustnot be taken s evidence that his theological nalysis ventually aught up with hisnatural hilosophy n 1713,for lready n 1687he is making lear that what ppliesin natural hilosophy lso applies in biblical exegesis. For Newton, herewas noepistemic wall dividing hestudy f God from hat f His creation.

It is possible to identify urther nalogies.As I demonstrated arlier, Newton was

most unhappy with he ntrusion f metaphysical oncerns nto revealed doctrine.He also pointedly eniedthat 'wehave any dea of the substance f God," assertingrather hatwe know Him only through is attributes, cts, and final auses. 32New-ton appears to be using his professed nescience of the ontology f God in part oprepare he way for what he says in the very next paragraph. Responding o theaccusation hathe had introduced occult qualities" nto his physics by not denti-fying cause for gravity, ewton declared; I frame ohypotheses. or whatever s

'-3"Motte, Principles, :16-17; Motte-Cajori, rinciples, :1 ; Cohen-Whitman, rincipia,pp. 413-14. I have nserted sensible" n the econd uotation, ollowing oth heCajorirevisionandtheCohen-Whitmanranslation.)'Motte, Principles, :17;Motte-Cajori, rinciples, :11;Cohen-Whitman, rincipia, .414.AsCohenpoints ut, heCajorirevision f Motte's ranslationbscures his irect eferenceotheBible(Cohen, IsaacNewton's rincipia, he criptures, nd heDivineProvidence"cit.n.7], pp. 524-8).This misleading ranslations corrected n the new Cohen-Whitman ranslationcit. n. 2), whichrenders he assage:Accordingly hosewho here nterpret hesewords s referring othe uantitiesbeingmeasured oviolence othe criptures. nd hey o esscorrupt athematicsndphilosophywho onfuse rue ualitieswith heir elationsndcommonmeasures.

132 Motte. rinciples, :391; Motte-Cajori, rinciples, :546;Cohen-Whitman, rincipia, . 942.








THETHEOLOGYOF NEWTON'SGENERAL SCHOLIUM 201

not deduc'd from phenomena, is to be called an hypothesis; nd hypotheses,whether metaphysical r physical, whether f occult qualities or mechanical,haveno place in experimental hilosophy."33Biblical doctrine, oo, was to be derived

directly nd expressly rom he revealedWord. 4 As already ited, Newtonbelievedthat [t]he first rinciples f the Christian eligion re founded .. on the expresswords of Christ & his Apostles."1135It is not enough to say that n article f faithmay be deduced from cripture," ewton once wrote, [i]t must be exprest n the(very) form f sound words n Wch it was delivered y the Apostles.... ffor men areapt to vary) dispute, nd run nto partings bout deductions.... All the old Heresieslay in deductions," Newton concluded, the true faith was in the text." 36 nspiredtext r natural henomena,Newton laimed that he would no more speculate boutthe nature f God than he would about he ause of gravity. 37Instead,he was content

"I Motte, rinciples, :392;Motte-Cajori, rinciples, :547; Cohen-Whitman, rincipia, . 943.AsBernard ohenhasargued, ewton's laim, hypotheses onfingo" robably hould etranslated"Ifeignno hypotheses." ewton idoccasionally sehypotheses-even nhisPrincipia.While t spossible hatNewton acrificed hevirtue f consistency or rhetorical nd polemical lourish,f,as Cohen uggests, ewtonwasarticulating methodologicalolicy n which hedoesnot nvent rcontrive ictionsor hypotheses') obeoffered nplaceof ound xplanations asedonphenomena"(Cohen, TheConcluding eneral cholium" cit.n.7], pp. 275-7), his rogramme ould ertainlyalignwith is deals n scriptural ermeneutics.urther upport orCohen's eading f ingo anbefound lsewhere nthe rincipia nd n the hetoric f two f Newton's isciples. n his third ule freasoning, ewton tates, We are certainly otto relinquish he vidence f experiments or he

sakeofdreams ndvain ictions f our wndevising"Motte, rinciples, :203; Motte-Cajori,rin-

ciples, 2:398; Cohen-Whitman, rincipia, p. 795). In the preface to his Physico-Mechanical Experi-ments, rancisHauksbee, r., sets out the Newtonian gendaof experiment n this way: "TheLearnedWorld s now almost enerally onvinc'd, hat nstead f amusing hemselves ith VainHypotheses, hich eemto differ ittle rom omances, here's ootherway f mproving ATU-RAL PHILOSOPHY,but by Demonstrations nd Conclusions, ounded pon Experiments udi-ciously and accurately made" (Hauksbee, Physico-Mechanical Experiments n Various Subjects[London, 709], ig.Air). Similarly, histon peaksdisdainfully f "the fictitious ypotheses" fthe Cartesian philosophy William Whiston, Memoirs of the Life and Writings f Mr WilliamWhis-ton, nd d. [London, 753],vol. 1, p. 32).

134 Atone evel,Newton s contending or heHebraic ense gainst he ntrusion f Greek ensibil-ities nto iblical heology. hushe once wrotewhen ealingwith henames f Christ hat we aretohave ecourse nto he ld Testament tobeware f vainPhilosophy orChrist ent isApostles,not o teach Metaphysicks Philosophy othe ommon eople& to their ives& children, ut oteachwhathe had taught hem ut of Moses & theProphets Psalms oncerning imself" So-theby's ot 255.8, private ollection). f. Newton, ahudaMS 15.5, ol.99r.

135 Newton, eynesMS 3, p. 13.136 Newton, ahudaMS 15.1,fol. 1 r. Clarke,whowrote, I depend ot n Authorities" Clarke,

Works cit.n. 67], vol.4, p. 267),held imilar iblicist deals. n a letter o John ackson, ewrote,"I have all along chosen to nsist more argely upon SCRIPTURE, than upon natural Reason; becausethe Great opular bjection gainstMenthat hink eriously nd carefully bout hese hings, s,that hey re apt to adhere o their wnReasonmore han o the cripture" Clarke o Jackson, 3Oct. 1714, in [Jackson], Three Letters to Dr Clarke, from Clergyman f the Church of England[London, 714],p. 31). Whiston lso adhered o the Newtonian ictum hat here houldbe nohypothesesn religion, sserting hat hypothesis-makersre the great orrupters f true eligion."Whiston nstead laimed hathe turned nly o the NewTestament nd the other arly Christianwritings e considered uthoritativend ttests to the worldwhat octrines, orship, nddisciplineI find herein ontained; nd thiswithout ny maginary upposalswhatsoever"Whiston, emoirs[cit.n. 133],vol. 1,p. 307).

137 Aprimary arget fNewton's rgument astheCartesian ypothesisfplanetary otion, hichhe had savageddirectly n the opening ine of the General cholium Motte, rinciples, :387;Motte-Cajori, rincipia, :543;Cohen-Whitman, rincipia, . 939).It must e stressed, owever,that nhis ttacks n vainhypothesizing, ewtonwasdirecting is nimus gainst ot nly escartesbut lso Leibniz cf. Cohen nd Westfall, evwtoncit.n. 2],p. 163).









to deal with he ext nd the effects; ut nother way, e wanted o focus on functionand phenomenon, ot ssenceand substance.138he unskilled andling f metaphys-ics and absolutes especially by the vulgar Newton knew, ed to distortions nd

disputes. Just s Christianity ad become corrupt when theologians nwisely ven-tured nto discussions of substance, o had natural hilosophy. his phenomenalistideal, n turn, rovides nsight nto Newton'smotivation or ngaging n experimen-tal philosophy: ne learned f God from the ppearances f things" nd by observ-ing active powers t work,not through hevain hypotheses f Descartes or the darkmetaphysics f Leibniz.'39Herein therefore ies another ervasivefeature f New-ton's hought: n both theology nd natural hilosophy, ppearance rather han ub-stance was to be the focus of inquiry.

NEWTON'S GODAND HIS NATURAL PHILOSOPHY

With these powerful xamples established, we can move beyond triking arallelsand unity f method o identify ays n which Newton's distinctive heologymayhave helped to shape his view of nature. First, Newton's voluntarism nd ferventfaith n a God of dominion ind prominent lace in his natural hilosophy. ew-ton's God is continually ctive and constantly n control, xercising His will overcreation, erymuch unlike hedetached God of the Deists or Leibniz's ntelligentiaSupramnundana. he conception f God's supreme ordship nd dominion nderpinsNewton's owerful ense of God's unlimited uration nd presence, which Newton,in turn, xplicitly dentifies s coextensive with his own natural hilosophicalno-tions of absolute ime nd space.14 Also, his expectations f discovering implicityand order n creation were based on a belief n a God of order Who made things hatway.The same God was the Author f both the books of nature nd Scripture, ndthus not only were they onsistent with ach other, ut this very onsistency meantthat oth ould be approachedwith he same methods nd expectations.More thanthis, Newton's pecifically on-Trinitarian aith n the unity f God ensured orhimunity within reation. As Newton had said, the tars and, by mplication, herest fcreation) must ll be subject to the dominion f One." 4' Both God's oneness and

His absolute dominion nsured heunity f His Word nd Works, nd thus guaran-

] ' Thisstancewasa consistent eature f the hetoric f the first eneration f Newtonians. .g.,John eill'spublished ewtonianectures,ntroductio d veram hysicamOxford, 701),not nlycontains n apologetic dge n ts ttacks n Cartesianmechanics nd ts oncomitant ropensity oatheism, ut lsocensures escartes' esire o extend is nquiries o essences ather han imitinghimself omajor roperties-the olicy f Newton DavidKubrin, John eill,"Dictionary f Sci-entific iography; d. CharlesCoulstonGillispie NewYork: cribners, 973],vol.7, p. 276). OnNewton's kepticism bout ssence whichmanifestedtself ecadesbefore 713), ndhis attack nCartesian iewson essenceand substance, ee McGuire,Tradition nd Innovation cit. n. 7),

pp. 24-5;see also pp. 239-61 for full discussion f the complexities f Newton's octrine f

essential ualities.139 Newton tates his lainly ndraft of theGeneral choliumwhen ewrites, [T]hedominion

or Deityof God is best demonstrated otfrom bstract deasbut from henomena, y their inalcauses" HallandHall, Unpublished apers cit.n. 47], p. 363).

140 Motte, Principles, :390; Motte-Cajori, rinciples, :545; Cohen-Whitman, rincipia,p. 941-2.

141 Motte, Principles, 2:388-9; Motte-Cajori, Principles, 2:544; Cohen-Whitman, Principia,p. 940.For an extended iscussion f howNewton's ntitrinitarian heologymayhave ffected isnatural hilosophy, ee Dobbs,Janus aces of Genius cit. n. 7). pp. 213-49, 253-55. See alsoCunningham,Howthe Principia ot ts Name" cit.n. 14),p. 384.









teed that ne can infer eneralprinciples rom pecifics whether criptural each-ing or natural henomena. n these cases the theological beliefs come first nd aspresuppositions elp to inform nd shape the natural hilosophy. ut there s more.

As Manuel has astutely ommented, n Newton'sview there was in history directrelationship etween dolatrous olytheism and Newton believedTrinitarianism obe such) and corrupt atural hilosophy.'42 or Newton, olytheism as opposed tonatural hilosophy recisely because it accepted he dea of contrary nd contradic-tory auses in nature which t associatedwith false gods." 43 And thus Newton heldto his own heterodox ariant f the agenda of the "two reformations" that adical(and related) eform as needed n both heology nd natural hilosophy.'44n bothcases, this eform nvolved he recovery f the prisca sapientia the original, rimi-tive religion nd the ancient knowledge of natural hilosophy nd mathematics.'45All ancient wisdom had become corrupt, nd Newton was determined orestore tspristine urity.Without uestion,Newton's tudies f Scripture nd nature nteractedin ways that were at once rhetorical, methodological, nd prescriptive. ere weshould note both that Newton'sheterodox onception f God came before he firstedition of his Principia'46 and that ome of the principles f biblical exegesis thatalign so closely with his natural philosophical methods were in place as early asthe 1670s.

But surely he most powerful vidence for nteraction s the General Scholiumitself. Newton'sdaring ttack n this document n corrupt rinitarian heology x-posed in a covert way his two goals for hePrincipia. 47 In the Scholiumwe seethe ntegration f Newton'snatural hilosophywith his heretical heology peratingat a profound evel.We also see the nti-Cartesian tance of the Principia's GeneralScholium and the revised book II) conjoined with an assault on Newton's otherwicked hypothesizers, he Homoousians. The presentation f antitrinitarianism-now further larified s tinged with Socinian argumentation in the Scholium,along with the integral ole that he creator God of dominion played n Newton's

142 Manuel,Religion fNewton cit. n. 7), p. 42. Newton nveighs gainst dolatry ot nly n themain ext f the General cholium, henhe writes hatGod ought ot to be worshipped nder he

representation f any orporeal hing," ut lso in both he note n God and the material ddedtothe final orm f the noteon space Motte, rinciples, :391; Motte-Cajori, rinciples, :545-6;Cohen-Whitman, rincipia, . 942).The additionalmaterial n the notes ramaticallyncreased heamount f rhetoric gainst dolatry n the 1726edition.

141 Manuel,Religion fNewtoncit.n. 7), p. 43.144 On the opos f the wo reformations, ee Harrison, heBible,Protestantismnd the Rise of

Natural cience cit. n. 116),pp. 64-120.145 On Newton's ommitmentsothe risca radition,ee J. E. McGuire ndP. M. Rattansi, New-

ton nd he PipesofPan,'' Notes nd Records f he Royal ociety 1 (1966):108-43;Paolo Casini,"Newton: heClassicalScholia," ist. ci. 22 (1984):1-57;B. J. T. Dobbs,TheJanus aces ofGe-nius cit. n. 6); and Niccol6 Guicciardini, Reading the Principia: The Debate on Newton'sMathemati-cal Methodsfor Natural Philosophy rom 1687 to 1736 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1999).

146 Cf.Cunningham,HowthePrincipia ot ts Name" cit.n. 14),p. 384.147 As demonstrated arlier, ewton's ttack n corrupt criptural ermeneuticsnd ncorrect nter-pretations f nature s already fixture f the first dition f the Principia.My argument bout he

integrity f the General cholium othe est f the Principia an be contrasted ith hat f EdwardGrant, ho, na fascinating ublished ebatewith ndrew unningham ver he ole f theology nnatural hilosophy, ontends hat heGeneral cholium weighs ightly n thePrincipia, ismissingit as an almost rrelevant fterthought. urthermore, rant laims hat ornatural hilosophersikeNewton, Godmay ie in the background s Creator, r perhaps imply s inspiration, utHe doesnot nter nto he ontent f their orks, r affect t, ecause hatwouldhaveproved utile"EdwardGrant, GodandNatural hilosophy: heLate MiddleAgesandSir saac Newton," arly ci.Med.5 [2000]:288-91, n p. 291).









theology, hould cause us to question Westfall's onclusion hat Newton'sheterodoxtheology id not help to shape his natural hilosophy. he testimony e have forsourcesof some of Newton's more distinctive heological deas, whose derivation s

independent f his natural hilosophy, elps to tip the balance in favor f at leastsome theological priority. he evidence presented n this ssay suggests hat New-ton's heological oncerns both those he shared with his contemporaries nd thosehe did not) made a not nsignificant mpact n both he methodological nd cognitivedimensions f his natural hilosophy.'48 ut we need not speculate about whetherNewton himself hought t appropriate o include God in the endeavor of naturalphilosophy. s he forcefully oncludes the heological ortion f the General Scho-hlum, [T]o treat of God from phenomena s certainly part of natural philos-ophy." 49

One other ssociation between Newton's heology nd his natural hilosophy e-mains o be explored.Newtonwas adamant hat n religion nd philosophy he moredifficult ruths ere to be handled nly by the mature, xperienced, nd adept.Draw-ing his basic framework or his from Hebrews 5, Newton made a firm istinctionbetween milk for babes" and "meat for lders." 50This distinction s similar otheErasmian division between undamenta fundamentals) nd adiaphora (indifferentthings), ut with one salient difference: orNewton the "meat" was by no meansindifferent. or Newton the first oncerned he minimum octrine equired y allduring atechetical nstruction efore baptism; he latter elated o the more pro-found doctrines hat ne advancedto through kill and election. Here we see New-ton's belief n the existence f a minority, emnant lass. In matters f faith, e didnot believe that all that all themselves hristians" wouldunderstand ut that nly"a remnant, few scattered ersons which God hath hosen . . as Daniel hath aidthat yewise shall understand, o he hath aid also that none of e wicked shall under-stand."'5'1There s an evident ymmetry etweenNewton's heological elief n the

148 Additional xamples f the mpact f Newton's heology n his natural heology avebeenoffered nd re worth xploring. t the evel f method, ichaelBen-Chaim as recently uggestedthat Newtonmodeled is 1672 essay bout olors n the form nd structure f the Puritan ermon

(Ben-Chaim,Doctrine ndUse:Newton'sGift f Preaching,"' ist. ci. 36 [1998]:269-98).omefascinating ossibilities f nteraction re alsoput forward y Loup Verlet Verlet, 'F = MA' andtheNewtonian evolution: n Exit from eligion hrough eligion'" ist. ci. 34 [1996]:303-46).Another ossibility xistswith he ognitive ontent f Newton'smathematics. orcehasargued hat"Newton'smethod f fluxions calculus] s inevitably onnected ith is theory f the ontinuousdominion f Godsince he reation" "Newton's odof Dominion" cit. n. 5], p. 88). Force's nsightcan be taken venfarther, or, s Cohenhas pointed ut, Newton's oncept f absolute ime true,astronomical ime, s opposed orelative, bserved ime), n which ime rogresses t an absolute,uniform peed, s the ame s the uniformly ndcontinuously lowingmathematicalime"Newtonuses nhiscalculusCohen, Guide oNewton's rincipia" cit.n. 7], nCohen-Whitman, rincipia,pp. 106,116).Taking his step arther, t s clear hat Newton imselfmade positive ssociationbetween bsolute, ontinuously lowing ime nd God cf. the discussion f absolutes nd relativesin the cholium o the Definitionst the eginning f thePrincipia, ithNewton's tatementsn theGeneral cholium hatGod himself onstituted Duration nd Space"(Motte, rinciples, :9-18,2:390-1;Motte-Cajori, rinciples, :6-12, :545;Cohen-Whitman, rincipia, p.408-15,941-2).SeealsoAyval amati, The Hidden ruth f Creation: ewton's ethod fFluxions," orthcoming.

149 Cohen-Whitman, rincipia, . 943.Emphasismine.Newton's seof the dverb tique "cer-tainly") eveals othhisearnestness nd his wareness hat he laimwasby then n dispute.

'5"Newton, eynesMS 3; BodmerMS 3, fol. 2r; Rob Iliffe, 'Making a Shew':ApocalypticHermeneuticsnd he ociology fChristiandolatry ntheWork f saac Newton ndHenryMore,"inForce ndPopkin, heBooks fNature nd Scripturecit.n.64),pp.55-88,onpp.79-81;Snobe-len, IsaacNewton, eretic" cit. n. 46), pp. 389-91.

1 lNewton, ahudaMS 1. a, fol. r.








THE THEOLOGY OFNEWTON'S GENERALSCHOLIUM 205

remnant nd his philosophical notion f the adept, for he also intended he highermeanings f his natural hilosophy nly for he cognoscenti. ohn onduitt ecordsthe following evealing xchange:

MrMachin aidto Sr . N when ourses f experiments ere irst n voguewhat pityit wasthatwhen eoplehad a demonstration y Geometry hey hould rust o theirsenses ch might e deceived, pon ch Sir saac said he had first roved is nventionsby Geometry only madeuse of experimentso make hem ntelligible convincethe ulgar.152

While Newton's omment may ontain more han little ravado, e also articulateda similar entiment hen he told William Derham that to avoid being baited bylittle matterers n Mathematicks .. he designedlymade his Principia bstruse; ut(yet so as) to be understood y able Mathematicians." 53

But it is not only Newton's theological remnant hat mirrors he philosophicaladept, or t s evident hatNewton's istinction etween he bsolute nd the relativealso applies to both his theology nd natural hilosophy. s we have seen, Newtonapplied the distinction etween bsolute and relative o the nterpretation f Scrip-ture. He discussedthese ssues in a more revealingmanner n a series of definitionsthat ollow his manuscript ract e motu orporum 1685-1686). These commentsrepresent more xplicit ersion f the viewsthat e expressed bout Scripture romthe Scholium o the ntroductory efinitions o the Principia. t is interesting osee

Newtonmovewith ase between natural hilosophy nd theology, ntellectual ieldshe clearly did not view as completely eparate pheres:

[I]t has been necessary odistinguish bsolute nd relative uantities arefully romeachother ecause ll phenomena aydepend n absolute uantities, ut ordinarypeoplewhodo notknowhow oabstract heir houghts rom he enses lways peakof relative uantities, o such n extent hat t would e absurd or ither cholars revenProphets ospeakotherwisen relation othem. hus both he acred criptureand hewritings fTheologians ust lways eunderstoodsreferring orelative uan-tities, nd personwould e abouring nder crass rejudicef n this asishe stirred

up arguments boutbsolute

changedophilosophical]

otions f natural hings.154

Similarly, ewton believed that he ancients practised two-fold hilosophy, a-cred and vulgar: hePhilosophers andeddown the acred to their isciplesthroughtypes and riddles, while the Orators recorded he vulgar openly and in a popular

152 Conduitt, eynesMS 130.9, p.2r-v.113 KeynesMS 133,p. 10. On Newton's ttempts orender hePrincipia bscure, ee Rob Iliffe,

"CambridgendLondon: rivate iberty, nderstandingnd he ublic World f the rincipiamath-ematica," orthcoming.ee also Snobelen, On Reading saac Newton's rincipia n the 18th en-tury," ndeavour 2 (1998):159-63.

154 The mplied ynonymy orNewton etween absolute" nd "philosophical"n the mendationis instructive. he translation ivenhere s that f Cohen, Guide" cit. n. 7), Cohen-Whitman,Principia, . 36. The word notions" n the ast inecouldbe translated s "motions," f the Latinmotibusmotus) n this ontext s taken orefer o physical, ather hanmental,motion. he originalLatin text can be found n The Mathematical Papers of saac Newton, ed. D. T. Whiteside, 8 vols.(Cambridge: ambridge niv., 967-1981), ol.6, p. 192.The Latin ext, longwith lessaccu-rate ranslationhan ohen's, s also given n John erivel, heBackground o Newton's rincipia:A Study of Newton's Dynamical Researches in the Years 1664-84 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965),pp. 306-7,312.









style."155 bsolute qualities, hen, re not for he masses. For Newton this ncludesmathematical ruth, he ubstance f God, and the primary ause of gravity.156 t evenapplies to his religious ife, s he only revealed hose aspects of his beliefs natural

theology, iblicism, hurch ttendance) ssociated with milk" but hid the "meat"(the higher ruths f his heresy) from he prying yes of the ncompetent ublic.'57This epistemological ualismbetween elative nd absolute, pen and closed, publicand private, ulgar and philosophical, xperiment nd theory, nd milk and meatpermeates very major area of Newton's hought.'58

Newton's hetorical trategy or he General Scholium s brilliant. he two posi-tions he wanted veryone o understand natural heology nd antideism) he madeabsolutely lear. But for the rest, ccess was restricted. ven an able intimate ike

.5 Newton, ahudaMS 16.2.fol. r trans. rom atin).' 6 Newton's lusive iscussion f gravity n the General cholium rovides n excellent xampleof this, or lthough e publicly eclared isunwillingnessohypothesizebout he ause ofgravity,in private eoften pokemore andidly boutGodbeing heprimary ause.Among hose ware fthese rivate houghts ereNicolasFatiodeDuillier, avidGregory, hristopher ren, ndWilliamWhiston Correspondence f Newton cit. n. 8]. vol. 3, pp. 308-9, vol. 4, pp. 266, 267; Hiscock,DavidGregory, cit.n. 118].p. 30;Whiston, uthentick ecords cit.n. 12],vol.2, pp. 1072-3). Foran outline f the cholarly ebate verwhat xactly ewtonmayhavemeant y this ttribution, eeJohn Henry, 'Pray do not ascribe hatnotion o me': God and Newton's ravity,' n Force andPopkin, he Books of Nature and Scripture cit. n. 64), pp. 123-47.

157 This s not o say thatNewton lways mployed hese istinctionsonsistently r that ll of hisstatements n the ivision f theologicalruth nto wo ategories anbeassimilated eatly nd asily

into he wo rders f bsolute ndrelative.n oneplace, .g.,Newton tates hat [rjeligion spartlyessential fundamental) immutable artly ircumstantial mutable"Newton, eynesMS7,p. 1).Is this tatement nformed yNewton's ivision etween bsolute ndrelative? f so, s the immu-table" obe equatedwith he bsolute as the erm immutable" ay uggest), r does t stand s asynonym or herelative as the ssential milk" s elsewhere haracterized y Newton)? n fact,Newton s here oing omething omewhat ifferent, or s the est f KeynesMS7 itself ints, ndas twoparallel assages rom otheby's ot 255.1now onfirm, ewton s outlining hedistinctionbetween hepure, riginalNoachicreligion, hich ontains he ssential ucleus f religion ndmorality or ll people nevery ge, and the emporary, eremonial spects f religion some, uchas theMosaic Law,being ivine nstitutions, thers, uch s theworship f deadmen, he dolatrousadditions f humans).

158BarryH. Downingwas the first o bring ut this eature f Newton's hought ith orce nd

clarity, nd am taking he xpression epistemologicalualism" rom im Downing,Eschatologi-

cal Implications f the Understandingf Time nd Spacein the Thought f saac Newton," h.D.diss.,Univ. f Edinburgh, 966, p.21Off.).t waswhile eveloping y wn deasonthe onsonancebetween ewton's heologicalivision etweenmilk ndmeat nd tsnatural hilosophicalorollar-ies that first eadDowning's rilliant hesis, nd am ndebted ohiswork or roviding dditionalinsight.More recently, oseFaur,with no apparent nowledge f Downing's work, ascome tosimilar onclusions, ith he dded urmise hat chief ource orNewton's istinction etween heabsolute ndrelative s the Jewish hilosopherndrabbinic cholarMosesMaimonides. aurwrites,"The distinction etween wo evels f perception-an xoteric ne accessible o the masses nd nesoteric ne reserved or he ntellectual lite-is the ornerstone f Maimonides's ermeneutics"(Faur, Newton,Maimonides, nd EsotericKnowledge,'"ross Currents: Religion & IntellectualLife-The Journal f the Association) r Religion and Intellectual Life 40 [1990]:526-38, on p. 534).Faur's uggestion ffers ne feasible ource orNewton's pistemological ualism, nd although tis beyond he copeof his study o assess the origin f Newton's tance which may, n any ase,prove lusive). t s worthwhile omention ther ossibilities. irst, side from he imilarity ithLocke'sprimary nd secondary ualities, necancertainly eestrong nalogieswith lato's istinc-tion etween ormsthe eal) nd mitationsappearances)nd heir ognitive orollaries f pistimiK iacipn1: nowledger understanding)nddo-xa66Lu;mere pinion r belief), heformer eingcharacteristic f philosophersnd the atter f the ommon eople.To add to this latonic ommon-place s the raditionn alchemy f higher ruths evealed nly o the nitiate. inally, here s thetheological ivision etween he emnant r elect nd the postate r reprobate, longwith hedis-tinction nbiblical heology etweenmilk nd meat except hat n theBookof Hebrews he mpli-cation s that ll believers hould rogress rommilk omeat.








THETHEOLOGY OFNEWTON'S GENERALSCHOLIUM 207

Cotes appears to have advanced only as far s the God of dominion.A measure ofthe success of Newton's olicy s seen in that veryone who knew the ater ditionsof the Principia lso understood he entral lace Newton gave God (even, famously,

Napoleon), but t has taken years of historical esearch nd literary rchaeology orspecialist scholars working with previously naccessible manuscripts o begin tounravel he ayered ncoding nd identify he subtextual lements. his literary r-chaeology s made necessary by Newton's tyle f composition, n which he hideshis hermeneutical nalysis n the GeneralScholium, ust as he hid much of the math-ematical nalysis n the rest f the Principia particularly n book III)-which is themain reason why so many ontemporaries ound hebook so hard to read.'59 huswe return o the Russian doll model. Newton begins the theological ection of theGeneral Scholiumwith he generalities f natural heology, n "open" aspect of thedocument hat rought he widest ange f concord nd support,'60 aking n not onlyall Christians ut Deists as well. But after etting ut the argument rom designNewton draws the reader n to successively narrower reeds, through elief n theGod of the Bible, to unitarian onceptions, nd on to specialized antitrinitarian osi-tions held only by a tiny minority n his day.At each new layer, ifferent ategoriesof readers ither ind hemselves ut of their depth or withdraw heir ssent untilonly a small group of adepts remain the remnant.

It should now be obvious that he General Scholium s itself onstructed ithexoteric nd esoteric trata.'6' Confirmation hat he division between "milk" and"meat" appliedwithin heGeneralScholium sfound n Newton's Irenicum," herehe specifically tates hat discussions of the relations hat define names are only fitfor men of riper years."62This additional nsight esolves he mplied ontradictionbetween Newton's pparent esire to preach and his efforts o limit ccess to hismeaning.'63 The genius of the General Scholium s that t can operate n two evelsthat orrespond o the open and closed, the exoteric nd esoteric, he relative ndabsolute. The treatment f natural heology, long with hecentrality f the activeand willful God of Israel, demonstrated oboth opponents nd allies alike that hephysics f the Principia was consistent ith evealed eligion. his served Newton'spublic ends. But the ttack n corrupt rinitarian ermeneutics nd wayward atural

1'9 On Newton's mission f hismathematicalnalysis n the rincipia, ee Guicciardini, eadingthe rincipia cit.n. 145), specially p. 90-5, 115-17, 92-4.A further nalogy etween isnaturalphilosophicalnd heologicaltrategiess seen nthe act hatwhileNewton bscured hemathemat-ical analysis n his public exts, e revealed t to a small group f acolytes ibid., p. 116, 169-94),just s hedidwith is heretical heologySnobelen, Isaac Newton, eretic" cit.n.45,pp.389-91]).

16()E.g.,see the pologetic se of thenatural heology f theGeneral cholium nJoseph ddison,The Evidences of the Christian Religion London, 1730), pp. xx-xxii.

161 For tacit dmission y Newton hat e did holdback xplicitmeaning n his Principia in thiscase, n his cometography), ee KeynesMS 130.11. t s interesting o note hat Newton lso con-cludedhis Opticks in versions rom 706)with vignette f his grand rogramme, ut one that,liketheGeneral cholium, nlyhints t what s made plain n his private apers in this nalogousexample, ewton's erse ublic omments n the orruption f the Noachicreligion n the Optickscan be interpreted ith ahuda MSS 16 and 41-Newton's writings n the origin f Gentile he-ology).

162 Newton, eynesMS 3,p. 33.l 3 Newton's esire o preach his antitrinitarian aith s eloquently emonstrated y his original

intention o publish nonymously, hrough ocke,his "TwoNotableCorruptions"n 1690-at theheight f the Trinitarian-Unitarianontroversy f the ate 1680sand 1690s. detail his nd otherexamplesnSnobelen, IsaacNewton, eretic" cit.n.46), pp. 401-8.On the TwoNotable orrup-tions:' ee ScottMandelbrote,Newton ndEighteenth-Centuryhristianity," heCambridge om-paiiion to Newton, d. I. B. Cohen nd George mith, orthcoming.









philosophy evealed hetrue aith o both perceptive postates nd fellow membersof the remnant. his served Newton's private ims. The deeper meanings of theGeneral Scholium were not meant for everyone.'64 his, along with the need for

circumspection n matters f religious heterodoxy, elpsexplain hatwhileNewton'sintentions or his oncise yet powerfulmanifesto f his natural hilosophy nd the-ology were conscious, deliberate nd calculated, t was only n a coded and almostsubversivemanner hat he revealed hem o all (who could understand).165

164 Thus t s difficult o accept hedichotomy erlet as mposed n Newton's hought etweenthe public hysics f thePrincipia nd theprivate heology ewton ntended o keep ecret Verlet,"TheNewtonian evolution"cit.n. 148],p. 333).The division etween ublic nd private to usethose erms) xistedwithin, otbetween, is natural hilosophy ndhis theology. ewton evealedof eachwhat ewished nd kept hedeepermeanings f both ohimself ndthe depts.

165 RudolfDe Smet nd Karin Verelst's Newton's choliumGenerale: he Platonic nd StoicLegacy Philo,Justus ipsius nd theCambridge latonists," ist. ci. 39 (2001):1-30,publishedonlydaysbefore received he galley opyof this ssay, merits omment s this mportant aperneatly omplements y wn tudy f thebiblical nd ntitrinitariantrata n theGeneral cholium.Most ignificantly, e Smet nd Verelst ave dentified number f verbal ndconceptual arallelsbetween heGeneral cholium nd the works f the first-century ewish hilosopher hiloJudaeus,who s cited n Newton's ote n space n the General cholium ndwhoseOperahe owned. spe-cially triking arallels xist n the mnipresencefGod,God'soneness nd he ssociation etweenthe unity f Godandtheunity f His creation. e Smet ndVerelst lsopoint oanalogies etweenideaspresent n the General cholium nd the Neostoicism f Justus ipsius nd the CambridgePlatonists enry More and Ralph Cudworth. n sum, heirwork demonstrates ighly lausiblesources or omeof the more hilosophically-orientedheological aterialn the General cholium(this, espiteNewton's bove-stated oncerns bout hecorrupting nfluences f philosophy) nd

addsconsiderablyowhatweknow bout he omposition f this ocument.