Austin

Isaac Newton on Science and Religion
Author(s): William H. Austin

Source: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1970), pp. 521-542
Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2708258
Accessed: 21-06-2017 23:53 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2708258?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
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 forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of the History of Ideas
This content downloaded from 148.210.21.144 on Wed, 21 Jun 2017 23:53:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
ISAAC NEWTON ON SCIENCE AND RELIGION
BY WILLIAM H. AUSTIN
In his own time Isaac Newton was known as an acute and learned
theologian. Conduitt reports that "Archbishop Tenison offered h
if he would take orders, the Mastership of Trinity College when
was given to Montague, and importuned him to accept any prefe
ment in the Church; saying to him: 'Why will you not? You know mo
divinity than all of us put together.'" (Newton put him off with
reply that he would "be able to do you more service than if I wa
orders.")'
His theological reputation faded, not only because theology moved
on to other concerns, but also because most of.his relevant writings
remained unpublished, and because credence was given to Laplace's
belief that Newton turned to theology only in his declining years.
(This is false: there is manuscript evidence of attention to theological
questions as early as 1664, and apparently his most important work
was completed by 1690, though he worked it over and over thereafter,
as he did with his scientific writings as well.)2 Renewed attention to
his unpublished papers, and the efforts of intellectual historians like
Burtt and Koyre, have recently brought about a modest resurgence of
interest in Newton's theological efforts.
In view of the continuing interest of questions about the relations
between theology and science or "the scientific world view," it seems
worthwhile to inquire into Newton's own views on the subject. Does
he regard his scientific and theological studies as bearing on each
other-and, if so, how? Or does he consider them mutually irrelevant
-and, if so, why? His interpreters disagree. According to his most
authoritative biographer, "Newton's philosophy and religion were
two separate things, and he does not seem to have concerned himself
with the problem of recounciling them."3 But R. H. Hurlbutt finds it
"clear . . . that Newton's science was intrinsic to practically all of his
considerations on theology."4 R. S. Westfall finds "a complex net-
work of mutual influence" between Newton's religious belief and his
scientific work; like all the "Christian virtuosi" of the seventeenth
century, he strove for a harmony between the two, though "he went
'L. T. More, Isaac Newton (New York, 1962), 608.

2H. McLachlan, The Religious Opinions of Milton, Locke and Newton (Manchester,
1941), 121, 163. 3More, 645.
4R. H. Hurlbutt, Hume, Newton
20.
521
522 WILLIAM H. AUSTIN
a step beyond the others in forcing

with science."5
Moreover, Newton himself can be quoted on both sides of the dis-
pute. He concludes a theological passage in the General Scholium to
the Principia, "And thus much concerning God, to discourse of whom
from the appearances of things does certainly belong to natural
philosophy."6 When he wrote the Principia, he assures Bentley, he
"had an eye upon such principles as might work with considering
men for the belief of a Deity."7 On the other hand, the first of a set of
seven "Statements on Religion" found among his papers reads, "That
religion and Philosophy are to be preserved distinct. We are not to
introduce divine revelations into Philosophy nor philosophical opin-
ions into religion."8 (Recall that for Newton "Philosophy" includes
what we would call natural science.)
Let us call the statement about preserving religion and philosophy
distinct "Newton's maxim." Since he does not explain or elaborate
upon it, we must look to his practice to judge (1) how the maxim should
be interpreted, and (2) whether he abides by it. My suggestions on
these points are made in Part III of this paper. The basis for them is
laid in two stages. In Part I, I survey his theological writings, with a
view to showing what his main theological concerns were, and how
he conceived of religion. Given this conception and these concerns, it
is not surprising that his theological writings show very little or no
trace of influence from his scientific ideas. However, it is not primarily
to these writings that interpreters like Hurlbutt and Westfall appeal.
Rather, it is in theological excurses in the Principia, the Opticks, and
certain letters that we find Newton's so-called "scientific theism"
adumbrated. In Part II,I discuss these passages and their consistency
with the content of his theological books and papers, leaving the ques-
tion of their relation to his maxim for Part III.
In this essay I consider only the bearing of Newton's science on his
theology. Whether there were significant theological influences on
his science is a subject I hope to explore in another paper.
I. Newton's Theological Works. None of Newton's primarily

theological writings were published in his lifetime. The first to appear
5R. S. Westfall, Science and Religion in Seventeenth-century England (New

Haven, 1958), 194.
6Sir Isaac Newton, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosphy, ed. Florian
Cajori (Berkeley, 1946), 546. (Hereafter cited as Principles.)
7H. W. Turnbull, ed., The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, III (Cambridge,
1961), 233. (Hereafter cited as Correspondence.)
8H. McLachlan, ed., Sir Isaac Newton, Theological Manuscripts (Liverpool,
1950), 58. (Cited hereafter as TM.)
NEWTON ON SCIENCE AND RELIGION 523
was the Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel

lypse of St. John, edited by Benjamin Smith (Newto
son) and published in 1773. A treatise on the Trinit
I John 5:7f and I Timothy 3:16 appeared in 1754 in
sion (passages missing at beginning and end, recons
by an unnamed editor), under the erroneous title, T
Isaac Newton to Mr. LeClerc. LeClerc was the Dut
whom Locke had forwarded the manuscript in 1690,
anonymous publication in a free French translati
decided to suppress it. Bishop Horsley printed the g
the more descriptive title, An Historical Accoun
Corruptions of Scripture, in his 1785 edition of
Finally, in 1950, H. McLachlan edited and publish
manuscripts from the Portsmouth Collection of
under the title Sir Isaac Newton, Theological Manusc
These works provide an adequately representative
of Newton's theological interests and opinions.9 Sin
tively unfamiliar, I will survey them in section A
that Newton's main theological concerns were the p
clesiastical peace and correct biblical interpretation
ceived of religion as a set of duties, all of which cou
biblical revelation and some by the light of natural
clusions are defended in section B, and in section C
views should not be supposed to be affected by scientif
A. Some of the materials in McLachlan's collection have to do

with the interpretation of prophetic-apocalyptic writings, others presen
anti-Trinitarian polemics of various kinds, and the rest consist
short schemes of true religion, connected with irenic and latitudi-
narian proposals as to church policy. Thus Newton's theological wri
ings fall into three classes, and our first order of business will be
survey them briefly in turn.
The details of Newton's interpretations of Daniel and the Apoca-
lypse are no longer of interest. What do concern us are his method an
purposes.
As to method, he operated from a clearcut premise that there is a
special, unique, and distinct "Mystical (i.e., allegorical) language,"
known to and used by all the prophets.10
9They are so regarded by the intellectual historian Frank Manuel and the theologian
Klaus-Dietwardt Buchholtz, who have seen the still-unpublished manuscripts. Cf.
Manuel, Isaac Newton, Historian (Cambridge, Mass., 1963) and Buchholtz, Isaac
Newton als Theologe (Witten, 1965). Also, nothing in the Catalogue of the Portsmouth
Collection of Books and Papers written by or belonging to Sir Isaac Newton (Cambridge,
n.d.) suggests writings of a significantly different character. ? OTM, 119.
This language . . . was as certain and definit

gar language of any nation whatsoever, so that
therein that Interpreters so frequently turn
to signify whatever their fancies and hypothe
The code is to be broken by an inductive s
The Rule I have followed has been to compa

scripture where the same prophetic phrase
signification to that phrase as agrees best w
had found the necessary significations, to reje
luxuriant fancy, for no more significations
than can be proved.
The great governing principle is an anal

(whence the prophets draw their symb
clesiastical realm (which they are re
stands for a King or for Kings as such,
common people considered as the King'
luminaries for the downfall of a body p
tains for temples in cities, etc., etc.
keys, extending an already highly develop
What does he do with his method? In the Observations he traces
out, in great detail, the sequence of historical events predicted in Dani
and Revelation, insofar as they have been thus far fulfilled. He d
not try to predict the future, and explicitly denies that that
legitimate aim in the interpretation of prophecy. Concerning the b
of Revelation he says:"
The folly of Interpreters has been, to foretell times and things by this Prop
ecy, as if God designed to make them Prophets. By this rashness they h
not only exposed themselves, but brought the Prophecy also into contem
The design of God was much otherwise. He gave this, and the Prophecies
the Old Testament, not to gratify men's curiosities by enabling them
foreknow things, but that after they might be interpreted by the event, an
his own Providence, not the Interpreters, be then manifested thereby to
world. For the event of things predicted many ages before, will then
convincing argument that the world is governed by providence.
Nevertheless he points out that several passages in the Apocalypse

that they will not be understood until the times of the end, and t
only gradually; since great strides have been made in their interpr
tion in recent years, we may conclude that the end is not too far o
Had he been disposed to fix a date, one is almost forced upon him
his interpretation. He identifies the eleventh horn of the fourth b
"Isaac Newton, Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocaly
of St. John (London, -1733), 251.
in Daniel 7 with the whore and Beast of the Apocalyp

for the Church of Rome (there is nothing novel in a
dates the emergence of the Church as a political pow
fitting Daniel) in the latter half of the eighth century
reign at 1260 years, its demise and the end of the w
pected shortly after 2000 A. D.'2 But he does not draw
he is not writing to predict; he is simply interpretin
in accordance with an inherited and elaborated-up
purpose, then quite customary.
Thus his primary purpose is to vindicate divine
showing that God revealed the future course of events
and a subsidiary purpose is to discredit the Roman Ch
though, he does not develop the vindication-of-provid
does it provide a principle of organization for his book
perfunctory statement of the argument, he simply inter
indulges in long historical digressions, undertakes
year of the Passion (34 A.D.) and works in some anti-R
He attacked orthodox trinitarian doctrine on several fronts. The
trinitarian proof texts in the Textus Receptus are neither authentic
nor exegetically coherent with their contexts;13 the doctrine was un-
lawfully imposed upon the church by Athanasius, who was a
scoundrel, opportunist, and heretic; and it is unintelligible, an illegit-
imate intrusion of metaphysics into Christian belief. Woven into
Newton's elaborations of all these themes is the charge that the doc-
trine is part and parcel of the Papist corruption of the faith.
The treatise on "Two Notable Corruptions" demonstrates the
spuriousness of the AV readings in I John 5:7f ("For there are three
that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy
Ghost: and these three are one) and I Timothy 3:16 ("And without
controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in
the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gen-
tiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.")
The discussion of the passage in I John is the longer and more
important. Newton proves that the verse as it stands in the Vulgate
and the AV (along with the Greek Textus Receptus underlying the
latter) is an outright fraud. The correct reading is: "There are three
witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree"
(or "are one"). Newton carefully constructs an airtight case: the
disputed reading is not in any of the ancient Greek manuscripts, nor
in any of the early translations (e.g., into Syriac, Ethiopic, Egyptian
Arabic, and the pre-Vulgate Latin), nor in any of the writings of the
Fathers. It is particularly noteworthy, and Newton presses home th
12Ibid., 74, 113f. "3Buchholtz, 39.
point, that none of the anti-Arian wr

tion though they cite many passages w
the point. To the suggestion that the
the texts Newton responds with a burst
Yes truly, those Arrians were crafty knave

and slily all the world over at once (as at
the latter end of the reign of Constanti
hands, and correct them without being perc
out leaving any blot or chasm in their bo
suspected and discovered; and to wipe th
brains; so that neither Athanasius, no
remember, that they had ever seen it in th
He also answers the objection that

Textus Receptus by pointing out tha
the words "these three are one," which occur in all texts. But the
"three" in the original were Spirit, Water, and Blood. The context
shows that Cyprian meant Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; but Newton
establishes that Cyprian and his mentor Tertullian15 must have
interpreted "Spirit, Water, and Blood" allegorically to mean "Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost," as various later writers did.
Having nailed down his case, Newton proceeds to trace how the
false reading found its way into the received Greek text, through as-
similation to the Vulgate and through marginal glosses with the al-
legorical interpretation being copied into the text by subsequent
scribes. No ancient Greek manuscripts with the disputed reading have
been produced; Erasmus had the correct reading in the first two
editions of his text, but came under such attack that he agreed to print
the Vulgate's version if one Greek codex could be found to support
it. An Englishman named Lee promptly claimed to have one, and
Erasmus (who had no more desire for the martyr's crown than Sir
Isaac had) made no further inquiries. The only other alleged authority
is that used by Cardinal Ximenes in his edition of 1515, and Newton
makes a good case for supposing that the real authority there is
Thomas Aquinas.
Now to make Thomas, thus, in a few words, do all the work, was very artifi-
cial, and in Spain, where Thomas is of apostolical authority, might pass
'Isaac Newton, Two Letters to Mr. LeClerc (London, 1754), 32.

'5Newton does not fail to take advantage of the polemical opportunity afforded
him by the fact that Tertullian went over to the Montanists, a heretical sect of moral-
ascetic rigorists and "enthusiasts" (i.e., claimers of spirit-possession and new revela-
tions, not too different from a number of seventeenth-century English sects that so
horrified Newton, the other "virtuosi" of the Royal Society, and good sound Anglicans
in general). "It is most likely that so corrupt and forced an interpretation had its
rise among a sect of men, accustomed to make bold with the scriptures."
for a very judicious and substantial defence of the printed Gr

Thomas Aquinas is no Apostle. We are seeking for the author
manuscripts. 16
We have here, then, a very effective piece of polemi

researched and argued, showing a thorough acquainta
ancient texts and versions (or with reliable authorities o
the writings of the Fathers.
Another sort of antitrinitarian polemic comprises a m
of the previously unpublished material brought out
McLachlan. Newton's papers include many drafts of a m
over piece called "Paradoxical Questions Concerning th
Actions of Athanasius and his Followers." The quest
answered in such wise as to make those morals and actio
dubious indeed. Again we see Newton presenting an effe
searched, skillfully marshalled, pungently phrased case,
of a prosecuting attorney rather than a judicious weigher of
Without attempting to describe and assess Newton's ar
detail, I want to call attention to two which seem particu
ing of his own outlook. One shows how far he was from
skeptical frame of mind: he holds that an allegedly Atha
according to which a Bishop Macarius prays (successf
miserable death of Arius, must be a lie, "Because the pra
rius is contrary to the temper and spirit of true Christia
not likely that God would hear a wicked prayer."17
revealing point is that the alleged "persecution" of the A
according to Newton, only their due punishment for resistin
ful authority of the State. Despite his heterodoxy, Ne
Establishment man in that he valued ecclesiastical peace
all else, and thought the State had the right and duty of
He had seen enough religious strife.
Other features of Newton's outlook come out clearly
series of (rhetorical) "Queries Regarding the Word 'H
the first of which speaks for itself:'8 "Whether Christ sent
to teach metaphysics to the unlearned common people,
wives and children?" Trinitarian metaphysical specula
what religion is all about. Most of the "queries" are devo
ing home two points: (1) that the word homoousios is an
innovation, which caused great uneasiness at Nicaea and
and (2) that the originators and defenders of the word w
and Rome had unlawfully usurped authority.
Besides the dubious character of its proponents, th
Newton two main objections to the word homoousios: it
'6Newton, Two Letters, 59. '7TM, 65. 8Ibid., 44.
to the Apostles' rule of holding fast t

introduces articles for belief that are
and "is unintelligible. 'Twas not un
... nor ever since. What cannot be und
For Newton these are not two confli
not mean that the Bible is dispensable
ence are an adequate autonomous so
does reflect a confidence that the Bi
for any special illumination). Some pa
the clear parts are to be used to inte
on the famous verse in I John, he says:2
If it be said, that we are not to determin

our private judgement, I confess it in pla
able places, I love to take up with what I
per of the hot and superstitious part of
ever to be fond of misteries (sic), and f
they understand the least. Such men may
please; but I have that honour for him,
sense; and therefore take that sense to be H
Here the immediate issue is which

best sense in the context; but the ap
interpretation is clear.
Besides antitrinitarian polemic an
there is a third major class of Newton
he draws up brief sets of "articles of
tion to questions of church polity. H
religious strife through agreement o
does not mean that he was looking fo
religions, nor even that he proceeded
mon denominator of belief among th
Rather his position was that no doctr
ment, should be regarded as binding i
a clearly understandable way, in the
all Biblical religion as fundamentally
of the True Religion" he finds that e
mutable" in true religion can be se
duty towards God and our duty to
the Lord thy God . . . thou shalt lov
"love" means, in fact, simply obeying
One's duty to God is to eschew athei
19Ibid. 20Quoted in More, 642. 2'Newton, Two Letters, 76f.

22TM, 48.
been led to repudiate, because of such wonders of desig

and idolatry (which includes trust in riches, a form of wors
creation instead of the Creator).
We are therefore to acknowledge one God, infinite, eternal,

omniscient, and omnipotent, the creator of all things, most w
most good, most holy, and to have no other gods but him. We
fear him, honour him, hallow his name, obey his commandm
times apart for his service....
This always was, and always will be the religion of all God's p
beginning to the end of the world.
There is nothing in Newton's statement about the ro

nothing about sin or grace. The fundamental content o
known to the earliest men. When they drifted away fr
gave it in the form of the Law. Prophets repeated and
the Law, and now the last and greatest of the prophets
still more clearly. The only new doctrine added by the N
is that Jesus was the Messiah. What Newton could have made of Saint
Paul is hard to say. Perhaps he would regard the passages in Romans
and Galatians about Law and Grace as among the hard and obscure
portions of the Bible, to be interpreted by the clearer parts. In any
case, the "drama of salvation" has quietly disappeared.
In other places Newton does speak of Christ in traditional sound-
ing terms, referring to him as "God" and affirming that he "redeemed
man with his blood." But such statements are given ingenious rein-
terpretations: the term "God" is applied in Old Testament usage to
all who receive the word of God, and the atonement consists in Christ's
obedience so pleasing the Father as to move him to pardon the sins of
those Christ chooses as subjects in his kingdom.23 Now the latter of
these explanations, in particular, is not a simple piece of humanizing
reductionism. It echoes some features of the "forensic" theories of
the atonement current in certain staunchly Calvinistic circles (while,
of course, differing therefrom in important ways, e.g., in eliminating,
without replacing, their reason why Christ's obedience should be
sufficient to satisfy the Father's justice). What has happened is that
the Bible makes such statements about the work of Christ so Newton
has to give some account of it, but it is a detail, off to the side of his
thought. His understanding of what religion is is not affected by the
theme of sin and redemption.
We have still to consider the second half of Newton's "Short
Scheme,"-duty toward man. Be charitable and "do unto others .
is the gist of it. Quod tibifieri non vis alteri necfieri is
23Cf. Westfall, 210f.
the Ethics, or good manners, taught the first

heathens by Socrates, Confucius and other
Moses and the Prophets and the Christian
Apostles. . . . Thus you see there is but on
righteousness and charity dictated to the Chr
Moses, and to all mankind by the light of r
to be judged in the last day. Romans ii.
Has Newton abandoned scripture as the

No, the citation from Romans is to be
what Newton says; but of course he leav
ing chapters of Romans, and the ra
teaching" in Matthew 5-7. Newton ack
knowable law is only part of Christiani
and not to be despised. He closes with
the importance of righteousness and good
B. We have seen something of the co

religious writings. We are now in a po
what were his particular theological
conception of religion?
If one concern were to be singled out
have to be Newton's desire to promo
comprehension by isolating the true cor
of all God's people from the beginni
Several of the manuscripts containing
religion bear the title "Irenicum." Any a
of doctrine or practice, beyond what is
unwarrantable-unbiblical, contrary to
church, and a form of salvation by wor
and anti-Roman polemics. Only his la
apocalyptic writings seem relatively ind
and even they tend to vindicate the aut
that of Catholic tradition. (It might
effort in his Chronology of Ancient Ki
work, goes into vindicating the biblical ch
It is important to recognize that desir
correct biblical interpretation (as clear
by preconceptions) were the interrelat
"the essence of true religion." Nothing
acceptability to the "modern man" of
scientific world view, was an import
read in such motives seems gratuito
24TM, 42.
demonstrate the reasonableness of Christianity, and Bo

monize Christian theology with experimental science, b
(though he presumably sympathized with their conviction
address himself to either task.
Further, if the drive toward a simple religion of the two Great
Commandments were an effect of a "scientific world-view" or simple
common-sense rationalism, we should expect Newton to reject mir-
acles, a Second Coming of Christ, and the resurrection of the body. In
fact he accepts them all quite literally. "Miracles of good credit,"
he writes to Locke, "continued in the Church for about two or three
hundred years."25 And he speculates that worlds "above the clouds"
may be the habitations of the blessed.26
As we have seen, for Newton religion is essentially a matter of
duties and obligations, including the obligation to hold certain sim-
ple beliefs; the themes of sin and grace almost drop out. But it is an
exaggeration to interpret Newton, as Westfall does, as "embracing
natural religion as the whole of Christianity."27 He continues:
The original and pure religion, Newton maintained, was the moral religion
which was plain to all men, love of God and love of neighbor. The natural
product of human reason, it prevailed among the uncorrupted men of the
world's youth.... Christianity does not differ from the natural religion known
to all rational men.
Newton's conception of the relation between natural and revealed

religion is doubtless not very satisfactory, but he is far from wishing
to dispense with revelation altogether. It is "the law" which is "dic-
tated to all mankind by the light of reason," as well as to "the first
ages by Noah. . . . the heathens by Socrates, Confucius and other
philosophers, the Israelites by Moses and the Prophets and the
Christians more fully by Christ and his Apostles."28 Newton's point
about the "ancient religion ... of purity and righteousness" is that
we may lawfully proselyte heathens to it... and ought to value and love those
who profess and practice it, even though they do not yet believe in Christ, for
it is the true religion of Christians as well as heathens, though not all of the
true Christian religion.29
In the paragraph just quoted from, Westfall says that Christ "added
nothing to the true religion except the belief that He rose from the
dead and that because of His obedience He can prevail upon God to
forgive sinners." Newton would accept this characterization of his
25More, 369; cf. TM, 54f.
26Sir David Brewster, Memoirs of the Life, Writings, and Discoveries of Sir Isaac
Newton II, (Edinburgh, 1855), 354. 27Westfall, 207.
28TM, 52. 29Ibid., 53. Emphasis supplied.
views, except that he would stress the

that he was) the Messiah. These are n
sure, Newton does not have much to
Christianity differs from natural reli
he regarded them as minor. The sim
belongs, he says, to the milk of th
explanation to the meat.30 But whe
deploring the fact that his readers sti
have graduated to meat, Newton's po
required, and meat left for those wh
He does not seem to include himself in
not affect the essential point, that N
prises more than natural religion, a
them, the proper basis and criterion
revelation:
The first principles of the Christian religion are founded, not on disputable
conclusions, or human sanctions, opinions, or conjectures, but on the express
words of Christ and his Apostles.31
C. Nowhere in his theological works does Newton discuss the rela-

tion between science and religion, save in the statement we have called
"Newton's maxim." "Religion and philosophy are to be preserved
distinct. We are not to introduce divine revelations into Philosophy
nor philosophical opinions into religion." He does not explain why
they should be "preserved distinct," though we have seen that he
thinks metaphysical speculation has, in the case of the doctrine of the
Trinity, introduced confusion and unnecessary controversy. Given his
understanding of religion, and his theological interests, he had no
reason to introduce natural philosophy either. The important thing is
to know one's duties (including what one is duty-bound to believe),
and revelation tells us all we need to know. Part of this can be known
by natural reason, but even for this scientific discoveries are un-
necessary; common knowledge is quite sufficient. In his theological
papers he once or twice alludes to the design argument, but makes no
appeal to scientific theories; he uses the argument as it was known in
ancient times.
He had no reason to introduce natural philosophy, and he did not.
Though in some respects heterodox, his theological works are tradi-
tional. They could have been written by any able unitarian-leaning
theologian, innocent of scientific knowledge.
Can a more subtle influence be detected? One might claim that
his drive toward simplicity in theology, his rejection of mysteries and
30Ibid., 32. 3'Ibid., 34.
of "enthusiasm," his insistence on intelligibility (t

metaphysical and un-"illuminated" understanding)
criterion for the assessment of doctrines and biblical
all can be traced to the influence of scientific metho
of thinking or his ideal of knowledge.32 In the natur
can hardly prove that there was no such influence. But
any positive evidence for it. And there is available a
native explanation of his predilection for simplicit
bility in religion.
For such predilections had, independently of scien
characterized a strand of Reformation thought from
More than a century of theological strife and the
ever-more-elaborate confessional statements had con
to promote peace or agreement, even among Protesta
helpful were the "enthusiasts" with their claims of s
gifts and knowledge; we have seen what Newton and his f
of them. As a result, by Newton's time the simplicity
of thought had very great support among both nonc
latitudinarian Anglican divines; and it is just such grou
he grew up, and with whom he associated at Camb
he stands in a theological line of development which ca
without reference to scientific influences.
It remains to take note of the one possible exception to our state-
ment that Newton's scientific ideas did not affect his theology. In a
series of twelve (unmistakably Unitarian) articles on God appears this
one: "The Father is immovable, no place being capable of becoming
emptier or fuller of him than it is by the eternal necessity of nature.
All other beings are movable from place to place."33 So far as I
know, no previous theological tradition had seen any reason to assign
just this particular attribute to God (or, if you like, to spell out this
particular inference from the general doctrine of God's immutability).
Newton might have arrived at it by arguing that an absolute, im-
movable space requires that the God who "constitutes" it be im-
movable. But even here it is hard to say which way the influence ran.
Koyre has argued that Newton probably got this whole set of ideas
from his friend Henry More, who developed them in the course of a
controversy with Cartesianism, in which theological, metaphysical,
and scientific considerations all figured.34
II. Newton's "Scientific Theism." The thesis that Newton held
a "scientific theism"-i.e., that his theological views were based, in
32Cf. Buchholtz, 39. 33TM, 56.

34A. Koyre, From the Closed World t
chs. V-VII.
significant measure, on scientific consi

from the writings we have considered.
is true, it is most remarkable that these
evidence for it.
The loci classici for Newton's "scientific theism" are the General
Scholium to the Principia, passages in Queries 28 and 31 appended to
the Opticks, and letters to Richard Bentley and Thomas Burnet.35
Neither the General Scholium nor the Queries in question appeared
in the first editions of their respective treatises; they were added only
after Newton's science had come under attack for alleged atheistic
implications, and can plausibly be read as defensive in character.
Moreover, the letters were written only in response to solicitations
from Bentley and Burnet, and Newton could ill afford to appear un-
cooperative when theologians asked his help. Thus, there is a prima
facie case for Hurlbutt's view that "Newton would rather have kept
his science and his theology separate" but his desire was "dashed
for the simple reason that his opponents did not wish to do so, and ...
attacked him on theological grounds."36 If these writings are thus
defensive, they may not be fully reliable as expressions of his actual
theological views. However, there is manuscript evidence that their
principal themes-the elaboration of a design argument from scien-
tific evidences, the relation of God to gravity and to absolute space and
time, creation and cosmogony, and the interpretation of scriptural
passages which might seem to conflict with the new science-occupied
Newton throughout his career.37 Thus, while specific criticisms (e.g.,
by Leibniz and Berkeley) helped determine the specific content of
Newton's brief and fragmentary excursions into "scientific theism,"
it cannot be said that without them he would not have entered upon
such subjects. It may be, though this is difficult to judge, that he was
led to discuss them by criticisms and objections that he anticipated.
A brief consideration of the content of Newton's "scientific theism"
is now in order.
A. When Bentley inaugurated the Boyle lectures in 1692, he under-
35I shall discuss only Newton's own writings. To consider such sources as the
Leibniz-Clarke correspondence would complicate the discussion without affecting
my argument. 36Hurlbutt, 5.
37Cf A. Rupert Hall and Marie Boa
Isaac Newton (Cambridge, 1962), esp
This early anti-Cartesian essay is ana
(Chicago, 1968), 82ff. Traces of theol
Principia by I. Bernard Cohen, "Isaac
vine Providence," in Philosophy, Sc
al.; New York, 1969), 523-48. Also J
Mundi Systemate. Some New Source
(1966-67), 206-48.
took to base a teleological argument for the existenc

"system of the world" recently published by Newton
for Newton's comments on some lines of argument h
use, and Newton responded-sometimes with appr
times with gentle discouragement, sometimes with s
ments-in a series of four letters.38
Typical of Newton's contributions is the idea that the concentric
planetary orbits could not have arisen fortuitously; the excentric or-
bits of the comets, inclined every which way to the planetary plane,
show what could be expected from chance.39 Here he is arguing that a
contrast between a perceived regularity and a perceived irregularity
implies purposiveness behind the regularity-which would seem to
leave him in the dubious position (for a creationist) of denying any
voluntary agency behind the irregular motions. The trap is not in-
escapable, but the escape routes are not likely to appeal to anyone
who does not hold to a purposive divine creation already.
At the end of the first letter he mentions another argument, but is
unwilling to give it "till the principles on which it is grounded are
better received." It is not quite clear what he had in mind, but it may
have been some sort of argument from such phenomena as gravita-
tional attraction and the coherence (which implies some strong
force) of "homogeneal hard bodies." Neither ancient atomism nor the
modern (Cartesian) mechanism can explain such phenomena. These
points are treated in the Queries and (in the case of gravity) in the
letters to Bentley.
As to gravitation, the Cartesian medium is to be rejected as a
"feigned hypothesis" (and full of difficulties anyway), and Newton is
not willing (as he urgently impresses upon Bentley) to regard gravity
as an inherent property of matter.40 Interpreters differ as to whether
Newton meant to ascribe gravitational attraction to the direct action
of God, as some of his theological disciples and expositors took him
to mean. No doubt, ultimately God is the cause of gravity, but is there
a mediate cause? "The cause of gravity," he continues, "is what I do
not know, and therefore would take more time to consider of it."
In the next letter, he agrees with Bentley that "it is inconceivable that
inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something
else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter with-
out mutual contact," so if the void exists an immaterial agent must
be involved. But he concludes, "Gravity must be caused by an agent
38For evidence that Newton may have had a hand in the selection of Bentley, and
suggested his theme, see Henry Guerlac and M. C. Jacob, "Bentley, Newton, and
Providence," this Journal 30 (1969), 307-18. 39Correspondence, III, 234f.
4?0bid., 240
acting constantly according to certain la

material or immaterial I have left to
readers."41
Actually, Newton's opinions as to th
have wavered and shifted. At various times he seems to have inclined
toward (1) an ether theory, (2) the view that God's immediate action
is required, (3) attribution of gravity to low-grade spiritual agencies
akin to the "plastick nature" of More and Cudworth.42 Whichever
view he favored at a given time, he was prepared to argue that it under-
cut atheism (at least of the Epicurean variety and the sort he thought
implicit in Cartesianism, and these were the only varieties he
worried about). The third view is incompatible with Epicureanism
and Cartesianism, and a mechanistic ether theory would yield an
argument of the familiar sort for divine contrivance. His shifting
preferences seem to have been governed by scientific considerations
rather than the theological utility of the various theories.
In Query 31, Newton appeals also to the powerful attractive forces
that must exist to hold atoms together in homogeneous bodies (he
has no patience with hooked atoms, nor with Descartes's "rest"
theory),43 and to the need for replenishment of the universe's energy:
imperfectly elastic bodies lose part of their motion on contact, so
some sort of active principles "such as ... the cause of gravity . . . and
the cause of fermentation" are needed to keep things from grinding to
a halt.44 He seems here to be leaning toward the third of the above
theories, but he expresses himself cautiously and keeps his options
open.
The notorious charge that Newton assigns God the undignified
role of cosmic plumber, brought by Leibniz in his exchange with
Clarke and often repeated since, is based in large part on the suppo-
sition that Newton really meant to say that God's direct action is
required to replenish the universe's supply of energy. But he did not
say it, and it seems wiser not to make the imputation. However, toward
the end of Query 31 he concedes that the "wonderful uniformity in
the planetary system" is subject to "some inconsiderable irregularities
. . . which may have risen from the mutual actions of comets and
planets upon one another, and which will be apt to increase until this
4lIbid., 243f.
42On these matters, see Henry Guerlac, Newton et Epicure (Conference donnee au
Palais de la Decouverte, Paris, 1963), and "Francis Hauksbee: experimentateur au
profit de Newton," Archives internationales d'histoire des sciences, 16 (1963), 113-28;
and David Kubrin, "Newton and the Cyclical Cosmos: Providence and the Mechanical
Philosophy," this Journal 28 (1967), 325-45.
43Isaac Newton, Opticks (New York, 1952), 388. 44Ibid., 399.
system wants a reformation." God, being omnipresen

skilled in mechanicks and geometry," is well able to
ing.45 The suggestion is made only briefly and wi
Contrary to what is often said, the context shows tha
is made neither by way of invoking God to solve a s
culty, nor in order to give God a continuing job to d
Rather, Newton is trying to block any objection, bas
considerable irregularities" which might be brought a
that the uniformity of the system shows the contrivanc
In the General Scholium added to the Principia
edition (1713), Newton is clearly on the defensive, and
fronts-scientific, theological, and metaphysical. He b
ing up grave difficulties in the Cartesian vortex theo
posed of, he is free to state the design argument from
of celestial motions. Then, somewhat abruptly, come
wide-ranging theological disquisition to which we mu
moment. Newton continues with a well-known argume
that his failure to establish the cause of gravity does not
critics had charged) detract from the scientific ac
complished with the aid of that notion, and concl
cryptic remarks concerning the "certain most sub
which he had speculated at greater length in the Queries.
Though it concludes with the affirmation that "to
[God] from the appearances of things does certainly b
philosophy," the aforementioned "theological disqu
on the Bible and the classical theological tradition
doubtful exception of a sentence or two) on natural
vious speculations of Newton's on the omnipresence
God as establishing absolute space and time had le
that he was reviving the pantheistic doctrine of God as t
world." This doctrine he flatly rejects. Anyone who
word "God" means (and for this Newton turns to th
that it essentially connotes dominion over servants. M
cussion is apparently directed against Bishop Berkeley
plained that acceptance of absolute space forces us in
of thinking either that real space is God, or else that there is
God which is eternal, infinite, indivisible, immutable. Bo
justly be thought pernicious and absurd notions.46
Newton argues that "eternity" and "infinity" as attr

have an entirely different force from "eternity" an
45Ibid., 402; cf. Correspondence, III, 235.

46George Berkeley, The Principles of Human Knowledge, par. 117
attributed to space-simply because G

Lord of all things. I think Newton, u
of the Bible, must have had some tro
ley's criticism. He does point out that
God is not. But what is striking is the
to the Bible and the classical theolo
fails to grasp?) the suggestion that hi
reconcile therewith.
One more Newtonian text must be considered. In 1680, Thomas
Burnet published his Sacred Theory of the Earth, in which he out-
lined a speculative geological theory of the origin and early history of
our planet, and tried ingeniously to harmonize it with the Genesis
story. (The earth originally was nicely spherical and smooth, but
geological forces, at work from the beginning, produced a catastrophic
crash-precisely timed to coincide with the Fall of Adam-whence
come our present mountains, ravines, and other evidences of wrack
and ruin.) He asked Newton's opinion and got an interesting reply,
which Newton carefully characterized as quite speculative: "I have
not set down anything I have well considered or will undertake to de-
fend."47 He ignores Adam's Fall, and we need not concern ourselves
with the details of his geological and cosmogonical suggestions. Of
more interest is his approach to the problem of reconciling scientific
accounts with Moses's. A full answer "would require comment upon
Moses, whom I dare not pretend to understand," but the main point
is that "Moses, accommodating his words to the gross conceptions
of the vulgar, describes things much after the manner as one of the
vulgar would have been inclined to do had he lived and seen the whole
series of what Moses describes."48 The Genesis account is neither a
scientifically accurate description-that "would have made the
narration tedious and confused . .. and become a philosopher more
than a prophet"-nor a piece of poetry or metaphysics. Rather it is
as close an approximation to a literal description of what happened
as could be set out in a narrative at once succinct and comprehensible
to the general run of mankind.
B. As we have seen, Newton's "scientific theism" is fragmentary
and undeveloped. He nowhere attempts to integrate the theme, that
from scientific evidences we can infer a Designer, with his primary
theological concerns. We must now ask (1) why he makes no such
attempt, and (2) whether his "scientific theism" conflicts with the
positions taken in his primarily theological writings.
47Correspondence, II, 334.

48Ibid., 333. According to Cohen (524ff) Newton makes a similar statement
(unrecognized because of Cajori's mistranslation) in the Principia.
An obvious answer to the first question would be

after a fashion, to his own maxim to keep religion
distinct: he had to protect himself against attack
suggestion of unwillingness to help theological ap
efforts, but he regarded the arguments elaborated f
poses as no proper part of his theological position.
be correct, and if so would support a strong interp
maxim; but it is inconclusive, because another explan
Newton's theological interests were not systematic.
puzzles that intrigued him (as in the interpretat
writings), and would deal in detail with what he rega
true religion (e.g., Catholicism and antilatitudinaria
no interest in working his theological thoughts i
particular, he would have seen no reason to relat
arguments to his other theological writings.
Except for one anomalous statement, the content o
theism" seems compatible enough with the content o
works, whatever we may think of its consistency with
in the case of that statement, the conflict is probab
In the General Scholium he says of God, "We know
most wise and excellent contrivances of things and
Taken out of context, this incautiously-worded state
(because of the "only") suggest a stark Deism and den
But the emphasis of the preceding discussion is on t
of God's nature and manner of operation; as with a
can know only his attributes. And our statement is
balanced rhetorical sentence:
We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things an
final causes; we admire him for his perfections, but we reverence and ador
him on account of his dominion, for we adore him as his servants; and a god
without dominion, providence, and final causes is nothing else but Fate and
Nature.
The pleasures of rhetorical brevity may have led Newton here into a
misleading overstatement. It is, however, just possible that Newton
thinks we know of God only what the design argument permits us to
infer, and revelation tells us rather what we ought to believe. It is also
possible that by "know" he tacitly means "know naturally." But it is
more likely that the "contrivances" in question include not only ar-
rangements in nature but also the management of historical events so
as to fulfill prophecy-Newton's principal ground, we recall, for con-
fidence in the veracity of scripture.
49Principles, 546.
III. Newton's Maxim and his Practice. A

main theological writings conform to th
philosophy (including science) distinct. B
in letters and physical treatises seem to
in Newton's papers without interpreta
therefore free to seek interpretations
accord with Newton's practice. Three s
will be considered in section A below; eac
of science on some sort of theology. New
with two of the interpretations, but not wit
If we accept what I shall call the "stro
ton's maxim, i.e., that science properly h
all, he will stand convicted of inconsisten
tenuating circumstances), and we will wa
this crime. A suggestion on this point will
A. The first interpretation I want to su
says "we are not to introduce .. . philosop
he means merely that such opinions,
drawn from them, are not to be put for
belief. This interpretation assumes a sha
essentials of religion-beliefs that can be
membership-and nonessential theologi
Part I that Newton was inclined to make
himself was mainly interested in the essent
in principle to speculative elaborations. T
to harmonize religious doctrines with sc
did (cautiously) in the letter to Burnet,
theological conclusions from scientific prem
to Bentley and elsewhere. What one is
resultant theological opinions as essentia
did not do. (The existence and providenc
trines, of course, but they are known as su
The second interpretation assumes a dis
ics and theology proper (i.e., the attempt
upon the essential beliefs in order to ga
standing of them). On this interpretatio
not to be introduced into theology prop
scientific and other philosophical argu
legitimate to turn their own weapons up
also fits Newton's practice, though perh
doubtful case. (On the face of it, it could
contribution either to apologetics or to theo
The third interpretation involves no di
parts of theology; rather, the distinction is between two

which science could bear on theology. One might tak
maxim to mean that scientific theories cannot provide arg
theological conclusions: you cannot deduce the latter from
nor even argue that a theologoumenon's harmony with s
point in its favor. A scientific theory might still suggest
proposition, which perhaps would not be thought of oth
which would (of course) have to be evaluated on strictly
grounds. Newton might well accept this interpretation of
but it would not save him from the charge of inconsiste
clearly does argue from scientific evidences of design to t
of a Designer.
B. Suppose Newton meant his maxim to be taken in the strong
sense, or in the third of the senses just discussed. There is still a way
in which one might try to argue that his practice does not violate his
admonition. Perhaps not all talk about God is theological. A meta-
physician or a natural philosopher might have reason to postulate the
existence of a God and ascribe properties and activities to him, with-
out these properties and activities having any religious interest or
relevance. I shall not discuss the general merits of this idea. It seems
unpromising as a defense of Newton, because in the General Scholium
and elsewhere bits of "scientific theism" are thoroughly intermingled
with revelation-based statements about God and how we must con-
ceive him.
We must conclude that, unless one of the first two interpretations
of his maxim given above is correct, Newton fell into inconsistency.
Or perhaps we should say he was pushed, if it is true that the offend-
ing statements were made in response (1) to charges that his "system
of the world" promoted atheism, or (2) to theologians' requests for
aid.
Still, why did he defend himself by advancing (albeit fragmen-
tarily) a "scientific theism"? If he thought that science had no bearing
on theology, positive or negative, why didn't he reply to his critics
by saying so? The answer to this question can only be speculative. It
seems likely that such an argument would have been ill-received; it
would have sounded too much like what Hobbes and other skeptics
had said. Moreover, it could, unless elaborated very carefully, have
suggested that religious truths are of a special, mysterious, "higher"
sort-just the kind of "enthusiasm" Newton deplored. Thus, had he
argued for the irrelevance of natural philosophy to theology, he would
very likely have been deeply embroiled in controversy. The avoidance
of such embroilments was a cardinal aim of Newton's life, and in
particular he had (as we have seen) good reason to want his theological
views not to come under public scr

course he took (on the interpretation
standard one among the "Virtuosi"
received by theologians. So, in short,
inconsistency was not too high a price t
Rice University.

Austin

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Austin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Austin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Isaac Newton on Science and Religion

Author(s): William H. Austin

'L. T. More, Isaac Newton (New York, 1962), 608.

a step beyond the others in forcing

I. Newton's Theological Works. None of Newton's primarily

5R. S. Westfall, Science and Religion in Seventeenth-century England (New

was the Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel

A. Some of the materials in McLachlan's collection have to do

This language . . . was as certain and definit

The code is to be broken by an inductive s

The Rule I have followed has been to compa

The great governing principle is an anal

Nevertheless he points out that several passages in the Apocalypse

in Daniel 7 with the whore and Beast of the Apocalyp

12Ibid., 74, 113f. "3Buchholtz, 39.

point, that none of the anti-Arian wr

Yes truly, those Arrians were crafty knave

He also answers the objection that

'Isaac Newton, Two Letters to Mr. LeClerc (London, 1754), 32.

for a very judicious and substantial defence of the printed Gr

We have here, then, a very effective piece of polemi

'6Newton, Two Letters, 59. '7TM, 65. 8Ibid., 44.

to the Apostles' rule of holding fast t

If it be said, that we are not to determin

Here the immediate issue is which

19Ibid. 20Quoted in More, 642. 2'Newton, Two Letters, 76f.

been led to repudiate, because of such wonders of desig

We are therefore to acknowledge one God, infinite, eternal,

There is nothing in Newton's statement about the ro

23Cf. Westfall, 210f.

the Ethics, or good manners, taught the first

Has Newton abandoned scripture as the

B. We have seen something of the co

demonstrate the reasonableness of Christianity, and Bo

Newton's conception of the relation between natural and revealed

views, except that he would stress the

C. Nowhere in his theological works does Newton discuss the rela-

of "enthusiasm," his insistence on intelligibility (t

32Cf. Buchholtz, 39. 33TM, 56.

significant measure, on scientific consi

took to base a teleological argument for the existenc

acting constantly according to certain la

system wants a reformation." God, being omnipresen

Newton argues that "eternity" and "infinity" as attr

45Ibid., 402; cf. Correspondence, III, 235.

attributed to space-simply because G

47Correspondence, II, 334.

An obvious answer to the first question would be

III. Newton's Maxim and his Practice. A

parts of theology; rather, the distinction is between two

views not to come under public scr

You might also like