DOCSLIB.ORG

Caroline, Leibniz, and Clarke Author(S): D. Bertoloni Meli Source: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Caroline, Leibniz, and Clarke Author(S): D. Bertoloni Meli Source: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol Caroline, Leibniz, and Clarke Author(s): D. Bertoloni Meli Source: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 60, No. 3 (Jul., 1999), pp. 469-486 Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3654014 . Accessed: 22/02/2011 14:57 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upenn. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. 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 [email protected]. University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the History of Ideas. http://www.jstor.org Caroline, Leibniz, and Clarke D. Bertoloni Meli The papers which passed between Leibniz and Clarke from 1715 to 1716 have long been considered classics in the history of science and philosophy, attractinga largenumber of scholarlyworks. Theirexchanges, consisting often letters,five by Leibnizand five by Clarke,ended with Leibniz'sdeath in Novem- ber 1716.1The letters deal with issues such as God's role in the universe, the notion of miracles, the cause of gravity,and space and time. The difficulties in interpretingthe texts induced most, if not all, editors to presentLeibniz's and Clarke'spapers together with otherwritings to provide a context for the dispute and to elucidate the most obscure passages. This traditionwas inauguratedby Samuel Clarke himself, who included in his editio princeps a numberof ex- planatoryfootnotes, an appendixwith passages from Leibniz's printedworks, and additionalepistolary exchanges between himself and otherson libertyand necessity, all with appropriatecross-references.2 Later editors made a different selection of explanatorymaterial, emphasizing different contexts and aspectsof the dispute. The context I have selected for this essay centers on Carolineof Ansbach, Princess of Wales, her life and contactswith Leibniz priorto her departurefor London, and their correspondencebefore and during the dispute with Clarke. Preliminaryversions of this paper were delivered at New Orleans, the Dibner Institute, TorontoUniversity, IndianaUniversity, and All Souls College, Oxford. I wish to thankHerbert Breger,Ann Carmichael,Moti Feingold, MarinaFrasca Spada, Michael Friedman,Ken Howell, Andrew Janiak,Nick Jardine,Brandon Look, John Milbank, MargarethSchabas, John Yolton and all those who offered comments and criticisms, especially John Murdoch,who delivered the first version of this essay, which is dedicatedto I. BernardCohen. 2 StephenClarke, A collection ofpapers, whichpassed betweenthe late learnedMr. Leibnitz and Dr. Clarke in the years 1715 and 1716: relating to the principles of naturalphilosophy and religion: with an appendix to which are added, letters to Dr Clarke concerning liberty and necessity,from a gentlemanof the Universityof Cambridge,with the doctor s answers to them: also, remarks upon a book, entituled, A philosophical enquiry concerning human liberty by Samuel Clarke (London, 1717). See, e. g., P. Desmaizeaux (ed.), Recueil de diverses pieces, sur la philosophie, la religion naturelle,I'histoire, les mathematiques,&c. (Amsterdam,17402). A useful list of editions is provided by V. Schiiller,Der Leibniz-ClarkeBriefwechsel (Berlin, 1991), 566-70. 469 Copyright1999 by Journalof the Historyof Ideas, Inc. 470 D. Bertoloni Meli Portionsof this correspondencecan be foundin the editions by H.G. Alexander and Andre Robinet, but the letters on which I shall spend more time are curi- ously excluded. They can be found among Leibniz's political and state papers editedat the end of last centuryby Onno Klopp, and only in partin those edited by JohnM. Kemble, and in the recentGerman edition by VolmarSchiiller.3 The readerunaware of Caroline'slife and intellectualhorizon may well wonderwhy Leibniz and Clarkewent on relentlessly,month aftermonth, debatingin letters addressedto her whetherspace is the sensoriumof God, dissecting the notion of miracle,and arguingabout God's role in the world. I hope to show thatthere are several reasons for paying attentionto Caroline. The text which has become known as "Leibniz's first paper"was in fact an extract of a letter to Caroline, not intendedfor Clarke,belonging to an importantexchange with the Princessof Wales.Caroline engaged in a disputewith Clarke,passed the extractof Leibniz's letterto him, and sent Clarke'sreply to Leibniz togetherwith a requestfor help. ThusLeibniz's "firstpaper" ought to be seen as partof his correspondencewith Caroline.Later papers between Leibniz and Clarkewent throughCaroline. The Princess of Wales was not just a convenientaddress for the correspon- dence;nor was she a spectatoruninterested in such an intellectualconfrontation. She was involved in the disputeby arguingwith Clarkeand even with Newton, exchangingopinions with Leibniz, and functioningas an arbiterand moderator. Herpresence helped shapethe style and contentsof the letters,and characterizes the genreto which the correspondencebelongs. This is a complex issue because of the composite natureof the exchanges: on the one hand we have Leibniz's lettersto both Carolineand Clarke,on the otherwe have Caroline'sand Clarke's lettersto Leibniz, and Clarke'sdiscussions with Caroline.Clearly the standard label "Leibniz-Clarkecorrespondence" does not capture all levels of the ex- changes.Moreover, in orderto appreciateCaroline's status in Londonit is worth recalling that the wife of George I, Sophie Dorothea, remained in Germany, secluded in the Castle ofAhlden.4Without a Queen, the Princess of Wales was the highest female royal. As an example of her influence,it was widely believed at the time that the election of William Wake as Archbishopof Canterburyin December 1715 was due to his close contactswith Caroline.At the time of the disputeWake, who was a close friendof Clarke,neglected his pastoralduties as Bishop of Lincoln in order to be close to Caroline, with whom he held daily meetings.Thus Carolinewas an intellectualwoman with strongtheological and philosophicalinterests. All those familiarwith Leibniz will be awareof the cru- 0. Klopp, Die Werkevon Leibniz.Erste Reihe (11 vols.; Berlin, 1864-84); J.M. Kemble, State papers and correspondence illustrative of the social and political state of Europefrom the revolutionto the accession of the house of Hanover (London, 1857); Schiiller,Der Leibniz- Clarke Briefwechsel. 4 E. J. Aiton, Leibniz. A Biography (Bristol, 1985), 177-78. Caroline,Leibniz, and Clarke 471 cial importanceof circumstancesof composition in his works.5Here I wish to outlinethe circumstancesin which the disputeoriginated and developed in rela- tion to one of the most obvious issues, namely,Caroline's role. My reading takes into account issues such as the intellectual horizon of patrons and gender in conjunction with other themes traditionallyassociated with Leibniz and Clarke.One of the appealsof this disputelies in the wealth of issues it raises, and my approachdoes not preclude other interpretations.By focusing on Caroline, I do not pretend to provide the "propercontext" or an exegesis of all the points raisedin the ten lettersexchanged between Leibniz and Clarke.Rather, I hope to provide some reflections for a more accuratecharac- terizationof the genre of the so-called "Leibniz-Clarkecorrespondence." This type ofphilosophico-theological exchange inspiredby a female patronwas not uncommonat thetime. The importanttheological correspondence between Leibniz and the historiographerto Louis XIV and convertHuguenot Paul Pellisson, for example, was instigated by and conducted through Sophia, Duchess, later Electress,of Hanover,and involved severalothers, notably the influentialBishop of Meaux, Jacques-BenigneBossuet.6 In addition,I hope to provide a tool for enrichingthe pictureof the dispute in relationto a few specific themes, such as Newton's role as Clarke'sadvisor, Leibniz's readingof Locke's Essay, the im- plications of the Hanoveriansuccession, or the little studied role of William Wakebetween Clarkeand Caroline.7 Some BiographicalNotes on Caroline Caroline was born on 1 March 1683 as the daughterof the Margraveof Ansbach(a town South-Westof Nuremberg)and Eleanora, daughter of the Duke of Saxe-Eisenach.Despite being born into such a privileged background,she had a very unhappychildhood. Her father died in 1686, when she was three years old, and she moved to Eisenachwith her mother.In 1692 her mothermar- riedthe Electorof Saxony,and they moved to Dresden.In 1694 the Electordied, 5 See D. Bertoloni Meli, Equivalence and Priority: Newton versus Leibniz(Oxford, 1993). 6 See Aiton, Leibniz.A Biography, 171. 7 See Ernst Cassirer, "Newton and Leibniz," Philosophical
Load more

Recommended publications
  • HENRY VII M.Elizabeth of York (R.1485–1509)
    Historic Royal Places – Descriptors Small Use Width 74mm Wide and less Minimum width to be used 50mm Depth 16.5mm (TOL ) Others Various Icon 7mm Wide Dotted line for scaling Rules 0.25pt and minimum size establishment only. Does not print. HENRY VII m.Elizabeth of York (r.1485–1509) Arthur, m. Katherine HENRY VIII m.(1) Katherine m.(2) Anne m.(3) Jane m.(4) Anne of Cleves Edmund (1) James IV, m Margaret m (2) Archibald Douglas, Elizabeth Mary Catherine Prince of Wales of Aragon* (r.1509–47) Boleyn Seymour (5) Catherine Howard King of Earl of Angus (d. 1502) (6) Kateryn Parr Scotland Frances Philip II, m. MARY I ELIZABETH I EDWARD VI Mary of m. James V, Margaret m. Matthew Stewart, Lady Jane Grey King of Spain (r.1553–58) (r.1558–1603) (r.1547–53) Lorraine King of Earl of Lennox (r.1553 for 9 days) Scotland (1) Francis II, m . Mary Queen of Scots m. (2) Henry, Charles, Earl of Lennox King of France Lord Darnley Arbella James I m. Anne of Denmark (VI Scotland r.1567–1625) (I England r.1603–1625) Henry (d.1612) CHARLES I (r.1625–49) Elizabeth m. Frederick, Elector Palatine m. Henrietta Maria CHARLES II (r.1660–85) Mary m. William II, (1) Anne Hyde m. JAMES II m. (2) Mary Beatrice of Modena Sophia m. Ernest Augustus, Elector of Hanover m.Catherine of Braganza Prince of Orange (r.1685–88) WILLIAM III m. MARY II (r.1689–94) ANNE (r.1702–14) James Edward, GEORGE I (r.1714–27) Other issue Prince of Orange m.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyrighted Material
    33_056819 bindex.qxp 11/3/06 11:01 AM Page 363 Index fighting the Vikings, 52–54 • A • as law-giver, 57–58 Aberfan tragedy, 304–305 literary interests, 56–57 Act of Union (1707), 2, 251 reforms of, 54–55 Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen, queen of reign of, 50, 51–52 William IV, 268, 361 Alfred, son of King Aethelred, king of Áed, king of Scotland, 159 England, 73, 74 Áed Findliath, ruler in Ireland, 159 Ambrosius Aurelianus (Roman leader), 40 Aedán mac Gabráin, overking of Dalriada, 153 Andrew, Prince, Duke of York (son of Aelfflaed, queen of Edward, king Elizabeth II) of Wessex, 59 birth of, 301 Aelfgifu of Northampton, queen of Cnut, 68 as naval officer, 33 Aethelbald, king of Mercia, 45 response to death of Princess Diana, 313 Aethelbert, king of Wessex, 49 separation from Sarah, Duchess of York, Aethelflaed, daughter of Alfred, king of 309 Wessex, 46 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 57, 58, 63 Aethelfrith, Saxon king, 43 Anglo-Saxons Aethelred, king of England, 51, 65–66 appointing an heir, 16 Aethelred, king of Mercia, 45, 46, 55 invasion of Britain, 39–41 Aethelred, king of Wessex, 50 kingdoms of, 37, 42 Aethelstan, king of Wessex, 51, 61–62 kings of, 41–42 Aethelwold, son of Aethelred, king of overview, 12 Wessex, 60 Anna, queen of Scotland, 204 Aethelwulf, king of Wessex, 49 Anne, Princess Royal, daughter of Africa, as part of British empire, 14 Elizabeth II, 301, 309 Agincourt, battle of, 136–138 Anne, queen of England Albert, Prince, son of George V, later lack of heir, 17 George VI, 283, 291 marriage to George of Denmark, 360–361 Albert of
    [Show full text]
  • Silver, Bells and Nautilus Shells: Royal Cabinets of Curiosity and Antiquarian Collecting
    Silver, Bells and Nautilus Shells: Royal cabinets of curiosity and antiquarian collecting Kathryn Jones Curator of Decorative Arts at Royal Collection Trust, London 98 In 1812 James Wyatt, architect to the Prince Regent, was The term Wunderkammer, usually translated as a given instructions to complete the Plate Closet in Carlton ‘Cabinet of Curiosities’, encompassed far more than the House, the Prince’s residence on Pall Mall. The plans traditional piece of furniture containing unusual works of included a large proportion of plate glass. James Wyatt art and items of natural history (fig 1). The concept of a noted this glass although expensive was ‘indispensably Wunderkammer was essentially born in the 16th century necessary, as it is intended that the Plate shall be seen as the princely courts of Europe became less peripatetic and as the Plate is chiefly if not entirely ornamental, and as humanist philosophy spread. The idea was to any glass but Plate [glass] therefore would cripple the create a collection to hold the sum of man’s knowledge. forms and perhaps the most ornamental parts would This was clarified by Francis Bacon in the 17th century 2 be the most injured.’1 The Plate Closet was to be a who stated that the first principle of a ruler was to gather place of wonder, where visitors would be surrounded by together a ‘most perfect and general library’ holding great treasures of wrought silver and gilt. George IV’s every branch of knowledge then published. Secondly a collections, particularly of silver for the Wunderkammer, prince should create a spacious and wonderful garden to show an interest in an area of collecting that was largely contain plants and fauna ‘so that you may have in small unfashionable in the early-nineteenth century and compass a model of universal nature made private’.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography
    BIbLIOGRApHY PRIMARY SOURCEs Conversations and Correspondence with Lady Mary Whitley, Countess Mountbatten, Maitre Blum and Dr. Heald Judgements and Case Reports Newell, Ann: The Secret Life of Ellen, Lady Kilmorey, unpublished dissertation, 2016 Royal Archives, Windsor The Kilmorey Papers: Public Record Office of Northern Ireland The Teck Papers: Wellington College SECONDARY SOURCEs Aberdeen, Isobel. 1909. Marchioness of, Notes & Recollections. London: Constable. Annual Register Astle, Thomas. 1775. The Will of Henry VII. ECCO Print editions. Bagehot, Walter. 1867 (1872). The English Constitution. Thomas Nelson & Sons. Baldwin-Smith, Lacey. 1971. Henry VIII: The Mask of Royalty. London: Jonathan Cape. Benn, Anthony Wedgwood. 1993. Common Sense: A New Constitution for Britain, (with Andrew Hood). Brooke, the Hon. Sylvia Brooke. 1970. Queen of the Headhunters. London: Sidgwick & Jackson. Chamberlin, Frederick. 1925. The Wit & Wisdom of Good Queen Bess. London: John Lane, The Bodley Head. © The Author(s) 2017 189 M.L. Nash, Royal Wills in Britain from 1509 to 2008, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-60145-2 190 BIBLIOGRAPHY Chevenix-Trench, Charles. 1964. The Royal Malady. New York: Harcourt, Bruce & World Cronin, Vincent. 1964 (1990). Louis XIV. London: Collins Harvel. Davey, Richard. 1909. The Nine Days’ Queen. London: Methuen & Co. ———. 1912. The Sisters of Lady Jane Grey. New York: E.R. Dutton. De Lisle, Leanda. 2004. After Elizabeth: The Death of Elizabeth, and the Coming of King James. London: Harper Collins. Doran, John. 1875. Lives of the Queens of England of the House of Hanover, vols I & II. London: Richard Bentley & Sons. Edwards, Averyl. 1947. Frederick Louis, Prince of Wales. London/New York/ Toronto: Staples Press.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Gods and Kings: Natural Philosophy and Politics in the Leibniz-Clarke Disputes Steven Shapin Isis, Vol. 72, No. 2. (Jun., 1981), Pp
    Of Gods and Kings: Natural Philosophy and Politics in the Leibniz-Clarke Disputes Steven Shapin Isis, Vol. 72, No. 2. (Jun., 1981), pp. 187-215. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-1753%28198106%2972%3A2%3C187%3AOGAKNP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C Isis is currently published by The University of Chicago Press. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/ucpress.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. http://www.jstor.org Mon Aug 20 10:29:37 2007 Of Gods and Kings: Natural Philosophy and Politics in the Leibniz-Clarke Disputes By Steven Shapin* FTER TWO AND A HALF CENTURIES the Newton-Leibniz disputes A continue to inflame the passions.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Pennsylvania Press
    University of Pennsylvania Press Newtonian Science, Miracles, and the Laws of Nature Author(s): Peter Harrison Source: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 56, No. 4 (Oct., 1995), pp. 531-553 Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2709991 Accessed: 30-10-2015 01:34 UTC 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 forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the History of Ideas. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 130.102.42.98 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:34:15 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions NewtonianScience, Miracles, andthe Laws ofNature PeterHarrison Introduction "Newton,"writes Richard Westfall, "both believed in and did not believe in miracles."It can onlybe concluded,Westfall continues, that the greatscientist, unwilling to relinquishhis beliefin a providentialand inter- posingDeity, "abandoned himself to ambiguitiesand inconsistencies,which gave theappearance of divine participation in nature,but not the substance."' Newton'sapparent ambivalence
    [Show full text]
  • The Leibnizian-Newtonian Debates: Natural Philosophy and Social Psychology
    The British Society for the History of Science !"#$%#&'(&)&*(+,#-./(&*($0#'*.#12$,*.34*5$6"&5/1/7"8$*(9$:/;&*5$618;"/5/<8 =3."/4>1?2$@*4/58($A5.&1 :/34;#2$!"#$B4&.&1"$C/34(*5$D/4$."#$E&1./48$/D$:;&#(;#F$G/5H$IF$,/H$J$>0#;HF$KLMN?F$77H$NJN+NMM 63'5&1"#9$'82$@*O'4&9<#$P(&Q#41&.8$64#11$/($'#"*5D$/D$!"#$B4&.&1"$:/;&#.8$D/4$."#$E&1./48 /D$:;&#(;# :.*'5#$PR%2$http://www.jstor.org/stable/4025501 =;;#11#92$KSTUITVUKU$VV2WS Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Arise Sir Isaac! Newton's London Career
    26 February 2020 Arise Sir Isaac! Newton’s London Career Dr Patricia Fara This lecture is based on Patricia Fara’s forthcoming book, to be published by Oxford University Press in 2021. The Indian Emperor. Or the Conquest of Mexico. As performed in the year 1731 in Mr Conduitt’s, Master of the Mint, before the Duke of Cumberland &c. Act 4, Scene 4 by William Hogarth (1731-2) Isaac Newton is celebrated throughout the world as a great scientific genius who conceived the theory of gravity and revolutionized optical science. But in his early fifties, he abandoned his life as a reclusive scholar at Cambridge to spend three decades in London, a long period of metropolitan activity that is often overlooked. Enmeshed in Enlightenment politics and social affairs, Newton engaged in the linked spheres of early science and imperialist capitalism. Instead of the quiet cloisters and dark libraries of Cambridge’s all-male world, he now moved in fashionable London society, which was characterised by patronage relationships, sexual intrigues and ruthless ambition. An eminent Enlightenment figure who had twice served as an MP, Newton liaised with international visitors and mingled among elite circles of the Hanoverian aristocracy. Knighted by Queen Anne, and a close ally of the influential Earl of Halifax, Newton occupied a powerful position as President of London’s Royal Society. He also became Master of the Mint, responsible for the nation’s money at a time of financial crisis and himself making and losing small fortunes on the stock market. A major investor in the East India Company, Newton benefited from the global trading networks that relied on selling African captives to wealthy plantation owners in the Americas and was responsible for monitoring the import of African gold to be melted down for English guineas.
    [Show full text]
  • Benjamin Hoadly, Samuel Clarke, and the Ethics of the Bangorian Controversy: Church, State, and the Moral Law
    religions Article Benjamin Hoadly, Samuel Clarke, and the Ethics of the Bangorian Controversy: Church, State, and the Moral Law Dafydd Mills Daniel Faculty of Theology and Religion, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK; [email protected] Received: 30 September 2020; Accepted: 28 October 2020; Published: 12 November 2020 Abstract: The Bangorian controversy has been described as ‘the most bitter ideological conflict of the [eighteenth] century’ (J.C.D. Clark). However, while its impact is widely recognised, there are few studies dedicated to the controversy itself. Moreover, the figure at the centre of it all—Benjamin Hoadly, the Bishop of Bangor—has not always been taken seriously. Such scholars as Norman Sykes, G.R. Cragg, and B.W. Young have dismissed Hoadly as an opportunistic ‘political bishop’, rather than an adept theological thinker. By contrast, this article demonstrates that Hoadly’s Bangorian writings were embedded within the ethical rationalist moral theology of Isaac Newton’s friend, and defender against Gottfried Leibniz, Samuel Clarke. As a follower of Clarke, Hoadly objected to the doctrine of apostolic succession, and to the existence of religious conformity laws in Church and state, because they prevented Christianity from being what he thought it ought to be: a religion of conscience. Keywords: Benjamin Hoadly; Samuel Clarke; Bangorian controversy; religious conformity laws; conscience; ethical rationalism; church and state; moral and political theology; early English Enlightenment; Low and High Church Anglicanism 1. Introduction The Bangorian controversy followed publication of a 1717 sermon, ‘The Nature of the Kingdom of Christ’ by Benjamin Hoadly, Bishop of Bangor.
    [Show full text]
  • The Secular Enlightenment
    © Copyright, Princeton University Press. No part of this book may be distributed, posted, or reproduced in any form by digital or mechanical means without prior written permission of the publisher. 1 The Setting Space Expanded and Filled Anew Between 1500 and 1700, Westerners discovered two new worlds: one in the heavens, the other on earth. These discov- eries coincided with and helped further a vast expansion of commerce that brought yet more peoples and places into the Western orbit. Celestial and terrestrial space were reconfigured. Making sense of these monumental discoveries required new thought and language. Christianity had to rise to the intellectual challenge pre- sented by the new spatial reality. The findings of the new sci- ence displaced the earth from the center of the universe and thereby raised doubts about all traditional explanations. The discovery of new continents and peoples had an even more immediate effect. Why did the new peoples being discovered believe what they believed, having never heard the Christian message? Some could be converted; others not so readily. Mis- sionaries discovered an almost unimaginable variety of beliefs and soon began to debate the meanings of this diversity. Did everyone have a notion of God, or were some newly discovered peoples natural atheists? The Greek and Roman authorities 6 For general queries, contact [email protected] PUP_Jacob_The_Secular_Enlightenment_Ch01.indd 6 10/23/2018 6:02:33 PM © Copyright, Princeton University Press. No part of this book may be distributed, posted, or reproduced in any form by digital or mechanical means without prior written permission of the publisher.
    [Show full text]
  • Arianism in English Nonconformity, 1700-1750
    Perichoresis Volume 17. Single Author Supplement 1 (2019): 21–36 DOI: 10.2478/perc-2019-0002 ARIANISM IN ENGLISH NONCONFORMITY, 1700-1750 DINU MOGA * Emanuel University of Oradea ABSTRACT. During the time of English Nonconformity, Arianism was not only embraced, but openly acknowledged by most of the Presbyterian ministers. That generation of ministers, who contended so zealously for the orthodox faith, had finished their labours, and received from their Lord a dismissal into eternal rest. Those champions among the laity who, at the begin- ning of the controversy, stood up so firmly for the truth, had entered as well into the joy of their Lord. Though their children continued Dissenters, too many of them did not possess the same sentiments or spirit. Among those who succeeded these ministers were too many who embraced the Arian creed. To this unhappy change contributed the example and conversation as well of many from the younger Presbyterian ministers. In consequence Arianism spread far and wide in the Presbyterian congregations, both among the ministers and the people. This unhappy controversy proved the grave of the Presbyterian congregations, and of those of the General Baptists. The effects of Arianism, though at first scarcely visible, gradually produced desolation and death. KEYWORDS: Arianism, controversy, nonconformity, creeds, consubstantiality Introduction The apostolic teaching about Christ was relatively simple. But what the apostle taught about Christ also contained ideas that some people found difficult to understand. While the history progresses after the time of the apostles, we learn that prior to the beginning of the fourth century all creeds and summaries of faith were local in character.
    [Show full text]
  • Spinoza on Extension Physical Not Mere Extension in Space, for Spinoza, but It Is Not Part of the Essence of Something Physical to Be Extended in Space at All
    Philosophers’ volume 15, no. 14 §1 Introduction1 Imprint april 2015 Spinoza indicates in the Ethics that there is at least one “extended thing (res extensa)”, which is God, or nature (e. g., EIIp2), and that there are bodies, which are “modes of Extension (modi Extensionis)” (e. g., EIIp7). This is very naturally taken to mean that there are things — substances, modes, or both — that are extended in three dimensions, or that take up space. In this paper, however, I argue that this is not what Spinoza means. When Spinoza discusses the attribute of extension, he does not mean dimensionality, and by “an extended thing” he does not mean to describe something that takes up space. Not only is the essence of the Spinoza on Extension physical not mere extension in space, for Spinoza, but it is not part of the essence of something physical to be extended in space at all. The argument proceeds in two parts. First, in §2, I argue that when Spinoza writes that God, corporeal substance, or nature is “an Extended thing”, he does not mean that this substance is extended in length, breadth and depth. In other words, substance is neither space nor something that takes up space. I argue for this by showing that Spinoza allows that substance can be characterized by a certain conception of quantity, contrasts that with another conception of quantity that cannot be attributed to substance, and associates three-dimensional extension with the second kind of quantity, and not the first. I go on in §3 to make the more controversial case that finite Alison Peterman bodies, or modes of the “extended” substance, are also not properly University of Rochester 1.
    [Show full text]