Archibald Pitcairne,David Gregory and the Scottish Origins of English Tory Newtonianism,1688–1715

Jacob Margaret , The Newtonians and the English Revolution (Ithaca, 1976). Jacob's claim of a close connection between Newtonianism and Whiggery is largely supported in such works as: Force James , William Whiston: Honest Newtonian (Cambridge, 1985); Gascoigne John , Cambridge in the Age of the Enlightenment (Cambridge, 1989); Olson Richard , “Tory-High Church opposition to science and scientism in the eighteenth century: The works of John Arbuthnot, Jonathan Swift and Samuel Johnson”, in Burke J. G. (ed.), The uses of science in the age of Newton (California, 1983), 171–204; Shapin Steven , “Of gods and kings: Natural philosophy and politics in the Leibniz–Clarke disputes”, Isis, lxxxii (1981), 187–215; Stewart Larry , “Samuel Clarke, Newtonianism and the factions of post-revolutionary England”, Journal of the history of ideas, xlii (1981), 53–72 and “Seeing through the scholium: Religion and the reading of Newton in the eighteenth century”, History of science, xxxvi (1996), 123–65; Benjamin M. , “Medicine, morality and the politics of Berkeley's tar-water”, in Cunningham A. French R. (eds), The medical enlightenment of the eighteenth century (Cambridge, 1990), 165–93; Wilde Chris , “Hutchinsonianism, natural philosophy and religious controversy in eighteenth century Britain”, History of science, xviii (1980), 1–24 and “Matter and spirit as natural symbols in eighteenth century British natural philosophy”, The British journal for the history of science, xv (1982), 99–131. Tories greeted James II's flight to France and replacement by William and Mary with concern. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 challenged Tory doctrines of absolute monarchy and non-resistance while giving countenance to contract theories of government supported by Whigs. Many Jacobites — Those who could not support the post-1688 regime — Remained loyal to James II in exile in France.

Guerrini Anita , “The Tory Newtonians: Gregory, Pitcairne and their circle”, Journal of British studies, xxv (1986), 288–311. Whigs supported the post-1688 political and religious settlement and were more willing to put limits on the rights of monarchs than Tories. They were allied with Low-Church Anglicans or Latitudinarians. Known as friends of dissent, Latitudinarians downplayed divisions between themselves and religious nonconformists about church structure and religious ceremonies in an effort to comprehend dissenters within the Anglican Church.

Martin J. R. R. , “Explaining John Freind's History of Physick”, Studies in history and philosophy of science, xix (1988), 399–418. Allied with the Tories, English High-Churchmen opposed the religious toleration of dissenters secured by the Toleration Act of 1689. They saw the acceptance of Anglican articles and creeds as necessary for salvation and placed great emphasis on the divine nature of Episcopal authority. In their view, religious non-conformity should be met with disciplinary action. Like Anglican divines (both Low and High-Church), Scottish Episcopalians believed in the divine authority of bishops. Scottish Presbyterians who rejected the authority of bishops opposed them. While England and Scotland had the same monarch they were both separate kingdoms before the Act of Union in 1707. Each nation had its own political/religious cultures and traditions.

Schaffer Simon , “The Glorious Revolution and medicine in Britain and the Netherlands”, Notes and records of the Royal Society of London, xliii (1989), 167–90.

Guerrini Anita , Obesity and depression in the Enlightenment: The life and times of George Cheyne (Norman, 2000), esp. chaps. 2–3.

For a discussion of the relationship between natural philosophy and religious enthusiasm see Heyd M. , “Be sober and reasonable”: The critique of enthusiasm in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries (Leyden, 1995).

Clark J. C. D. , English society 1660–1832, 2nd edn (Cambridge, 2000); Holmes Geoffrey , British politics in the age of Anne, rev. edn (London, 1987), 6.

Dickinson H. T. , Liberty and property: Political ideology in eighteenth century Britain (New York, 1977), esp. chaps. 1 and 2.

Holmes , op. cit. (ref 7), 97.

For a good survey of High-Church thought and the differences between High and Low Churchmen see Cornwall Robert D. , Visible and apostolic: The constitution of the church in High-Church Anglican and Non-Juror thought (Newark, 1993).

For the notion of a High-Church ethos see Chamberlain Jeffrey S. , Accommodating High-Churchmen: The clergy of Sussex (Chicago, 1997), chap. 1. For controversies in convocation see Bennett G. V. , The Tory crisis in church and state 1688–1730: The career of Francis Atterbury Bishop of Rochester (Oxford, 1975).

Shapiro Barbara , “Latitudinarianism and science in seventeenth century England”, Past and present, xl (1968), 16–41; Jacob Margaret , op. cit (ref. 1); Jacob J. R. Jacob M. C. , “The Anglican origins of modern science: The metaphysical foundations of the Whig constitution”, Isis, lxxi (1980), 251–67; Gascoigne , op. cit. (ref. 1); Shapin , op. cit. (ref. 1), 187–215.

Olson , op. cit. (ref. 1); Stewart , “Samuel Clarke” (ref. 1) and “Seeing through the scholium” (ref. 1); Benjamin , op. cit. (ref. 1); Wilde , “Hutchinsonianism” (ref. 1) and “Matter and spirit” (ref. 1).

For Trinitarian controversies in the 1690s see Reedy Gerard , The Bible and reason: Anglicans and Scripture in late seventeenth-century England (Philadelphia, 1985), chap. 6. Locke's views on the Trinity are thoroughly discussed in Marshall John , “Locke, Socinianism, ‘Socinianism’ and Unitarianism”, in Stewart M. A. (ed.), English philosophy in the age of Locke (Oxford, 2000), 111–83.

Harris Tim , “Reluctant revolutionaries? The Scots and the Revolution of 1688–89”, in Nenner H. (ed.), Politics and the political imagination in later Stuart Britain (Rochester, 1997), 97–117, p. 99.

Lenman Bruce , “The Scottish Episcopal clergy and the ideology of Jacobitism”, in Cruickshanks E. (ed.), Ideology and conspiracy: Aspects of Jacobitism (Edinburgh, 1982), 36–48, p. 46. For a good discussion of the relationship between Scottish Episcopalianism and Jacobitism see Szechi Daniel , The Jacobites: Britain and Europe (Manchester, 1994).

For a good dicussion of the social dimension of religious disputes during this period see Smout T. C. , A history of the Scottish people 1560–1830 (London, 1969), esp. chap. 3.

Ibid., chaps. 3–4; Burleigh J. H. S. , A church history of Scotland (London, 1960), chaps. 4–5.

Buckroyd Julia , “Anti-clericalism in Scotland during the Restoration”, in Macdougall N. (ed.), Church, politics and society: Scotland 1408–1929 (Edinburgh, 1983), 167–85, p. 180.

Henderson G. D. , The burning bush: Studies in Scottish church history (Edinburgh, 1957), chaps. 6–8; James and George Garden were influenced by the mystical writings of the French women Madame Bourignon and Madame Guyon. See Henderson G. D. , Mystics of the north-east (Aberdeen, 1934).

For Tory mysticism in the 1730s and '40s see Schaffer Simon , “The consuming flame: Electrical showmen and Tory mystics in the world of goods”, in Brewer J. Porter R. (eds), Consumption and the world of goods (London, 1993), 189–225.

Morgan John , Godly learning: Puritan attitudes toward reason, learning and education, 1560–1640, 308.

Trevor-Roper Hugh , Religion, the Reformation and social change, 3rd edn (London, 1984), 231.

Ibid.; Trevor-Roper Hugh , “The Scottish enlightenment”, Studies on Voltaire and the eighteenth century, lviii (1967), 1635–58. For Merton see “Science, technology and society in seventeenth century England”, Osiris, iv (1938), 360–632. Trevor-Roper believes the origins of the English Enlightenment was, in part, due to a reaction to Calvinism. For interesting comments in this respect see Pocock J. G. A. , Barbarism and enlightenment: The enlightenments of Edward Gibbon, 1737–1764 (Cambridge, 1999), 8.

For the connection between Episcopalians and science during the Restoration see Ouston Hugh , “York in Edinburgh: James VII and the patronage of learning in Scotland, 1678–1688”, in Dwyer J. Mason R. A. Murdoch A. (eds), New perspectives on the politics and culture of early modern Scotland (Edinburgh, 1982), 133–55.

Emerson Roger L. , “Natural philosophy and the problem of the Scottish enlightenment”, Studies on Voltaire and the eighteenth century, ccxlii (1986), 243–91. For a similar analysis see his “Sir Robert Sibbald, Kt, the Royal Society of Scotland and the origins of the Scottish enlightenment”, Annals of science, xlv (1988), 41–72.

King Christine M. , “Philosophy and science in the Arts curriculum of the Scottish universities in the seventeenth century”, Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1974.

Some of Pitcairne's strongest opponents were medical doctors such as Andrew Brown and Edward Eizat, men who supported the new post-1688 regime in Scotland.

For important comments in this respect see Cameron James K. , “Theological controversy: A factor in the origins of the Scottish enlightenment”, in Campbell R. H. Skinner A. S. (eds), The origins and nature of the Scottish enlightenment (Edinburgh, 1982), 116–30.

Phillipson Nicholas , “Culture and society in the eighteenth century province: The case of Edinburgh and the Scottish enlightenment”, in Stone L. (ed.), The university in society, ii (London, 1975), 407–48, and Christie John , “The rise and fall of Scottish science”, in Crosland M. (ed.), The emergence of science in western Europe (London, 1975), 111–26.

Phillipson , op. cit. (ref. 30), 429–30.

The circumstances of Pitcairne's resignation are still unclear. One theory is that his future wife, the daughter of Sir Archibald Stevenson, refused to move to Leyden. Another is that Pitcairne's anti-Presbyterianism was not welcome in Calvinist Holland. See Lindeboom G. A. , “Pitcairne's Leyden interlude described from the documents”, Annals of science, xix (1963), 273–84.

For information on Pitcairne's medical theory see Brown Theodore , The mechanical philosophy and the animal oeconomy (New York, 1981); Guerrini Anita , “Archibald Pitcairne and Newtonian medicine”, Medical history, xxxi (1987), 70–83; and King Lester , The philosophy of medicine: The early eighteenth century (Cambridge, 1978), chap. 5.

For disputes between Pitcairne and his medical opponents see Cunningham Andrew , “Sydendam vs Newton: The Edinburgh fever dispute of the 1690s”, in Bynum W. F. Nutton V. (eds), Theories of fever from Antiquity to the Enlightenment (London, 1981), 71–98; Stigler Stephen , “Apollo Mathematicus: A story of resistance to quantification in the seventeenth century”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, cxxxvi (1992), 93–126; and Howie W. B. , “Sir Archibald Stevenson, his ancestry, and the riot in the College of Physicians of Edinburgh”, Medical history, xi (1967), 269–84.

The first translation was in 1715. For this essay I will be referring to the second edition of this translation. See Pitcairne Archibald , The works of Archibald Pitcairne, transl. by Sewell G. Desaguliers J. S. (London, 1727).

See the numerous letters between Pitcairne and Mar in Johnson W. T. (ed.), The best of our own: Letters of Archibald Pitcairne 1652–1713 (Edinburgh, 1979).

For an interesting comment on the close relationship between Pitcairne and Gregory see Kirsanov V. S. , “The earliest copy in Russia of Newton's Principia: Is it David Gregory's annotated copy?”, Notes and records of the Royal Society of London, xlvi (1992), 203–18.

Stewart A. G. , The academic Gregories (Edinburgh, 1901), 52. For Gregory's teaching at Edinburgh see Eagles Christina , “David Gregory and Newtonian science”, The British journal for the history of science, x (1977), 216–25.

Stewart , op. cit. (ref. 38), 58; Eagles Christina , “The mathematical works of David Gregory”, Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1977, 40. The commission required those holding office to swear loyalty to William and Mary and subscribe to the Confession of Faith. For a pro-Episcopalian account of the proceedings see Monro Alexander , Presbyterian inquisition; as it was lately practised against the professors of the Colledge of Edinburgh (London, 1691).

Speaking of Gregory, Newton wrote to Arthur Charlett that he had “performed his duty at Edinburgh wth credit as I hear and is respected the greatest mathematician in Scotland and that deservedly so far as my knowledge reaches”. Newton to Charlett, 27 July 1691, in Turnbull H. W. (ed.), The correspondence of Isaac Newton, iii (Cambridge, 1961), 155.

Both of these works were translated posthumously into English in 1715. See Gregory D. , Dr. Gregory's elements of catoptrics and dioptrics, transl. by Browne W. (London, 1715), and Gregory D. , Elements of astronomy physical and geometrical (London, 1715).

Most of this memorandum was published by Hiscock W. G. (ed.) as David Gregory, Isaac Newton and their circle (Oxford, 1937).

Wodrow Robert , Analecta: Or materials for a history of remarkable providences (Edinburgh, 1842–43), ii, 255.

Monro , op. cit (ref. 39), 28, 39.

McCrie Thomas (ed.), The correspondence of the rev Robert Wodrow (Edinburgh, 1842–43), i, 163. Translation: “the word of God remains to eternity”.

Eizat Edward , Apollo mathematicus: Or the art of curing diseases by the mathematics according to the principles of Dr. Pitcairn … to which is subjoined a Discourse of certainty, according to the principles of the same author (London, 1695), 10–11. The Solutio problematis was originally published in Edinburgh in 1688 and was republished in Pitcairne's works. See Pitcairne , op. cit. (ref. 35), 139–67.

Halyburton Thomas , Natural religion insufficient, and revealed necessary to man's happiness in his present state or a rational enquiry into the principles of the modern deists (Edinburgh, 1714), 12.

Until the nineteenth century the terms ‘theism’ and ‘deism’ were used interchangeably. The Epistola was published anonymously but was likely written by Pitcairne. Gregory claimed it was. See Hiscock , op. cit. (ref. 42), 35–36. Halyburton's lecture on Pitcairne's Epistola (published in 1710) was prefixed to Halyburton's Natural religion insufficient in 1714.

For Craige see Nash Richard (ed.), John Craige's Mathematical principles of Christian theology (Carbondale, 1991).

Pitcairne to Gray, Sept. 1694 ( Johnston (ed.), op. cit. (ref. 36), 3).

Pitcairne to Gray, 24 Nov. 1694 (ibid., 19).

Pitcairne to Gregory, 25 Feb. 1706 (ibid., 43).

Newton Isaac , Principia, ed. by Cohen I. B. Whitman A. (Berkeley, 1999), 398.

Quoted in Cook Alan , Edmond Halley: Charting the heavens and the seas (Oxford, 1998), 247.

Quoted in Eagles , op. cit. (ref. 39), 41.

Halyburton , op. cit. (ref. 47), 17. This quotation is found in Nye's Discourse concerning natural and revealed religion (London, 1696), 199.

Reedy , op. cit. (ref. 14), 124.

Turnbull (ed.), op. cit. (ref. 40), iii, 108.

For an excellent study on this and related aspects of Newton's thought see Gascoigne John , “‘The wisdom of the Egyptians’ and the secularisation of history in the age of Newton”, in Gaukroger S. (ed.), The uses of antiquity: The scientific revolution and the classical tradition (Dordrecht, 1991), 171–212 and Iliffe Rob , ‘“Is he like other men?’ The meaning of the Principia mathematica and the author as idol”, in Maclean G. (ed.), Culture and society in the Stuart Restoration (Cambridge, 1995), 159–76. My thanks to Dr Iliffe for a chapter, “Stonehenge, ‘the true temple of God’: Newton and the origins of idolatry”, from a forthcoming book of his. Also see Manuel Frank , Isaac Newton historian (Cambridge, 1963), chaps. 8–9 and idem, The religion of Isaac Newton (Oxford, 1974), chap. 3.

For Locke and the Trinity see Reedy , op. cit. (ref. 14), chap. 6 and Marshall , op. cit. (ref. 14), 111–83.

Reedy , op. cit. (ref. 14), 21.

For anti-clericalism in the early eighteenth century, see Champion J. A. I. , The pillars of priestcraft shaken: The Church of England and its enemies (Cambridge, 1992). Toland is examined in Sullivan Robert E. , John Toland and the deist controversy (Cambridge, 1982), esp. chap. 3.

Turnbull (ed.), op. cit (ref. 40), iii, 338.

Desmaizeaux Pierre (ed.), A collection of several pieces of Mr John Toland, i (London, 1726), pp. vi–viii.

Ibid., ii, 301–8.

Christ Church MSS 163. This manuscript appears under the name of David Gregory (the astronomer) in the Christ Church manuscript catalogue.

Hiscock (ed.), op. cit. (ref. 42), 28–29.

Ibid., 29. In his journal he wrote for 17 Dec. 1705: “It would be very acceptable just now to write a Epitome of the History of Scotland, as the Vouchers of the Constitution of the Kingdom, which ought to be the main design of the work.”.

Christ Church MSS 163, f. 10v.

Pitcairne's dislike of the social Puritanism of the Presbyterians can be seen in Babell where the Presbyterians accuse the Episcopalians of such ridiculous sins as celebrating Christmas with good food and drink and not reading Calvin enough. For a list of Episcopalian sins see Pitcairne Archibald , Babell, ed. by Kinloch G. R. (Edinburgh, 1830), 15–25.

Pitcairne Archibald , The assembly (London, 1722), 46–47. In the 1722 edition the passage reads “have confinement to sense and reason”. The 1752 and 1766 Edinburgh editions of the play correctly uses the word “hate” instead. Obviously, given the context of the passage, the word “have” is a misprint.

Ibid., 107.

Ibid., 86.

Ibid. 84.

Ibid., 54.

Halyburton , op. cit. (ref. 47), 23.

McCrie (ed.), op. cit. (ref. 45), ii, 77–78.

Indeed, among the sins that the General assembly accuses the Episcopalians of in Babell are belief in free will and denial of predestination. Pitcairne , op. cit. (ref. 70), 21–22.

Halyburton , op. cit. (ref. 47), 15.

McCrie (ed.), op. cit. (ref. 45), ii, 392.

Ibid., iii, 236. See Stewart , “Samuel Clarke” (ref. 1), 53–72 for Clarke and Newtonian metaphysics.

McCrie (ed.), op. cit. (ref. 45), iii, 262.

Pitcairne Archibald , Epistola Archimedis ad Regem Gelonem (Edinburgh, 1710), 13–14. In the Epistola Pitcairne alluded to the falsity of the Trinity in a discussion of Hannibal. Pitcairne stated: “on testimonies also it is believed that he [Hannibal] defeated the Romans at Ticinum, then at the Trebia, and recently in a great battle at Lake Trasimene. But if anyone should assert that Hannibal fought those three battles at the same time using one and the same army, he would not find credence among the knowledgable (for that thing would overcome the strength of testimonies) although he might even, to extricate himself, wish to persuade that there was indeed just one Hannibal but he alone had three different generals, inside himself, namely, the Ticinese, the Trebian, and the Trasumemian, as different as the locations of the places where the fighting took place are different. … But that he, one man, be divided into three responds to no postulate.” My thanks to Professor J. B. Hall of the Classics Department, University of Leeds for help with the translation.

For the history of experimental Newtonianism see Cohen I. B. , Franklin and Newton (Philadelphia, 1956) and Schofield Robert E. , Mechanism and materialism (Princeton, 1970). For popular Newtonian experimental lectures see Stewart Larry , The rise of public science (Cambridge, 1992).

This is an important aspect of what I. B. Cohen has termed “the Newtonian style”. See Newton , op. cit. (ref. 53), 149–50.

Lenman , op. cit. (ref. 16), 36–48.

Quoted in Reid David (ed.), The party-coloured mind: Prose relating to the conflict of church and state in seventeenth century Scotland (Edinburgh, 1982), 154.

While Filmer argued in his Patriarcha for the ‘descent’ of kingly authority from Adam, Hobbes based his theory of absolute monarchy on a contractual basis. See Filmer Robert , Patriarcha and other writings, ed. by Sommerville J. P. (Cambridge, 1991) and Hobbes Thomas , Leviathan, ed. by Tuck R. (Cambridge, 1991).

Kramnick Isaac , Bolingbroke and his circle: The politics of nostalgia in the age of Walpole (Cambridge, Mass, 1968), esp. chap. 5.

Shapin Steven Schaffer Simon , Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the experimental life (Princeton, 1985), esp. chap. 3.

For the potential discursive power of the Principia see Markley Robert , “Representing order: Natural philosophy, mathematics, and theology in the Newtonian revolution”, in Hayles N. Katherine (ed.), Chaos and order: Complex dynamics in literature and science (Chicago, 1991), 125–48.

For interesting comments on Pitcairne in this respect see Schaffer , op. cit. (ref. 4), 176.

Heyd , op. cit. (ref. 6), 139.

Pitcairne , op. cit. (ref. 83).

Translation in Pitcairne , op. cit. (ref. 35), 5–22. Gregory's inaugural lecture has been translated. See Lawrence P. D. Molland A. G. , “David Gregory's inaugural lecture at Oxford”, Notes and records of the Royal Society of London, xxv (1970), 143–78.

For this aspect of Pitcairne's medical theories see Guerrini , op. cit. (ref. 33); Stigler , op. cit. (ref. 34); King , op. cit. (ref. 33), chap. 5.

Pitcairne , op. cit. (ref. 35), 8–9.

Lawrence Molland , op. cit. (ref. 95).

Ibid., 168.

Pitcairne , op. cit. (ref. 35), 8.

Ibid., 11.

Lawrence Molland , op. cit. (ref. 95), 166–7 (my italics).

Dyksterhuis E. J. , Archimedes (Copenhagen, 1956), chap. 1; Laird W. R. , “Archimedes among the humanists”, Isis, lxxxii (1991), 629–38.

Gregory's élitism was also shared by Newton. See Iliffe , op. cit. (ref. 59), 175.

Guerrini , op. cit. (ref. 2), 303.

Hepburn George , Tarrugo unmasked, or, an answer to a late pamphlet intituled, Apollo Mathematicus (Edinburgh, 1695). For Cheyne's promotion of mathematical medicine see his A new theory of continu'd fevers (Edinburgh, 1701). This work was republished a year later as a A new theory of acute and slow continu'd fevers …to which is prefix'd an essay concerning the improvements of medicine (London, 1702). The included essay provides a passionate defence of mathematical medicine. Also see Guerrini Anita , “Isaac Newton, George Cheyne and the ‘Principia medicinae’”, in French R. Wear A. (eds), The medical revolution of the seventeenth century (Cambridge, 1989), 222–45.

Shuttleton David , ‘“A modest examination’: John Arbuthnot and the Scottish Newtonians”, British journal for eighteenth century studies, xviii (1995), 47–62. In this article Shuttleton claims that an anonymous pamphlet attacking Eizat titled A modest examination of a late pamphlet entitled Apollo Mathematicus was written by Arbuthnot.

Cunningham , op. cit. (ref. 34). For Sydenham's political views see Cunningham Andrew , “Thomas Sydenham: Epidemics, experiment, and the ‘good old cause’”, in French Wear (eds), op. cit. (ref. 106), 164–90.

Cheyne George , Remarks on two late pamphlets written by Dr. Oliphant against Dr. Pitcairn's Dissertations, and the New theory of fevers (Edinburgh, 1702), 6.

Ibid. , 9. The latter half of the above citation is quoted in Guerrini , op. cit. (ref. 5), 66. In her recent biography of George Cheyne Guerrini spends a considerable amount of time discussing the relationship between Cheyne's conservatism and his early enthusiasm for Pitcairne's medicine.

In the early eighteenth century Cheyne lived in London and later in Bath. Cockburn was appointed a physician in the British navy and was later physician to Jonathan Swift, while Hepburn moved to King's Lynn, Norfolk where he practised medicine in relative obscurity. See Guerrini , op. cit. (ref. 2), 303–5.

For Gregory, Keill, Freind and Christ Church see Guerrini , op. cit. (ref. 2), 307–8. Oxford Newtonians such as Friend put much more emphasis on the ancient roots of Newtonian medical theory than did Scots like Pitcairne. However, Pitcairne did praise ancient geometers such as Euclid and Archimedes.

Keill John , An introduction to natural philosophy: Or, philosophical lectures read in the University of Oxford (London, 1720), p. viii. This collection of Keill's lectures was first published as Introductio ad veram physicam (Oxford, 1701). Keill and Arbuthnot were the likely authors of An essay on the usefulness of mathematical learning in a letter from a gentleman in the city to his friend in Oxford (Oxford, 1701).

Although Pitcairne and Gregory had been exposed to Newton's ideas on matter theory in the 1690s, it was not until the publication of the Opticks, especially the 1706 edition with its speculations on nut-shell theory of matter, the cause of attraction and God's relation to the cosmos, that Tory Newtonians at Oxford like Keill and Friend discussed such issues in their published writings. See Guerrini Anita , “Newtonian matter theory, chemistry and medicine, 1690–1713”, Ph.D. thesis, University of Indiana, 1983, esp. chap 6.

Keill John , An examination of Dr Burnet's Theory of the Earth. Together with some remarks on Mr Whiston's New Theory of the Earth (Oxford, 1698). See Keill's An examination of the reflections on the theory of the earth together with a defence of the remarks on Mr. Whiston's New Theory (Oxford, 1699), 164, for his statements on Newton. Also see Kubrin David , “Providence and the mechanical philosophy: The creation and dissolution of the world in Newtonian thought”, Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, 1968, chap. 11, for Keill's attacks on world-making.

Kerby-Miller Charles (ed.), The memoirs of the extraordinary life, works and discoveries of Martinus Scriblerus (New Haven, 1950), 168.

Sherburn George (ed.), The correspondence of Alexander Pope, ii (Oxford, 1956), 459.