Jeffrey R. Wigelsworth

Deism in Enlightenment England : theology, politics, and Newtonian public science

Introduction: The importance of deist theology 1. The meaning of 1689: politics and theology, 1694-1700 2. The issue of succession: politics and theology, 1701-9 3. Matter, motion, and Newtonian public science, 1695-1714 4. The spectre of high-church: politics and theology, 1709-19 5. Matter, motion, and Newtonian public science, 1720-41 6. The age of Walpole: politics and theology, 1720-41 Conclusion: Radical no more Bibliography Index

The Disputed Root of Salvation in Eighteenth‐century English Deism: Thomas Chubb and Thomas Morgan Debate the Impact of the Fall

Taylor and Francis Ltd RIHR_A_372457.sgm 10.1080/174969 0902722874 Inte lectual History Review 749-6977 p n /1749-6985 online Original Article 2 0rnational So ety for Intellectual History 9 0 0002009 Jeff eyWigelsw th jf 24219@dal.ca Very often, little-known debates in intellectual history offer an opportunity to shed light on much larger issues. In this article I examine one such episode which took place during 1726 and 1727 within competing pamphlets authored by two deists, Thomas Chubb (1679–1747) and Thomas Morgan (d. 1743), for what it reveals about the meaning of ‘deism’ in eighteenth-century England. In their writings Chubb and Morgan considered the lingering influence of Adam’s fall on human reason and the ability to perform good deeds in pursuit of salvation.2 While both men saw themselves as deists, what this meant to each was strikingly different as became clear during the exchange. Morgan described his view as Christian deism and denounced Chubb as advocating natural deism, a label that Chubb wore proudly. As I aim to demonstrate, the arguments of Chubb and Morgan during this twelve-month period illustrate that a more nuanced image of English deism is needed. Before proceeding to the analysis of the debate, it is beneficial to review briefly the scholarship on English deism. Stated somewhat broadly studies of deism in England are beset by three problems. First is the question of defining ‘deism’ itself: how was the term used by contemporaries, and how is it used by historians? As James E. Force has commented, ‘deism’ is difficult to characterize because it was ‘one of the dirty words of the age’ used pejoratively and dismissively rather than qualitatively and consistently.3 Similar questions have been raised concerning such formerly unproblematic terms as ‘atheism’, ‘radicalism’ and, indeed, ‘orthodoxy’.4 This is not to say that deists did not exist and that those whom we have called deists were not. Rather, how did these persons, called deists, label

Samuel Clarke's Newtonian Soul

This article explores and categorizes the belief of what awaited the soul after bodily death held by English divine Samuel Clarke, D.D. as compared to that held by his close friend Isaac Newton. Evidence taken from the corpus of Clarkes writings reveals both he and Newton to be mortalists, but of differing types and to different degrees. While it has long been known that Clarke and Newton were often of one mind in matters of theology, a comparative study of their conceptions of soul reveals that the two friends held even more parallels than has been acknolwedged.

God does not act arbitrarily, or interpose unnecessarily:” providential deism and the denial of miracles in Wollaston, Tindal, Chubb, and Morgan”

The philosophical debate on miracles in Enlightenment England shows the composite and evolutionary character of the English Enlightenment and, more generally, of the Enlightenments relation to rel...