Leibniz and the Sensorium Dei

Leibniz and the Sensorium Dei HOWARD R. BERNSTEIN SEVERAL YEARSAGO Koyr6 and Cohen discovered among the Newton manuscripts several drafts and fragments preparatory to a rather famous letter to Leibniz via the mediation of the Abb6 Conti (26 February 1716).1Among the many intriguing excisions that did not survive to the condensed final version, was the frequent reference to an alleged Sensorium Dei, a sensory of God. Now it happens that Leibniz's letter to Conti of November or December, 1715, to which these drafts were to constitute a reply, does not specifically invoke the Sensorium. The assertion that"Sir Isaac Newton says, that space is an organ, which God makes use of to perceive things by,''2 of course, belongs to the opening volley of the famous Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence and not to Leibniz's abortive attempt to engage Newton in his own voice. Strategic concerns no doubt were instrumental in the choice of the alleged Sensorium Dei as a standard under which to fight. But as one strips away the dross, such an entry is seen to have concealed a confluence of assumptions penetrating to the arcanum of Leibniz's philosophia perennis. Leibniz's initial letter to Caroline of Anspach exacerbated tensions already longstanding with the Newtonians. To accuse "Sir Isaac Newton and his followers" of having contributed to an alleged "decay of natural religion" was indeed a bold controversial stroke. 3 Not only did Newton genuinely espouse the so-called eternal verities of natural religion, but others, and Clarke among them, anchored their apologetics in gleanings from his scientific discoveries. If Clarke was vulnerable to Leibniz's innuendoes, so was Sir Isaac Newton, whose "odd opinions concerning the trinity" were less publicized but more extreme than Clarke's? Accordingly, it was with a sense of personal urgency that Clarke's Epistolary Dedication to the letters rings with the necessity to A. Koyr6, I. B. Cohen, "Newton and the Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence," Archives International d'Histoire des Sciences, 15 (1962), 63-126. Drafts of letter found in Portsmouth Collection of Newtonian MSS. Letter in P. des Maizeaux, Recueil des diversespieces, sur la philosophy... (Amsterdam, 1720), II, and in J. Raphson, History of Fluxions (London, 1715 [actually 1717]). Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence, ed. H. Alexander (Manchester, 1956), II. Hereafter cited as L-C Correspondence. Originally published by Clarke as A collection of Papers which passed between the late Learned Mr. Leibnitz and Dr. Clarke in the years 1715 and 1716 relating to the Principles of Natural Philosophy and Religion, with an Appendix (London, 1717). Also of interest, since edition is based on Hanover MSS, is Correspondence Leibnitz-Clarke, ed. A. Robinet (Paris, 1957). 3L-C Correspondence, II. Letters to Princess Caroline available in extenso in Die Werke yon Leibniz, ed. O. Klopp, 11 vols. (Hanover, 1864-1884), XI; selections trans, by Alexander, Appendix B, 189-198. F. Priesdey brings out controversial aspects in "The Clarke-Leibniz controversy," in The Methodological Heritage of Newton, ed. R. Butts and J. Davis (Toronto, 1970), 34-56. 4For Clarke see J. Rodney, "Samuel Clarke," Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Vol. III (New York, 1971); "Samuel Clarke and the Acceptance of Newtonian Thought," Research Studies 36 (1968), 351-360; H. Metzgar, A ttraction Universelle et Religion Naturelle chez quelques commenta teurs anglais de Newton (Paris, 1938), esp. 115-124. Most famous apolegetic, Boyle lectures, A Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God (London, 1706), went to ten editions by 1749; controversy with Anthony Collins, "freethinker," "Remarks upon a Book entitled Philosophical Enquiry concerning Human Liberty," A Collection of Papers... . (London, 1717), 3-46. Note: this was Clarke's edition of his exchange with Leibniz; [1711 172 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY confirm, establish, and vindicate against all objectors.., those great and fundamental truths of natural religion.., that from the earliest antiquity to this day.., had never been so deeply and so firmly laid, as in the mathematical and experimental philosophy of that great man. And Your Royal Highness could not permit those suspicions, which had been suggested by a gentleman of such eminent note in a learned world as Mr. Leibnitz to remain unanswered? Pressures on the adversaries conspired almost to dictate that battle be joined under...