Hi Gerald.

I haven’t actually read Newton’s own papers, but was relying upon those two biographies for my article, so can’t tell you about his precise beliefs.

Regarding ‘respected science’… It all depends what you mean by ‘science’. I think we can agree that at least during alchemy’s early period the word didn’t exist, and that the term ‘natural philosophy’ was used. These natural philosophers of the Renaissance and earlier had a very different worldview from that of later scientists. Alchemists did believe in the possibility of physical transmutation, so you could call it science, but on the whole they thought that spiritual practice, and therefore spiritual ‘skill’, was an essential ‘ingredient’ in the process. So at the very least we might call alchemy a spiritual science, not achievable by the uninitiated. (It’s interesting that Jung, after delving extensively into the alchemical literature, concluded that it was not intended to be physical at all, but that that the texts should be interpreted symbolically, as representing psychological processes. I used to believe that he was right — see Psychology and Alchemy — but following further reading now think he got that partly wrong, although it is easy to see why he might have reached that conclusion. See my series, links below.)

Your four attributes sound suspiciously like the ancient idea of the four elements: earth, air, fire, water. Do you think that’s what is intended? (These ‘elements’, of course, have to be interpreted symbolically, not literally.)

Here are links to the remainder of my series on alchemy. The Newton piece was the first:

Alchemy — How to Turn Lead into Gold (Maybe) | by Graham Pemberton | Medium

Alchemy — Why It Matters. This is the latest in a series of… | by Graham Pemberton | Medium

Alchemy — Those Who Might Have Succeeded | by Graham Pemberton | Medium

Alchemy, Concluding Thoughts — the Future | by Graham Pemberton | Medium

best wishes