66

doctrine and the evidence of the doctrine, asserting his conviction of the stability and certainty of the first, while duty obliged him to detect flaws in the second. We go farther. Language occurs in the treatise on the "Two notable Corruptions of Scripture," which implies, in the clearest manner, Newton's disbelief of the doctrine in question. Page 8, he says, speaking of the baptismal form, "the place from which they tried at first to derive the Trinity." This phrase even Horsley found to be "very extraordinary." And extraordinary, nay, unaccountable, it is, if Sir Isaac Newton was, as Horsley intimates, no Socinian," or, as we should choose to term it, not an Antitrinitarian. In the following, the reasons assigned of the Sonship of Christ fall far below the height of orthodoxy. P. 59, "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God ;' that Son spoken of in the Psalms, when he saith, Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee.' This is he that, after the Jews had long expected him, came, first in a mortal body by baptism of water, and then in an immortal one by shedding his blood upon the cross, and rising again from the dead, not by water only, but by water and blood; being the Son of God, as well by his resurrection from the dead, (Acts xiii. 33,) as by his supernatural birth of the virgin (Luke i. 35)." À Trinitarian would have gone much farther, and spoken of his being begotten from eternity, and even an Arian would have spoken of his creation as taking place before all worlds. No one but a Humanitarian could with propriety have referred the Sonship of Christ merely to his supernatural birth and resurrection. Let the tenor of the next passage, page 61, be considered. Speaking of the want of congruity there is in it, with the Apostle's drift, he says of the text of the three heavenly witnesses, "How does its witnessing make to the design of St. John's discourse? Let them make good sense of it who are able. For my part, I can make none. If it be said that we are not to determine what is Scripture, and what not, by our private judgments; I confess it, in places not controverted; but in disputable places, I love to take up with what I can best understand. It is the temper of the hot and superstitious part of mankind, in matters of religion, ever to be fond of mysteries, and for that reason to like best what they understand least. Such men may use the Apostle John as they please, but I have that honour for him as to believe that he wrote good sense, and therefore take that sense to be his which is the best." Is this the tone of a Trinitarian? Was he, who was not fond of mysteries," likely to be enamoured with the mystery of mysteries, the Trinity, at which, we learn, on authority," reason stands aghast, and faith itself is half confounded"? Sir Isaac Newton had studied in a different school. Had he believed in the Trinity, would he not, after this passage, have precluded misconstruction, by asserting, as we find so often done, that there were mysteries in Christianity, mysteries to be believed, mysteries to prove the believer's faith, to exercise his trust, to humble his "reasoning pride," and, above all, proudly eminent, the mystery of the Trinity? Again, in p. 65, we read," In all the times of the hot and lasting Arian controversy, it (1 Tim. iii. 16) never came into play; though now these disputes are over, they that read, God manifested in the flesh,' think it one of the most obvious and pertinent texts for the business." Let Sir Isaac Newton's piety and gentleness be considered, and then say if he could have used language such as this of a fundamental doctrine of revelation, of any thing but what he believed a gross and injurious corruption of the gospel. It is quite clear that the mind of the writer was, to say no more, in a state of alienation both from the evidence and the doctrine which that

evidence was adduced to support. Much of the same character is the oblique thrust in the following passage, page 62: "When they had got the Trinity into his (Erasmus') edition, (they) threw by their manuscript, if they had one, as an almanac out of date. And can such shuffling dealings satisfy considering men ?" It would be easy to add many passages implying Newton's disbelief in the Trinity, taken from his published writings. We shall, however, content ourselves at present with the following, extracted from his piece on the Apocalypse: "The beasts and the elders represent the primitive Christians of all nations, and the worship of these Christians in their churches is here represented under the form of worshiping God and the Lamb in the temple: God for his benefaction in creating all things, and the Lamb for his benefaction in redeeming us with his blood: God as sitting upon the throne and living for ever, and the Lamb as exalted above all by the merits of his death. This was the worship of the primitive Christians." Vol. V. p. 455, Horsley's edition. Let this passage be read again. Its evidence appears to us decisive. The Holy Ghost is omitted, the Trinity is omitted. The grounds of the worship assigned ascribe to God supremacy, "sitting on the throne;" eternity, "living for ever;" the peculiarly divine function of creation, “ creating all things." The grounds assigned take from Christ all pretensions to equality or identity with God. Why is he worshiped? For creating us? No; that is ascribed to God: but for redeeming us with his blood, and as having been exalted by the merits of his death. A clear and studied distinction is kept up between God and Christ; and while the essential attributes of Deity are ascribed to the first, the functions of a creature, highly honoured it is true, but of a creature, are asserted of the second. It may be urged," they are both worshiped." Yes, and so were "God and the King." Worship has been paid to myriads of creatures, as the Old and the New Testament declares. Socinus, though a Humanitarian, worshiped Christ. And doubtless there is a homage due from all Christians to their Saviour, which, if you will, you may designate by the ambiguous term worship. And that the term worship did not, in the mind of Newton, intend the same when applied to the homage paid to God and that to Christ, is very clear from the careful distinction which he makes throughout the passage. He that was worshiped, because the Creator and Supreme and Eternal Ruler of all, received a very different service from that offered to him who had been faithful unto death in man's cause, and for his fidelity was honoured and exalted of the Deity.

The strongest evidence yet remains.

Hopton Haynes, the intimate friend of Newton, asserted that "Sir Isaac Newton did not believe our Saviour's pre-existence, being a Socinian (as we call it) in that article; that Sir Isaac much lamented Dr. Clarke's embracing Arianism, which opinion he feared had been and still would be, if maintained by learned men, a great obstruction to the progress of Christianity." On the same authority, we know that Sir Isaac predicted that "the time will come when the doctrine of the Incarnation, as commonly received, shall be exploded as an absurdity equal to transubstantiation." From Hopton Haynes we turn to Whiston, who succeeded Newton in the professorship at Cambridge. In two passages Whiston declares that Newton was an Antitrinitarian. Page 206, Memoirs of the Life of Mr. William Whiston, the autobiographer says, "I found that Sir Isaac Newton was so hearty for the Baptists, as well as for the Eusebians or Arians, that he sometimes suspected these two were the two witnesses in the Revelation." Again, p. 477, " And so far I know concerning you, my brethren, of the Baptists, that the greatest

man our nation ever bred, Sir Isaac Newton, my predecessor at Cambridge, who, with me, looked for those happy times, as to incline to suppose the EUSEBIANS and BAPTISTS, notwithstanding their present low estate, to be the two famous witnesses in the Revelation against Popery and Antichristianism." Whiston asserts the same, at least once more in his works. Here, then, we have the testimony of two most credible and competent witnesses to the Antitrinitarianism of Newton, and one of these declares the fact at three different times, and all in print. Whiston himself was intimate with Newton. He was also intimate with Dr. Clarke, who was intimate with Newton. Hopton Haynes also was in constant and friendly intercourse with the great philosopher, and both declare on their own knowledge that Newton was not a Trinitarian. Can evidence be stronger? Who can impeach the honesty of either of the witnesses? Honesty has become a part of Whiston's name, and we speak of honest Will. Whiston as familiarly as of Alexander the Great or Scipio Africanus. And against the character of Haynes, not a breath of suspicion has been breathed.-We have not yet done. The anonymous author of a pamphlet of some repute, who wrote about twenty years after Sir Isaac's death, affords evidence of the same fact, and would lead us to conclude that in his day the Antitrinitarianism of Newton was a matter of public notoriety.

The evidence now adduced might, we do not doubt, be multiplied by the publication of some of the papers that Horsley proscribed. And we should especially like to explore the contents of the pieces with the following titles: several on "Church History," "Questions concerning Athanasius,' "The Philosophical Progress of the Great Mystery," "An Account of the Corruptions of Scripture." By the recent publication of Milton on Christian Doctrine, and Lord King's Life of Locke, the question of their sentiments on the Trinity is for ever decided. Such, we doubt not, would be the effect if the Earl of Portsmouth would imitate Lord King, and give the world an opportunity of seeing some of those things which, with no little presumption, Horsley declared unfit for publication. Fully are we convinced that Newton could write nothing unfit for publication in a literary point of view, least of all, with the exception of mathematics, least of all, on biblical and ecclesiastical matters. "Unfit" many things might appear to Horsley, because unsuited to promote his theological views.

In intimating that the publication of the suppressed papers would for ever decide the question of Newton's religious sentiments, we did not design to express the slightest doubt of the validity of the evidence we already possess. That evidence satisfies our mind. In the words of Mr. Lindsey, we express our conviction, "that he was a Unitarian Christian there can be no doubt." But a multiplication of witnesses, and perhaps the Philosopher's own declaration, would serve to preclude any more objections such as those to which we must now give a passing notice. They are taken from an article entitled, "Was Sir Isaac Newton a Unitarian?" published in an American work, distinguished for its bitterness against Unitarians, designated, “The Spirit of the Pilgrims," and republished in an English periodical scarcely less distinguished in the same way-a work known in malam partem by our readers— "The Congregational Magazine"-number for December, 1830. The correctness of the assertion, that in the treatise on Two notable Corruptions of Scripture, "no evidence is furnished that he (Sir Isaac) was not sincerely a Trinitarian," our readers will, from what has been said, be able to appreciate.

There is, the objector alleges, a contradiction between the statements of

Whiston and Haynes. Whiston makes Newton an Arian, Haynes a Socinian. Granted; but they both make him an Antitrinitarian, and this is all we have contended for, and all we see reason to determine. But the objection is not valid except it can be shewn that they both speak of the same time. Newton might be an Arian at one period, and a Socinian (that is Humanitarian) at another period of his life. The change from the first to the second, increasing years have often brought. And Whiston, who speaks of Newton's Arianism, was not familiar with him in the latter part of his life. Let us grant that the objection has force. What does it establish? Only that Sir Isaac Newton was not very explicit in entering into the minutiæ of his religious creed; which all who knew his character will find no great difficulty in admitting. As to the veracity of the witnesses, that remains unimpeached by the objection. They are honest men we know. What they say, then, must be substantially correct. Differ their statements may in particulars, and so do the statements of the Evangelists. He attended on Trinitarian worship, and therefore was a Trinitarian. So did Whiston himself for the greater part of his life. Was he, therefore, a Trinitarian ? Is it not known that now even thousands attend the Church-of-England services who believe as little of its creeds as Newton did of Leibnitz' theories? But, then, Newton was not an honest man. Not too fast, I prithee, my objecting friend. If thou hadst had before thy eyes the penalties which Trinitarians had just exacted from the legislature against their heretical brethren, thou mightest have thought it well to temper thy zeal with prudence. Beside, Sir Isaac Newton was a lover of peace, and thought the essence of religion to consist in mutual love and devout affections. Even in defending his philosophical novelties, he lost much of his peace of mind, and lamented (with no small reason) that in the pursuit of a shadow he had lost a substance. Perhaps if thou hadst had as much to endure as he, thou wouldest have feared that another and a heavy load would have been too much for thy shoulders. That the question of secession was, at the time of Newton, a perplexing one, is evident from the following passage out of Whiston's Memoirs: "With what church or sect the Arians, in this present corrupted state of things, ought to communicate till it pleases God more completely to reform the Christian world? Whether with that established, or whether they ought to separate and go over to the Dissenters? as many Arian ministers are supposed to be among them. Now had the Unitarians the liberty of public assemblies and a ministry of their own, the point would easily then be determined. To speak the truth, I think their case a little hard; for, while all sects and opinions are tolerated, they alone are denied this happy privilege, which so many good men wish for." This is part of a letter addressed to Whiston, seeking his advice. He replies in substance, that though he had long communicated with the church established, shewing his dislike to what he did not believe; yet, "I do not think," he adds, "I shall easily satisfy myself to do so any more. I mean, if he who officiates is a reader of the horrible Athanasian creed, and by consequence frequently and solemnly pronounces me, and the rest of the Eusebians or primitive Christians, accursed."

Newton, it is affirmed, was offended at Whiston's declaring him an Arian, so much so, as to prevent his being elected a member of the Royal Society. That Newton prevented Whiston's election, Whiston himself declares; but the same authority assigns the reason. These are his words: "If the reader desire to know the reason of Sir Isaac Newton's unwillingness to have me a member, he must take notice, that as his making me first his deputy,

and giving me the full profits of the place, brought me to be a candidate ; as his recommendation of me to the heads of colleges in Cambridge made me his successor; so did I enjoy a large portion of his favour for twenty years together. But he then perceiving that I could not do as his other darling friends did, that is, learn of him, without contradicting him when I differed in opinion from him, he could not, in his old age, bear such contradiction, and so he was afraid of me the last thirteen years of his life.-He was of the most fearful, cautious, and suspicious temper that I ever knew." This is the account of the affair which Whiston himself gave, who surely ought to have best known all the circumstances. But the writer in "The Spirit of the Pilgrims" ascribes Whiston's rejection to his having declared Newton an Arian-and on what authority? Verily, the authority of that most ancient work, the Eclectic Review. But even the Eclectic does not say what the Pilgrim affirms; it says no more than that Newton was angry with Whiston for several years for having said he was an Arian. As to all the mighty deductions that the Pilgrim makes from this, we have little anxiety. Let them stand for what they are worth; they will pass current nowhere but with those who have neither eyes nor ears to detect their spuriousness. As little do we think of the Pilgrim's essay to deduce Newton's orthodoxy from his published works. One thing the extracts do prove, that the maker of them had a large reliance on the easy credulity of his readers; else could he ever have ventured to bring this and two other passages no more to the purpose, in order to realize his magnificent promise--to "produce several passages from the writings of Newton, which plainly indicate his Trinitarian

sentiments"?

"In the Eastern nations, and for a long time in the Western, the faith subsisted without this text (1 John v. 7), and it is rather a danger to religion than an advantage to make it now lean on a bruised reed."

How does the Pilgrim make this quotation serve his purpose? Let the reader try his skill in the art of divination; and if he succeeds in making out any thing like a satisfactory case, he will have this reward-to know that he is a person of great penetration and extraordinary ingenuity, and may take courage from his success to try his hand at the perpetual motion or the philosopher's stone.

Let, then, our readers sum up the evidence now brought forward,-the testimony of biographers and historians, the evidence of omission in the circumstances of the case, the positive implications furnished by Newton's published works, the strong suspicion of evidence suppressed" unfit for publication," the explicit declarations of two contemporaries, and both intimate acquaintances, of an anonymous yet respectable pamphleteer, and say, if we are not warranted in the conclusion, that Sir Isaac Newton was an Antitrinitarian. Had he explicitly avowed himself and suffered persecution for that avowal, we should have honoured his memory more highly than we do; but leaving him to his Master, we shall do well to take care that, in these "piping days of peace," as regards religious persecution, we do not compromise the truth by wicked concealment, or barter it for the world's smile. And well will it be for us if we imitate the great Philosopher's diligence in the study of the Scriptures, and follow him in his piety, gentleness, and benignity, so far as he was a follower of Christ. For, at the utmost, the time cannot be far distant when all diversities of mere earthly knowledge will have passed away; but charity "abideth for ever."