Newton Isaac (section 2)

1. "Even Cyprian's own words do plainly make for the interpretation. For he does not say ' the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost,' as it is now in the seventh verse; but 'the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost,' as it is in baptism; the place from which they tried at first to derive the Trinity." (§ iv. pp. 7, 8.)

To the word "tried" Bishop Horsley subjoins the following note. "The insinuation contained in this expression, that the Trinity is not to be derived from the words prescribed for the baptismal form, is very extraordinary to come from a writer who was no Socinian." Now that Newton "was no Socinian" may be true enough, if the author of this note meant to say, that he did not imbibe all the peculiar opinions of Socinus. But if he used the word "Socinian" as equivalent to Antitrinitarian, the learned Prelate has here taken for granted the thing to be proved; though all must agree with him in thinking it "very extraordinary," that a reputed Trinitarian should so express himself respecting the haptismal formula, as to call it, "the place from which they tried at first to derive the Trinity." The pronoun " they" is evidently exclusive. It is intended to denote a class of Christian believers, with which the writer has no sympathy, and no wish to identify himself; and the verb "tried" clearly implies, that the attempt was, in his estimation, unsatisfactory, although "the Son" is mentioned in Matt, xxviii. 19, and not " the Word," as in the text of the three heavenly witnesses.

2. "In all that vehement, universal, and lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time, and both before and long enough after it, this text of 'the Three in Heaven' was never once thought of. It is now in every body's mouth, and accounted the main text for the business, and would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their books." (§ xiv. p. 18.)

The tone of contempt and disparagement, observable in this passage, is anything but what might have been expected, on the supposition that it proceeded from the pen of a Trinitarian. If we regard the writer as sound and orthodox in his views respecting the Trinity, it is certainly a most unaccountable mode of expressing his opinion of the spuriousness of such a verse as that of the three heavenly witnesses, to say, that "it is now in every body's mouth, and accounted the main text for the business!" The same mode of expression occurs in reference to 1 Tim. iii. 16, (§ i. p. 65,) now so often quoted in favour of "the Deity of the Son, and the incarnation of God." Alluding to this text, the author of the "Historical Account" says, —" In all the times of the hot and lasting Arian controversy, it never came into play; though now those disputes are over, they that read 'God manifested in the flesh,' think it one of the most obvious and pertinent texts for the business." It is incredible, that so prudent and modest a person as Sir Isaac Newton should have represented this, or any other passage of Scripture, as "one of the most obvious and pertinent texts for the business" of establishing the Deity of Christ, and the Incarnation, if he had regarded these doctrines in any other light, than as gross corruptions of the primitive Christian faith.

3. After having concluded his remarks upon the historical part of the controversy respecting 1 John v. 7, he proceeds to give a paraphrase of the two preceding, and the two following verses, for the purpose of shewing, that, "without the testimony of 'the Three in Heaven,' the sense is good and easy" (§ xxxv. p. 58); and in the course of this paraphrase, (p. 59,) he describes Jesus as "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,)" but says nothing of the eternal sonship, or of his being begotten of the Father before all worlds, which he would most certainly have done, had he been a Trinitarian, or an Arian. A definition of the Scriptural phrase "Son of God," which altogether overlooks his preexistence and eternal generation, is very unlikely to have been given by any one, except a believer in the simple humanity of Christ.

4. When he has finished his paraphrase, and shewn that there is no possible mode of distinguishing the testimony in heaven from that on earth, he says, (§ xxxvi. pp. 60, 61,) in reference to the disputed text, "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 to be hit, which is the best."

Many of the expressions in this passage are highly significant. The author, instead of advocating, or even tolerating that prostration of intellect, for which the believer in mysteries pleads, tells his friend, that he loves to take up with what he can best understand; that he leaves a fondness for mysteries to those who "like best what they understand least;" and that the least which he can do is to give the Apostle John credit for "good sense." Would a Trinitarian have used such language as this? Or, if we can suppose such a thing possible, would he not have taken care to guard against misconception, by admitting the existence of at least one mystery,—the mystery of the Trinity?

5. Towards the close of the same section, (p. 62,) the author of the "Historical Account," referring to Erasmus's third edition of the New Testament, into which, for the first time, the spurious text of the three heavenly witnesses was introduced, says, "when they had got the Trinity into his edition, they threw by their manuscript if they had one, as an almanac out of date. And can such shufliing dealings," he asks, "satisfy considering men?"

If the expression, "when they had got the Trinity into his edition," have any meaning, it must be, that, before the insertion of this spurious text, the Trinity was not to be found there; and consequently, that this is the only text, from which, in the estimation of the writer, that doctrine can be fairly deduced: for, as we have seen above, he was not disposed to admit, that the attempt "to derive the Trinity" from the baptismal commission was successful. "They tried at first to derive" it, as he says, (p. 8,) from that passage; but the insinuation contained in the expression "they tried," is tantamount to a declaration of belief, that the trial proved unsatisfactory, and is, as Bishop Horsley expresses it, "very extraordinary to come from a writer who was no Socinian."

The evidence of Newton's Antitrinitarianism, thus derived from his celebrated Letter on "Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture," is decisive; nor is there anything in the rest of his published writings to invalidate the conclusion, to which we are thus irresistibly led. "There is in them," as a writer in the "Monthly Repository" remarks, (N. S. Vol. V. p. 154,) "an entire absence of all evidence that the writer believed in either the Trinity or the Deity of Christ. Silence on these subjects is universal and unbroken. Had it been Newton's design to omit anything that could, by any possibility, be construed into a belief in the Trinity, he could not have avoided the subject more cautiously and successfully than he has done. Occasions present themselves when, if such had been his belief, he could hardly have done otherwise than imply or declare the truth of the Trinitarian doctrine. But he is profoundly silent. Would, could a Trinitarian have acted in this way? Is he not, with propriety, styled an Antitrinitarian who so far opposes the doctrine as to withhold from it all countenance in his works? Is it unfair to presume that he wished that to disappear from the face of society which he sedulously excluded from his own pages? Newton was a Christian, and wrote as a Christian on Christian topics, and if he had held the Trinity, the fundamental doctrine of Christianity in the opinion of its advocates, how could he have been guilty of omitting the mention of it, especially when there are passages, which imply his disbelief of the doctrine?"

It has been said, and till recently the assertion remained uncontradicted, that, during parts of the years 1692 and 1693, Newton suffered under temporary mental aberration. But Sir David Brewster has endeavoured to shew, (successfully, as many think,) that the statement has no foundation in truth. It was first made by M. Biot, and gave great pain to the friends and admirers of Newton. The cause assigned for his temporary derangement was the loss of certain manuscripts, which, it was alleged, had been consumed by the overturning of a lighted taper by a favourite little dog, called Diamond. This accident is said to have happened during Newton's absence at the College prayers, one winter's morning. The papers destroyed were said to have contained the results of many years' labour; and it was stated, that, when he perceived the magnitude of his loss, he exclaimed, "Oh, Diamond, Diamond, little dost thou know the mischief thou hast done!" This is, no doubt, a pretty little anecdote. It tends to place the character of Newton in an amiable light; and, if true, proves him to have been possessed of great self-command, under circumstances peculiarly trying. But it is worthy of remark, that Newton himself never refers to the manuscripts, which he is said to have lost on this occasion; and that his nephew, Mr. Conduit, to whom he was in the habit of unbosoming his whole mind, makes no allusion to such an event. Nor have any of his early English biographers mentioned it. History and tradition were equally silent on the subject, till M. Biot published his Memoirs of Newton, in the " Biographie Universelle;" and it is not easy to believe, that the powers of so great a mind could have been subverted, without the appalling fact being known to his own countrymen.

The celebrated Marquis De la Place represented the matter in a light still more painful; for he endeavoured to give currency to the notion, that Newton never recovered the use of his reason, and that his study of Theology did not commence, till he had lost the powers of his once vigorous and comprehensive mind.

Could all that has been said by the two Frenchmen, or any considerable portion of it, be substantiated by credible testimony, it would no doubt afford a great triumph to the enemies of revelation, as well as to those professed friends of Christianity, who are scandalized at the thought, that the greatest of Philosophers lived and died an Antitrinitarian. But Sir David Brewster has shewn, that, at the very time when Newton is supposed to have been labouring under mental derangement, he wrote his four celebrated Letters to Dr. Bentley on the existence of a Deity, which evince a power of thought, and a serenity of mind, that are incompatible with the slightest obscuration of his faculties; and that, during the same period, he gave other satisfactory proofs of the soundness of his intellect, in the prosecution of his mathematical and philosophical inquiries. His friend, Mr. Pepys, had never heard of his being attacked with any illness, till he inferred it from a letter written by himself, in September 1693. Mr. Millington also, who lived in the same University, was equally ignorant of any such attack; and after a personal interview with Newton, for the express purpose of ascertaining the state of his health, he assures Mr. Pepys, that, though he had been suffering from a distemper that much seized his head, and kept him awake for above five nights together, he was then (Sept. 30th, 1693) very well; but that he appeared to be under some small degree of melancholy: yet, that there was no reason to apprehend that it had at all touched his understanding, and he hoped that it never would. On the whole it appears, that, from the beginning of the year 1692 to the month of May, 1694, he suffered much from bodily indisposition; but that his mind, during that time, though in a state of nervous irritability, was capable of putting forth its highest powers.

Here it may be remarked, that Sir David Brewster's "Life of Sir Isaac Newton," which contains a refutation of the statement that he laboured under mental derangement, was published in 1831. At a later period, Sir David was kindly permitted by the trustees of the Earl of Portsmouth to examine the valuable collection of manuscripts at Hurstbourne Park; and with the assistance of H.A.W. Fellowes, Esq., the accomplished nephew of Lord Portsmouth, many interesting and important letters and papers were discovered, which not only throw much-new light on the early life and studies of our immortal countryman, but tend to refute the groundless rumours respecting a temporary derangement of his mind in 1692, and to exalt, in the highest degree, his moral and intellectual character.

It must also be remembered, in connexion with the alleged derangement of Newton in 1692, that the " Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture" was finished, and in the hands of M. Le Clerc before April 11th, 1691; and that the investigations which led to his "Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John," belong to a period prior even to that time. (Vide Brewster's Life of Sir Isaac Newton, Ch. xvi. pp. 272—274.) Whether the aforesaid allegation, therefore, be true or not, the insinuation of M. Biot and M. De la Place, that he did not turn his attention to theological studies till he had lost the vigour of his mind, and was incapable of pursuing his philosophical inquiries, is utterly destitute of foundation. The work on the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse, was not published till 1733, about six years after Sir Isaac's death; but as it was probably written as early as the " Historical Account," the testimony which it affords to his religious opinions may not unsuitably be introduced in this place. That testimony, as far as it goes, contains nothing to invalidate the inference already drawn from the "Historical Account," but tends rather to strengthen and confirm it.

In a note to the "Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel," (Chap. xi. p. 148,) after alluding to the practice of the ancient Prophets, of drawing parables from such things as offered themselves to their notice, he adds, " And Christ being endued with a nobler prophetic spirit than the rest, excelled also in this kind of speaking." This language implies, that Christ received his inspiration like the Prophets under the Mosaic dispensation, and that the only difference between him and them was, that the prophetic spirit with which he was endued was of a nobler kind than theirs;—language, which is intelligible when used by an Antitrinitarian, but which loses its force when ascribed to a person of opposite sentiments.

In the "Observations upon the Apocalypse of St. John," when the writer has occasion to explain the fifth chapter of that book, he says, "The beasts and 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." He then quotes the last four verses of the chapter, and adds, "This was the worship of the primitive Christians." (Pp. 262, 263.) On this passage we may take the liberty of borrowing the very pertinent remarks of the writer in the "Monthly Repository," to whom we are indebted for a previous quotation. "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 ha 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 maybe 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." (Monthly Repository, N.S., Vol. V. p. 156.)

No mark of national gratitude had been conferred upon Newton for his wonderful discoveries, or for the part which he took in resisting the tyranny of James the Second, when that monarch invaded the privileges of the University of Cambridge; so that he was left in comparatively narrow circumstances, having no other source of income than the salary attached to his Professorship, and the small rental derived from his paternal inheritance. But in 1694, Charles Montague, grandson of Henry Earl of Manchester, a young man of high promise, who had sat with Newton in the Convention Parliament, was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer; and he had not long held this office, before Mr. Overton, the Warden of the Mint, was made a Commissioner of Customs. The vacant situation was offered, in the most handsome manner, to Newton, on the 19th of March, 1696, and was accepted by him. The emoluments arising from this office amounted to five or six hundred pounds per annum; and when he had been in possession of it about three years, he was promoted to the Mastership of the same establishment, with an annual salary of between twelve and fifteen hundred pounds. This appointment he retained till his death, when his personal estate was valued at £32,000.

The Wardenship of the Mint did not prevent him from retaining his Professorship at Cambridge; but on his subsequent elevation to the Mastership of the Mint, in 1699, he appointed Mr. Whiston his deputy at Cambridge, with all the emoluments of the office; and when he resigned the professorial chair, in 1703, he succeeded in getting Mr. Whiston nominated his successor.

The same year in which he was appointed Master of the Mint, he was also chosen Foreign Associate of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Paris. In 1701, he represented the University of Cambridge a second time in Parliament. In 1703, he was elected President of the Royal Society, to which office he continued to be annually re-elected during the next twenty-three years; and in 1705, Queen Anne conferred upon him the honour of knighthood. The latter part of his life, however, except that portion of it which was devoted to the duties of his office as Master of the Mint, was spent almost wholly in study; and there was scarcely any branch of human knowledge, to which he turned his attention, that did not receive additional light from his singularly gifted mind. In 1722, he became subject to a disorder of the bladder, accompanied by cough and gout. From this complication of diseases he suffered, more or less, during the last five years of his life; but they did not cause him much severe pain, till within about three weeks of his death. When Samuel Crellius visited him, about the year 1726, he read without spectacles, and without holding the manuscript very near his eyes; and continued to argue, in his accustomed manner, with acuteness, none of his faculties failing him except his memory. He presided for the last time at the Royal Society on the 28th of February, 1727; and died at his house, Orbell's Buildings, (now Pitt's Buildings,) Kensington, between one and two o'clock on the morning of Monday, the 20th of March, 1727, in the eighty-fifth year of his age. His body was laid in state at the Jerusalem Chamber, from which it was carried to Westminster Abbey, the pall being supported by the Lord Chancellor, the Dukes of Montrose and Roxburgh, and the Earls of Pembroke, Sussex and Macclesfield. The funeral was attended by many other persons of rank and distinction, as well as by the principal members of the Royal Society. In 1731, a magnificent monument, designed by Kent, and sculptured by Rysbrach, was erected in the Abbey, at the expense of his relatives; and numerous marks of respect have since been paid to his memory, both by individuals and public bodies, among which is a full-length statue by Roubilliac, in the Chapel of Trinity College, Cambridge, bearing the word Newtonus, with the inscription from Lucretius,—"Qui genus humanum ingenio superavit."

Le Roux Didier - Unitariens - © Since 2006 -  All rights reserved " No reproduction, even partial, other than those planned in the article L 122-5 of the code of the intellectual property, can be made by this site without the express authorization of the author ".