the account here examined has been rejected and resented, especially by the friends of Dr. Clarke, as calculated to stain his reputation and do injustice to his memory.* 4. It has been asserted, on the authority of Hopton Haynes, Esq., an officer of the mint at the time when Newton was master, that he was a Socinian. The testimony of Mr. Haynes is as follows: "Sir Isaac Newton did not believe our Lord's preexistence, being a Socinian, as we call it, in that article." He "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." "The time," he said, "will come, when the doctrine of the incarnation, as commonly received, shall be exploded as an absurdity, equal to transubstantiation."+ To this account I reply, in the first place, that it is contradicted by all the testimony previously examined. Whiston makes Newton an Arian; but if he was an Arian, he could not have been a Socinian. Indeed Whiston expressly assures us that he was not a Socinian, and tells us of a person who, after conversing with him, was induced to renounce Socinian principles. The Chevalier Ramsay makes Newton the instructer and instigator of Dr. Clarke. But Dr. Clarke, whatever else he may be called, certainly was not a Socinian. The testimony of Mr. Haynes is further contradicted by Sir Isaac Newton's own writings. Of the truth of this, abundant evidence will be furnished under another head. The particulars here stated embrace all the evidence which I have been able to collect that Sir Isaac Newton was a Unitarian. Whether it is sufficient to dispel doubt, and to warrant the strong confidence which Unitarians have so often expressed respecting him, my readers will judge. Let us next attend to the evidence that Newton was a Trinitarian. And, 1. He was, by profession, a Trinitarian. He united statedly in Trinitarian worship, and was a regular member and communicant of a Trinitarian church. He is represented by some of his biographers as "ardently attached to the TENETS and discipline of the church of England." Is not this strong prima facie evidence that he received the doctrines of this church? Is it not sufficient, of itself, to establish the point in question, unless counterbalanced by plain and positive proof to the contrary? Newton certainly had sagacity enough to understand the articles of his church; and it is to be presumed he had honesty enough not to appear to assent to them, when in truth he did not assent. * See Observations on Historical Memoirs of Dr. Clarke, pp. 23, 24. In other words, he had honesty enough not to be a hypocrite. How then shall we account for his continuing, through his long life, to worship and commune in a Trinitarian church, and to be, by profession, a Trinitarian, unless he was one in reality? But, 2. Not a sentence can be found in all the writings of Sir Isaac Newton, to show that he was not a believer in the Trinity. This is admitted by Mr. Lindsey. "This most eminent person," says he, "never openly declared his sentiments on this most important subject (the Trinity) in his life time, and rather insinuated them indistinctly in his writings, which were published afterwards."* The writings here spoken of, which were published after the death of Newton, are his letters on the two disputed passages. But these letters contain nothing which is not very consistent with the strict orthodoxy of their author. Indeed they have much stronger insinuations, as I shall show, in favor of the Trinity, than any which can be found against it. 3. I have observed already, that Whiston represented Sir Isaac Newton to be an Arian. It should now be added, that by so doing, he forfeited the friendship of Newton, incurred his displeasure, and committed an offence for which he could hardly be forgiven. In the former part of his life, Newton regarded Whiston with much favor, and recommended him to be his successor in the Professorship of Mathematicks at Cambridge. But in 1720, when Whiston was proposed as a member of the Royal Society, Newton objected, and said, that if Whiston was chosen a member, he would not be President. Whiston attributes this to his "fearful, cautious, suspicious temper," and to his not being able to bear contradiction. But the truth is, that by charging his former patron with Arianism and Universalism, he was regarded as having justly forfeited his confidence, and shown himself unworthy of his favor, and Newton intended to have as little intercourse with him as possible. "It is a well known fact," say the Eclectic Reviewers, "that he (Newton) was so angry with Whiston for having said he was an Arian, that Whiston was not sure he had thoroughly forgiven him for years after." Now I would ask all those who venerate the name of Newton, whether here is not conclusive proof that he was not an Arian? For if such were his real sentiments; if he had given Whiston reason to know that they were such; and if Whiston had represented the matter fairly and truly; would Sir Isaac Newton have been so angry with him? Would he have retained his resentment for years? Would he have refused to preside in the Royal Society, if Whiston became a member of it? The supposition cannot be admitted. Or if it could be, the reputation of the great philosopher would thereby be ruined. * Historical View, &c. p. 402. Vol. viii. p. 1011. I would not be understood as charging Whiston with wilful misrepresentation. But those acquainted with his character and history will readily conceive that he might have been mistaken. His prejudices and wishes might have led him to catch at particular expressions, and turn them aside from their intended import. In the troubles through which Whiston passed at the University on account of his Arianism, he had strong temptations to say, 'My predecessor is an Arian,' and thus seek support in the authority of so great a name. But Newton regarded himself as slandered and injured, and all who honor his name and character are bound to believe that this was the case. 4. It remains that I produce several passages from the writings of Newton, which plainly indicate his Trinitarian sentiments.-In his remarks on the disputed passage, 1 John v. 7. he says, "In the Eastern nations, and for a long time in the Western, the faith subsisted without this text; and it is rather a danger to religion than an advantage, to make it now lean upon a bruised reed."* "The faith" spoken of in this passage must necessarily include the doctrine of the Trinity; as this is the only article of faith, or doctrine of religion, which has ever been supposed to "lean upon" the disputed passage in John. But Sir Isaac Newton represents this faith as having existed in the primitive church, and as being an article for the safety and defence of which he is concerned. Again, speaking of the use that was made of the disputed passage in Timothy, during the Nestorian controversy, Newton says, "The two parties ran the interpretation into extremes, the one disputing that he who was manifest in the flesh was a creature"-this was one extreme-"the other that it was the Word of God." Newton thought that the ancient Christians interpreted this passage of Christ, without restraining it to his Divinity, or his humanity.' It is obvious that this passage could not have been written by a Socinian, or an Arian. It could not have been written by one who run into the objectionable "extreme" of regarding our blessed Lord as "a creature," or who did not believe in "his Divinity," as well as "his humanity.' The following passage is from the Observations of Sir Isaac Newton on the prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation: "And lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb, as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne. And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and the four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of * Works of Newton, vol. v. pp. 495, 548. them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation, and hast made us unto our God kings and priests, and we shall reign on the earth.' The beasts and elders," says Newton, "represent the primitive Christians of all nations; and the worship of these Christians, in their churches, is here represented under the form of worshipping God and the Lamb in the temple: God, for his benefaction in creating all things; and the Lamb for his benefaction in redeeming us by his blood. And I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne, and the beasts and the elders, and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power, and riches, and wisdoin, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, beard I saying, Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever and ever.' This," says Sir Isaac Newton again, "this was the worship of the primitive Christians.*—No wonder that an individual who thus regarded the primitive Christians as literally honoring the Son even as they honored the Father, and as rendering precisely the same worship to Him who sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb, should be "ardently attached to the tenets" of a church, in which Christ is worshipped as truly a divine person. I have now shown, that Newton was by profession and worship a Trinitarian, and that not a sentence can be gathered from his numerous writings to show that he was not a Trinitarian. So far from this, it is evident from passages which have been quoted, that he regarded the Trinity as belonging to the faith of the primitive church; did not hold the Lord Jesus to be "a creature"; spoke familiarly of "his Divinity," and "his humanity"; and represented him as receiving the same Divine worship and honor from the primitive Christians which they rendered to the Father. By some of his cotemporaries he was called an Arian; but we have seen that he thought himself injured by such an imputation, and could hardly forgive the individual who first attempted to fasten it upon him: Here I might leave the subject, were it not that I feel bound to protest against the practice, so common in some denominations, of claiming, on slight and insufficient grounds, distinguished men as belonging to their number. The great philosopher, whose * Works of Newton, vol. v. p. 455. How does the sentiment here expressed coincide with the testimony of Mr. Haynes, that Newton denied the pre-existence and incarnation of the Son of God? name has been so often mentioned, was certainly capable of choosing a religion for himself, and, after long and mature deliberation, he did choose to be considered and known as a member of the (Trinitarian) church of England. He never published a sentence to indicate his rejection of the Trinity, but many sentences which look strongly and decisively in its favor. He refused to be called a Unitarian in his lifetime, and was angry with the individual who presumed thus to speak of him. With what propriety, then, I ask-when he is now dead, and can no longer answer for himself -is he represented continually, on the testimony of interested and prejudiced individuals, as beyond all question a Unitarian? No one can believe him a Unitarian, without believing him a virtual falsifier and hypocrite, and without believing that he treated his friend Whiston in a manner the most ungenerous and unchristian. Why then should not the question of his religious sentiments be suffered to remain, as he chose it should be while he lived, and as he chose to leave it when he left the world? OPINIONS OF THE EARLY CHRISTIANS RESPECTING THE TRINITY. No. 2.-The Apostolic Age and the Apostolic Fathers. Two things are allowed by all, namely; that God is one, and that the man Christ Jesus is inferior to God the Father. The urging of those texts, therefore, which assert the unity of God or the humanity of Jesus, as proofs against the faith of Trinitarians, argues nothing but want of knowledge, or want of candor, on the part of those who make use of them for such a purpose. The premises are granted, the conclusion is denied ; and he who would convict us of error, must condescend to show us that the arguments he uses do really lead to the result on which he insists. In exhibiting the information which Jesus and his apostles have left us on this subject, I shall simply refer to a very few of the more plain and decisive texts of the New Testament, which speak of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; leaving it to the reader to examine the passages referred to, and to determine for himself respecting their pertinency as proof-texts. The particular discussion, the arrangement and illustration of these passages, in order to point out their mutual relation, and to show the bearing which they have on each other, belong to the departments of exegesis and theology, and not to that of history, to which I am limited. Our Saviour, when he took leave of his disciples, commanded them to Go and teach all nations, baptising them into the name of |