_Theological Studies of Sir Isaac—Their Importance to Christianity—
Motives to which they have been ascribed—Opinions of Biot and
Laplace considered—His Theological Researches begun before his
supposed Mental Illness—The Date of these Works fixed—Letters
to Locke—Account of his Observations on Prophecy—His Historical
Account of two notable Corruptions of Scripture—His Lexicon
Propheticum—His Four Letters to Dr. Bentley—Origin of Newton’s
Theological Studies—Analogy between the Book of Nature and that of
Revelation._
The history of the theological studies of Sir Isaac Newton will ever
be regarded as one of the most interesting portions of his life. That
he who among all the individuals of his species possessed the highest
intellectual powers was not only a learned and profound divine, but
a firm believer in the great doctrines of religion, is one of the
proudest triumphs of the Christian faith. Had he distinguished himself
only by an external respect for the offices and duties of religion; and
had he left merely in his last words an acknowledgment of his faith,
his piety would have been regarded as a prudent submission to popular
feeling, and his last aspirations would have been ascribed to the decay
or to the extinction of his transcendent powers. But he had been a
Christian from his youth, and though never intended for the church,
yet he interchanged the study of the Scriptures with that of the laws
of the material universe; and from the examination of the works of the
Supreme Creator he found it to be no abrupt transition to investigate
the revelation of his will, and to contemplate the immortal destinies
of mankind.
But when the religious habits of Sir Isaac Newton could not be ascribed
to an ambition of popularity, to the influence of weak health, or to
the force of professional impulse, it became necessary for the apostles
of infidelity to refer it to some extraordinary cause. His supposed
insanity was therefore eagerly seized upon by some as affording
a plausible origin for his religious principles; while others,
without any view of supporting the cause of skepticism, ascribed his
theological researches to the habits of the age in which he lived,
and to a desire of promoting political liberty, by turning against
the abetters of despotism those powerful weapons which the Scriptures
supplied. The anxiety evinced by M. de Laplace to refer his religious
writings to a late period of his life seems to have been felt also by
M. Biot, who has gone so far as to fix the very date of one of his most
important works, and thus to establish the suspicions of his colleague.
“From the nature of the subject,”[103] says he, “and from certain
indications which Newton seems to give at the beginning of his
dissertation, we may conjecture with probability that he composed it
at the time when the errors of Whiston, and a work of Dr. Clarke on
the same subject, drew upon them the attacks of all the theologians of
England, which would place the date between the years 1712 and 1719. It
would then be truly a prodigy to remark, that a man of from seventy-two
to seventy-five years of age was able to compose, _rapidly_, as he
leads us to believe, so extensive a piece of sacred criticism, of
literary history, and even of bibliography, where an erudition the
most vast, the most varied, and the most ready always supports an
argument well arranged and powerfully combined. * * * At this epoch
of the life of Newton the reading of religious books had become one
of his most habitual occupations, and after he had performed the
duties of his office, they formed, along with the conversation of his
friends, his principal amusement. He had then almost ceased to care
for the sciences, and, as we have already remarked, since the fatal
epoch of 1693, he gave to the world only three really new scientific
productions.”
Notwithstanding the prodigy which it involves, M. Biot has adopted
1712–1719 as the date of this critical dissertation;—it is regarded as
the composition of a man of seventy-two or seventy-five;—the reading
of religious works is stated to have _become_ one of his most habitual
occupations, and such reading is said to have been one of his principal
amusements; and all this is associated with “the fatal epoch of 1693,”
as if his illness at that time had been the cause of his abandoning
science and betaking himself to theology. Carrying on the same views,
M. Biot asks, in reference to Sir Isaac’s work on Prophecy, “How a mind
of the character and force of Newton’s, so habituated to the severity
of mathematical considerations, so exercised in the observation of real
phenomena, and so well aware of the conditions by which truth is to be
discovered, could put together such a number of conjectures without
noticing the extreme improbability of his interpretations from the
infinite number of arbitrary postulates on which he has founded them?”
We would apply the same question to the reasoning by which M. Biot
fixes the date of the critical dissertation; and we would ask how so
eminent a philosopher could hazard such frivolous conjectures upon a
subject on which he had not a single fact to guide his inquiries. The
obvious tendency, though not the design, of the conclusion at which
he arrives is injurious to the memory of Newton, as well as to the
interests of religion; and these considerations might have checked
the temerity of speculation, even if it had been founded on better
data. The Newtonian interpretation of the Prophecies, and especially
that part which M. Biot characterizes as unhappily stamped with the
spirit of prejudice, has been adopted by men of the soundest and
most unprejudiced minds; and in addition to the moral and historical
evidence by which it is supported, it may yet be exhibited in all the
fulness of demonstration. But the speculation of Biot respecting the
date of Newton’s theological works was never maintained by any other
person than himself, and is capable of being disproved by the most
incontrovertible evidence.
We have already seen, in the extract from Mr. Pryme’s manuscript, that
previous to 1692, when a shade is supposed to have passed over his
gifted mind, Newton was well known by the appellation of an “excellent
divine,”—a character which could not have been acquired without the
devotion of many years to theological researches; but, important as
this argument would have been, we are fortunately not left to so
general a defence. The correspondence of Newton with Locke, recently
published by Lord King, places it beyond a doubt that he had begun his
researches respecting the Prophecies before the year 1691,—before the
forty-ninth year of his age, and before the “fatal epoch of 1693.” The
following letter shows that he had previously discussed this subject
with his friend:—
_Cambridge, Feb. 7, 1690–1._
“SIR,
“I am sorry your journey proved to so little purpose, though it
delivered you from the trouble of the company the day after. You
have obliged me by mentioning me to my friends at London, and I
must thank both you and my Lady Masham for your civilities at
Oates, and for not thinking that I made a long stay there. I hope
we shall meet again in due time, and then I should be glad to have
your judgment upon some of my mystical fancies. The Son of Man,
Dan. vii. I take to be the same with the Word of God upon the White
Horse in Heaven, Apoc. xii., for both are to rule the nations with
a rod of iron; but whence are you certain that the Ancient of
Days is Christ? Does Christ anywhere sit upon the throne? If Sir
Francis Masham be at Oates, present, I pray, my service to him,
with his lady, Mrs. Cudworth, and Mrs. Masham. Dr. Covel is not in
Cambridge.—I am your affectionate and humble servant,
“IS. NEWTON.
“Know you the meaning of Dan. x. 21. There is none that holdeth
with me in these things but Mich. the prince.”
Having thus determined the date of those investigations which
constitute his _observations on the prophecies of holy writ_,
particularly the prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse, we shall
proceed to fix the latest date of his _historical account of two
notable corruptions of the Scripture, in a letter to a friend_.
This work seems to have been a _very early_ production of our author.
It was written in the form of a letter to Mr. Locke, and at that time
Sir Isaac seems to have been anxious for its publication. Afraid,
however, of being again led into a controversy, and dreading the
intolerance to which he might be exposed, he requested Mr. Locke, who
was at that time meditating a voyage to Holland, to get it translated
into French, and published on the Continent. Having abandoned his
design of visiting Holland, Locke transmitted the manuscript, without
Newton’s name, to his learned friend M. Le Clerc, in Holland; and
it appears, from a letter of Le Clerc’s to Locke, that he must have
received it before the 11th April, 1691. M. Le Clerc delayed for a
long time to take any steps regarding its publication; but in a letter
dated January 20th, 1692, he announced to Locke his intention of
publishing the tract in Latin. When this plan was communicated to Sir
Isaac, he became alarmed at the risk of detection, and resolved to stop
the publication of his manuscript. This resolution was intimated to Mr.
Locke in the following letter:
_Cambridge, Feb. 16th, 1691–2._
“SIR,
“Your former letters came not to my hand, but this I have. I was
of opinion my papers had lain still, and am sorry to hear there is
news about them. Let me entreat you to stop their translation and
impression so soon as you can; for I design to suppress them. If
your friend hath been at any pains and charge, I will repay it, and
gratify him. I am very glad my Lord Monmouth is till my friend, but
intend not to give his lordship and you any farther trouble. My
inclinations are to sit still. I am to beg his lordship’s pardon
for pressing into his company the last time I saw him. I had not
done it, but that Mr. Paulin pressed me into the room. Miracles, of
good credit, continued in the church for about two or three hundred
years. Gregorius Thaumaturgus had his name from thence, and was one
of the latest who was eminent for that gift; but of their number
and frequency I am not able to give you a just account. The history
of those ages is very imperfect. Mr. Paulin told me you had writ
for some of Mr. Boyle’s red earth, and by that I knew you had the
receipt.—Your most affectionate and humble servant,
“IS. NEWTON.”
Hence we see that this celebrated treatise, which Biot alleges to have
been written between 1712 and 1719, was actually in the hands of Le
Clerc in Holland previous to the 11th April, 1691, and consequently
previous to the time of the supposed insanity of its author. Mr. Locke
lost no time in obeying the request of his friend. Le Clerc instantly
stopped the publication of the letter, and, as he had never learned
the name of the author, he deposited the manuscript, which was in the
handwriting of Mr. Locke, in the library of the Remonstrants, where it
was afterward found, and was published at London in 1754, under the
title of _Two letters from Sir Isaac Newton to M. Le Clerc_,—a form
which had never been given to it by its author. The copy thus published
was a very imperfect one, wanting both the beginning[104] and the end,
and erroneous in many places; but Dr. Horsley has published a genuine
edition, which has the form of a single letter to a friend, and was
copied from a manuscript in Sir Isaac Newton’s handwriting, in the
possession of the Rev. Dr. Ekins, Dean of Carlisle.
Having thus determined as accurately as possible the dates of the
principal theological writings of Sir Isaac, we shall now proceed to
give some account of their contents.
_The Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St.
John_ were published in London in 1733, in one volume 4to. The work is
divided into two parts, the first of which treats of the Prophecies of
Daniel, and the second of the Apocalypse of St. John. It begins with
an account of the different books which compose the Old Testament; and
as the author considers Daniel to be the most distinct in the order of
time, and the easiest to be understood, he makes him the key to all
the prophetic books in those matters which relate to the “last time.”
He next considers the figurative language of the prophets, which he
regards as taken “from the analogy between the world natural and an
empire or kingdom considered as a world politic;” the heavens and the
things therein representing thrones and dynasties; the earth, with
the things therein, the inferior people; and the lowest parts of the
earth the most miserable of the people. The sun is put for the whole
race of kings, the moon for the body of the common people, and the
stars for subordinate princes and rulers. In the earth, the dry land
and the waters are put for the people of several nations. Animals
and vegetables are also put for the people of several regions. When
a beast or man is put for a kingdom, his parts and qualities are put
for the analogous parts and qualities of the kingdom; and when a man
is taken in a mystical sense, his qualities are often signified by his
actions, and by the circumstances and things about him. In applying
these principles he begins with the vision of the image composed of
four different metals. This image he considers as representing a body
of four great nations which should reign in succession over the earth,
viz. the people of Babylonia, the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans;
while the stone cut out without hands is a new kingdom which should
arise after the four, conquer all those nations, become very great, and
endure to the end of time.
The vision of the four beasts is the prophecy of the four empires
repeated, with several new additions. The lion with eagles’ wings was
the kingdom of Babylon and Media, which overthrew the Assyrian power.
The beast like a bear was the Persian empire, and its three ribs were
the kingdoms of Sardis, Babylon, and Egypt. The third beast, like a
leopard, was the Greek empire, and its four heads and four wings were
the kingdoms of Cassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy, and Seleucus. The
fourth beast, with its great iron teeth, was the Roman empire, and its
ten horns were the ten kingdoms into which it was broken in the reign
of Theodosius the Great.
In the fifth chapter Sir Isaac treats of the kingdoms represented by
the feet of the image composed of iron and clay which did not stick
to one another, and which were of different strength. These were the
Gothic tribes called Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, Gepidæ, Lombards,
Burgundians, Alans, &c.; all of whom had the same manners and customs,
and spoke the same language, and who, about the year 416 A. C. were
all quietly settled in several kingdoms within the empire, not only by
conquest, but by grants of emperor.
In the sixth chapter he treats of the _ten_ kingdoms represented by the
ten horns of the fourth beast, into which the western empire became
divided about the time when Rome was besieged and taken by the Goths.
These kingdoms were,
1. The kingdom of the Vandals and Alans in Spain and Africa.
2. The kingdom of Suevians in Spain.
3. The kingdom of the Visigoths.
4. The kingdom of the Alans in Gaul.
5. The kingdom of the Burgundians.
6. The kingdom of the Franks.
7. The kingdom of the Britains.
8. The kingdom of the Huns.
9. The kingdom of the Lombards.
10. The kingdom of Ravenna.
Some of these kingdoms at length fell, and new ones sprung up; but
whatever was their subsequent number, they still retain the name of the
ten kings from their first number.
The eleventh horn of Daniel’s fourth beast is shown in chapter vii. to
be the Church of Rome in its triple character of a seer, a prophet, and
a king; and its power to change times and laws is copiously illustrated
in chapter viii.
In the ninth chapter our author treats of the kingdom represented in
Daniel by the ram and he-goat, the ram indicating the kingdom of the
Medes and Persians from the beginning of the four empires, and the
he-goat the kingdom of the Greeks to the end of them.
The prophecy of the seventy weeks, which had hitherto been restricted
to the first coming of our Saviour, is shown to be a prediction of
all the main periods relating to the coming of the Messiah, the times
of his birth and death, the time of his rejection by the Jews, the
duration of the Jewish war by which he caused the city and sanctuary to
be destroyed, and the time of his second coming.
In the eleventh chapter Sir Isaac treats with great sagacity and
acuteness of the time of our Saviour’s birth and passion,—a subject
which had perplexed all preceding commentators.
After explaining in the twelfth chapter the last prophecy of Daniel,
namely, that of the scripture of truth, which he considers as a
commentary on the vision of the ram and he-goat, he proceeds in the
thirteenth chapter to the prophecy of the king who did according to his
will, and magnified himself above every god, and honoured Mahuzzims,
and regarded not the desire of women. He shows that the Greek empire,
after the division of the Roman empire into the Greek and Latin
empires, became the king who in matters of religion did according to
his will, and in legislation exalted and magnified himself above every
god.
In the second part of his work on the Apocalypse of St. John, Sir Isaac
treats, _1st_, Of the time when the prophecy was written, which he
conceives to have been during John’s exile in Patmos, and before the
epistle to the Hebrews and the epistles of Peter were written, which in
his opinion have a reference to the Apocalypse; _2dly_, Of the scene of
the vision, and the relation which the Apocalypse has to the book of
the law of Moses, and to the worship of God in the temple; and, _3dly_,
Of the relation which the Apocalypse has to the prophecies of Daniel,
and of the subject of the prophecy itself.
Sir Isaac regards the prophecies of the Old and New Testaments, not
as given to gratify men’s curiosities, by enabling them to foreknow
things, but that after they were fulfilled, they might be interpreted
by the event, and afford convincing arguments that the world is
governed by Providence, he considers that there is so much of this
prophecy already fulfilled as to afford to the diligent student
sufficient instances of God’s providence; and he adds, that “among the
interpreters of the last age, there is scarce one of note who hath not
made some discovery worth knowing, and thence it seems one may gather
that God is about opening these mysteries. The success of others,” he
continues, “put me upon considering it, and if I have done any thing
which may be useful to following writers, I have my design.”
Such is a brief abstract of this ingenious work, which is characterized
by great learning, and marked with the sagacity of its distinguished
author. The same qualities of his mind are equally conspicuous in his
_Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture_.
This celebrated treatise relates to two texts in the Epistles of St.
John and St. Paul. The first of these is in 1 John v. 7. “For there
are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost, and these three are one.” This text he considers as a
gross corruption of Scripture, which had its origin among the Latins,
who interpreted the Spirit, Water, and Blood to be the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost, in order to prove them one. With the same view Jerome
inserted the Trinity in express words in his version. The Latins marked
his variations in the margins of their books; and in the twelfth
and following centuries, when the disputations of the schoolmen
were at their height, the variation began to creep into the text in
transcribing. After the invention of printing, it crept out of the
Latin into the printed Greek, contrary to the authority of all the
Greek manuscripts and ancient versions; and from the Venetian press it
went soon after into Greece. After proving these positions Sir Isaac
gives the following paraphrase of this remarkable passage, which is
given in italics.
“_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, where
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). _And it is the Spirit_
also _that_, together with the water and blood, _beareth witness_ of
the truth of his coming; _because the Spirit is truth_; and so a fit
and unexceptionable witness. _For there are three that bear record_
of his coming; _the Spirit_, which he promised to send, and which was
since shed forth upon us in the form of cloven tongues, and in various
gifts; _the_ baptism of _water_, wherein God testified ‘this is my
beloved Son;’ _and the_ shedding of his _blood_, accompanied with his
resurrection, whereby he became the most faithful martyr, or witness,
of this truth. _And these three_, the spirit, the baptism, and passion
of Christ, _agree in_ witnessing _one_ and the same thing (namely, that
the Son of God is come); and, therefore, their evidence is strong:
for the law requires but two consenting witnesses, and here we have
three: _and if we receive the witness of men, the_ threefold _witness
of God_, which he bare of his Son, by declaring at his baptism ‘this is
my beloved Son,’ by raising him from the dead, and by pouring out his
Spirit on us, _is greater_; and, therefore, ought to be more readily
received.”
While the Latin Church was corrupting the preceding text, the Greek
Church was doing the same to St. Paul’s 1st Epistle to Timothy iii.
16. _Great is the mystery of godliness, God manifest in the flesh._
According to Sir Isaac, this reading was effected by changing σ into
ΘΣ, the abbreviation of Θεος, and after proving this by a learned and
ingenious examination of ancient manuscripts, he concludes that the
reading should be _Great is the mystery of Godliness who_ (viz. our
Saviour) _was manifest in the flesh_.
As this learned dissertation had the effect of depriving the defenders
of the doctrine of the Trinity of the aid of two leading texts, Sir
Isaac Newton has been regarded as an Antitrinitarian; but such a
conclusion is not warranted by any thing which he has published;[105]
and he distinctly warns us, that his object was solely to “purge the
truth of things spurious.” We are disposed, on the contrary, to think
that he declares his belief in the doctrine of the Trinity when 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.
There cannot be better service done to the truth than to purge it of
things spurious; and therefore, knowing your prudence and calmness
of temper, I am confident I shall not offend you by telling you my
mind plainly; especially since it is no article of faith, no point of
discipline, nothing but a criticism concerning a text of Scripture
which I am going to write about.” The word faith in the preceding
passage cannot mean faith in the Scriptures in general, but faith in
the particular doctrine of the Trinity; for it is this article of
faith only to which the author refers when he deprecates _its_ leaning
on a bruised reed. But, whatever be the meaning of this passage, we
know that Sir Isaac was greatly offended at Mr. Whiston for having
represented him as an Arian; and so much did he resent the conduct of
his friend in ascribing to him heretical opinions, that he would not
permit him to be elected a Fellow of the Royal Society while he was
President.[106]
The only other religious works which were composed by Sir Isaac Newton
were his _Lexicon Propheticum_, to which was added a Dissertation
on the sacred cubit of the Jews, and _Four Letters addressed to Dr.
Bentley, containing some arguments in proof of a Deity_.
The _Lexicon Propheticum_ was left incomplete, and has not been
published; but the Latin Dissertation which was appended to it, in
which he shows that the cubit was about 26½ Roman unciæ, was published
in 1737 among the Miscellaneous Works of Mr. John Greaves.
Upon the death of the Honourable Robert Boyle, on the 30th of December,
1691, it was found, by a codicil to his will, that he had left a
revenue of 50_l._ per annum to establish a lectureship, in which eight
discourses were to be preached annually in one of the churches of the
metropolis, in illustration of the evidences of Christianity, and in
opposition to the principles of infidelity. Dr. Bentley, though a very
young man, was appointed to preach the first course of sermons, and
the manner in which he discharged this important duty gave the highest
satisfaction, not only to the trustees of the lectureship, but to
the public in general. In the first six lectures Bentley exposed the
folly of atheism even in reference to the present life, and derived
powerful arguments for the existence of a Deity from the faculties of
the soul, and the structure and functions of the human frame. In order
to complete his plan, he proposed to devote his seventh and eighth
lectures to the demonstration of a Divine Providence from the physical
constitution of the universe, as established in the Principia. In
order to qualify himself for this task, he received from Sir Isaac
written directions respecting a list of books necessary to be perused
previous to the study of that work;[107] and having made himself master
of the system which it contained, he applied it with irresistible force
of argument to establish the existence of an overruling mind. Previous
to the publication of these lectures, Bentley encountered a difficulty
which he was not able to solve, and he prudently transmitted to Sir
Isaac during 1692 a series of queries on the subject. This difficulty
occurred in an argument urged by Lucretius, to prove the eternity of
the world from an hypothesis of deriving the frame of it by mechanical
principles from matter endowed with an innate power of gravity, and
evenly scattered throughout the heavens. Sir Isaac willingly entered
upon the consideration of the subject, and transmitted his sentiments
to Dr. Bentley in the four letters which have been noticed in a
preceding chapter.
In the first[108] of these letters Sir Isaac mentions that when he
wrote his treatise about our system, viz. the Third Book of the
Principia, “he had an eye upon such principles as might work, with
considering men, for the belief of a Deity, and he expresses his
happiness that it has been found useful for that purpose. In answering
the first query of Dr. Bentley, the exact import of which we do not
know, he states, that, if matter were evenly diffused through a finite
space, and endowed with innate gravity, it would fall down into the
middle of the space, and form one great spherical mass; but if it were
diffused through an infinite space, some of it would collect into
one mass, and some into another, so as to form an infinite number
of great masses. In this manner the sun and stars might be formed if
the matter were of a lucid nature. But he thinks it inexplicable by
natural causes, and to be ascribed to the counsel and contrivance
of a voluntary Agent, that the matter should divide itself into two
sorts, part of it composing a shining body like the sun, and part an
opaque body like the planets. Had a natural and blind cause, without
contrivance and design, placed the earth in the centre of the moon’s
orbit, and Jupiter in the centre of his system of satellites, and the
sun in the centre of the planetary system, the sun would have been a
body like Jupiter and the earth, that is, without light and heat, and
consequently he knows no reason why there is only one body qualified
to give light and heat to all the rest, but because the Author of the
system thought it convenient, and because one was sufficient to warm
and enlighten all the rest.
To the second query of Dr. Bentley, he replies that the motions which
the planets now have could not spring from any natural cause alone, but
were impressed by an intelligent Agent. “To make such a system with all
its motions required a cause which understood and compared together the
quantities of matter in the several bodies of the sun and planets, and
the gravitating powers resulting from thence; the several distances
of the primary planets from the sun, and of the secondary ones from
Saturn, Jupiter, and the earth, and the velocities with which those
planets could revolve about those quantities of matter in the central
bodies; and to compare and adjust all these things together in so great
a variety of bodies, argues that cause to be not blind and fortuitous,
but very well skilled in mechanics and geometry.”
In the second[109] letter, he admits that the spherical mass formed by
the aggregation of particles would affect the figure of the space in
which the matter was diffused, provided the matter descends directly
downwards to that body, and the body has no diurnal rotation; but he
states, that by earthquakes loosening the parts of this solid, the
protuberance might sink a little by their weight, and the mass by
degrees approach a spherical figure. He then proceeds to correct an
error of Dr. Bentley’s in supposing that all infinites are equal. He
admits that gravity might put the planets in motion, but he maintains
that, without the Divine power, it could never give them such a
circulating motion as they have about the sun, because a proper
quantity of a transverse motion is necessary for this purpose; and he
concludes that he is compelled to ascribe the frame of this system to
an intelligent Agent.
The third letter contains opinions confirming or correcting several
positions which Dr. Bentley had laid down, and he concludes it with a
curious examination of the opinion of Plato, that the motion of the
planets is such as if they had been all created by God in some region
very remote from our system, and let fall from thence towards the
sun, their falling motion being turned aside into a transverse one
whenever they arrived at their several orbits. Sir Isaac shows that
there is no common place such as that conjectured by Plato, provided
the gravitating power of the sun remains constant; but that Plato’s
affirmation is true if we suppose the gravitating power of the sun to
be doubled at that moment of time when they all arrive at their several
orbits. “If we suppose,” says he, “the gravity of all the planets
towards the sun to be of such a quantity as it really is, and that the
motions of the planets are turned upwards, every planet will ascend
to twice its height from the sun. Saturn will ascend till he be twice
as high from the sun as he is at present, and no higher; Jupiter will
ascend as high again as at present, that is, a little above the orb of
Saturn; Mercury will ascend to twice his present height, that is, to
the orb of Venus; and so of the rest; and then, by falling down again
from the places to which they ascended, they will arise again at their
several orbs with the same velocities they had at first, and with which
they now revolve.
“But if so soon as their motions by which they revolve are turned
upwards, the gravitating power of the sun, by which their ascent is
perpetually retarded, be diminished by one-half, they will now ascend
perpetually, and all of them, at all equal distances from the sun,
will be equally swift. Mercury, when he arrives at the orb of Venus,
will be as swift as Venus; and he and Venus, when they arrive at the
orb of the earth, will be as swift as the earth; and so of the rest.
If they begin all of them to ascend at once, and ascend in the same
line, they will constantly, in ascending, become nearer and nearer
together, and their motions will constantly approach to an equality,
and become at length slower than any motion assignable. Suppose,
therefore, that they ascended till they were almost contiguous, and
their motions inconsiderably little, and that all their motions were
at the same moment of time turned back again, or, which comes almost
to the same thing, that they were only deprived of their motions, and
let fall at that time, they would all at once arrive at their several
orbs, each with the velocity it had at first; and if their motions were
then turned sideways, and at the same time the gravitating power of the
sun doubled, that it might be strong enough to retain them in their
orbs, they would revolve in them as before their ascent. But if the
gravitating power of the sun was not doubled, they would go away from
their orbs into the highest heavens in parabolical lines.”[110]
In the fourth letter[111] he states, that the hypothesis that
matter is at first evenly diffused through the universe is in his
opinion inconsistent with the hypothesis of innate gravity without a
supernatural power to reconcile them, and therefore it infers a Deity.
“For if there be innate gravity, it is impossible now for the matter of
the earth and all the planets and stars to fly up from them, and become
evenly spread throughout all the heavens without a supernatural power;
and certainly that which can never be hereafter without a supernatural
power, could never be heretofore without the same power.”
These letters, of which we have endeavoured to give a brief summary,
will well repay the most attentive perusal by the philosopher as well
as the divine. They are written with much perspicuity of language and
great power of thought, and they contain results which incontestably
prove that their author was fully master of his noblest faculties, and
comprehended the profoundest parts of his own writings.[112]
The logical acuteness, the varied erudition, and the absolute freedom
from all prejudice which shine throughout the theological writings
of Newton, might have protected them from the charge of having been
written in his old age, and at a time when a failure of mind was
supposed to have unfitted him for his mathematical investigations. But
it is fortunate for his reputation, as well as for the interests of
Christianity, that we have been able to prove the incorrectness of such
insinuations, and to exhibit the most irrefragable evidence that _all
the theological writings_ of Newton were composed in the vigour of his
life, and before the crisis of that bodily disorder which is supposed
to have affected his reason. The able letters to Dr. Bentley were even
written in the middle of that period when want of sleep and appetite
had disturbed the serenity of his mind, and enable us to prove that
this disturbance, whatever was its amount, never affected the higher
functions of his understanding.
When a philosopher of distinguished eminence, and we believe not
inimical to the Christian faith, has found it necessary to make a
laboured apology for a man like Newton writing on theological subjects,
and has been led to render that apology more complete by referring this
class of his labours to a mind debilitated by age and weakened by its
previous aberrations, it may be expected from an English biographer,
and one who acknowledges the importance of revealed truth, and the
paramount interest of such subjects above all secular studies, to
suggest the true origin of Newton’s theological inquiries.
When a mind of great and acknowledged power first directs its energies
to the study of the material universe, no indications of order attract
his notice, and no proofs of design call forth his admiration. In the
starry firmament he sees no bodies of stupendous magnitude, and no
distances of immeasurable span. The two great luminaries appear vastly
inferior in magnitude to many objects around him, and the greatest
distances in the heavens seem even inferior to those which his own eye
can embrace on the surface of the earth. The planets, when observed
with care, are seen to have a motion among the fixed stars, and to vary
in their magnitude and distances, but these changes appear to follow no
law. Sometimes they move to the east, sometimes to the west, sometimes
towards the north, and sometimes towards the south, and at other
times they are absolutely stationary. No system, in short, appears,
and no general law seems to direct their motions. By the observations
and inquiries of astronomers, however, during successive ages, a
regular system has been recognised in this chaos of moving bodies,
and the magnitudes, distances, and revolutions of every planet which
composes it has been determined with the most extraordinary accuracy.
Minds fitted and prepared for this species of inquiry are capable of
understanding the great variety of evidence by which the truth of the
planetary system is established; but thousands of individuals who are
even distinguished in other branches of knowledge are incapable of such
researches, and view with a skeptical eye the great and irrefragable
truths of astronomy.
That the sun is stationary in the centre of our system,—that the
earth moves round the sun, and round its own axis,—that the earth is
8000 miles in diameter, and the sun _one hundred and ten_ times as
large,—that the earth’s orbit is 190 millions of miles in breadth,—and
that if this immense space were filled with light, it would appear
only like a luminous point at the nearest fixed star,—are positions
absolutely unintelligible and incredible to all who have not carefully
studied the subject. To millions of our species, then, the great book
of nature is absolutely sealed, though it is in the power of all to
unfold its pages, and to peruse those glowing passages which proclaim
the power and wisdom of its mighty Author.
The book of revelation exhibits to us the same peculiarities as that
of nature. To the ordinary eye it presents no immediate indications
of its Divine origin. Events apparently insignificant—supernatural
interferences seemingly unnecessary—doctrines almost contradictory—and
prophecies nearly unintelligible occupy its pages. The history of
the fall of man—of the introduction of moral and physical evil—the
prediction of a Messiah—the actual advent of our Saviour—his
instructions—his miracles—his death—his resurrection—and the subsequent
propagation of his religion by the unlettered fishermen of Galilee,
are each a stumbling block to the wisdom of this world. The youthful
and vigorous mind, when first summoned to peruse the Scriptures, turns
from them with disappointment. It recognises in them no profound
science—no secular wisdom—no Divine eloquence—no disclosures of
nature’s secrets—no direct impress of an Almighty hand. But, though
the system of revealed truth which this book contains is, like that of
the universe, concealed from common observation, yet the labours of
centuries have established its Divine origin, and developed in all its
order and beauty the great plan of human restoration. In the chaos of
its incidents we discover the whole history of our species, whether it
is delineated in events that are past or shadowed forth in those which
are to come,—from the creation of man and the origin of evil, to the
extinction of his earthly dynasty and the commencement of his immortal
career.
The antiquity and authenticity of the books which compose the sacred
canon,—the fulfilment of its prophecies,—the miraculous works of its
founder,—his death and resurrection, have been demonstrated to all who
are capable of appreciating the force of historical evidence; and in
the poetical and prose compositions of the inspired authors we discover
a system of doctrine and a code of morality traced in characters as
distinct and legible as the most unerring truths in the material world.
False systems of religion have indeed been deduced from the sacred
record,—as false systems of the universe have sprung from the study of
the book of nature,—but the very prevalence of a false system proves
the existence of one that is true; and though the two classes of facts
necessarily depend on different kinds of evidence, yet we scruple
not to say that the Copernican system is not more demonstrably true
than the system of theological truth contained in the Bible. If men of
high powers, then, are still found, who are insensible to the evidence
which sustains the system of the universe, need we wonder that there
are others whose minds are shut against the effulgent evidence which
intrenches the strongholds of our faith.
If such, then, is the character of the Christian faith, we need not
be surprised that it was embraced and expounded by such a genius
as Sir Isaac Newton. Cherishing its doctrines, and leaning on its
promises, he felt it his duty, as it was his pleasure, to apply to
it that intellectual strength which had successfully surmounted the
difficulties of the material universe. The fame which that success
procured him he could not but feel to be the breath of popular
applause, which administered only to his personal feelings; but the
investigation of the sacred mysteries, while it prepared his own
mind for its final destiny, was calculated to promote the spiritual
interests of thousands. This noble impulse he did not hesitate to obey,
and by thus uniting philosophy with religion, he dissolved the league
which genius had formed with skepticism, and added to the cloud of
witnesses the brightest name of ancient or of modern times.