cular presumption of Newton's heterodoxy on these articles, arising from the circumstance to which I have before directed your attention; namely, that he instituted a most careful inquiry, and wrote a very elaborate treatise, in order to prove the corruption of two of the strongest texts commonly employed to support the Trinitarian system. Is it likely he would have engaged in such a laborious research from mere curiosity, or critical taste? Is it likely he would have taken such pains for such an object, if he had not felt interested in setting aside those texts, as false testimonies to a false doctrine? Is it probable, when his labors terminated, (according to his own judgment at least,) in the utter destruction of these two favorite props of reputed orthodoxy, that he would have concluded his treatise without some expression of his belief, that the doctrines in question might nevertheless be defended by other texts, -if he had entertained any such belief? Could any honest and serious Trinitarian have done less? Yet he has not one syllable to this effect. The inference is too clear to be resisted; he rejoiced in the issue of his inquiries; because he looked on the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation of God as Athanasian corruptions of the pure gospel of Christ. Again, in the course of this treatise, when speaking of the baptismal commission given by Christ to his apostles, and recorded at the close of Matthew's gospel, Newton calls it,-'the place from which THEY TRIED AT FIRST TO DERIVE THE TRINITY.' Could any conscientious Trinitarian believer have written in this manner? It is incredible; and I feel a thorough conviction, that these circumstances, in the total absence of any contrary proof, ought alone to be considered decisive of the Unitarianism of this great philosopher. But, as I have already remarked, we have the express testimony of some of his most intimate friends to the same purpose. Mr Hopton Haynes, and the celebrated William Whiston, were both long and closely connected with Newton; the former as his fellow-servant in the King's Mint, and the other as his deputy and successor in the Mathematical Chair at Cambridge. They were both men of distinguished learning and probity, zealously devoted to religious studies. They were themelves both Unitarians, frank and open adversaries of the orthodox system; and the former especially was the author of one of the most judicious and valuable books that has ever appeared on this controversy. There cannot be a doubt that they had both frequently conversed with Newton on religious subjects. Now, we have their testimony, that our great philosopher agreed with them, in utterly rejecting the popular doctrines, believing in the strict unity, and sole unrivalled deity, of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I have never yet seen anything calculated, in the least degree, to throw discredit on this testimony. It is fully equal to that upon which we receive many highly important facts, in history and biography, which are in themselves not unreasonable or improbable.* *The testimony of Mr Haynes has been conveyed to us by a third person. It is to be found in a work entitled, A Cordial for Low Spirits, being a collection of curious tracts. London, 1763.' Preface, p. xviii. The author of this preface was the Rev. Richard Baron, of Blackheath, a General Baptist Minister; and, it is believed, a man of unimpeachable character. He says in the place above referred to; Hopton Haynes, Esq. was author of several writ Such, then, is the evidence on which we rest the truth of our assertion, that in regard to their particular views of christian doctrine, Milton, Locke, and New ings well known to the curious; he served many years in the Mint Office, under Sir Isaac Newton, and at the time of his death, had a place in the Exchequer. (I think he died in the year 1749.) He was the most zealous Unitarian I ever knew; and in a conversation with him on that subject, he told me that Sir Isaac Newton did not believe our Lord's pre-existence, being a Socinian, as we call it, in that article. Sir Isaac Newton predicted the restoration of primitive truth, in these memorable words to Mr Haynes, - The time will come, when the doctrine of the incarnation as commonly received, shall be exploded as an absurdity equal to transubstantiation!' The testimony of Whiston we have directly from himself. It is to be found in his work entitled, A Collection of Authentic Records belonging to the Old and New Testament, translated into Engglish by William Whiston, M. A., sometime Professor of the Mathematics in the University of Cambridge, London, 1728.' Vol. 2, p. 1077. The article is on Sir Isaac Newton's Chronology, and the passage is as follows;- In particular, Sir Isaac Newton was one who had thoroughly examined the state of the church in its most critical juncture, the fourth century. He had early and thoroughly discovered that the old Christian faith, concerning the Trinity in particular, was then changed; that what has been long called Arianism, is no other than old uncorrupt Christianity; and that Athanasius was the grand and the very wicked instrument of that change. This was occasionally known to those few who were intimate with him all along; from whom, notwithstanding his prodigiously fearful, cautious, and suspicious temper, he could not always conceal so important a discovery. Nor need I now crave the reader's belief of my testimony in this case. Sir Isaac Newton has left not a few undeniable testimonials of it behind him; witness his MSS. dissertations upon two of the famous New Testament texts, concerned in that controversy; 1 Tim. iii 15, and 1 John, v. 7, both whose present readings he took to be Athanasian interpolations.' ton, were Unitarians. I trust I have shown to your complete satisfaction, that it is on no very insufficient grounds we venture to rank these men among the great, the wise, the learned and the good, who in all ages of the church, amidst corruption and persecution, have been witnesses to this pure faith once delivered to the saints. That we should be desirous by all fair means to establish our fellowship with them in religious belief, cannot reasonably surprise any one. We say indeed of the Unitarian doctrine, as we said before of Christianity itself, that we wish no man to receive it on the mere credit due to other men's opinions. Let every one, mindful of his individual responsibility to God, carefully examine into its truth and accordance with the Holy Scriptures. But here again we say, let every one be assured that, whether he perceive it at present or not, there must be some weighty evidence in favor of this doctrine; otherwise it never could have recommended itself to the calm and patient judgment of such inquirers, so earnestlyantent upon the discovery of the truth, and so highly qualified for the work. As a final test of the truth or falsehood of the Unitarian doctrine, the sanction of these or of any other great men is of no validity; nor do we wish ever to see it applied in this way. But as a confutation of many absurd reproaches, which ignorant or arrogant men have attempted to cast upon our dearest convictions, the fact of their having been embraced by these great characters is unanswerable. The faith which has been solemnly entertained by such minds cannot be, what proud ecclesiastics, in their spite and impotence, have dared to call it, a feeble and conceited heresy.' It has satisfied the understandings, charmed the hearts, and sanctified the lives, of much wiser and better men than many of those who have reviled it. IV. I regret that the time I have already occupied your attention, will not allow me to dwell, as I could willingly do, on the remaining consideration. It is much too important, however, to be passed over in total silence. I must not neglect to remind you, in conclusion, that these great and renowned men were exemplary practical Christians in heart and life. In character and conduct, they were worthy disciples of that heavenly Master, in whose teaching they so much delighted. Though addicted, as we have seen, to habits of free and diligent inquiry, though anxious to attain a pure and scriptural faith, (in which to a great degree they were successful,) yet they did not suppose that a correct knowledge of Christianity was all that is required of its professors. They knew it was intended to regulate their dispositions and actions, and to these practical purposes they faithfully applied all its holy principles. Not a serious stain of any kind is to be discovered on their characters! Not a shadow of immorality, of any description, obscures the brightness of their imperishable fame! Milton's soul was evidently animated with that spirit of strong and fervent piety, which belonged to most of the great actors on the stage of life, in his busy and turbulent times. But I am not aware of any proof, that he was in the smallest measure subject to the folly and fanaticism by which their piety was too often dis figured. He felt the influence of sacred truths work |