The Theology of Isaac Newton
Concerning Isaac Newton we read: “He was as great a writer in [theology] as his generation produced, and though not always in strict accordance with the most conservative Christian orthodoxy, he shone especially as a worthy example of Christian life, and, notwithstanding a most unfaltering inquiry into nature’s law, stood fast always in his faith in the Holy Scriptures, which he made as much the subject of study as any field of science… He was… induced to prepare for the press his posthumous work entitled The Chronology of ancient Kingdoms which appeared in 1728. Sir lsaac’s principal theological works are Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse, and his Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture…
In this work Sir Isaac considers the two noted texts, I John 5:7, and I Timothy 3:16. The former he attempts to prove spurious, and the latter he considers a false reading… research has revealed that he speculated much regarding the “Homoousios” and must have entertained Arian views… ” [1]
We understand he also published against the immortality of the soul. Below are several technical questions [2] from Newton’s pen, reflecting on the historical development of the trinitarian view: three persons of one substance.
Queries regarding the Word Homoousios [same substance]
” 1. Whether Christ sent his apostles to preach metaphysics to the unlearned common people, and to their wives and children?”
“2. Whether the word [Homoousiosl ever was in any creed before the Nicene; or any creed was produced by any one bishop at the Council of Nice for authorizing the use of that word?”
“3. Whether the introducing the use of that word is not contrary to the Apostles’ rule of holding fast the form of sound words?”
“4. Whether the use of that word was not pressed upon the Council of Nice against the inclination of the major part of the Council?”
“5. Whether it was not pressed upon them by the Emperor Constantine the Great, a catechumen not yet baptized, and no member of the Council?”
“6. Whether it was not agreed by the Council that that word should, when applied to the Word of God signify nothing more than that Christ was the express image of the Father? and whether many of the bishops, in pursuance of that interpretation of the word allowed by the Council, did not in their subscription, by way of caution, add – ?”
“7. Whether Hosius (or whoever translated that Creed into Latin) did not impose upon the Western Churches by translating by the words unius substantial, instead of consubstantialis? and whether by that translation the Latin Churches were not drawn into an opinion that the Father and Son had one common substance, called by the Greeks Hypostasis, and whether they did not thereby give occasion to the Eastern Churches to cry out, presently after the Council of Sardica, that the Western Churches were become Sabellian [confusing the Father and the Son]?”
“8. Whether the Greeks, in opposition to this notion and language, did not use the language of three Hypostases, and whether in those days the word Hypostasis did not signify a substance?”
“9. Whether the Latins did not at that time accuse all those of Arianism who used the language of three Hypostases, and thereby charge Arianism upon the Council of Nice, without knowing the true meaning of the Nicene Creed?”
“10. Whether the Latins were not convinced, in the Council of Ariminum that the Council of Nice, by the word, understood nothing more than that the Son was the express image of the Father – the acts of the Council of Nice were not produced for convincing them. And whether, upon producing the acts of that Council for proving this, the Macedonians, and some others, did not accuse the bishops of hypocrisy, who in subscribing these acts, had interpreted them by the word in their subscriptions.”
“11. Whether Athanasius, Hilary, and in general the Greeks and Latins, did not, from the time of the reign of Julian the Apostate, acknowledge the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be three substances and continue to do so till the school – men changed the signification of the word Hypostasis, and brought in the notion of the three persons in one single substance?”
“12. Whether the opinion of the equality of the three substances was not first set on foot in the reign of Julian the Apostate, by Athanasius, Hilary, etc.?”
“13. Whether the worship of the Holy Ghost was not first set on foot presently after the Council of Sardica?”
“14. Whether the Council of Sardica was not the first Council which declared for the doctrine of the Consubstantial Trinity? and whether the Council did not affirm that there was but one hypostasis of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?””
Newton also wrote twenty questions reflecting badly on the performance of Athanasius. In addition, he wrote extensively on the identity of Antichrist during the Gospel Age, beginning with the prophecies in Daniel about the succession from Babylon to Medo-Persia, to Grecia, to Rome.
– Contributed
[1] McClinlock & Strongs. Vol. VII, “Newton, Isaac,” pp. 31-13
[2] Sir Isaac Newton Theological Manuscripts, Ed. H. McLachlan; Liverpool: Univ. Press (1950)