mitted by its author to future generations; and that spirit, guided and cherished by the protecting providence of God, will go on, as we believe and trust, increasing in purity and strength through all the future channels by which it is destined to be distributed to the remotest corners of the earth.

One word as to the nature of the fact itself. Why should it be considered incredible, when supported by competent testimony? Is there not a power in the universe adequate to its production? How else shall we account for the original creation of the human race? - a fact in itself as stupendous, and as much disconnected from foregoing circumstances, as the resurrection-and yet the certainty of which may indisputably be inferred from the most conspicuous phenomena of the globe that we inhabit. Those who embrace the doctrines of natural religion and hope for a future life, must admit the possibility of a transferrence of individual consciousness to a new system of organization: and may not this transferrence be a change which, though invisible to us, does constantly take place on the dissolution of our present bodies by death, and form a permanent law of that region of the spiritual universe which is placed beyond the sphere of our present experience? And if this transferrence of consciousness be conceived of as possible, why should not the restoration of it, after a short interval, to its previous system of organization, be equally admitted to be possible; and thus the resurrection be merely the visible manifestation to our world of the operation of a law which is continually taking place in the unseen and spiritual world; a manifestation ordained by the Cause of causes for the best of purposes, and in perfect harmony with the great final object of his universal providence, the education of mind, and the advancement of the virtue and happiness of the human race?

It will be objected, that such an event is a deviation from the usual course of God's providence, and is therefore incredible. But such an objection implies, that our present knowledge of the laws of nature must limit the range of possibility. For aught we can now prove to the contrary, such apparent deviations may be only parts of some great system, as yet unknown to us, the exemplification of a law affecting the whole spiritual creation, but too vast and too comprehensive to fall within the survey and be subject to the calculations of the shortsighted inhabitants of a transitory planet like ours. Beings, who had never witnessed nor heard of more than one comet or one eclipse, would doubtless regard them as violations of the established order of nature, and call such appearances miraculous: whereas we now know, from longer experience, that they are essential parts of the general economy of creation, and depend on causes as determinate as those which influence the tides of the ocean and the course of the seasons.* The same we may hereafter find to be the case with the resurrection, and with those other wonderful events by which God in different ages and under various dispensations has specially helped forward the moral and religious progress of the human species. In a future world, we may possibly be enabled to trace the mysterious ties which link the present initiatory existence of man with the higher laws of the spiritual universe, and connect it with the nobler functions and capacities of a state that has yet to be revealed.

Still it will be asked by the pertinacious objector, why, if an event so important as that of the visible resurrection of a human being from the dead ever took place-why is not the evidence of it more decisive and complete?

This objection will have little weight with those who find in the evidence enough to satisfy their own minds. Dr. Priestley, in his celebrated Discourse on this subject, has advanced some very probable reasons why Jesus was not seen by a greater number of persons after his resurrection. But to say nothing of the moral influences of cultivating faith as distinct from knowledge, we may observe that, historically speaking, the doctrine of the resurrection, considered as an essential part of Christianity, has accomplished its great object; it has diffused amongst mankind a rational and popular belief in a future life; it has excited such discussion and interest in the subject, both among those who do, and those who do not, admit the resurrection of Jesus, that it has called forth the whole force of the natural arguments for human immortality, and fixed them on their right basis-not nice and subtle disquisitions on the essence of mind-the rock on which the ancient philosophers split-but on those moral views, which Christianity inculcates, and which it has spread universally through society, of the character of God and the progressive destiny of man.

The truths of Christianity seem well fitted to form a rallying point for good men of all sects and parties in this age of agitation and excitement; and these truths cluster round the fact of the resurrection as a sort of nucleus, which gives them consistency and strength. It is the visible link between earth and heaven

"Connexion exquisite of distant worlds."

It attaches our best hopes and fondest wishes to that bright world unseenthe mansion of all that is pure and great and good-where the visions of the patriot, the dreams of the philanthropist, and the aspirations of the saint, may fashion to themselves some unapproachable ideal of perfection to exalt the aims and sanctify the toils of earth.

SIR ISAAC NEWTON AN ANTITRINITARIAN.

We are not among those who care not what company they are found in, whether at home or abroad, in the world or in the church. Truth, we know, to find acceptance, must be recommended in its living forms, and therefore for the truth's sake, with a view to its extension and final triumph, we rejoice when we can add to the list of our friends another illustrious name. And of pride, or apathy, or ignorance of the world, we should suspect that man who disowned any wish to find enrolled among the votaries of his faith the greatly good and greatly wise. There is a triumvirate, of whom Unitarians may well be proud, and of whom neither the indifference of friends nor the assaults of enemies can, we feel convinced, ever rob them -we mean Milton, Newton, and Locke. That the first and the last were Antitrinitarians seems now to be conceded on all hands. A doubt has been raised about our claim to Newton, and we therefore propose to set forth in order the proofs that Sir Isaac Newton was an Antitrinitarian.

The manner in which men of research and information have spoken on this subject merits attention. " He adhered," says the writer of the article Newton, in Rees' Cyclopedia, " outwardly to the communion of the Church of England, though he did not believe in all its doctrines; with respect to the person of Christ there seems no doubt that Sir Isaac Newton was inclined to Unitarianism." Chalmers, in his Biographical Dictionary, tells us that "he not only shewed a great and constant regard to religion in general, as well by an exemplary life as in all his writings, but was also a firm believer in revealed religion, with one exception, an important one indeed, that his sentiments on the doctrine of the Trinity by no means coincided with what is generally held." That most respectable authority, Dr. Thomson, asserts, in his History of the Royal Society, "Newton's religious opinions were not orthodox-for example, he did not believe in the Trinity. This gives us the reason why Horsley, (the Editor of his works,) the champion of the Trinity, found Newton's papers unfit for publication. But it is much to be regretted they never saw the light." Dr. Chalmers will not be suspected of favouring the Unitarians, yet he has given the sanction of his authority to Newton's Antitrinitarianism. In the second of his "Discourses on the Christian Revelation viewed in connexion with the Modern Astronomy," he has pronounced a splendid and well-deserved eulogium on Newton as a biblical student. Lest he should hence be charged with Unitarianizing, he softens the matter down in his preface, and tells his readers, "I do not think that amid the distraction and the engrossment of other pursuits he has at all times succeeded in his interpretation of the book, (the Bible,) else he would never, in my apprehension, have abetted the leading doctrine of a sect or system which has now nearly dwindled away from public observation."

As next in value, we shall place the evidence of his Antitrinitarianism deducible from Newton's works.

There is in them 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, as we think it was, Newton's design to omit any thing 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, as we shall now shew, which imply his disbelief of the doctrine?

The bare fact, that he exposed "Two notable Corruptions of Scripture," which have been considered main supports of Trinitarianism, would not lead to the inference that he was an Antitrinitarian; but that fact, coupled with another, viz. his omitting to declare, in the same tract as that in which he destroyed two witnesses, his belief in the doctrine, does warrant the conclusion, that he was opposed as much to the corruption of the Trinity itself as to the corruptions by which it had for centuries been supported. No serious believer in the Trinity would, we are persuaded, have written to take away evidence on behalf of the Trinity without declaring that he designed no ill to the doctrine itself-nay, was persuaded that the warrant of Scripture was still in its favour. A distinction would have been made between the doctrine and the evidence of the doctrine, asserting his conviction of the stability and certainty of the first, while duty obliged him to detect flaws in the second. We go farther. Language occurs in the treatise on the "Two notable Corruptions of Scripture," which implies, in the clearest manner, Newton's disbelief of the doctrine in question. Page 8, he says, speaking of the baptismal form, "the place from which they tried at first to derive the Trinity." This phrase even Horsley found to be "very extraordinary." And extraordinary, nay, unaccountable, it is, if Sir Isaac Newton was, as Horsley intimates, "no Socinian," or, as we should choose to term it, not an Antitrinitarian. In the following, the reasons assigned of the Sonship of Christ fall far below the height of orthodoxy. P. 59, ""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, when 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)." A Trinitarian would have gone much farther, and spoken of his being begotten from eternity, and even an Arian would have spoken of his creation as taking place before all worlds. No one but a Humanitarian could with propriety have referred the Sonship of Christ merely to his supernatural birth and resurrection. Let the tenor of the next passage, page 61, be considered. Speaking of the want of congruity there is in it, with the Apostle's drift, he says of the text of the three heavenly witnesses, "How does its witnessing make to the design of St. John's discourse? 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 sense to be his which is the best." Is this the tone of a Trinitarian? Was he, who was not " fond of mysteries," likely to be enamoured with the mystery of mysteries, the Trinity, at which, we learn, on authority, "reason stands aghast, and faith itself is half confounded"? Sir Isaac Newton had studied in a different school. Had he believed in the Trinity, would he not, after this passage, have precluded misconstruction, by asserting, as we find so often done, that there were mysteries in Christianity, mysteries to be believed, mysteries to prove the believer's faith, to exercise his trust, to humble his "reasoning pride," and, above all, proudly eminent, the mystery of the Trinity? Again, in p. 65, we read, "In all the times of the hot and lasting Arian controversy, it (1 Tim. iii. 16) never came into play; though now these disputes are over, they that read, God manifested in the flesh,' think it one of the most obvious and pertinent texts for the business." Let Sir Isaac Newton's piety and gentleness be considered, and then say if he could have used language such as this of a fundamental doctrine of revelation, of any thing but what he believed a gross and injurious corruption of the gospel. It is quite clear that the mind of the writer was, to say no more, in a state of alienation both from the evidence and the doctrine which that evidence was adduced to support. Much of the same character is the oblique thrust in the following passage, page 62: "When they had got the Trinity into his (Erasmus') edition, (they) threw by their manuscript, if they had one, as an almanac out of date. And can such shuffling dealings satisfy considering men?" It would be easy to add many passages implying Newton's disbelief in the Trinity, taken from his published writings. We shall, however, content ourselves at present with the following, extracted from his piece on the Apocalypse: "The beasts and the 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. This was the worship of the primitive Christians." Vol. V. p. 455, Horsley's edition. 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 his 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 may be 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.

The strongest evidence yet remains.

Hopton Haynes, the intimate friend of Newton, asserted that "Sir Isaac Newton did not believe our Saviour's pre-existence, being a Socinian (as we call it) in that article; that Sir Isaac 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." On the same authority, we know that Sir Isaac predicted that "the time will come when the doctrine of the Incarnation, as commonly received, shall be exploded as an absurdity equal to transubstantiation." From Hopton Haynes we turn to Whiston, who succeeded Newton in the professorship at Cambridge. In two passages Whiston declares that Newton was an Antitrinitarian. Page 206, Memoirs of the Life of Mr. William Whiston, the autobiographer says, "I found that Sir Isaac Newton was so hearty for the Baptists, as well as for the Eusebians or Arians, that he sometimes suspected these two were the two witnesses in the Revelation" Again, p. 477, " And so far I know concerning you, my brethren, of the Baptists, that the greatest