"Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation: all which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, though religion were not; but superstition dismounts all these, and createth an absolute monarchy in the minds of men: therefore Atheism did never perturb states; for it makes men wary of themselves, as looking no farther, and we see the times inclined to Atheism (as the time of Augustus Cæsar) were civil times: but superstition hath been the confusion of many states, and bringeth in a new primum mobile, that ravisheth all the spheres of government." This is Lord Bacon's apology for Atheism, and, in my humble opinion, he wrote it feelingly, conscientiously, and upon principle, as an Atheist, which word has no other meaning than a seceder from all mythologies, although the ignorant and interested make so much ridiculous clamour and fuss about it.
To shew that Newton was thoroughly ignorant of the chemical properties of matter, I will quote again a paragraph, which I quoted in page 341, Vol. II. of "The Republican," in the answer to the Rev. Thomas Hartwell Home's pamphlet, entitled "Deism Refuted," &c. It is thus: "All things considered, it appears probable to me, that God in the beginning created matter in solid, hard, impenetrable particles; of such sizes and figures, and with such other properties, as most conduced to the end for which he formed them, and that these primitive particles, being solids, are incomparably harder than any of the sensible porous bodies compounded of them; even so hard as never to wear, or break in pieces: no other power being able to divide what God made in the first creation. While these corpuscles remain entire, they may compose bodies of one and the same nature and texture in all ages; but should they wear away or break in pieces, the nature of things depending on them would be changed: water and earth, composed of old worn particles, or fragments of particles, would not be of the same nature and texture now, with water and earth composed of entire particles at the beginning; and, therefore, that nature may be lasting, the changes of corporeal things are to be placed only in the various separations, and new associations of these permanent corpuscles." The Chemists of the present day must smile at this notion of Sir Isaac Newton, about what God did in the beginning: it is evident, that he knew but little about chemical analysis and composition; or, rather, that his ideas upon the subject were quite erroneous and hypothetical, when he might have obtained a demonstration quite conclusive, if he had studied Chemistry with other parts of his philosophy. Such, in my opinion, is the importance of the science of Chemistry in the pursuit of truth and in the investigation of Nature and her laws, that the first proper step towards philosophical studies must be an acquaintance with its elements and powers.
We need nothing further to convince us of the struggle which existed between science and superstition in the mind of Sir Isaac Newton than the following creed, which I have met with quite a propos, or in the midst of writing this address, in a weekly provincial paper, and which, I imagine, has been put forth at this moment as one of those little anxieties to prop the declining superstition of the age. It is thus headed, Sir Isaac Newton's Creed: "The Supreme Being governs all things, not as soul of the world, but as Lord of the Universe; and upon account of his dominion, he is stiled the Lord God, Supreme over all. The Supreme God is an eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect being; but a being, how perfect soever, without dominion, is not Lord God. The term God, very frequently signifies Lord; but every Lord is not God. The dominion of a spiritual being constitutes him God; true dominion, true God; supreme dominion, supreme God; imaginary dominion, imaginary God. He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite. He is not duration and space, but his duration of existence is present, and by existing always and every where, he constitutes duration and space—eternity and infinity. Since every part of space, and every indivisible moment of duration, is every where; certainly the Maker and Lord of all things, cannot be said to be in no time, and no place. He is omnipresent, not by his power only, but in his very substance; for power cannot subsist without substance. God is not at all affected by the motions of bodies, neither do they find any resistance from the omnipresence of God. He necessarily exists, and by the same necessity he exists always and every where. Whence also it follows, that he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all sensation, all understanding, all active power; but this, not in a human, or corporeal form, but in a manner wholly unknown to us, therefore not to be worshipped under a corporeal representation." Here is the creed of Sir Isaac Newton! and who can read this, and for a moment believe that he was a Christian when he wrote it? I am not about to approve all this jargon and contradiction; I despise it; I pity the Man of Science that could write such nonsense; and rather than I would be called the author of it, I would relinquish as much fame as Sir Isaac Newton obtained in other respects. The foregoing ideas of Sir Isaac Newton on the properties of matter are equally unintelligible, contradictory, and ridiculous. Lord Bacon's definition of Christianity, or the essentials of the Christian religion, which I have seen printed as a religious tract, but which I have not at hand for reference or quotation, is just of the same stamp, and rather than be called the author of such trash, I would consent to be considered an idiot. Yet Lord Bacon as a natural philosopher, and Sir Isaac Newton as a mathematician and astronomer, were eminent in the highest degree, when the age in which they lived is considered. The conduct of both evinces the mischievous effect of superstition on the human mind, particularly where that mind is brilliantly adapted for making a progress in science and scientific discoveries.
It is impossible to analyze the creed of Sir Isaac Newton relative to Deity, or found any one idea upon it. It is a string of words that have no application, and independent of their contradiction, all that can be said of them is, that they describe nothing. The writer of such a creed must have been an Atheist in disguise, or perhaps unknown even to himself. Its total amount implies that there is no God such as priests teach, and bigots and fools imagine and believe. Mirabaud, in his System of Nature, has brought forward several quotations from Newton's writings, and has commented on them to shew that he was what is vulgarly called an Atheist: that he was what every Man of Science must be, a seceder from the idolatry of the ignorant. Such I believe he was in his latter days, and in his private opinion, but he had not the honesty to avow himself such. It is unquestionable that Newton in his youth possessed much superstition, and it is equally unquestionable that the progress he had made in science in his advanced age, had entirely conquered that superstition and banished it from his mind, although, I am sorry to say, that he was not honest enough to make a full and conscientious confession of the change to which his theological opinions had been subjected. Perhaps I cannot make a deeper impression on the mind of the reader as to the real character of Newton, than by quoting an anecdote from William Whiston's Memoirs written by himself.
"Sir Hans Sloane, Edmund Halley, and myself, were once together at Child's Coffee-house, in St. Paul's Church-yard, and Dr. Halley asked me, Why I was not a member of the Royal Society? I answered, because they durst not choose an heretic. Upon which Dr. Halley said to Sir Hans Sloane, that if he would propose me, he would second it: which was done accordingly. When Sir Isaac Newton, the President, heard this, he was greatly concerned; and, by what I then learned, closeted some of the members, in order to get clear of me; and told them, that if I was chosen a member, he would not be president. Whereupon, by a pretence of deficiency in the form of proceeding, the proposal was dropped, I not insisting upon it. Nay, as soon as I was informed of Sir Isaac's uneasiness, I told his bosom friend, Dr. Clarke, that had I known his mind, I would have done nothing that might bring that great man's 'grey hairs with sorrow to the grave:' Nor has that Society ever refused to let me come, and lay any of my papers or instruments before them, whenever I desired it; without my being an actual member: which, considering my small ability to pay the usual sums for admission, and annual dues, was almost as agreeable to me, as being a constant member. Now if the reader desire to know the reason of Sir Isaac Newton's unwillingness to have me a member, he must take notice, that as his making me first his deputy, and giving me the full profits of the place, brought me to be a candidate, as his recommendation of me to the heads of colleges in Cambridge, made me his successor; so did I enjoy a large portion of his favour for twenty years together. But he then perceiving that I could not do as his other darling friends did, that is, learn of him, without contradicting him, when I differed in opinion from him, he could not, in his old age, bear such contradiction; and so he was afraid of me the last thirteen years of his life. See my Authentic Records, page 1070, 1071. He was of the most fearful, cautious, and suspicious temper, that I ever knew: and had he been alive when I wrote against his Chronology, and so thoroughly confuted it, that nobody has ever ventured to vindicate it, that I know of, since my confutation was published, I should not have thought proper to publish it during his life-time: because I knew his temper so well, that I should have expected it would have killed him. As Dr. Bentley, Bishop Stillingfleet's chaplain, told me, that he believed Mr. Locke's thorough confutation of the Bishop's Metaphysics about the Trinity, hastened his end also."
Whiston was the early friend of Newton and succeeded him at Cambridge in the professor's chair in the science of the Mathematics. Newton when young was a firm adherent to the ridiculous doctrine of the Christian Trinity, and so useful as figures were to him in his mathematical and astronomical discoveries, and to such an extent, beyond all predecessors, could he carry them, yet superstition could persuade him, that three could be explained to be but one; and one to comprise three! The science of Whiston in the Mathematics was almost equal to that of Newton, though I believe the former had not so fertile a genius as the latter, and was obliged to acquire by labour what to the other was natural. Yet Whiston, although he had superstition enough to make him a honest and conscientious Christian, knew the proper use of arithmetic, and would not allow three to be one, nor one to be three: he rejected the doctrine of the Trinity in the Godhead. Whiston honestly and openly combated this impossibility, and avowed himself an Arian, and contended under much persecution throughout his lifetime that such were the sentiments of the early Christians, and that the doctrine of the Trinity was but a corruption of the church after it had been long established. Such tenets were then called blasphemous, and Whiston was expelled from his professor's chair, and from the university of Cambridge altogether, and had to endure more clamour about blasphemy than ever I had, or have any reason to fear in future. This circumstance connected with a rivalry in the Mathematics occasioned the breach between Whiston and Newton, but ridiculous as even Whiston's superstition appears to me, I think him a much more honest man than ever was Newton, and as a member of society much more useful to the age in which they lived. Newton courted distinction and popularity by servilely succumbing to all the despotisms of the day: Whiston was a man of principle, and lived and died poor for the satisfaction of writing and speaking what he thought and believed. The one has been too much flattered and applauded; the other too much vilified and degraded, and the clamour by which both circumstances have been effected has been equally disgusting and disgraceful to the country.
I have contrasted the conduct of Whiston and Newton, and have made my observations on the latter to shew that even his name carries no weight with it in the support of superstition, I trust I have sufficiently shown that superstition and science can never amalgamate, which also justifies the inference that, morality and religion never can amalgamate. Superstition corrupts and deteriorates all the human passions: science alone is qualified to amend and moralize them. The Man of Science who knows his duty, and what is conducive to the interest of mankind, will ever boldly and openly set himself in opposition to the priest. This has not been sufficiently done hitherto, and I hope that even my appeal will not be altogether useless, but that, it will rouse some latent spirit among the Men of Science in this island to assert their own dignity and importance; and silence the foul, the wicked, and the mischievous clamour of Priestcraft.
It is beyond doubt that Locke was hostile to the system of Government, both in Church and State, and the odium which he incurred from a certain quarter, was quite equal to that which has fallen upon Thomas Paine, or those who, since the American and French revolutions, have travelled so much farther in their opposition. Opposition to ill-founded establishments, possessing power, must necessarily be progressive. Locke was thought to have gone to an extreme in his time, but I now consider his writings to be scarcely-worth reading, as far as they apply to toleration in matters of opinion, or to political economy and political government. The sentiments which I have put upon paper would have been called high treason a century ago, and the author hung, beheaded, embowelled, and quartered, with the general approbation of the people; and a person of the name of Thomas, Matthews was actually hung for writing and printing what was called a treasonable libel, in the reign of George the First; which libel, or a similar one, would not now bethought seditious by the Attorney General himself. Such is the effect of general instruction among the people—such is the progressive power of the printing press, that, I feel a moral conviction that the sentiments which I have avowed will became general in another generation. The circumstance is as sure as that no one will now condemn the political opinions of John Locke, as going too far, but rather as weak and insipid, and not going far enough in honest principle.
Then come forward, ye Men of Science, it is reserved for you to give the death blow, or the last blow to superstition and idolatry. Now is the time—you are safe even from momentary persecution, if you stand forward numerously and boldly. You will have a people, an all mighty people, with you, a circumstance which no philosopher could ever heretofore calculate upon. You have nothing to fear, and nothing to lose, but every thing to gain, even that which is most dear to you, the kind reception of your instructions, the adoption of your principles, founded in truth and the nature of things.
Kings and Priests have, in some cases, made partial pretensions to patronize the Arts and Sciences, as a cloak for their enmity towards them. They ever were, and ever will be, in reality, their direst foes. An advanced state of Science cannot benefit them. Their present distinctions, and misery-begetting splendour, could not be tolerated, when mankind shall so far be illuminated as to know the real cause and object of animal-existence. Common sense teaches us that good government requires none of those idle distinctions; for why should the servants, or the administrators of the laws of society, be distinguished above those whence those laws should emanate? It is the duty of the Man of Science to attack those distinctions, to combat all the established follies of the day, and endeavour to restore society to its natural state; to that state which first principles will point out; the mutual support, the comfort, the happiness, and the protection of each other. At present we are but as so many beasts of prey, each strengthening himself by the destruction of his weaker fellow. The many unnatural distinctions which Kingcraft and Priestcraft have brought into society, have totally undermined the first object of the social state. In addition to this universal evil, those two crafts have set themselves up as a bar to all useful improvement. They countenance no change but that which swells the amount of their depredations, (for the manner in which their incomes are extorted deserves no other appellation.) Societies can obtain no real or lasting strength under the sway of those two crafts, for every improvement that has been made in their several conditions, has been evidently from the force of natural and scientific knowledge, and in an exact ratio with the diminution of kingly and priestly influence. This assertion is evident if we examine the decay of their influence for the last three centuries, in this or any other country. The printing press has come like a true Messiah to emancipate the great family of mankind from this double yoke. This Messiah is immortal, and its saving powers must be universal and perpetual. By this, and by no other Messiah, can man be saved from ignorance and misery; the only hell that he has to fear. It will prove the true Messiah of the Jew, of the Christian, of the Mahometan, and of the Pagan. It is a Messiah for all, and it will go on to unite under the name and title of Man and Citizen the whole human race, or all those animals who have the gift of speech, and its consequent, reason. I hope to see the day, or I fear not but it will arrive, when every man of property shall consider a printing-press, a necessary piece of furniture in his house; and prize it more than our present aristocrats prize their hounds and horses.