Isaac Newton’s Secret Theology:
Science, Faith, and the Trinity Controversy
By Dale Beckman Jr.
This is a stripped down version of the book with the same name. It can be downloaded for free or purchased on Amazon.
For those who would like to know more of Isaac Newton’s secret life, a NOVA documentary
Three highly recommended pages to supplement this page:
The meanings of the words “God” and “Worship” are very important to understand! A must read!
Who can be rightfully called God?
What does it mean to worship, and can someone worship more than one person?
Table of Contents
Introduction
Chapter 1: Isaac Newton – Science, Faith, and a Secret Theology
Chapter 2: “One God, One Lord” – Newton’s Arguments Against the Trinity
2.1 Biblical Interpretation: The Father as the One True God
2.2 Textual Criticism: Exposing “Corruptions” in Scripture
2.3 Historical Analysis: Christianity Corrupted in the Early Church
2.4 Philosophical and Theological Reasoning
Chapter 3: “Heresy” in the 17th Century – Newton’s Historical Context and Risks
Chapter 4: Newton’s Theology in Modern Perspective – Unitarian, Arian, or Something Else?
Chapter 5: Newton’s Legacy in Theology and the Science-Faith Dialogue
5.1 Newton in Theological and Historical Scholarship
5.2 Newton in the Dialogue of Science and Faith
Conclusion: Isaac Newton’s Enduring Intellectual Legacy
Sources:
______________________________________________
Introduction
Isaac Newton is famous worldwide as the brilliant physicist and mathematician who formulated the laws of motion and universal gravitation. Yet few realize that Newton was also deeply engaged in religious scholarship, privately devoting much of his life to theology. In particular, Newton developed unorthodox views on the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. While publicly conforming to the Church of England, he secretly questioned and argued against the Trinity on biblical, historical, and philosophical grounds. This book explores Newton’s life and his theological views in depth, focusing especially on his critiques of the Trinity doctrine. It will examine Newton’s arguments – from his meticulous Bible interpretations and textual studies to his analysis of early Church history and rational theology – and place them in the context of 17th-century England’s religious climate. We will also compare Newton’s theological perspective to modern non-Trinitarian views (Unitarian, Arian, and others) and discuss how Newton is regarded today in both theological discourse and the broader dialogue on science and faith.
Chapter 1: Isaac Newton – Science, Faith, and a Secret Theology
Newton’s story is not only one of scientific genius but also of an intense, covert religious quest. Born in 1642 in Lincolnshire, England, Isaac Newton became one of history’s greatest scientists, often ranked alongside Albert Einstein (Sir Isaac Newton Was Strongly Anti-Trinitarian | Kermit Zarley). He revolutionized physics with his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687), which formulated the law of universal gravitation and the foundations of classical mechanics. He also made pioneering contributions to optics and mathematics (including co-inventing calculus). By the late 17th century, Newton’s achievements had earned him international fame and positions of prestige – he succeeded Isaac Barrow as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, became President of the Royal Society in 1703, and was knighted in 1705 (Newton’s Religious Life and Work). His scientific accomplishments were so influential that had he been forced out of academia early (as we will see he feared), the world might never have seen the Principia or the record of his discoveries in calculus (Church, Heresy, and Pure Religion).
Despite his scientific renown, Newton was also a devout – if unorthodox – Christian. He treated the study of Scripture and theology with the same intensity as he did natural philosophy. In fact, Newton wrote perhaps more on theology and alchemy than he did on science and math (Sir Isaac Newton Was Strongly Anti-Trinitarian | Kermit Zarley). However, unlike his scientific works which he published and openly shared, Newton kept his theological research mostly private. He lived in an era when deviation from official church doctrine was dangerous, so he concealed his heterodox beliefs to avoid charges of heresy (Sir Isaac Newton Was Strongly Anti-Trinitarian | Kermit Zarley). Nonetheless, in private correspondence and manuscripts, Newton spent decades rigorously analyzing biblical texts and early Christian history. As a young man at Cambridge, he faced the requirement to be ordained in the Church of England (and assent to its Trinitarian creeds) to keep his fellowship. Uncomfortable with this, Newton obtained a special royal dispensation in 1675 to avoid ordination (Sir Isaac Newton Was Strongly Anti-Trinitarian | Kermit Zarley). Around that time, he “laid aside his other work and plunged into a deep study” of Scripture and the church fathers, an intensive research period that lasted for several years (Sir Isaac Newton Was Strongly Anti-Trinitarian | Kermit Zarley). Religion was not a mere hobby for Newton but a central passion: one contemporary remarked on Newton’s “great knowledge in the Scriptures, wherein I know few his equals” (Sir Isaac Newton Was Strongly Anti-Trinitarian | Kermit Zarley).
Privately, Newton came to radically different conclusions about Christian doctrine than the established church. Most notably, he rejected the doctrine of the Trinity – the teaching that God is three co-equal persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Newton instead believed that the one true God is the Father alone, and that Jesus Christ, while divine in some sense, is subordinate to the Father. He kept this belief secret during his lifetime, confiding only in a trusted circle of friends such as the philosopher John Locke and the theologian Samuel Clarke (Sir Isaac Newton Was Strongly Anti-Trinitarian | Kermit Zarley) (Sir Isaac Newton Was Strongly Anti-Trinitarian | Kermit Zarley). Only after Newton’s death in 1727 did his private theological manuscripts come to light, revealing the extent of his anti-Trinitarian views. His friend and successor William Whiston (who had been openly Arian and was expelled from Cambridge for it) hinted publicly that Newton had held “scandalous and heretical” views about the Trinity (Church, Heresy, and Pure Religion). Indeed, according to Whiston, Newton believed the Trinitarian doctrine was a grave corruption introduced in the fourth century, with the influential Bishop Athanasius as “the grand and the very wicked instrument of that change” (Church, Heresy, and Pure Religion).
In summary, Isaac Newton lived a dual intellectual life. On the one hand, he was the exemplar of Enlightenment science, unveiling the mathematical order of the cosmos. On the other hand, he was a theologian in secret, convinced that Christianity had drifted into error and determined to restore what he saw as its original, biblical purity. Understanding Newton’s views on the Trinity requires appreciating both sides of this legacy: his towering scientific rationality and his equally meticulous, if hidden, religious scholarship. In the chapters that follow, we will delve into Newton’s arguments against the Trinity doctrine, the context in which he formed those ideas, and the impact and relevance of those ideas up to today.
(File:Portrait of Sir Isaac Newton, 1689.jpg – Wikimedia Commons) Portrait of Sir Isaac Newton (1689). Newton’s brilliance in science was matched by a lifelong devotion to theology – though the latter was pursued largely in secret due to the risks of heresy (Sir Isaac Newton Was Strongly Anti-Trinitarian | Kermit Zarley) (Sir Isaac Newton Was Strongly Anti-Trinitarian | Kermit Zarley).
Chapter 2: “One God, One Lord” – Newton’s Arguments Against the Trinity
Newton did not reject the Trinity lightly or ignorantly – he arrived at his position after extensive study and reasoning. He believed that original Christianity was Unitarians in essence, worshipping only the Father as God, and that the Trinitarian doctrine was a later distortion. In his private writings Newton set out an array of arguments against the Trinity, drawing on biblical interpretation, textual criticism, early Church history, and philosophical reasoning. This chapter provides an exhaustive examination of Newton’s anti-Trinitarian arguments, categorized by these themes.
2.1 Biblical Interpretation: The Father as the One True God
At the heart of Newton’s theology was a strict biblical monotheism. He held that the Bible clearly teaches the Father alone is God, and that Jesus, while Messiah and Lord, is not God Himself. Newton frequently cited scriptural passages to support this distinction. For example, he pointed to 1 Corinthians 8:6 – “for us there is one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ” – as a key verse defining the roles of Father and Son. From such texts Newton deduced a guiding principle: “whenever it is said in the Scriptures that there is one God, it means the Father.” (Sir Isaac Newton Was Strongly Anti-Trinitarian | Kermit Zarley) In other words, every biblical assertion of “one God” refers to the Father specifically, not a Triune Being.
Newton composed a personal creed in which he professed belief “in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, & of all things visible & invisible, & in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God” while pointedly omitting any statement of the Son being co-equal God or any mention of a divine Holy Spirit person (Microsoft Word – Isaac Newton & the Trinity.doc) (Microsoft Word – Isaac Newton & the Trinity.doc). He emphasized that Christians are “forbidden to worship two Gods,” but are not forbidden to worship “one God and one Lord: one God for creating all things & one Lord for redeeming us” (Microsoft Word – Isaac Newton & the Trinity.doc). In Newton’s understanding, God the Father is the sole ultimate object of worship, and Jesus Christ, the Son, is to be honored as Lord and Messiah, but not as a second God. “We must not pray to two Gods,” he wrote, “but we may pray to one God in the name of one Lord” (Microsoft Word – Isaac Newton & the Trinity.doc).
This interpretation led Newton to regard the orthodox Trinitarian practice as dangerously close to polytheism. If Christians were effectively worshiping the Father and the Son (and the Holy Ghost) as co-equal gods, Newton argued that this violated the First Commandment (“Thou shalt have no other gods before Me”). He saw the Trinity as blurring the absolute distinction between the one supreme God and other beings. Worshipping two or three persons as God on an equal footing, Newton reasoned, was an infringement of true monotheistic worship and therefore a form of idolatry (Sir Isaac Newton Was Strongly Anti-Trinitarian | Kermit Zarley). In Newton’s eyes, the Father alone was the “Almighty God” and Jesus was the subordinate “Lamb of God” who received power from the Father. Newton interpreted verses like John 17:3 (“that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent”) as Jesus himself identifying the Father as the “only true God.” Such biblical convictions were the foundation of Newton’s anti-Trinitarian stance.
Notably, Newton did believe Jesus Christ had a divine mission and even a divine nature in a subordinate sense – akin to the ancient concept of the Logos. He acknowledged Christ as pre-existent before his human birth, calling Jesus the divine Word (“Logos”) who was with God the Father. However, Newton insisted that even the Logos is not equal to the Father. Citing John 1:1, he argued that “both the Father and the Logos are god, but the Logos only in a secondary, derivative sense” (Sir Isaac Newton Was Strongly Anti-Trinitarian | Kermit Zarley). In other words, the Son can be called “god” inasmuch as he represents God’s authority, but he is not the one supreme God. Newton thus believed in Christ’s pre-existence and higher nature (which aligns with the theology historically called Arianism), yet he also noted that in the earliest centuries of Christianity this issue was not seen as essential to salvation (Sir Isaac Newton Was Strongly Anti-Trinitarian | Kermit Zarley). He observed that some early Christians who did not believe in Christ’s pre-existence were still accepted as brethren by those who did, implying that the exact metaphysical status of Christ was not the core of the faith. For Newton, what mattered most was to worship the Father as the one God and to obey Christ as Lord Messiah. Non-biblical doctrines like the co-equal Trinity or the notion of Jesus being the same Almighty God as the Father were, to Newton, additions without scriptural warrant.
2.2 Textual Criticism: Exposing “Corruptions” in Scripture
One of Newton’s most striking arguments against the Trinity came from his work as a textual critic of the Bible. He suspected that certain verses traditionally used to support the Trinity were not original to the biblical texts but had been altered or added in later copies. In 1690, Newton engaged in a detailed study of the manuscript evidence of two key proof-texts for the Trinity: 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:16. The first of these, 1 John 5:7, in the King James Bible read: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” – a very explicit Trinitarian verse (known as the Johannine Comma). The second, 1 Timothy 3:16, was commonly rendered as “Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh…”, seemingly affirming Christ’s divinity by saying “God” incarnate. Newton carefully examined the earliest Greek and Latin manuscripts available (for example, through published polyglot Bibles and critical editions) and the quotations of these verses by early Church fathers (Microsoft Word – Isaac Newton & the Trinity.doc).
Newton discovered that the famous Trinitarian wording in these passages was absent in the oldest manuscripts and early quotations. In a November 1690 letter to John Locke (later titled An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture), Newton demonstrated that 1 John 5:7’s “three in heaven” Trinitarian formula did not appear in the early Greek manuscripts or in other ancient versions (Microsoft Word – Isaac Newton & the Trinity.doc). The verse seems to have been initially marginalia or a gloss that eventually crept into later Latin copies, and it was not used by the very first centuries of Christian writers when debating the nature of the Son and Spirit. Similarly, Newton argued that in 1 Timothy 3:16, the original text likely read “which was manifest in the flesh” or “he who was manifest in the flesh,” rather than “God was manifest in the flesh” – noting that some manuscripts had a relative pronoun where later copies read Theos (“God”) (Various drafts and copies of the Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture and related material (Catalogue)). Newton concluded that these verses had been deliberately altered – or “corrupted” – in the fourth century to support emerging Trinitarian doctrine (Various drafts and copies of the Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture and related material (Catalogue)).
Newton’s treatise on these textual issues was a masterpiece of 17th-century biblical criticism. He painstakingly collated readings from various manuscripts, versions, and patristic citations (Various drafts and copies of the Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture and related material (Catalogue)). For 1 John 5:7, he showed that the verse does not appear in the oldest Greek manuscripts and that early theologians (including the likes of Cyril of Jerusalem or Origen) never quote it in Trinitarian disputes – a strong indication it was not originally present (Various drafts and copies of the Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture and related material (Catalogue)). In Newton’s analysis, the Trinitarian phrasing first clearly appears in late medieval Latin manuscripts and had likely been inserted into the official Vulgate Bible, possibly to bolster Trinitarianism. In the case of 1 Timothy 3:16, Newton argued that a small change in Greek – from “ΟΣ” (which, or who) to “ΘΣ” (a contracted form of Theos, God) – had been introduced, changing the meaning of the verse (Various drafts and copies of the Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture and related material (Catalogue)). Such a change could have happened accidentally by a scribe or intentionally by someone eager to emphasize Christ’s divinity. Either way, Newton demonstrated that the earliest Latin church writers who quoted this verse did not have “God” in the text.
By exposing these “notable corruptions of Scripture,” Newton aimed to strip away what he saw as later distortions and get back to the genuine apostolic teaching. Without those interpolated proof-texts, the biblical case for the Trinity was markedly weaker. Newton was careful to frame this work as a good-faith scholarly inquiry. He told Locke that there was “no better service” than “to purge the truth of spurious additions” (Microsoft Word – Isaac Newton & the Trinity.doc). However, he also recognized how incendiary this material was. When Locke arranged to have Newton’s findings published anonymously in Holland, Newton panicked and ultimately forbade publication (Microsoft Word – Isaac Newton & the Trinity.doc) (Microsoft Word – Isaac Newton & the Trinity.doc). The Historical Account remained unpublished in Newton’s lifetime (it eventually saw print in 1754, decades after his death) (Microsoft Word – Isaac Newton & the Trinity.doc). The reason was simple: these textual critiques didn’t just correct scripture; they directly undercut the scriptural basis for the Trinity, a doctrine held sacred by Newton’s contemporaries. Newton knew that if it became known that he authored this treatise, it could “have a damaging effect on his career” and cost him his position (Microsoft Word – Isaac Newton & the Trinity.doc). Thus, Newton’s scholarly discovery stayed largely in private circulation among friends during his life. But it shows clearly his conviction that Scripture, rightly understood and purged of later alterations, did not teach a tri-personal God. Instead, the Bible taught the primacy of the one Father and the distinct identity of Christ, consistent with Newton’s own beliefs.
2.3 Historical Analysis: Christianity Corrupted in the Early Church
Newton buttressed his biblical case with a sweeping view of church history. He believed that the Trinity doctrine was not original to Christianity but was introduced several centuries after Christ. In Newton’s historical narrative, the pure faith of the apostles – worship of the one God of Israel and acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah – underwent a long corruption as philosophical ideas and political pressures altered Christian doctrine (Microsoft Word – Isaac Newton & the Trinity.doc). He traced the peak of this corruption to the fourth century A.D., around the time of the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.), when the Roman emperor and church authorities enforced Trinitarian belief.
According to Newton, the conversion of Emperor Constantine and the subsequent imperial influence on the Church allowed erroneous doctrines to flourish. He identified Athanasius of Alexandria, the chief defender of Trinitarianism at Nicaea, as a key villain in this story. Newton accused Athanasius and his allies of tampering with scripture (as seen in the textual additions mentioned above) and of propagating the mysterious Trinity dogma which Newton saw as a deviation from original Christianity (Microsoft Word – Isaac Newton & the Trinity.doc) (Microsoft Word – Isaac Newton & the Trinity.doc). In one of Newton’s manuscripts (often referred to as “Paradoxical Questions concerning the morals & actions of Athanasius”), he outlines how Athanasius might have orchestrated the insertion of the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) during the 4th century Trinitarian controversies (Microsoft Word – Isaac Newton & the Trinity.doc). Newton viewed the Council of Nicaea – famous for condemning the priest Arius, who taught that Christ was not co-eternal with the Father – as a turning point where the Church, backed by imperial power, enshrined a false teaching. Christianity, in Newton’s view, had taken on “a fiction” in the form of the Trinity, which was then “promoted by servants of the devil” in the post-apostolic age (Newton’s Religious Life and Work). This was extraordinarily strong language, but it reflects how gravely Newton regarded the Trinitarian innovation. To Newton, to say that three persons are one God was to reintroduce pagan polytheism into Christianity, a triumph for the forces of darkness rather than truth.
(File:Nikea-arius.png – Wikimedia Commons) An icon of the First Council of Nicaea (325 CE), where Trinitarian doctrine was affirmed and the anti-Trinitarian presbyter Arius (depicted at the bottom, prostrate) was condemned. Newton believed that the Council of Nicaea and figures like Athanasius corrupted original Christianity by enshrining the Trinity (Church, Heresy, and Pure Religion) (Newton’s Religious Life and Work).
Newton spent years studying the writings of early Christian authors – Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Eusebius, Jerome, and many others – to piece together the development of doctrine (Newton’s Religious Life and Work). He came to admire the simplicity of what he thought was the apostolic faith and to despise the theological “inventions” of the later bishops. “Newton’s history of the Church was in essence the history of its corruption from a pristine original,” writes one scholar, summarizing Newton’s view (Microsoft Word – Isaac Newton & the Trinity.doc). Newton believed the true original Christianity was essentially unitarian (in that it worshiped one God, the Father). This faith was gradually adulterated, especially after Christianity became entangled with the Roman state. By the fourth century, as Newton put it, the peak of corruption was reached – orthodox Christianity embraced the concept of a Triune God that the earliest Christians would not have recognized (Microsoft Word – Isaac Newton & the Trinity.doc) (Newton’s Religious Life and Work). Newton saw himself as a reformer trying to peel back those layers of corruption. In this sense, he viewed his own theological project as a continuation of the Protestant Reformation. Just as the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, etc.) attempted to cast off medieval Catholic accretions and return to biblical doctrine, Newton wanted to carry that principle further – back to the very nature of God and Christ, purging post-biblical innovations like the Trinity.
In Newton’s historical analysis, certain groups and individuals through history had glimpsed the truth. He was aware of earlier anti-Trinitarians such as the dynamic monarchians or Paul of Samosata in the 3rd century, and Arius and his followers in the 4th century. He also knew of more recent “Unitarians” or Socinians in the Reformation era (16th–17th centuries) who likewise denied the Trinity (Religious views of Isaac Newton – Wikipedia). Newton did not simply copy these ideas from others – most scholars agree Newton’s anti-Trinitism was largely self-taught (Religious views of Isaac Newton – Wikipedia) – but he certainly took interest in predecessors in heresy. He felt a kinship with those labeled “heretics” for maintaining that God is one. In a telling remark, Newton once wrote: “Isaac Newton, as a heretic, is in good company. The word heresy is a Greek word meaning sect, and Paul was also called a heretic by the religious rulers” (Microsoft Word – Isaac Newton & the Trinity.doc) (Microsoft Word – Isaac Newton & the Trinity.doc). Newton refers here to Acts 24:14, where Paul admits he worships God “according to the Way which they call a sect.” Newton saw himself and figures like Paul or Arius as true believers stigmatized by an authoritarian church. He even quoted the early Church father Jerome, who famously said of the Trinity controversy: “The true profession of the mystery of the Trinity is to say nothing – by confessing that we do not understand it” (a remark highlighting the complexity and, to Newton, the absurdity of the doctrine) (Microsoft Word – Isaac Newton & the Trinity.doc). Newton’s implication was that a doctrine that cannot be understood or clearly found in scripture should not be a required belief.
In summary, Newton’s historical argument was that the Trinity was a post-apostolic innovation – rooted more in Neoplatonic philosophy and imperial politics than in the Bible – and that it represented a falling away from original Christianity. He believed that by uncovering the true historical narrative (and exposing things like forged scriptures), he was helping restore the original “pure” faith of one God. This conviction fueled his willingness to quietly challenge a doctrine that nearly all his contemporaries deemed fundamental.
2.4 Philosophical and Theological Reasoning
Beyond scripture and history, Newton also employed logical reasoning to critique the Trinity. He approached theology with a scientist’s eye for clarity and consistency. The Trinity doctrine, with its assertion that three distinct persons are together one God, struck Newton as muddled at best and self-contradictory at worst. He favored a more straightforward theology that reason and scripture alike could support – one in which God’s oneness and supremacy are clear and unambiguous.
One of Newton’s key philosophical objections was about divine worship and the First Commandment, as mentioned earlier. Newton reasoned that God’s fundamental command in the Old Testament was to worship Him alone. The introduction of Jesus (and the Holy Spirit) as additional persons to be worshipped equally created a dilemma. Either one was effectively worshipping multiple gods – which is idolatry – or one had to redefine “one God” in a mysterious way to include multiple persons, a concept Newton found nowhere in the plain scriptures. He famously wrote, “we are forbidden to worship two Gods, but we are not forbidden to worship one God and one Lord” (Sir Isaac Newton Was Strongly Anti-Trinitarian | Kermit Zarley). In Newton’s theology, the Father and Son are not equals in authority or being; the Son himself worships and is obedient to the Father. Thus, to give the Son (or the Spirit) the exact same honor and title as the Almighty Father would violate the proper order of the universe as well as the Scriptural command to have no other gods besides the Father (Sir Isaac Newton Was Strongly Anti-Trinitarian | Kermit Zarley). Newton saw the orthodox Trinitarians as effectively making two or three gods and then claiming they are one – a proposition he found both irrational and blasphemous. It smacked of the very polytheism that biblical religion was meant to overturn.
Newton’s commitment to rationality in religion also made him skeptical of the metaphysical jargon that Trinitarian theology developed (such as the terms “co-equal,” “consubstantial,” or mysteries like three-in-one). He preferred simple biblical terms. In his writings, he avoids terms like “Trinity” or metaphysical descriptions of Jesus’ divine and human natures, not only because they are non-biblical, but also because they rely on philosophical abstraction. Newton, ever the empiricist, wanted clear definitions. The Trinity to him was undefined – it was often asserted to be beyond human reason. Indeed, Trinitarian defenders in Newton’s day would say the doctrine is a mystery beyond comprehension. Newton was not content with that. He believed God’s truth, while it might surpass human full understanding, would not outright contradict reason or scripture. If something appeared self-contradictory (three equals one) or had no basis in the Bible’s straightforward language, Newton felt it ought not be made a required doctrine. His stance here was aligned with the broader Enlightenment emphasis on reason, but also with a Protestant sola scriptura mindset.
Another aspect of Newton’s theological reasoning was his appeal to the principle of sola scriptura (Scripture alone as the basis of doctrine). Newton noted an inconsistency in the Church of England’s own Articles of Religion: Article One defined the Trinity and Article Two elaborated on Jesus as God and man, yet Article Six says that “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man” as an article of faith (Sir Isaac Newton Was Strongly Anti-Trinitarian | Kermit Zarley). Newton took this seriously. He argued that the specific formulations of the Trinity – such as three persons in one substance – are not found explicitly in Scripture, and thus by Article Six’s rule, should not be required beliefs (Sir Isaac Newton Was Strongly Anti-Trinitarian | Kermit Zarley). This was a bold internal critique of his own Anglican tradition’s standards. It shows Newton’s logical consistency: if one truly believes in Scripture as the sufficient rule of faith, then doctrines not clearly in Scripture (like the Nicene Creed’s terminology) should be held with at most open hand, not enforced. Newton believed the Church had elevated later traditions (creeds and councils) to the level of scripture, contradicting its own reformed principles.
Philosophically, Newton was also concerned with God’s supremacy and perfection. He sided with those who argued that God’s supremacy is indivisible and cannot be shared by multiple persons. In a draft essay, Newton wrote, “Should we say that the Son is also Almighty, we make two Almighties and be guilty of polytheism; … we must say that the Son is subordinate to the Father, else we should have two independent principles in the universe” (paraphrasing Newton’s argument) (Sir Isaac Newton Was Strongly Anti-Trinitarian | Kermit Zarley). Thus the very logic of there being one absolute Creator meant for Newton that only one person can ultimately be God in the highest sense. The Son, being begotten and sent, must logically be subordinate. Newton even used an analogy: if two beings were both Almighty and received equal worship, you effectively have two kings in one kingdom – a concept that would destroy the unity of rule. He applied the razor of reason to cut away what he saw as unnecessary complications in understanding God.
It’s important to note that Newton did not consider himself an irreligious rationalist – he was a firm believer in biblical revelation. But he felt that true revelation and right reason agreed with each other, and both opposed the Trinitarian dogma. In private notes, Newton once described the doctrine of the Trinity as so confusing that it “is no clear truth” but rather a source of division and puzzlement among Christians (Microsoft Word – Isaac Newton & the Trinity.doc). He was convinced that the one God made His identity clear in Scripture (as the Father), and that only later did theologians introduce Greek philosophical concepts (like “substance” and “essence” language) to force a three-in-one explanation that the Bible itself does not require.
In summary, Newton’s philosophical reasoning against the Trinity complemented his biblical and historical arguments. He championed the oneness of God as logical and scriptural, he rejected theological “mysteries” that violated the law of non-contradiction (preferring a straightforward hierarchy of Father over Son), and he held that doctrines must have clear scriptural basis if they are to be binding. All these points led him to regard the Trinity as a human-invented doctrine – complex, unclear, and not actually necessary for the Christian faith as taught by Christ and the apostles.
Chapter 3: “Heresy” in the 17th Century – Newton’s Historical Context and Risks
To fully appreciate Newton’s stance on the Trinity, one must understand the religious climate of 17th-century England. This was a time when questioning the Trinity was not just a theological position but a criminal offense in the eyes of church and state. Newton harbored his anti-Trinitarian beliefs in an era when heresy had serious consequences, ranging from loss of livelihood to imprisonment or worse (Isaac Newton’s Religion: A Secret World of Arianism, Apostasy, and Prophecy). In this chapter, we explore the context in which Newton operated: the doctrinal orthodoxy enforced in his time, the laws against dissent, and examples of what happened to those who, like Newton, challenged the doctrine of the Trinity.
England in Newton’s lifetime was a Protestant nation (after breaking from Rome in the 16th century), but it was by no means religiously tolerant by modern standards. The Church of England was the established church, and it upheld the doctrine of the Trinity as outlined in the Nicene Creed and the church’s Thirty-Nine Articles. Dissenting from Trinitarian doctrine was broadly associated with the heresy of Socinianism or Unitarianism, which most English clergymen and officials viewed with horror. In fact, the Blasphemy Act of 1697 explicitly made it an offense to deny any person of the Trinity, punishable by severe measures (this Act came slightly after Newton’s most active period of theological writing, but reflects the prevailing attitude). Earlier in the century, during the English Civil War and Interregnum, a few brave souls like John Biddle had publicly denied the Trinity and suffered for it (Biddle, often called the “Father of English Unitarianism,” was imprisoned and exiled in the 1650s for his beliefs). Newton was well aware of these precedents and the dangers of being branded a Socinian or Arian.
After the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660, laws enforcing religious conformity were reintroduced. The Act of Uniformity (1662) and the requirement for university fellows to subscribe to the Anglican doctrinal statement meant that all academics and clergy had to profess orthodox Trinitarian Christianity. Dissenters (Puritans, Quakers, Baptists, etc.) were generally persecuted until the Toleration Act of 1689 granted limited freedom of worship – but notably, this toleration did not extend to anti-Trinitarians. The Act of Toleration allowed freedom for those Protestants who accepted the Trinity (it required dissenters to subscribe to certain doctrinal formulas, including belief in the Trinity), but Unitarians were excluded (Microsoft Word – Isaac Newton & the Trinity.doc) (Microsoft Word – Isaac Newton & the Trinity.doc). In other words, even after 1689, denying the Trinity remained outside the law. It “incurred stiff penalties” and official persecution beyond what ordinary dissenting (but Trinitarian) Protestants faced (Anti-Trinitarianism and the Republican Tradition in Enlightenment Britain | Stanford Humanities Center). Heresy against the Trinity was considered so subversive that it wasn’t just a religious error, but a threat to the social and moral order as understood at the time (Anti-Trinitarianism and the Republican Tradition in Enlightenment Britain | Stanford Humanities Center). Some conservative thinkers argued that if the Trinity were denied, it would unravel the entire fabric of Christian doctrine and even undermine political authority (Anti-Trinitarianism and the Republican Tradition in Enlightenment Britain | Stanford Humanities Center).
In Cambridge, where Newton studied and taught, all fellows were expected to be ordained clergy (and thus avow Trinitarian doctrine) unless a royal dispensation was given. Newton’s own need for a dispensation, mentioned earlier, highlights how unusual his case was – he managed to avoid making a public declaration of Trinitarian belief thanks to special intervention. His close friend William Whiston provides a cautionary tale: Whiston succeeded Newton as Lucasian Professor in 1703 and was an open Arian (he believed Christ was divine but not co-eternal with the Father). By 1710–1711, Whiston’s views became widely known and controversial; he was condemned by the university and removed from his professorship in 1711 for espousing anti-Trinitarian theology (Microsoft Word – Isaac Newton & the Trinity.doc). Whiston essentially lost his academic career because he refused to conceal his beliefs as Newton had. Newton surely took note of his protégé’s fate. Whiston’s example demonstrated that even in the early 18th century, such heresy was not tolerated at Cambridge.
Newton took great pains to ensure his own heterodox views did not become public during his lifetime. He shared manuscripts only with trusted friends under conditions of confidentiality. For instance, when he sent his Two Notable Corruptions analysis to Locke in 1690, he insisted it be shown only to a nameless “Friend” and urged that while seeking the truth was good, publishing these findings would be too “dangerous” (Microsoft Word – Isaac Newton & the Trinity.doc) (Microsoft Word – Isaac Newton & the Trinity.doc). Indeed, when another friend (Jean Le Clerc in the Netherlands) was ready to publish Newton’s text, Newton pulled back at the last minute, well aware that being revealed as its author “would have cost him his Lucasian chair at Cambridge” and brought disgrace (Microsoft Word – Isaac Newton & the Trinity.doc). In a letter to Locke, Newton expressed that there could be “no better service done to the truth than to purge it of things spurious,” but he absolutely did not want his name attached to that purge in public (Microsoft Word – Isaac Newton & the Trinity.doc). This careful self-censorship earned Newton the description of a “Nicodemite” – a term (referencing the biblical Nicodemus who came to Jesus by night) for someone who holds heretical beliefs but keeps them secret to preserve public standing (Church, Heresy, and Pure Religion). Newton’s own correspondence and actions show he was all too conscious of the risks. He was effectively living a double life: publicly an upright Anglican who rarely, if ever, spoke against orthodoxy, and privately a radical questioner of core orthodoxy.
It is illuminating to consider how uncommon Newton’s situation was. Many others who developed anti-Trinitarian views either recanted under pressure, remained extremely obscure, or faced punishment. A few were burned at the stake for Arianism in earlier times (for example, two men, Bartholomew Legate and Edward Wightman, were burned in 1612 in England for denying the Trinity – the last executions for heresy in England). By Newton’s time, execution was no longer the punishment, but imprisonment, social ruin, and ostracism were real threats. The label “Socinian” or “Arian” was a smear that could destroy reputations. Even being suspected of heterodoxy could cause problems for a public figure. Newton’s stature in science and his royal positions (such as Master of the Mint) might not have saved him from scandal had his heresy been exposed. As one historian notes, heretics were seen as religiously subversive and potentially morally dangerous, and the public in England was largely unaccepting of such views (Church, Heresy, and Pure Religion) (Church, Heresy, and Pure Religion). The fact that Newton’s anti-Trinitarian manuscripts remained hidden for over two centuries after his death attests to how well he and his heirs kept the secret (Church, Heresy, and Pure Religion). His papers on theology were considered so sensitive that when offered to the University of Cambridge after his death, the university declined to keep them (Isaac Newton’s rediscovered papers reveal religious side to scientist) – they gathered dust in private hands until they were eventually sold at auction in 1936.
In Newton’s context, then, his decision to remain silent publicly was a calculated one that allowed him to continue his scientific and administrative career. It is sobering to think that had Newton openly published his theological conclusions in, say, 1680, he likely would have been removed from Cambridge and lost his platform long before he could complete many of his scientific works (Church, Heresy, and Pure Religion). Newton himself recognized this; he once remarked to a friend that early publication of his religious views would have “made him widely reviled” and ended his academic life (Church, Heresy, and Pure Religion). Thus, his secrecy was not cowardice so much as pragmatism – he believed the truths he found would be vindicated in the future, but that the time was not ripe in his own day. Some have speculated that Newton hoped for a future age of reason or a change in the religious landscape when his work could safely be made public (indeed, he arranged for some theological works like Observations on Daniel and the Apocalypse to be published posthumously in 1733, when he would no longer be around to be attacked (Church, Heresy, and Pure Religion)).
In conclusion, Newton’s environment in 17th-century England was one of enforced orthodoxy, where anti-Trinitarian beliefs were clandestine and dangerous. Newton navigated this environment by keeping his unorthodox faith to himself and a few confidants. He saw himself as part of a persecuted lineage of believers in one God, stretching back to early heretics and perhaps to the apostles themselves. His genius was in managing to be a respected public figure – even hailed as a model of piety by some – all the while privately rejecting a central dogma of the very church he outwardly served. The risks he faced were very real, and understanding those risks helps explain Newton’s behavior (why he didn’t publish, why he was so secretive). It also casts his theological project in a heroic light for some: here was the greatest scientist of the age, secretly working as a kind of religious reformer “under the radar,” convinced he had found a great truth that the world around him simply could not yet accept.
Chapter 4: Newton’s Theology in Modern Perspective – Unitarian, Arian, or Something Else?
Isaac Newton’s anti-Trinitarian views place him in a broader stream of Christian thought that continues to have representatives today. In hindsight, scholars and theologians often label Newton as an “Arian” or “Unitarian” in theology (Religious views of Isaac Newton – Wikipedia). But how exactly do Newton’s beliefs compare to the various non-Trinitarian movements, past and present? In this chapter, we will compare Newton’s theological perspective with modern debates on the Trinity, including Unitarian, Arian, and other non-Trinitarian viewpoints that persist in contemporary Christianity. We will see that Newton’s position aligns closely with some ideas of these groups, though it also has unique aspects. We will also address how Newton himself eschewed sectarian labels, seeking a biblical faith not bound to any one human teacher or ism.
First, it’s important to define terms briefly: “Unitarian” in a Christian context traditionally refers to those who believe God is one person (as opposed to Trinitarian, three persons). Historic Unitarians – such as the Socinians of the 16th–17th centuries and later Unitarian churches – typically also denied the pre-existence of Christ, seeing Jesus as a divinely inspired man, not an eternal divine being. “Arian” refers to the followers of Arius (and the general theology associated with him) which holds that the Son of God existed before all ages and is divine but was created by the Father, thus not co-eternal or co-equal with Him. Arians can say Jesus is a heavenly being, even “a god,” but not the Almighty God. In Newton’s time, the word “Arian” was often used loosely for anyone who subordinates the Son to the Father (as Newton did), whereas “Socinian” was used for those denying Christ’s pre-existence (which Newton did not deny). Other non-Trinitarian groups today include the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christadelphians, some Church of God denominations, and Oneness Pentecostals (though Oneness theology is quite different, as it doesn’t subordinate the Son but rather identifies Jesus as the Father; Newton’s views are not in line with Oneness theology).
By all accounts, Newton’s theology is closest to Arianism. He believed in one supreme God (the Father) and that Jesus, the Son, was divine in some sense but not equal to the Father in eternity or power. Modern scholars thus frequently categorize Newton as an Arian (Religious views of Isaac Newton – Wikipedia). For example, historian John Rogers writes: “Heretics both, John Milton and Isaac Newton were, as most scholars now agree, Arians” (Religious views of Isaac Newton – Wikipedia). Indeed, Newton admired Milton (the poet, author of Paradise Lost) who also held Arian-like views of the Son as subordinate to the Father. Newton, like classical Arians, affirmed the Son’s pre-existence. He believed the Son (Logos) existed with God in the beginning and that through the Son all things were made, as per John 1:1-3 – but he emphasized the Son’s dependence on the Father’s will and power for that creation. Newton also, like Arians, likely would have said “there was a time when the Son did not exist” (except that time itself was created with the world – a subtle point). This is essentially an Arian position.
However, Newton did not like being called an “Arian.” He detested sectarian labels (Sir Isaac Newton Was Strongly Anti-Trinitarian | Kermit Zarley). In his context, “Arian” was a term of abuse, suggesting one followed merely human opinions of a long-dead priest (Arius) rather than Scripture. Newton wanted to be seen as deriving his beliefs straight from the Bible, not from Arius or Socinus or any particular heresiarch. He likely saw his theology as a restoration of the original apostolic faith, not a new sectarianism. In a sense, Newton was “Arian” without being an Arian – meaning he agreed with Arius’s main conclusion (that the Son is subordinate and not co-equal with the Father), but he came to it independently and did not necessarily share every detail of 4th-century Arian theology. For example, Arius taught that the Son was created out of nothing; Newton might have been open to the idea that the Son was begotten from the Father’s substance (a semi-Arian view), as long as the Son’s inferiority and the Father’s monarchy were preserved. We don’t have Newton explicitly on that fine point, but the nuance is that Newton wasn’t campaigning under an “Arian banner.”
What about Unitarian? Today the term “Unitarian” can encompass a range of non-Trinitarian Christians. Newton’s beliefs absolutely fit under the broad umbrella of Unitarianism: he believed in one God (unitarian monotheism) and not in a Triune God. In fact, many modern Unitarian Christians look back to Newton with a sense of pride or validation, as a great intellect who was essentially Unitarian in theology. Newton shared many beliefs with the Socinian or Unitarian movement: he denied the Trinity; he believed Jesus was not equal to God; he also denied the existence of an immortal soul in each person (he did not believe souls go to heaven or hell at death – he held that the dead are asleep until a bodily resurrection) (Isaac Newton’s rediscovered papers reveal religious side to scientist). This rejection of innate immortality and hell also aligns with some Unitarian and Adventist thought. Furthermore, Newton’s focus on using only the Bible to determine doctrine is very much in line with Unitarian Christians who argued that the Bible, when read without later creeds, does not teach the Trinity.
One key difference is that Newton did affirm Christ’s pre-human existence, whereas Socinian Unitarians (like the Polish Brethren or Fausto Socinus) taught Christ began existence in Mary’s womb. In this respect, Newton is closer to Arianism than to strict Socinianism. But there are modern Unitarian groups that also acknowledge Christ’s pre-existence (for example, some Biblical Unitarians today hold views similar to Newton’s, sometimes called “Arian” Unitarianism). Newton might be best described as a “biblical Arian”, meaning his authority was scripture and his conclusion was that the Father alone is Almighty God and the Son is His literal divine Son, begotten before the ages.
Modern groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses strikingly resemble Newton’s theology on many points. The Jehovah’s Witnesses (founded in the 1870s) are modern Arians in that they teach Jehovah (the Father) is the only true God and that Jesus (whom they identify as the archangel Michael) was God’s first creation and through him God made everything else. They deny the Trinity, deny the immortal soul, deny eternal hellfire, and focus strongly on biblical prophecy and the end times. These are all things Newton also believed: he too denied an immortal soul and hell, believing resurrection was the hope of eternal life (Isaac Newton’s rediscovered papers reveal religious side to scientist); he studied apocalyptic prophecies in Daniel and Revelation extensively, trying to decode end-time events; he considered the pope or Catholic Church as a candidate for the apocalyptic “Beast,” much as some Protestant sects did (Isaac Newton’s rediscovered papers reveal religious side to scientist). A writer in a Unitarian church context even quipped that if you “cross a Unitarian with a Jehovah’s Witness, you get Isaac Newton,” noting the parallels between Newton’s seventeenth-century beliefs and the modern Witnesses (Isaac Newton’s Religion: A Secret World of Arianism, Apostasy, and Prophecy) (Isaac Newton’s Religion: A Secret World of Arianism, Apostasy, and Prophecy). Indeed, a comparison list shows extraordinary agreement: Witnesses base all doctrine on the Bible alone; Newton insisted on Scripture alone (Sir Isaac Newton Was Strongly Anti-Trinitarian | Kermit Zarley). Witnesses actively study biblical prophecies; Newton was engrossed in prophecy study. Witnesses deny the Trinity; Newton denied the Trinity (Isaac Newton’s Religion: A Secret World of Arianism, Apostasy, and Prophecy). Witnesses reject the immortal soul and eternal hell; Newton rejected them as well (Isaac Newton’s Religion: A Secret World of Arianism, Apostasy, and Prophecy). Witnesses believe only God the Father (Jehovah) is Almighty God and Jesus is His created Son; Newton taught exactly that (Sir Isaac Newton Was Strongly Anti-Trinitarian | Kermit Zarley) (Isaac Newton’s rediscovered papers reveal religious side to scientist). The difference, of course, is that Jehovah’s Witnesses today preach these beliefs openly (even knocking on doors to share them), whereas Newton kept them secret. But it is fascinating that a world-famous scientist of the 17th century held doctrines virtually identical to a 20th-century restorationist Christian movement. It illustrates that Newton’s theology was not a one-off anomaly; it resonates with strains of Christian thought that have persisted and re-emerged over time.
In terms of legacy in theology, Newton can be seen as a forerunner of modern Biblical Unitarianism. This term is often used today for Christians who, like Newton, reject the Trinity on the basis of the Bible (these include certain Church of God groups, Christadelphians, some small Unitarian churches, etc.). Such believers often cite Newton as an example of a great mind who arrived at their same conclusion. In scholarly and church discussions, Newton’s name sometimes comes up to demonstrate that anti-Trinitarianism isn’t merely the product of ignorant or uneducated minds – if someone of Newton’s intellect was a Unitarian in theology, it challenges the dismissive idea that “no serious person would deny the Trinity.” Unitarian Universalist historian Dana McLean Greeley once highlighted Newton’s anti-Trinitarianism to claim Newton as part of the Unitarian heritage (even if Newton would not have joined a Unitarian church) – this shows up in Unitarian circles as a point of pride.
It’s worth noting that Newton’s anti-Trinitarian stance differs from some other non-Trinitarian approaches like Modalism (Oneness). Modalists believe Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not distinct persons at all, but just different modes or roles of one person (Jesus, in Oneness Pentecostalism, is the name of that one person who is Father, Son, and Spirit). Newton did not agree with that; he clearly distinguished Father and Son as two beings (albeit united in will). Newton’s view is firmly Subordinationist (Son subordinate to Father) not Modalist. In the landscape of today’s theology, Newton’s position aligns with conservative Unitarian Christians who maintain a real distinction between God and Jesus (for example, groups like the Christadelphians hold that God is one and Jesus is His Son, a man granted divine nature – somewhat different from Newton’s pre-existent Logos but similar in denying co-equality).
In summary, if we compare Newton to modern categories:
- He is Unitarian in the broad sense that he believes in one God, one Person (the Father).
- He is Arian in the sense that he affirms Jesus’ pre-existence and divine sonship but as a created being subordinate to the Father (Religious views of Isaac Newton – Wikipedia).
- He is not a Socinian in the strict sense (because he does believe in Jesus’ pre-human existence and divine role).
- He shares key doctrines with groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christadelphians, and other present-day non-Trinitarians (denial of Trinity, no inherent immortal soul, an expectation of Christ’s millennial kingdom, etc.) (Isaac Newton’s Religion: A Secret World of Arianism, Apostasy, and Prophecy). See also https://TheTrueWay.xyz .
Newton’s own self-understanding was that he was restoring original Christianity, which would make him neither “Arian” nor “Socinian” but simply a true Christian in the primitive mold. Of course, Trinitarian critics then and now might argue Newton’s theology is just a variant of Arianism. Modern orthodox Christians might view Newton’s beliefs similarly to how they view Jehovah’s Witness theology today – as a heretical diminishment of Christ’s true divine nature. The debate between Trinitarians and Unitarians/Arians continues in the theological arena, and Newton’s writings have become part of that conversation. His detailed biblical arguments are sometimes cited by contemporary Unitarians in debates or literature to show that the case against the Trinity can be made on scriptural grounds by even the most scholarly individuals.
In conclusion, Newton’s theological perspective aligns most closely with Arianism as understood historically, and it finds echo in various modern non-Trinitarian movements. Newton can rightly be seen as a precursor to later Unitarian and biblical Unitarian thinkers. The main difference is that Newton operated in secrecy and did not found or join any movement, so his influence on these groups was delayed (his theological papers were unknown until long after those movements arose). Nonetheless, today Newton is often claimed as an intellectual ancestor by those who challenge the Trinity, illustrating how his ideas transcend his own era and connect with enduring threads of Christian doctrinal debate.
Chapter 5: Newton’s Legacy in Theology and the Science-Faith Dialogue
How is Newton viewed today, both in theological discussions and in the broader context of the relationship between science and faith? The answer is multifaceted. Over the past century, as Newton’s private theological writings have been published and analyzed, scholars have come to appreciate that Newton was as serious about theology as he was about physics (Church, Heresy, and Pure Religion). This has led to a reassessment of Newton’s legacy: he is no longer seen simply as the paragon of scientific rationality, but also as a complex figure whose faith deeply informed his work. In this chapter, we discuss Newton’s modern reputation in two spheres: among theologians and historians of religion (who consider the significance of his anti-Trinitarianism and prophetic studies), and among commentators on science and religion (who often cite Newton as an example of a scientist who saw no conflict between his scientific work and his faith in God).
5.1 Newton in Theological and Historical Scholarship
In theological circles, Newton’s views on the Trinity have secured him a place in the history of Christian thought – albeit on the “heretical” side of that history. He is frequently mentioned in studies of anti-Trinitarian theologies. For instance, historians of doctrine note Newton as one of the most prominent figures to hold an Arian or unitarian view in the post-Reformation period (Religious views of Isaac Newton – Wikipedia). His writings, once they surfaced, have been pored over for what they reveal about the development of heterodox ideas during the Enlightenment. Scholars like Stephen Snobelen and Rob Iliffe have written extensively on “Newton the heretic,” examining how Newton managed his secret beliefs and what he hoped to accomplish with them (Church, Heresy, and Pure Religion) (Church, Heresy, and Pure Religion). The consensus of recent scholarship is that Newton was “no theological dilettante” but a masterful, committed scholar of religion (Church, Heresy, and Pure Religion). He had, as Iliffe put it, a “radically unorthodox” theology which he pursued methodically and with great courage (if mostly behind closed doors) (Church, Heresy, and Pure Religion) (Church, Heresy, and Pure Religion).
Today, Newton’s anti-Trinitarian theological manuscripts are readily available (many are published through the online Newton Project and other sources), allowing researchers to study first-hand his biblical commentary, his historical analyses, and even his prophetic calculations. As a result, Newton is often discussed in the context of the Enlightenment’s approach to religion. Was Newton a forerunner of a more rational religion, separating the wheat of biblical truth from the chaff of superstition? Some argue yes: Newton applied reason and scholarly rigor to theology in a way that anticipated modern biblical criticism and the rational religion of the eighteenth-century Deists (though Newton himself was not a Deist – he very much believed in God’s active involvement in the world, prophecy, miracles of the Bible, etc.). Others note that Newton was simultaneously very interested in apocalyptic prophecy and alchemy, which seems at odds with a purely rationalist approach. This duality has spurred much discussion. John Maynard Keynes, who bought many of Newton’s papers at the 1936 auction, famously said “Newton was not the first of the age of reason, he was the last of the magicians.” (John Maynard Keynes: “Newton, the Man” – MacTutor Index) This remark reflects the surprise of discovering Newton’s mystical and heretical pursuits: rather than being a simple champion of pure reason, Newton combined scientific genius with elements of hermetic thought and biblical literalism. Modern historians, however, tend to reject the notion that Newton’s scientific and religious sides can be so cleanly separated. They argue that Newton saw his entire intellectual life as a unified quest for truth – whether deciphering the laws of motion or deciphering the Book of Revelation (Isaac Newton’s rediscovered papers reveal religious side to scientist). In theological discussions, Newton is thus seen as a figure who defies easy categorization: a deeply religious man who stood outside his church’s orthodoxy; a herald of a more empirical, Scripture-focused faith who still clung to ancient apocalyptic ideas.
In Unitarian and other non-Trinitarian circles, Newton is often regarded with a bit of heroism. His very existence is a convenient counter to the narrative that anti-Trinitarian theology was the domain of fringe cranks. If the greatest scientist in history arrived at a Unitarian theology, it suggests that such theology can be reached by a combination of intellect and honest Bible study. Some Unitarian authors have even included Newton in lists of famous Unitarians (alongside figures like Michael Servetus, Joseph Priestley, etc.). That said, because Newton never went public, his influence on subsequent religious movements was nil until his papers were revealed. So we cannot credit Newton with advancing Unitarianism in history – he was unknown as a heretic until centuries later. But now that we know, theological discussions incorporate Newton as a fascinating case study of a lone unorthodox believer in an age of orthodoxy. It raises questions: How many other respected figures might have secretly dissented as Newton did? What does it say about the nature of doctrinal enforcement? Newton’s case shows that significant dissent can exist under the surface even in an outwardly monolithic religious culture.
Modern theologians also sometimes debate Newton’s personal faith. Was Newton a “Christian”? By his own affirmation, yes – he believed Jesus was the Messiah, believed in the scriptures, and tried to live by Jesus’s teachings. However, because he denied the Trinity, some orthodox commentators in the past labeled him an infidel or Deist in disguise. That characterization is inaccurate – Newton was quite devout and unlike Deists, he believed in miracles and prophecy. One might better call him a “Biblical Unitarian Christian.” Within Christian theological discourse today, there is increasing awareness that figures like Newton and Milton held these views, which adds nuance to the story of Protestantism. It shows that the Reformation’s process of revisiting doctrine continued underground in people like Newton. And now that his writings are published, they “have attracted study and speculation” continuously (Reinterpreting Newton and religion). For instance, theologians interested in the doctrine of God examine Newton’s arguments as part of the historical debate. His meticulous dismantling of certain prooftexts is still cited; even some Trinitarian scholars concede Newton had a point about 1 John 5:7 (which virtually all modern Bible translations now agree was not original – a fact which vindicates Newton’s scholarship on that point). Thus, Newton has a paradoxical theological legacy: he was a famous son of the Anglican Church who in private undermined some of its core tenets, and only long after his death are we fully understanding and acknowledging that contribution.
5.2 Newton in the Dialogue of Science and Faith
In the broader conversation about science and religion, Newton stands as a towering example often invoked by both sides of various arguments. To those who emphasize the compatibility of science and faith, Newton is a favorite example: here was arguably the greatest scientist ever, and he was deeply religious. In this telling, Newton’s faith actually inspired his science. He believed the universe was orderly and intelligible because it was created by a rational God – a viewpoint that undergirded his scientific inquiry. Newton once wrote, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” (Newton’s Views on Science and Faith – Christianity Today) This quote from his Principia (General Scholium) is frequently cited by writers (for instance, in Christianity Today articles and many science-faith books) to show that Newton saw God’s hand in the cosmos. Newton argued against the idea of a purely mechanical universe that ran without God; in his famous correspondence with philosopher Leibniz, Newton (through his spokesperson Samuel Clarke) insisted that God’s active governance was needed to keep the universe stable (Religious views of Isaac Newton – Wikipedia) (Religious views of Isaac Newton – Wikipedia). Thus, Newton is portrayed as a man who integrated his scientific work with his theological worldview. He certainly did not see himself as doing science in isolation from God – quite the contrary, exploring nature was a way to understand God’s creation and thus honor God. Modern discussions often credit Newton (along with other devout scientists like Kepler) with exemplifying how faith in a rational Creator provided a foundation for early science (Isaac Newton’s rediscovered papers reveal religious side to scientist).
That said, when digging deeper, we discover Newton’s faith was not exactly in line with mainstream Christianity, which adds an interesting wrinkle. Sometimes Christian apologists mention Newton’s belief in God without mentioning that Newton denied the Trinity – understandably, because the aim is usually to show that belief in a Creator is compatible with science, and the specifics of Newton’s doctrine of God may be beside the point in that context. Yet the knowledge of Newton’s heterodoxy is becoming more widespread, so occasionally one sees it acknowledged: for instance, in a science-faith commentary, someone might note “Newton was a devout (though unorthodox) Christian” or that “Newton believed in biblical authority even as he revolutionized science.” This fuller picture actually enhances the narrative of Newton as a complex thinker who did not compartmentalize his pursuits. It shows that Newton applied critical thinking in theology just as he did in science. He was not content to accept prevailing dogmas in either realm without scrutiny – a trait that arguably served him well in both. Some scholars have even speculated that Newton’s willingness to question the accepted wisdom in religion (like the Trinity) was part of the same independent thinking that let him question accepted Aristotelian physics. In both domains, Newton trusted evidence (be it empirical or textual) over tradition ([PDF] Reassessing the Crisis of the Trinity in Early Modern England).
Another aspect of Newton’s legacy in the science-faith dialogue is his study of prophecy and the relationship he saw between God’s governance of history and of nature. Newton wrote extensively on the biblical prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, attempting to correlate them with historical events. To a modern secular mind, this prophetic obsession might seem odd for a scientific genius. But Newton saw it as part of uncovering God’s truth. As one recent article noted, “Newton praised the early theologians for their seamless merging of science and religion,” and he himself was an advocate of a harmonious marriage between faith and the sciences (Isaac Newton’s rediscovered papers reveal religious side to scientist). He did not put religion in one box and scientific inquiry in another – truth was unified. Newton’s belief that God had a plan both in nature and in human history gave him confidence that diligent study in either realm would yield insights.
In contemporary discourse, Newton sometimes appears in arguments about whether scientific genius is compatible with religious belief. Those who argue for compatibility often highlight Newton’s faith as evidence that science and belief in God are not only compatible but can mutually reinforce. Newton is also brought up in discussions of Intelligent Design or fine-tuning, as he made arguments akin to those – for example, he argued that the stability of the solar system was not guaranteed by mechanics alone and implied God’s guiding hand was involved (Religious views of Isaac Newton – Wikipedia). Though later scientists like Laplace would find purely mechanical explanations for planetary stability (leading Laplace to famously quip “I have no need of that hypothesis [God]”), Newton’s integration of his physics with his belief in divine providence remains a historical example of how scientific and theological reasoning coexisted in one of the greatest minds.
On the flip side, critics sometimes use Newton’s religious eccentricities to caution against blindly following even great scientists in matters of faith. They might point out: “Newton was brilliant in physics, but that doesn’t mean his religious or alchemical ideas were correct – even geniuses can err or hold odd beliefs.” Indeed, some historians note that Newton spent huge amounts of time on theology and alchemy that, from a secular perspective, produced little of value compared to his scientific output. To them, Newton’s example might illustrate that even a scientific genius is a product of his time and can hold to pre-scientific or unempirical notions in other areas. This perspective, however, is more about a secular evaluation of Newton’s non-scientific work rather than a science-faith dialogue point.
In sum, today Newton is generally revered in the scientific community (for obvious reasons) and often respected in religious communities as well – many Christians see him as an ally who validates that one can be deeply faithful and a rigorous scientist. In theological academia, Newton is studied as a case of heterodox belief at the dawn of the Enlightenment, a reminder that the boundary between science and religion in that era was porous. And thanks to projects like the Newton Project, all of Newton’s readers – both religious and secular – can now see the full breadth of his intellectual pursuits. Newton’s theological writings are no longer ignored as mere footnotes; rather, they are recognized as integral to understanding Newton “the man.” As a recent commentator observed, “As it is to all people of faith, religion was central to Newton’s life”, and we must appreciate that to truly understand his motivations (Newton’s Religious Life and Work). Newton’s example continues to spark reflection on how one’s worldview can encompass both scientific exploration and devotion to God. In the ongoing dialogue between science and religion, Newton stands as both an inspiration and a challenge – an inspiration in his unified pursuit of truth in all areas, and a challenge in that his nonconformist faith reminds us that the relationship between science and religion is not one-size-fits-all, but as individual and complex as the people who engage in it.
Conclusion: Isaac Newton’s Enduring Intellectual Legacy
Isaac Newton’s legacy is commonly associated with apples and gravity, prisms and calculus. Yet, as we have seen, Newton’s intellectual journey also ventured boldly into the realms of scripture, church history, and doctrine. Newton emerges from our study as a man who sought truth with uncompromising rigor, whether in the Book of Nature or the Book of Scripture. He dared to question a doctrine that had been virtually unquestionable in his culture – the Trinity – not out of impiety, but out of a fervent desire to honor the one true God as he understood Him. Newton’s writings on the Trinity doctrine reveal a mind as analytical and fearless as the one that revolutionized science. He employed linguistic analysis, historical data, and logical argument to strip Christianity down to what he believed was its original apostolic simplicity: one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ.
The story of Newton’s views on the Trinity is also a poignant human story. It is the story of a devout believer who felt compelled to keep his deepest convictions hidden, a “Nicodemite” who by day conformed to the worship of the Trinity, and by night poured over manuscripts to prove that this worship was in error. It is the story of a man who could calculate the motions of planets millions of miles away, yet could not safely speak his mind on the nature of the God he worshipped. That tension did not embitter Newton; instead, he channeled his passion into reams of careful research, trusting that someday the truth would come to light. Indeed, today we have that light: thanks to the preservation of his papers, we can finally engage with Newton’s religious thought in full.
In modern discussions, Newton’s name now finds its place not only in physics textbooks but also in works on the history of theology and the relationship between science and religion. The fact that one of Christianity’s most stubborn critics of Trinitarian orthodoxy was also history’s most celebrated scientist is a fascinating twist of fate – one that encourages humility and openness in theological dialogues. It reminds us that great intellect and sincere faith can combine in unexpected ways. Newton is revered across the world for his scientific achievements, but through this exploration, we also gain a deeper respect for Newton the theologian: a man of conviction, courage, and immense learning, who sought to love God with all his mind.
In conclusion, Isaac Newton’s views on the Trinity doctrine, once hidden and now revealed, enrich our understanding of Newton’s genius and faith. They challenge the assumption that scientific enlightenment and religious orthodoxy always go hand in hand – for Newton, enlightenment meant going back to the Bible even if it meant diverging from orthodoxy. Newton’s theological legacy lives on in the ongoing conversations about how we interpret scripture and how we reconcile reason with revelation. And in the broader context, Newton stands as an enduring symbol that the quest for truth knows no bounds – it spans apple orchards and ancient scrolls, calculus and creed. His life’s work invites both academics and general readers to ponder the unity of knowledge and the profound questions of nature, scripture, and the God who, in Newton’s own words, is “one and the same God” reigning over all (Newton’s Religious Life and Work).
Sources:
- Westfall, Richard. Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton. (Cambridge University Press, 1980). [Background on Newton’s life and context]
- Snobelen, Stephen D. “Isaac Newton, heretic: the strategies of a Nicodemite.” Brit. J. Hist. Sci. 32(4):381–419, 1999. [Detailed analysis of Newton’s secret theological views]
- Iliffe, Rob. Priest of Nature: The Religious Worlds of Isaac Newton. (Oxford University Press, 2017). [Comprehensive look at Newton’s theology and alchemy]
- Newton, Isaac. An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture. (Letter to John Locke, 1690; published posthumously 1785). [Newton’s own textual criticism of 1 Jn 5:7 and 1 Tim 3:16]
- Newton, Isaac. Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John. (1733). [Newton’s published work on prophecy, touching on his view of church history]
- Manuel, Frank. The Religion of Isaac Newton. (Oxford, 1974). [Classic study on Newton’s religious beliefs]
- Force, James E., and Popkin, Richard (eds). Newton and Religion: Context, Nature, and Influence. (Kluwer, 1999). [Collection of scholarly essays on Newton’s theological context and impact]