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