Newton Writes Against the Trinity

Newton never voluntarily published any one of his purely mathematical writings.

The cause of this unwillingness in some, and, in other instances, of his indifference, or, at least, want of solicitude to put forth his works may be confidently sought for in his repugnance to every thing like contest or dispute.

But, going deeper than this aversion, we find, underlying his whole character and running parallel with all his discoveries, that extraordinary humility which always preserved him in a position so relatively just to the behests of time and eternity, that the infinite value of truth, and the utter worthlessness of fame, were alike constantly present to him. Judging of his course, however, in its more temporary aspect, as bearing upon his immediate quiet, it seemed the most unfortunate.

For an early publication, especially in the case of his Method of Fluxions, would have anticipated all rivalry, and secured him from the contentious claims of Leibnitz. Still each one will solve the problem of his existence in his own way, and, with a man like Newton, his own, as we conceive, could be no other than the best way.

The conduct of Leibnitz in this affair is quite irreconcilable with the stature and strength of the man; giant-like, and doing nobly, in many ways, a giant’s work, yet cringing himself into the dimensions and performances of a common calumniator.

Opening in 1699, the discussion in question continued till the close of Leibnitz’s life, in 1716. We give the summary of the case as contained in the Report of the Committee of the Royal Society, the deliberately weighed opinion of which has been adopted as an authoritative decision in all countries.

“We have consulted the letters and letter books in the custody of the Royal Society, and those found among the papers of Mr. John Collins, dated between the years 1669 and 1677, inclusive: and showed them to such as knew and avouched the hands of Mr. Barrow, Mr. Collins, Mr. Oldenburg, and Mr. Leibnitz; and compared those of Mr. Gregory with one another, and with copies of some of them taken in the hand of Mr. Collins; and have extracted from them what relates to the matter referred to us: all which extracts, herewith delivered to you, we believe to be genuine and authentic. And by these letters and papers we find:—

“I. Mr. Leibnitz was in London in the beginning of the year 1673; and went thence in or about March, to Paris, where he kept a correspondence with Mr. Collins, by means of Mr. Oldenburg, till about September, 1676, and then returned, by London and Amsterdam, to Hanover: and that Mr. Collins was very free in communicating to able mathematicians what he had received from Mr. Newton and Mr. Gregory.

“II. That when Mr. Leibnitz was the first time in London, he contended for the invention of another differential method, properly so called; and, notwithstanding he was shown by Dr. Pell that it was Newton’s method, persisted in maintaining it to be his own invention, by reason that he had found it by himself without knowing what Newton had done before, and had much improved it. And we find no mention of his having any other differential method than Newton’s before his letter of the 21st of June, 1677, which was a year after a copy of Mr. Newton’s letter of the 10th of December, 1672, had been sent to Paris to be communicated to him; and above four years after Mr. Collins began to communicate that letter to his correspondents; in which letter the method of fluxions was sufficiently described to any intelligent person.

“III. That by Mr. Newton’s letter, of the 13th of June, 1676 it appears that he had the method of fluxions above five years before the writing of that letter. And by his Analysis per Æquationes numero Terminorum Infinitas, communicated by Dr. Barrow to Mr. Collins, in July, 1669, we find that he had invented the method before that time.

“IV. That the differential method is one and the same with the method of fluxions, excepting the name and mode of notation; Mr. Leibnitz calling those quantities differences which Mr. Newton calls moments, or fluxions; and marking them with a letter d—a mark not used by Mr. Newton.

“And, therefore, we take the proper question to be, not who invented this or that method, but, who was the first inventor of the method? And we believe that those who have reputed Mr. Leibnitz the first inventor knew little or nothing of his correspondence with Mr. Collins and Mr. Oldenburg long before, nor of Mr. Newton’s having that method above fifteen years before Mr Leibnitz began to publish it in the Acta Eruditorum of Leipsic.

“For which reason we reckon Mr. Newton the first inventor; and are of opinion that Mr. Keill, in asserting the same, has been no ways injurious to Mr. Leibnitz. And we submit to the judgment of the Society, whether the extract and papers, now presented to you, together with what is extant, to the same purpose, in Dr. Wallis’s third volume, may not deserve to be made public.”

This Report, with the collection of letters and manuscripts, under the title of Commercium Epistolicum D. Johannis Collins et aliorum de analysi promota Jussu Societatis Regiæ Editum, appeared accordingly in the early part of 1713. Its publication seemed to infuse additional bitterness into the feelings of Leibnitz, who descended to unfounded charges and empty threats. He had been privy counsellor to the Elector of Hanover, before that prince was elevated to the British throne; and in his correspondence, in 1715 and 1716, with the Abbé Conti, then at the court of George I., and with Caroline, Princess of Wales, he attacked the doctrines of the Principia, and indirectly its author, in a manner very discreditable to himself, both as a learned and as an honourable man. His assaults, however, were triumphantly met; and, to the complete overthrow of his rival pretensions, Newton was induced to give the finishing blow. The verdict is universal and irreversible that the English preceded the German philosopher, by at least ten years, in the invention of fluxions. Newton could not have borrowed from Leibnitz; but Leibnitz might have borrowed from Newton. A new edition of the Commercium Epistolicum was published in 1722-5 (?); but neither in this, nor in the former edition, did our author take any part. The disciples, enthusiastic, capable and ready, effectually shielded, with the buckler of Truth, the character of the Master, whose own conduct throughout was replete with delicacy, dignity and justice. He kept aloof from the controversy—in which Dr. Keill stood forth as the chief representative of the Newtonian side—till the very last, when, for the satisfaction of the King, George I., rather than for his own, he consented to put forth his hand and firmly secure his rights upon a certain and impregnable basis.

A petition to have inventions for promoting the discovery of the longitude at sea, suitably rewarded, was presented to the House of Commons, in 1714. A committee, having been appointed to investigate the subject, called upon Newton and others for their opinions. That of our author was given in writing. A report, favourable to the desired measure, was then taken up, and a bill for its adoption subsequently passed.