Is Rebecca Chamberlain’s maiden name Addington or Shelley?

Rebecca Chamberlain was the wife of William Chamberlain, of Billerica, Massachusetts. She was a victim of the Salem witch trials and died in Cambridge prison in 1692. Her parents are unknown. However, as a result of some genealogical detective work by George Walter Chamberlain (GWC) in about 1910, we have clues about her family and her maiden name. From his study of the Last Will and Testament of Sarah Shelley, he determined that Rebecca’s maiden name is either Addington or Shelley, but which one is it?

In his concluding comment GWC said, “I do not know… The time will doubtless come when this puzzle will be solved- probably from sources of information across the seas.”¹

It has now been over 100 years and the missing pieces of the puzzle still lay buried some where across the Atlantic.

The “Cousens” of Sarah Shelley

Reading Sarah Shelley’s will is quite confusing and some terms may seem arbitrary or inconsistent. David Conrad Chamberlain, Sr. (DCC) 1932-2005, studied the will, and his comment shows how confusing the will can be if we don’t know the various beneficiary’s and their relationship to Sarah Shelley.

The inconsistent wording used By Sarah Shelley in her will adds to the confusion. She calls Rebecca Chamberlain a sister, William Chamberlain her brother, and their children “cousins”. She calls Isaac Addington Jr. a “kinsman” and not her nephew, and so forth. Thus, it is fruitless to draw any definite conclusions from this terminology.²

Actually, all the terms used by Sarah Shelley are very consistent and precise when combined with obvious and common knowledge of her time. I believe my blog is first to identify all of her relatives who are beneficiaries of Sarah Shelley’s Last will and Testament. Hopefully, drawing conclusions from her terminology can now be fruitful.

Identifying Sarah Shelley’s “cousens” help us understand their relationship to her. In the will, everyone that she calls a “cousen” is a son or daughter of either William and Rebecca Chamberlain or of Isaac and Anne (Leverett) Addington. Therefore, it is obvious that all those called “cousens” in her will would be called nieces and nephews today. And also, all her relatives who are beneficiaries are connected to these two families.

Sarah Shelley’s will

In 1687, Sarah Shelley’s estate was valued at over £234. In today’s (2019) dollars considering inflation since 1750, this value would be about $66,493. One British pound in 1687 would be approximately $284 today, and one shilling $14.20.

Here is verbatim the will of Sarah Shelley. It is shortened to show only the parts that pertain to her relatives. I have numbered each of her “cousens” and will explain how each  one is related to the testatrix.

I Sarah Shelley of Boston in New England Spinster, being sick in body, but through mercy of sound disposing minde. Knowing the uncertainty of this present Life do hereby revoke all former and make and declare this my last will and Testament.
Item. I give bequeath unto my cousens Captain Penn Townsend and Sarah his wife (1) Five pounds apeice in money and to my Cousen Ann Pierce (2) Five pounds in money and to each of my Cousen Townsends and Cousen Pierce’s children (3) now Liveing Forty Shillings a piece in money to be paid by my Executor into the hands of their parents for their use. Also I give unto my Cousen Rebecca Davenport’s(4) two children Forty Shillings apeice in money Viz: Addington Davenport and Rebecca Davenport: (5) Further I give unto the said Rebecca Davenport and Rebecca Townsend (6) my two Silver Spoons, Rebecca Townsend to have that I commonly use. More to my Cousen Rebecca Davenport(7) one new pewter pot and Silver Bookin. (sic)

Item. I give unto my Cousen Isaac Addington (8) Ten Pounds in money and to his wife Twenty Shillings in money to buy her a Ring.

Item. I Release unto my Brother William Chamberlin(9) a debt of Six pounds which he oweth me and I give and bequeath unto my sister his wife(10) and unto her three daughters Twenty Shillings apeice in money. Farther I give unto my said Sister(10) and her three daughters and my Cousen John Chamberlain’s wife (11) all my wearing Apparrell and Household goods of all sorts to be equually divided among them Excepting three small pewter dishes marked S:S: which I give unto my Cousen Sarah Shed’s (12) Children now liveing.

Item. I give and bequeath all the rest and residue of my Estate whatsoever unto my sister Chamberlains(10) Eight Sons(13) to be equally divided to and among them, onely my two Cousens John and Clement Chamberlain (14) to have the value of Twenty Shillings apeice over and above an equal Share with their other Bretheren.

And of this my Last will and Testament I do nominate ordain and appoint my Kinsman Isaac Addington(8) to be the sole and whole Exector. In Testimony wherof I have hereunto Set my hand and affixed my Seale. Dated in boston the Second day of February Anno Domi 1686/7 Annoqz R:Rs Jacobi Anglia &ca: Secundi: Secundo.

Further I give unto each of my Cousen John & Thomas Chamberlins and my Cousen Sarah Shed’s Children:(15) now living, Ten Shillings for ye raysing of Which I have some small Remnants of Goods by me Which my Executor may dispose of.  Signu

Sarah s Shelley (Seal)

The Children of Isaac Addington and Anne (Leverett) Addington

Remember, Isaac Addington, Sr., is the one who is suspected to be the brother of Rebecca Chamberlain. It is easy to get confused on this point. Isaac Addington, Sr., died in 1652, many years before the will was written in 1687.

The only son of Isaac Addington Sr., and Ann (Leverett) Addington is Isaac Addington, Jr.(8) born January 22, 1644.³ Isaac, Jr was referred to as a cousin and a kinsman of Sarah Shelley. The term “cousen” in this will, (without exception), refers to what we know today as nieces and nephews. Isaac Addington, Jr. was the executor who Sarah Shelley also called her kinsman. This would be very clear at the time because his father was deceased.

Their three daughters are Ann Pierce, Rebecca Davenport and Sarah Townsend. Ann (Addington) Mosely, Pierce(2) was born March 10 1646.³ At the time of the will (1687), she was married to her second husband Nehemiah Pierce. (Her children, however, were from Mr. Mosely). Rebecca (Addington) Davenport(4) born March 11, 1649³ was married to Eleazer Davenport. Sarah (Addington) Townsend(1) born February 11, 1652³ was married to Penn Townsend. Sarah Shelley refers to all of these as “my cousens.”

The great nieces and nephews of Sarah Shelley were always called “children of her cousins.” Such as, “My Cousen Townsend’s and Cousen Pierce’s children”(3), or my Cousen Rebecca Davenport’s two children, viz: Addington Davenport and Rebecca Davenport(5). She uses the terms “my cousin” Rebecca Davenport(7) to distinguish her from the daughter, “Rebecca Davenport”.(6)

The children of William and Rebecca Chamberlain

William Chamberlain(9) and Rebecca Chamberlain(10) are the only relatives she calls  “my brother” and “my sister”. Isaac Addington, Sr. and Anne (Leverett) Addington were both deceased. Otherwise, they might also have been mentioned as her brother and sister.²

When referring to Rebecca Chamberlain’s children, like those of Isaac Addington, Sr., she always calls them “my cousin”. The eight sons(13) of William and Rebecca Chamberlain living in 1687 are: William born about 1652; John(11)(14) born about 1654; Jacob born January 18, 1658; Thomas(14) born February 20, 1659; Edmund born July 15, 1660; Abraham born January 6, 1665; Clement(13) born May 30, 1669; and Daniel born September 27, 1671.²

Their three daughters are: Sarah (Chamberlain) Shed(12)(14) born May 20, 1655 who married John Shed; Rebecca born February 25, 1663; and Ann born March 3, 1666.²

She called William Chamberlain “my brother” and Penn Townsend “my cousin” which seems the polite thing to do. (They are actually brother-in-law and cousin-in-law). However, when referring to her relative’s children, the parent is always her blood relative, such as “my sister Chamberlain’s eight sons” and “my Cousen John & Thomas Chamberlin’s children and my Cousen Sarah Shed’s Children”. These parent names mentioned are all Chamberlains, (her blood line relatives) even though the children have two parents.

What are the odds?

Since I started writing my blog in July, 2017, no question has come to me more often than, “What is Rebecca Chamberlain’s name? Addington or Shelley?” Therefore, I have studied the will of Sarah Shelley and will add my opinion to those GWC and DCC offered years ago. The good news is that we all agree on two important points. These are:

1- From information found only in the will, we can never know for sure which name is correct.

2- We all agree on which name seems to be most likely.

I developed an algorithm to determine which name is most likely the name of the father of Rebecca Chamberlain. A running score will be kept and the odds will change each time I answer a question or express my opinion. When all the major questions are considered, the final score will determine what is, (in my humble opinion), the most likely maiden name of Rebecca Chamberlain.

Is the name Addington, Shelley or Leverett?

Rebecca Chamberlain and Sarah Shelley were of the same generation as Isaac Addington, Sr. Therefore, they have to be either sisters to Isaac Addington, Sr. or to his wife Anne Leverette. GWC started with three possible names, Addington, Shelley or Leverette.

The wife of Isaac Addington, Sr. was Anne Leverett. She was the daughter of Thomas Leverett and Ann Fitch who were married October 29, 1610.²

Rebecca Chamberlain’s father’s name is either Shelley, or it is one of two lines of the Addington family. either Addington or Leverette. Therefore the odds begin at:

Shelly 50%, Addington 25%, Leverette 25%.

The study of GWC determined whether Sarah Shelley’s relationship to Isaac Addington’s family came through the Addington or Leverette line, he wrote:

In 1672, Governor John Leverett sent to Old Boston, Lincolnshire, England for a transcript of the baptisms of his father’s family… On March 15, 1679.. he made his will mentioning all of the children of his sister Anne (Leverette) Addington, but neither Rebecca Chamberlain nor Sarah Shelley (were included). His transcripts show that… the family consisted of thirteen children baptized between 1612 and 1632. The transcripts show Anne Leverette had a sister named Sarah, but failed to show any sister named Rebecca Leverette.¹

GWC concluded: “Therefore, the kinship of Capt. Isaac Addington’s children to Sarah Shelley and Rebecca Chamberlain did not originate in the Leverett family and must have come from the Addington family.”¹

Shelley 50%, Addington 50%, Leverette 0%

Was Sarah Shelley married?

If Sarah Shelley was married, Shelley would be her married name and her sister Rebecca’s maiden name would then be Addington. However, the will begins: “I Sarah Shelley of Boston in New England, Spinster”. If spinster is defined as one who has never been married then the calculation will change to:

Shelley 100%, Addington 0% 

However, GWC pointed out that in New England before the American Revolution, the term “spinster” applied to both maidens and widows. He then showed examples in five different documents where widows of that time were called “spinsters” or “spinster/widows”.

Shelley 50%, Addington 50%

The will appears to have been drawn by Isaac Addington, Jr., the distinguished colonial magistrate of Suffolk County. The paper was folded together so that the contents were on the inside two pages. The person who drew up the will wrote in the middle of the outside page: “Mrs Sarah Shelley her Last Will 1686” (1687)

This certainly must mean Sarah was married and therefore she was Sarah Addington, and Shelley was the name of her husband.

Addington 100%, Shelley 0%

Not so fast! Prior to the mid eighteenth century “Mrs” was applied to any adult woman who merited the social distinction, without any marital connotation. Miss was reserved for young girls until the mid eighteenth century. Even when adult single women started to use Miss, Mrs. still designated a social or business standing, and not the status of being married, until at least the mid nineteenth century.⁴

Addington 50%, Shelley 50%

George W. Chamberlain believed her name was Addington

Sarah Shelley’s will tells us that she was a sister to Rebecca Chamberlain. There is really no evidence to persuade us that Sarah, Rebecca and Isaac were not full siblings. For example, the terms half brother/sister or step brother/sister are never mentioned. Neither does she ever distinguish any one as a half cousin, and she never says cousin of my brother/sister. Also, the name Shelley is not seen among the beneficiaries.

In addition, George W. Chamberlain pointed out that Shelley had a well furnished home and an estate valued at about $66,493 in today’s (2019) dollars. This would be highly unlikely for a single woman living in Boston in 1670 to 1687, unless it was inherited. If they were sisters, and she inherited her estate from her father, Rebecca Chamberlain would likely have received a similar inheritance. Again, of this there is no evidence.

GWC wrote, “For these reasons I believe that Sarah Shelley was a “spinster-widow” whose estate had fallen to her by death of a husband and she. being left alone in the world. decided to pass her last years in Boston near her nephews and nieces, but I don’t know she was a widow.“¹ In other words, GWC believed Rebecca’s name was Addington, but just couldn’t say for sure. I agree with GWC.

After very closely examining the will’s terminology, I found it to be clear and consistent with no hint of any half siblings or step siblings. Therefore, I believe it is conservative to say the odds now stand at:

Addington 70%, Shelley 30%.

The Addington-Chamberlain connection

The will connects Sarah Shelley with Rebecca Chamberlain and Isaac Addington, Sr., and their families. This therefore implies a relationship between the Addingtons and Chamberlains. Some suggest this weakens evidence that Isaac and Rebecca were full brother/sister. However, there is another obvious fact that seems to tie the two families very closely together-  that is the naming of their children.

The Addingtons named their children Isaac, Ann, Rebecca and Sarah. When Sarah, their fourth child died as an infant, they also named their fifth child Sarah. These are the names of the children’s father, mother and two aunts.

The Chamberlain’s named their second son Isaac and their three daughters Sarah, Rebecca and Ann. They also had sons whom they named Thomas, Edmund and William. These names include the children’s father, mother and all of their known or suspected aunts and uncles. I believe this remarkable fact raises the probability that Rebecca and Isaac are full siblings.

Addington 80%, Shelley 20%

The Addington family lived in Boston

William Chamberlain, the immigrant, after coming to Massachusetts Bay Colony was first recorded living in Boston October 30, 1647. There he took deed of a house and lot from Francis Smith. His house, garden, shop and out houses were bound on the north by (West Street), on the west (Mason Street), and on east (Washington Street).¹

Rebecca’s family lived in Boston and, no doubt, that is where William and Rebecca met. The birth record of their first son Timothy, born in Woburn on August 13, 1649, tells us that William and Rebecca were married and living together in Boston.

He sold the Boston property on January 4, 1649 and two days later he was admitted as an inhabitant of the town of Woburn. A few years later, in about 1654, they moved to Billerica.¹

Rebecca’s brother Captain Isaac Addington (Sr.) was living in Boston, Massachusetts as a “single man” before June 6, 1640. He married Anne Leverette and their five children were born between 1644 and 1652. Isaac died in Boston in 1652. His wife, Anne (Leverette) Addington was living in Boston in 1657, and many of her family remained there when Sarah Shelley’s will was documented in 1687.¹

Isaac, Sarah and Rebecca were certainly raised together and most likely lived together as siblings in Boston in the early 1640s. The point in question, however, is whether they were full siblings, or a product of a blended family of half and/or step siblings.

If Sarah Shelley was never married, but received an inheritance from her parents she most likely would have remained in Boston. There would be no apparent reason for her to leave Boston and move away from her family, if she was not married. Yet there is no record of Sarah Shelley living in Boston until 1670.

Sarah Shelley was admitted to the First Church of Boston on August 14, 1670. This is an unlikely event if she had been living there since the 1640s. I believe this is strong circumstantial evidence that she got married and moved away from Boston and then returned about 1670 as a widow to be near her family.

I believe the cumulative evidence shows there is at least a 90% chance that Mr. and Mrs. Addington reared their three children Isaac Addington, Sarah Addington and Rebecca Addington, and that Sarah married Mr. Shelley. Since he would be an uncle to the Chamberlain children, his first name may have been Timothy, (or one of the other names of the Chamberlain children.)

Addington 90%, Shelley 10%

What if Sarah was the daughter of Mr. Shelley?

It appears that there is about a 90% chance that Rebecca and Sarah are full siblings. Therefore, at this point there is only about a 10% chance that Sarah’s father was Mr. Shelley.

However, even if we knew Sarah’s father was Mr. Shelley and that her birth name was Sarah Shelley, there would still be a 50/50 chance that Rebecca’s name is Addington! We know that the family would have two different fathers because Mr. Addington is certainly the father of Isaac.  Therefore, Rebecca’s father could be either Mr. Addington or Mr. Shelley.

We don’t know the ages of the three sibling’s, but the birth year estimate for Isaac is between 1600 and 1620 and for Rebecca between 1625 to 1633. So we are fairly sure that Isaac was older than Rebecca.

The following are two situations where Sarah’s father is Mr. Shelley but Rebecca’s is Mr. Addington. There could either be one mother or two different mothers in our hypothetical family.

A one mother situation: Mr. Shelley and his wife have a daughter Sarah. Mr. Shelley dies and his former wife marries Mr. Addington, they then have Isaac and Rebecca.

 A two mother situation: Mr. Addington and his wife have a son Isaac. Mr. Shelley and his wife have a daughter Sarah. Mr. Addington later marries Shelley’s former wife and they have Rebecca.

In the various scenario’s, Rebecca’s father could be either Mr. Addington or Mr. Shelley, so chances for Rebecca Addington are about 50/50. Therefore, based on my estimate up to this point, the chance Rebecca’s name is Shelley drops from 10% to 5%. This brings me to my final estimate for the maiden name of Rebecca Chamberlain, which is:

Rebecca Addington 95%, Rebecca Shelly 5%.

Conclusions

There is no record of the parents of Rebecca Chamberlain. The only clues we have to her parents are found in Sarah Shelley’s will.

The will identifies Isaac Addington Sr. and Rebecca Chamberlain as her brother and sister. According to my study of the will there is about a 90% chance that they are full siblings. Though the possibility exists, the will does not imply that they are step-siblings or half-siblings. The simplest and most likely option is that Isaac, Sarah and Rebecca are full siblings.

If this is true, Sarah was married and Shelley is Sarah’s married name. In 1910, George W. Chamberlain believed this most likely to be the case.  Also, after thorough examination of his writings and the will, I believe the probability of this is about 90%.

In the case (about a 10% chance) that Sarah Shelley is not a full sibling to both Rebecca and Isaac, there is still a 50/50 chance that Rebecca is an Addington. Therefore, there is overall about a 95% chance that she is Rebecca (Addington) Chamberlain.

As a child, I remember a story from family lore about a time when ammunition was very scarce. The husband was taking his rifle and going off to battle, so his wife melted down the lead weights from the family clock and ran them into bullets. Therefore, her husband had his needed ammunition.

It is interesting how family stories are passed down to younger generations. Sometimes certain facts and details may be forgotten or misunderstood in one’s memory over time.

There are two versions of this story in our family

Apparently,  John Harry Chamberlain and Alonzo C. Phillips both heard this story as a child. They are first cousins. Chamberlain likely heard the story from his father in Illinois. Phillips likely heard it from his mother in Vermont. Each of them recorded the story in 1926 in their later years. Chamberlain was 77, Phillips was 81.

1- Harry Chamberlain: Northwestern Iowa Its History and Traditions, 1926:

“A great-grandfather of Harry Chamberlain in the paternal line participated in the Revolutionary War. His wife melted and ran into bullets the lead weights of the family clock, replacing the weights with bags of sand. This clock and the old Queen’s Arm musket which the great grand father used are still in possession of the members of the Chamberlain family in Vermont.”

2- Alonzo C. Phillips letter: Runaway Pond Again, April 20, 1926:

“Spencer Chamberlain enlisted in the 1812 war. Before he went he took the lead weights out of this grandfather’s clock and substituted the weights with bags of gravel of the same weight. His wife ran the weights into bullets and he took the bullets and his old trusty (Queen Arm) rifle and started for the front. There he fired away his clock weights in the battle of Plattsburgh. My son, Mazzini Phillips, has the old gun in his possession at the present time with the word “London” on the lock. I have no doubt that this is the same gun that Spencer’s grandfather shot the Indian chief, Paugus, with on the shore of Lovells pond, May 8th 1725.”

Who ran the lead weights into bullets?

Who melted the clock weights into bullets? Was it Sarah Blake French in the Revolutionary War, or was it Millie French Chamberlain during the War of 1812?

In the first story, Silas French would be the great-grandfather on Harry’s paternal line (his father’s mother’s father). It is a known fact that Silas served in the Revolutionary War. Harry Chamberlain’s other great-grandfather on the paternal line is John Chamberlain. However, our family has no written record of him which seems to rule him out. Silas French’s wife was Sarah Blake.

In the second version, Spencer Chamberlain’s wife Millie would be the one who ran the lead into bullets. Spencer went off to fight in the  Battle of Plattsburgh in 1814.

Not an isolated incident

I searched the internet for similar experiences and found several stories recorded in books published in the late 1800s. All but one case was from the Revolutionary war and occurring between May 1776 and the Battle of Saratoga in 1777.

The melting of clock weights into bullets was not exclusive to the Chamberlain family. The Pennsylvania Committee of Safety, May 9, 1776, and the Provincial Congress of New Jersey, July 16, 1776 passed resolutions. The government then “collected lead clock weights that they might be run into bullets”.¹

Apparently many, if not all, of the colonies at this time made a requisition for lead. The following story is from Windsor, Connecticut:

“During the harvest season of 1776 labor was so scarce harvests were done by women and children as all able bodied men were in the army. Constituted authority went forth in search of lead for bullets. The tradition which preserves this fact also mentions that not a clock in the whole town marked the flight of time, their weights having been melted down and run into bullets. This is owing to a requisition. This tradition is well authenticated, both in the case of this, and surrounding towns.”²

This makes it sound like the whole nation went around not knowing the time of day. However, our family solved their time keeping problem. They replaced the lead weights with an equal weight of sand or gravel.

A universal experience of the Revolutionary war

This likely occurred in our family during the Revolutionary War since almost everyone who had a clock and a rifle at that time shared this experience. Of course, lead was scarce in other wars as well. However, I documented only one other such case. In the early 1800s, Tyrolese peasants repulsed the over whelming numbers of Napoleon’s troops. “Lead had become a scarce article with the (Tyrolese), and pewter mugs, clock weights, spoons, and other domestic utensils were melted to make bullets...”³

I attributed this family experience to Silas French and his wife Sarah Blake in Chapter 12- The Chamberlains During the Revolutionary War. The critical need for bullets came when Silas enlisted in 1775, and during a time of extreme shortages in 1776 and 1777. However, Silas French and Sarah Blake were not married until December 8, 1777. Nevertheless, they likely knew each other and may have been engaged at the time.

Spencer Chamberlain’s Rifle was handed down through the Phillips family

It is unknown what happened to the family clock adorned with sand bags. However, the musket pictured above is certainly the one Spencer Chamberlain used in the battle of Plattsburgh. It was still in the possession of the Chamberlain/Phillips family in 1926, (and still is). But who owned it before Spencer Chamberlain?

It is unlikely that this rifle ever belonged to Silas French or that it was used in the Revolutionary War. Nor could it be the one which was used by John Chamberlain in the duel with Chief Paugus along the shores of Lovewell’s pond in 1725.

Spencer Chamberlain’s Rifle is marked “Ketland & Company”

Joe Puleo of American Long Rifle Association gives us some information about gun locks marked with the inscription “Ketland & Company”.

“As to the name on the lock… in 1791 there was only one Ketland firm, that of Thomas Ketland with his partners and sons. They probably used the name “Ketland & Co.” from at least 1778 until they went bankrupt in 1821 but there isn’t a shread of evidence they exported anything to America until at least 1789-1790. So far all evidence suggests that the Ketland export business in guns and gun parts did not start until 1794.”⁴

The rifle is just not old enough to be an import from London for either the War of Independence nor for the battle at Lovwell’s Pond. Nevertheless, it would be available for Spencer or his family sometime between 1794 and 1814. It was ready when Spencer went off to fight the British at  Plattsburgh.

If you got this far, please click Goodbye or Table of Contents. This will simply tell me that someone looked at this post. Thank you! Dennis Chamberlain

© Copyright Dennis D. Chamberlain, The Chamberlain Story, 2018. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of the written content of this site without express and written permission from the author and owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that credit is given to Dennis D. Chamberlain and direction to  www.thechamberlainstory.com.

References:

1- Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston 1876-1877
2- Henry R. Stiles, History and Genealogies of Ancient Windsor Connecticut 1635-1891. Hartford Conn. 1891, Page 324
3- James Knowles, editor, The Nineteenth Century, a Monthly Review, Volume 46, New York 1899
4- Joe Puleo, Technical Editor, Man at Arms for the Gun Collector, Mowbray Publishing,  54 East School Street, Woonsocket, RI  02895, American Long Rifle Association Forum, americanlongrifle.com

“A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true.” -Isaac Newton

Isaac Newton wrote over 1.3 million words on the prophecies of the Bible and Church History, especially writings of Athanasias and the Arians.¹  While Newton’s spectacular scientific achievements have received universal acclaim, his theological writings have gotten mixed reviews. Critics of his theology often use negative terms to describe him as “an Arian” or “a dark heretic”.  This author, however, believes that Newton’s theology was as brilliant as his science, and an extension of his search for truth regardless of the prevailing thought of his day.

Newton was an Anglican, devoted to his Christian faith. He searched the Scriptures and did an intense study of the early writers of Christian history. He focused on fourth century church history when Athanasias defended the Nicene Creed against its Arian rivals. To understand Isaac Newton’s writings of Church history it may be helpful to review the Council at Nicea and the Arian controversy.

The Council at Nicea

In 325 AD, the Emperor Constantine called together a council of bishops from all over the Empire. Over 300 Christian bishops gathered in Nicea, a small city near Constantinople. In an attempt to bring unity to the church, Contantine would use the power of the state to force theological agreement among Christians.²

A major controversy had erupted in Alexandria which threatened to split the entire Eastern Church. Arius, a popular presbyter, argued that the Word was not co-eternal with God which, he argued, denied the divinity of Jesus. And, If both the Father and Jesus Christ were divine, there were two Gods, which denied Christian monotheism. During the Council, Eusebius of Nicomedia presented the Arian case. The other bishops shouted him down.²

The Council quickly became convinced that they needed to make a clear rejection of Arianism. Therefore, under imperial prompting, they set out to produce a creed which would define the faith of the Church.³

In describing Jesus Christ and the Father, Constantine suggested that the word homoousios, which translated means “of the same substance,” be included in the creed. There were a few bishops who refused to sign the creed. The assembly disposed them as heritics.² 

However, in 328 AD, Constantine revoked  the banishment of Arius and Arianism again began gaining ground.

Athanasias and the Arian controversy

It was about this time that Alexander, bishop of Alexandria died, and Athanasias reluctantly took his place. Athanasias showed a deep conviction that the central fact of Christian faith is the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ and the presence of God amid humankind. Eusebius of Nicomedia and the other Arian leaders immediatly took steps to cause his downfall.⁴

Accusations by Eusebius, riled up Constantine sufficiently that he banish Athanasias from Alexandria. Eusebius baptised Constantine who now favored the Arian cause. Shortly thereafter, Constantine died and his three sons, Constantine II, Constans and Constantius succeeded him.⁴

When Athanasias was away, the Arians claimed that he was no longer the legitimate bishop of Alexandria. The rival bishop, Gregory, had the support of the government and took over possession of the church buildings. To avoid violence, Anthanasias left Alexandria and went to Rome.⁴

In Rome Athanasais was able to gain support of Julius the bishop of Rome and the Roman Clergy, who took up the Nicene cause. Eventually, a synod declared that Athanasius was the legitimate bishop and Gregory was out. Gregory and the Arians had represented the more Hellenized higher classes. Athanasias was a man of the people and came back as a hero and liberator. He then began to strengthen ties with other Nicenes and wrote a number of treatises against Arianism.⁴

Constantius, an Arian, was Emperor in 352 AD. He sent an army to again remove Athanasias from Alexandria. Athanasias escaped and took refuge among his allies, the monks in the desert. He hid there for a period of about five years. The Nicene cause suffered severe setbacks at this time. In Sirmium, a council openly rejected the decisions of Nicea. Orthodox leaders called this the “Blasphemy of Sirmium.”⁴

Another twist in the story came when Emperor Constantius died and his cousin Julian the pagan replaced him. Julian had no interest in either side of the controversy. He, therefore, cancelled all orders of exiled bishops so that each side would have an equal opportunity to destroy the other.  Julian could then move forward with his goal to re-establish paganism.⁴

Athanasias returned to Alexandria. There he engaged in a much needed campaign of theological diplomacy. He realized that even many non-Arians opposed the Nicene Creed because of the term homoousios (of the same substance). Athanasias, seeing these legitimate concerns, reversed his stand he had fiercely held at Nicea. The synod at Alexandria decided it would now be acceptable to affirm that the Son was homoiousios (of similar substance) with the Father. On this basis of understanding most of the church rallied to support the Council of Nicea. It was later ratified at the Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 381 AD.⁴

Was Isaac Newton an Arian?

What did Isaac Newton himself really believe about this great debate and the creeds which defined the Trinity? Which side, if either, did he favor in the dispute between Athanasias and his allies (the Nicenes), and Eusebius and his allies (the Arians)?

Isaac Newton examined church history writings written before, and compared them with those written after the Arian controversy. He said of the pre-Nicene authors, a “familiar difficulty” arose in that he found a “diversity of sentiments… is sometimes apparent in the same author”.

He said there may be two causes for this: 1- The author may have used certain expressions in a way commonly used by more recent writers. Or, 2- “Audacious men may have attempted to tip his book more towards their own beliefs.” This may have been done, he said, in copying or translating from Greek to Latin, or deliberately omitting/altering  a number of words, or even by adding material of their own.⁵

Newton then, in an exhaustive 18 page thesis, showed examples and illustrations of second option above. He primarily aimed at the writings of Anathasias and his allies. This has prompted some critics of Newton’s theology to assume or claim that Newton was an Arian. However, this was not the case.

Newton was a devout Christian. He hoped that he would find a sound argument presented by Athanasias and the Nicenes against the Arians. The following statement by Newton clearly shows his sentiments, and his disappointment in an argument of one of the Nicene writers:

“I always think of him as being like a gardener who in attempting to correct a deformation in a young plant twists it so strongly the other way that is misses the center and he bends the shoot to the opposite side… He has gone off headlong into the opposite evil, with an excessive zeal for conflict as well. For it would have been enough if he had shown that the Father and the Son were not the same so far as the ‘subjectum’ is concerned, and if he had done so he would have carried off the first prize for his victory against the blasphemer…. The end of it was that he exchanged evil for evil and strayed from correctness of doctrine.”⁵

Isaac Newton declared the Arian doctrine to be blasphemy and therefore, he clearly was not an Arian. However, he did not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity as defined in the Athanasian Creed. He came to this conclusion based on his study of the Bible. Willaim Stukely wrote of Newton: “No man in England read the Bible more carefully than he did.”⁶

Isaac Newton believed the Bible predicted a general apostasy of the Christian Church

Newton did an extensive study on the prophecies of the book of Daniel and Revelations. In his preface to this work, he stated that he would “show that the Religion of the Beast is Christianity corrupted.” However, to do so, he said, it would be convenient to first prove through biblical writers that “there was to be a general Apostasy in the visible Church.”⁷ For this purpose he explained Paul’s second Epistle to Timothy chapters 3 and 4.  There Paul warned of a time when the saints would turn away their ears from hearing the truth and he exhorted Timothy to watch over his flock:

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: & they shall turn away their ears from the truth & shall be turned unto fables.” (2 Timothy 4:3-4)⁷

Newton believed that this apostasy “was to be a very durable one.” It would begin in Paul’s day and last until the man of sin be revealed.⁷ In his second epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul taught his followers not to be troubled by rumors that the coming of the Lord was at hand. He wrote:

“Let no men deceive you by any means for that day shall not come except the Apostasy come first.” (2 Thessalonians 2:3)⁷

Was Isaac Newton a heretic?

Newton was neither an Trinitarian nor an Arian. He believed that both of these groups had wandered away from teachings of the Bible into metaphysical speculation.⁸ However, Sir Isaac took great pleasure in the service of the Church of England.  In turn, that church entirely claimed him as her son, in faith, and in practice.⁶

Nevertheless, by 1670 Newton faced real concerns about his religious beliefs. The conflict between his great love for the Scriptures and his doubts about the Trinity caused him considerable stress and anxiety. He became racked with inner turmoil. He was now an important figure at Trinity College and all professors were expected to take holy orders and become ordained priests in the Church of England. This meant that he had to swear an oath on the Bible that he believed in the Trinity. This he could not do. Newton continually delayed. However, he was required to be ordained by 1675 or leave his position as the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics.⁹

He suffered in silence. He could not reveal his true belief about the nature of Jesus to anyone. To do this, he would be labeled a heretic, excommunicated from the Church of England and thrown out of Cambridge. He started hinting that he was going to have to leave the University.⁹

Newton studied the Bible to find arguments to back up his beliefs. He wrote out 12 statements in his notebook that explained his point of view. The Trinity is nowhere mentioned in the Bible, he wrote.⁹ 

Newton traveled to London to present his case before the head of the Church of England, King Charles II. It is likely that he had help from an old friend and college professor Isaac Barrow who was now an Anglican Priest and adviser to the king.⁹ Somehow they made his case without revealing his secret views of the Trinity. Apparently, they presented an argument showing that the ordination requirement was bad policy. Because, not only was Newton’s requirement dropped, but the requirement of ordination was ended for everyone.

So, was Isaac Newton a Christian heretic? The answer to this question may be found in your answer to another question: Which one understood the truth? Isaac Newton or Athanasias?

“There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history”– Isaac Newton

Newton believed he should communicate his understanding of Bible prophecy to others through his writing. He did not believe that he was chosen of God to do this, as some critics have claimed. Rather, he felt compelled to share his understanding of prophetic scripture for the “benefit of others, remembering the judgment of him who hid his talent in a napkin.”¹⁰

It was revealed to the prophet Daniel, Newton wrote, that the prophecies of the last times should be closed up and sealed until the time of the end. But, he asked, “If they are never to be understood, to what end did God reveal them?” He believed that in time as the fulfillment of prophecies came to pass that a few that call themselves Christians who “set themselves sincerely & earnestly to search after truth” will understand and their knowledge will be increased. While, on the other hand, the wicked shall not understand.¹⁰

Newton believed that every one should seek the truth for themselves, through scripture and by asking God

Newton implored all who were seeking for truth to not trust the opinion any man, saying:

“Let me therefore beg of thee not to trust to the opinion of any man concerning these things, for so it is great odds but thou shalt be deceived. Much less oughtest thou to rely upon the judgment of the multitude, for so thou shalt certainly be deceived. But search the scriptures thy self & that by frequent reading & constant meditation upon what thou readest, & earnest prayer to God to enlighten thine understanding if thou desirest to find the truth.”¹⁰

Newton knew that before Christ returned to the earth the truth would be reestablished on the earth. How he believed this would happen, however, I do not know.

“The 7^th Trumpet at which time ceases & the mystery of God is finished (Apoc 10.6, 7) & the Kingdoms of the world become the kingdoms of Christ for ever & the dead here judged & saints rewarded.”⁷

Just before this will happen, Newton believed, there will be an universal preaching of the Gospel throughout the world:

“After the greatest decay of religion there is to be an universal preaching of the Gospel immediately before the seventh Trumpet … But this is not yet fulfilled; there has been nothing done in the world like it, & therefore it is to come.”¹¹

Isaac Newton’s deepest secret

Newton’s fame came through his great scientific achievements. However, the Bible and not nature had been Isaac Newton’s greatest passion. He devoted more time to Scripture than to science. He said, “I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.”

Nevertheless, Isaac Newton’s religious views of 1670 remained his deepest secret. His vast store of controversial theological writings remained unpublished throughout his life. They remained unknown for 266 years, until his papers were bought in an auction and published in 1936.⁹

By that time, his biblical prediction of a world wide preaching of the gospel had begun. And, on a hot day in July 1897 two missionaries from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints knocked on the door of Harry and Mary Chamberlain. According to Familysearch Relative Finder, Harry Chamberlain is a first cousin six times removed of Sir Isaac Newton.

Other Stories:

See Chapter 22- Mary Ellis Chamberlain: The Mormons Return to Iowa. 
Mary Ellis’ father grew up near Palmyra New York in 1827 and heard news reports of the discovery of the Book of Mormon. Her brother was a preacher who spoke against the Mormons. Two missionaries were sent to Spencer Iowa to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ in the 1890s without purse or script. They received no compensation. They served with prayers and a promise that: “The honest in heart shall be prepared to receive thy testimony, to feed and clothe and give thee money”.

Chapter E18- The Promise of Passover in the Last Days 
Jewish tradition, Bible prophecy, and a promise of Passover in the last days. Temples and the ordinance of Passover. A call to prepare to meet the Bridegroom. A Latter-day Saint perspective of “The Rapture”. One temple dedication that fulfills Bible prophecy and may foretell the beginning of the tribulation.

Comments and questions welcome. Contact me by email click here.

© Copyright Dennis D. Chamberlain, The Chamberlain Story, 2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of the written content of this site without express and written permission from the author and owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that credit is given to Dennis D. Chamberlain and direction to  www.thechamberlainstory.com.

Nineteen year-old Isaac Newton’s list of 57 sins¹²

Isaac Newton made this list when he was nineteen-years-old which include some offenses dating back to when he was 10-years-old or younger. The list was written to God and therefore, I doubt he ever intended that it be published. It told of what he believed were the worst things he had done in his life. However, it gives us great insight into his personality as a young man and about the times in which he lived.

Before Whitsunday 1662
1. Using the word (God) openly
2. Eating an apple at Thy house
3. Making a feather while on Thy day
4. Denying that I made it
5. Making a mousetrap on Thy day
6. Contriving of the chimes on Thy day
7. Squirting water on Thy day
8. Making pies on Sunday night
9. Swimming in a kimnel on Thy day
10. Putting a pin in John Keys hat on Thy day to pick him.

11. Carelessly hearing and committing many sermons
12. Refusing to go to the closet at my mothers command.
13. Threatening my father and mother Smith to burne them and the house over them
14. Wishing death and hoping it to some
15. Striking many
16. Having uncleane thoughts words and actions and dreamese.
17. Stealing cherry cobs from Eduard Storer
18. Denying that I did so
19. Denying a crossbow to my mother and grandmother though I knew of it
20. Setting my heart on money learning pleasure more than Thee

21. A relapse
22. A relapse
23. A breaking again of my covenant renued in the Lords Supper.
24. Punching my sister
25. Robbing my mothers box of plums and sugar
26. Calling Dorothy Rose a jade
27. Glutiny in my sickness.
28. Peevishness with my mother.
29. With my sister.
30. Falling out with the servants

31. Divers commissions of alle my duties
32. Idle discourse on Thy day and at other times
33. Not turning nearer to Thee for my affections
34. Not living according to my belief
35. Not loving Thee for Thy self.
36. Not loving Thee for Thy goodness to us
37. Not desiring Thy ordinances
38. Not long {longing} for Thee in {illeg}
39. Fearing man above Thee
40. Using unlawful means to bring us out of distresses

41. Caring for worldly things more than God
42. Not craving a blessing from God on our honest endeavors.
43. Missing chapel.
44. Beating Arthur Storer.
45. Peevishness at Master Clarks for a piece of bread and butter.
46. Striving to cheat with a brass halfe crowne.
47. Twisting a cord on Sunday morning
48. Reading the history of the Christian champions on Sunday

Since Whitsunday 1662
49. Glutony
50. Glutony
51. Using Wilfords towel to spare my own
52. Negligence at the chapel.
53. Sermons at Saint Marys (4)
54. Lying about a louse
55. Denying my chamberfellow of the knowledge of him that took him for a sot.
56. Neglecting to pray 3
57. Helping Pettit to make his water watch at 12 of the clock on Saturday nigh

References:

1- Charles E. Hummel, The Faith Behind the Famous Isaac Newton,
2- Justo L. Gonzalez, The Strory of Christianity, Volume 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation, (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1984) pp. 158-166
3- John Burnaby, The Belief of Christendom, A Commentary of the Nicene Creed (London National Society: SPCK, 1959), p5
4- Justo L. Gonzalez, The Strory of Christianity, Volume 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation, (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1984) pp. 174-179
5- Isaac Newton, The Newton Project, Theological Notes (part 3), National Library of Israel, Jerusalem, Israel.

6- Willaim Stukely, Memoirs of Sir Isaac Newton’s Life, published in 1752 http://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/OTHE00001
7- Isaac Newton, Untitled Treatise on Revelation Section 1.2.  http://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00137
8- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Religious views of Isaac Newton
9- Kerrie Logan Hollihan, Isaac Newton and Physics for Kids, Chicago Review Press.
10- Isaac Newton, Untitled Treatise on Revelation Section 1.1. http://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00135
11- Isaac Newton, Untitled Treatise on Revelation Section 1.4. http://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00182
12- Isaac Newton, Fitzwilliam Notebook, Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, UK, Published online: October 2003

Key phrase Bible, Bible, Bible, Bible.