Chapter 3

Although the immediate and perpetual _tendency_ of the disunited atoms to return into their normal Unity, is implied, as I have said, in their abnormal diffusion; still it is clear that this tendency will be without consequence—a tendency and no more—until the diffusive energy, in ceasing to be exerted, shall leave _it_, the tendency, free to seek its satisfaction. The Divine Act, however, being considered as determinate, and discontinued on fulfilment of the diffusion, we understand, at once, a _rëaction_—in other words, a _satisfiable_ tendency of the disunited atoms to return into _One_.

But the diffusive energy being withdrawn, and the rëaction having commenced in furtherance of the ultimate design—_that of the utmost possible Relation_—this design is now in danger of being frustrated, in detail, by reason of that very tendency to return which is to effect its accomplishment in general. _Multiplicity_ is the object; but there is nothing to prevent proximate atoms, from lapsing _at once_, through the now satisfiable tendency—_before_ the fulfilment of any ends proposed in multiplicity—into absolute oneness among themselves:—there is nothing to impede the aggregation of various _unique_ masses, at various points of space:—in other words, nothing to interfere with the accumulation of various masses, each absolutely One.

For the effectual and thorough completion of the general design, we thus see the necessity for a repulsion of limited capacity—a separative _something_ which, on withdrawal of the diffusive Volition, shall at the same time allow the approach, and forbid the junction, of the atoms; suffering them infinitely to approximate, while denying them positive contact; in a word, having the power—_up to a certain epoch_—of preventing their _coalition_, but no ability to interfere with their _coalescence_ in any respect _or degree_. The repulsion, already considered as so peculiarly limited in other regards, must be understood, let me repeat, as having power to prevent absolute coalition, _only up to a certain epoch_. Unless we are to conceive that the appetite for Unity among the atoms is doomed to be satisfied _never_;—unless we are to conceive that what had a beginning is to have no end—a conception which cannot _really_ be entertained, however much we may talk or dream of entertaining it—we are forced to conclude that the repulsive influence imagined, will, finally—under pressure of the _Unitendency collectively_ applied, but never and in no degree _until_, on fulfilment of the Divine purposes, such collective application shall be naturally made—yield to a force which, at that ultimate epoch, shall be the superior force precisely to the extent required, and thus permit the universal subsidence into the inevitable, because original and therefore normal, _One_.—The conditions here to be reconciled are difficult indeed:—we cannot even comprehend the possibility of their conciliation;—nevertheless, the apparent impossibility is brilliantly suggestive.

That the repulsive something actually exists, _we see_. Man neither employs, nor knows, a force sufficient to bring two atoms into contact. This is but the well-established proposition of the impenetrability of matter. All Experiment proves—all Philosophy admits it. The _design_ of the repulsion—the necessity for its existence—I have endeavored to show; but from all attempt at investigating its nature have religiously abstained; this on account of an intuitive conviction that the principle at issue is strictly spiritual—lies in a recess impervious to our present understanding—lies involved in a consideration of what now—in our human state—is _not_ to be considered—in a consideration of _Spirit in itself_. I feel, in a word, that here the God has interposed, and here only, because here and here only the knot demanded the interposition of the God.

In fact, while the tendency of the diffused atoms to return into Unity, will be recognized, at once, as the principle of the Newtonian Gravity, what I have spoken of as a repulsive influence prescribing limits to the (immediate) satisfaction of the tendency, will be understood as _that_ which we have been in the practice of designating now as heat, now as magnetism, now as _electricity_; displaying our ignorance of its awful character in the vacillation of the phraseology with which we endeavor to circumscribe it.

Calling it, merely for the moment, electricity, we know that all experimental analysis of electricity has given, as an ultimate result, the principle, or seeming principle, _heterogeneity_. _Only_ where things differ is electricity apparent; and it is presumable that they _never_ differ where it is not developed at least, if not apparent. Now, this result is in the fullest keeping with that which I have reached unempirically. The design of the repulsive influence I have maintained to be that of preventing immediate Unity among the diffused atoms; and these atoms are represented as different each from each. _Difference_ is their character—their essentiality—just as _no-difference_ was the essentiality of their source. When we say, then, that an attempt to bring any two of these atoms together would induce an effort, on the part of the repulsive influence, to prevent the contact, we may as well use the strictly convertible sentence that an attempt to bring together any two differences will result in a development of electricity. All existing bodies, of course, are composed of these atoms in proximate contact, and are therefore to be considered as mere assemblages of more or fewer differences; and the resistance made by the repulsive spirit, on bringing together any two such assemblages, would be in the ratio of the two sums of the differences in each:—an expression which, when reduced, is equivalent to this:—_The amount of electricity developed on the approximation of two bodies, is proportional to the difference between the respective sums of the atoms of which the bodies are composed._ That _no_ two bodies are absolutely alike, is a simple corollary from all that has been here said. Electricity, therefore, existing always, is _developed_ whenever _any_ bodies, but _manifested_ only when bodies of appreciable difference, are brought into approximation.

To electricity—so, for the present, continuing to call it—we _may_ not be wrong in referring the various physical appearances of light, heat and magnetism; but far less shall we be liable to err in attributing to this strictly spiritual principle the more important phænomena of vitality, consciousness and _Thought_. On this topic, however, I need pause _here_ merely to suggest that these phænomena, whether observed generally or in detail, seem to proceed _at least in the ratio of the heterogeneous_.

Discarding now the two equivocal terms, “gravitation” and “electricity,” let us adopt the more definite expressions, “_attraction_” and “_repulsion_.” The former is the body; the latter the soul: the one is the material; the other the spiritual, principle of the Universe. _No other principles exist._ _All_ phænomena are referable to one, or to the other, or to both combined. So rigorously is this the case—so thoroughly demonstrable is it that attraction and repulsion are the _sole_ properties through which we perceive the Universe—in other words, by which Matter is manifested to Mind—that, for all merely argumentative purposes, we are fully justified in assuming that matter _exists_ only as attraction and repulsion—that attraction and repulsion _are_ matter:—there being no conceivable case in which we may not employ the term “matter” and the terms “attraction” and “repulsion,” taken together, as equivalent, and therefore convertible, expressions in Logic.

I said, just now, that what I have described as the tendency of the diffused atoms to return into their original unity, would be understood as the principle of the Newtonian law of gravity: and, in fact, there can be little difficulty in such an understanding, if we look at the Newtonian gravity in a merely general view, as a force impelling matter to seek matter; that is to say, when we pay no attention to the known _modus operandi_ of the Newtonian force. The general coincidence satisfies us; but, upon looking closely, we see, in detail, much that appears _in_coincident, and much in regard to which no coincidence, at least, is established. For example; the Newtonian gravity, when we think of it in certain moods, does _not_ seem to be a tendency to _oneness_ at all, but rather a tendency of all bodies in all directions—a phrase apparently expressive of a tendency to diffusion. Here, then, is an _in_coincidence. Again; when we reflect on the mathematical _law_ governing the Newtonian tendency, we see clearly that no coincidence has been made good, in respect of the _modus operandi_, at least, between gravitation as known to exist and that seemingly simple and direct tendency which I have assumed.

In fact, I have attained a point at which it will be advisable to strengthen my position by reversing my processes. So far, we have gone on _à priori_, from an abstract consideration of _Simplicity_, as that quality most likely to have characterized the original action of God. Let us now see whether the established facts of the Newtonian Gravitation may not afford us, _à posteriori_, some legitimate inductions.

What does the Newtonian law declare?—That all bodies attract each other with forces proportional to their quantities of matter and inversely proportional to the squares of their distances. Purposely, I have here given, in the first place, the vulgar version of the law; and I confess that in this, as in most other vulgar versions of great truths, we find little of a suggestive character. Let us now adopt a more philosophical phraseology:—_Every atom, of every body, attracts every other atom, both of its own and of every other body, with a force which varies inversely as the squares of the distances between the attracting and attracted atom._—Here, indeed, a flood of suggestion bursts upon the mind.

But let us see distinctly what it was that Newton _proved_—according to the grossly irrational definitions of _proof_ prescribed by the metaphysical schools. He was forced to content himself with showing how thoroughly the motions of an imaginary Universe, composed of attracting and attracted atoms obedient to the law he announced, coincide with those of the actually existing Universe so far as it comes under our observation. This was the amount of his _demonstration_—that is to say, this was the amount of it, according to the conventional cant of the “philosophies.” His successes added proof multiplied by proof—such proof as a sound intellect admits—but the _demonstration_ of the law itself, persist the metaphysicians, had not been strengthened in any degree. “_Ocular_, _physical_ proof,” however, of attraction, here upon Earth, in accordance with the Newtonian theory, was, at length, much to the satisfaction of some intellectual grovellers, afforded. This proof arose collaterally and incidentally (as nearly all important truths have arisen) out of an attempt to ascertain the mean density of the Earth. In the famous Maskelyne, Cavendish and Bailly experiments for this purpose, the attraction of the mass of a mountain was seen, felt, measured, and found to be mathematically consistent with the immortal theory of the British astronomer.

But in spite of this confirmation of that which needed none—in spite of the so-called corroboration of the “theory” by the so-called “ocular and physical proof”—in spite of the _character_ of this corroboration—the ideas which even really philosophical men cannot help imbibing of gravity—and, especially, the ideas of it which ordinary men get and contentedly maintain, are _seen_ to have been derived, for the most part, from a consideration of the principle as they find it developed—_merely in the planet upon which they stand_.

Now, to what does so partial a consideration tend—to what species of error does it give rise? On the Earth we _see_ and _feel_, only that gravity impels all bodies towards the _centre_ of the Earth. No man in the common walks of life could be _made_ to see or to feel anything else—could be made to perceive that anything, anywhere, has a perpetual, gravitating tendency in any _other_ direction than to the centre of the Earth; yet (with an exception hereafter to be specified) it is a fact that every earthly thing (not to speak now of every heavenly thing) has a tendency not _only_ to the Earth’s centre but in every conceivable direction besides.

Now, although the philosophic cannot be said to _err with_ the vulgar in this matter, they nevertheless permit themselves to be influenced, without knowing it, by the _sentiment_ of the vulgar idea. “Although the Pagan fables are not believed,” says Bryant, in his very erudite “Mythology,” “yet we forget ourselves continually and make inferences from them as from existing realities.” I mean to assert that the merely _sensitive perception_ of gravity as we experience it on Earth, beguiles mankind into the fancy of _concentralization_ or _especiality_ respecting it—has been continually biasing towards this fancy even the mightiest intellects—perpetually, although imperceptibly, leading them away from the real characteristics of the principle; thus preventing them, up to this date, from ever getting a glimpse of that vital truth which lies in a diametrically opposite direction—behind the principle’s _essential_ characteristics—those, _not_ of concentralization or especiality—but of _universality_ and _diffusion_. This “vital truth” is _Unity_ as the _source_ of the phænomenon.

Let me now repeat the definition of gravity:—_Every atom, of every body, attracts every other atom, both of its own and of every other body_, with a force which varies inversely as the squares of the distances of the attracting and attracted atom.

Here let the reader pause with me, for a moment, in contemplation of the miraculous—of the ineffable—of the altogether unimaginable complexity of relation involved in the fact that _each atom attracts every other atom_—involved merely in this fact of the attraction, without reference to the law or mode in which the attraction is manifested—involved _merely_ in the fact that each atom attracts every other atom _at all_, in a wilderness of atoms so numerous that those which go to the composition of a cannon-ball, exceed, probably, in mere point of number, all the stars which go to the constitution of the Universe.

Had we discovered, simply, that each atom tended to some one favorite point—to some especially attractive atom—we should still have fallen upon a discovery which, in itself, would have sufficed to overwhelm the mind:—but what is it that we are actually called upon to comprehend? That each atom attracts—sympathizes with the most delicate movements of every other atom, and with each and with all at the same time, and forever, and according to a determinate law of which the complexity, even considered by itself solely, is utterly beyond the grasp of the imagination of man. If I propose to ascertain the influence of one mote in a sunbeam upon its neighboring mote, I cannot accomplish my purpose without first counting and weighing all the atoms in the Universe and defining the precise positions of all at one particular moment. If I venture to displace, by even the billionth part of an inch, the microscopical speck of dust which lies now upon the point of my finger, what is the character of that act upon which I have adventured? I have done a deed which shakes the Moon in her path, which causes the Sun to be no longer the Sun, and which alters forever the destiny of the multitudinous myriads of stars that roll and glow in the majestic presence of their Creator.

_These_ ideas—conceptions such as _these_—unthoughtlike thoughts—soul-reveries rather than conclusions or even considerations of the intellect:—ideas, I repeat, such as these, are such as we can alone hope profitably to entertain in any effort at grasping the great principle, _Attraction_.

But now,—_with_ such ideas—with such a _vision_ of the marvellous complexity of Attraction fairly in his mind—let any person competent of thought on such topics as these, set himself to the task of imagining a _principle_ for the phænomena observed—a condition from which they sprang.

Does not so evident a brotherhood among the atoms point to a common parentage? Does not a sympathy so omniprevalent, so ineradicable, and so thoroughly irrespective, suggest a common paternity as its source? Does not one extreme impel the reason to the other? Does not the infinitude of division refer to the utterness of individuality? Does not the entireness of the complex hint at the perfection of the simple? It is _not_ that the atoms, as we see them, are divided or that they are complex in their relations—but that they are inconceivably divided and unutterably complex:—it is the extremeness of the conditions to which I now allude, rather than to the conditions themselves. In a word, is it not because the atoms were, at some remote epoch of time, even _more than together_—is it not because originally, and therefore normally, they were _One_—that now, in all circumstances—at all points—in all directions—by all modes of approach—in all relations and through all conditions—they struggle _back_ to this absolutely, this irrelatively, this unconditionally _one_?

Some person may here demand:—“Why—since it is to the _One_ that the atoms struggle back—do we not find and define Attraction ‘a merely general tendency to a centre?’—why, in especial, do not _your_ atoms—the atoms which you describe as having been irradiated from a centre—proceed at once, rectilinearly, back to the central point of their origin?”

I reply that _they do_; as will be distinctly shown; but that the cause of their so doing is quite irrespective of the centre _as such_. They all tend rectilinearly towards a centre, because of the sphereicity with which they have been irradiated into space. Each atom, forming one of a generally uniform globe of atoms, finds more atoms in the direction of the centre, of course, than in any other, and in that direction, therefore, is impelled—but is _not_ thus impelled because the centre is _the point of its origin_. It is not to any _point_ that the atoms are allied. It is not any _locality_, either in the concrete or in the abstract, to which I suppose them bound. Nothing like _location_ was conceived as their origin. Their source lies in the principle, _Unity_. _This_ is their lost parent. _This_ they seek always—immediately—in all directions—wherever it is even partially to be found; thus appeasing, in some measure, the ineradicable tendency, while on the way to its absolute satisfaction in the end. It follows from all this, that any principle which shall be adequate to account for the _law_, or _modus operandi_, of the attractive force in general, will account for this law in particular:—that is to say, any principle which will show why the atoms should tend to their _general centre of irradiation_ with forces inversely proportional to the squares of the distances, will be admitted as satisfactorily accounting, at the same time, for the tendency, according to the same law, of these atoms each to each:—_for_ the tendency to the centre _is_ merely the tendency each to each, and not any tendency to a centre as such.—Thus it will be seen, also, that the establishment of my propositions would involve no _necessity_ of modification in the terms of the Newtonian definition of Gravity, which declares that each atom attracts each other atom and so forth, and declares this merely; but (always under the supposition that what I propose be, in the end, admitted) it seems clear that some error might occasionally be avoided, in the future processes of Science, were a more ample phraseology adopted:—for instance:—“Each atom tends to every other atom &c. with a force &c.: _the general result being a tendency of all, with a similar force, to a general centre_.”

The reversal of our processes has thus brought us to an identical result; but, while in the one process _intuition_ was the starting-point, in the other it was the goal. In commencing the former journey I could only say that, with an irresistible intuition, I _felt_ Simplicity to have been the characteristic of the original action of God:—in ending the latter I can only declare that, with an irresistible intuition, I perceive Unity to have been the source of the observed phænomena of the Newtonian gravitation. Thus, according to the schools, I _prove_ nothing. So be it:—I design but to suggest—and to _convince_ through the suggestion. I am proudly aware that there exist many of the most profound and cautiously discriminative human intellects which cannot _help_ being abundantly content with my—suggestions. To these intellects—as to my own—there is no mathematical demonstration which _could_ bring the least additional _true proof_ of the great _Truth_ which I have advanced—_the truth of Original Unity as the source—as the principle of the Universal Phænomena_. For my part, I am not so sure that I speak and see—I am not so sure that my heart beats and that my soul lives:—of the rising of to-morrow’s sun—a probability that as yet lies in the Future—I do not pretend to be one thousandth part as sure—as I am of the irretrievably by-gone _Fact_ that All Things and All Thoughts of Things, with all their ineffable Multiplicity of Relation, sprang at once into being from the primordial and irrelative _One_.

Referring to the Newtonian Gravity, Dr. Nichol, the eloquent author of “The Architecture of the Heavens,” says:—“In truth we have no reason to suppose this great Law, as now revealed, to be the ultimate or simplest, and therefore the universal and all-comprehensive, form of a great Ordinance. The mode in which its intensity diminishes with the element of distance, has not the aspect of an ultimate _principle_; which always assumes the simplicity and self-evidence of those axioms which constitute the basis of Geometry.”

Now, it is quite true that “ultimate principles,” in the common understanding of the words, always assume the simplicity of geometrical axioms—(as for “self-evidence,” there is no such thing)—but these principles are clearly _not_ “ultimate;” in other terms what we are in the habit of calling principles are no principles, properly speaking—since there can be but one _principle_, the Volition of God. We have no right to assume, then, from what we observe in rules that we choose foolishly to name “principles,” anything at all in respect to the characteristics of a principle proper. The “ultimate principles” of which Dr. Nichol speaks as having geometrical simplicity, may and do have this geometrical turn, as being part and parcel of a vast geometrical system, and thus a system of simplicity itself—in which, nevertheless, the _truly_ ultimate principle is, _as we know_, the consummation of the complex—that is to say, of the unintelligible—for is it not the Spiritual Capacity of God?