Containing some arguments in proof of a Deity [4].
It will certainly be required, that notice should be taken of a book,
however small, written on such a subject, by such an author. Yet I know
not whether these letters will be very satisfactory; for they are
answers to inquiries not published; and, therefore, though they contain
many positions of great importance, are, in some parts, imperfect and
obscure, by their reference to Dr. Bentley's letters.
Sir Isaac declares, that what he has done is due to nothing but industry
and patient thought; and, indeed, long consideration is so necessary in
such abstruse inquiries, that it is always dangerous to publish the
productions of great men, which are not known to have been designed for
the press, and of which it is uncertain, whether much patience and
thought have been bestowed upon them. The principal question of these
letters gives occasion to observe, how even the mind of Newton gains
ground, gradually, upon darkness.
"As to your first query," says he, "it seems to me, that if the matter
of our sun and planets, and all the matter of the universe, were evenly
scattered, throughout all the heavens, and every particle had an innate
gravity towards all the rest, and the whole space, throughout which this
matter was scattered, was but finite, the matter on the outside of this
space would, by its gravity, tend towards all the matter on the inside,
and, by consequence, fall down into the middle of the whole space, and
there compose one great spherical mass. But if the matter was evenly
disposed throughout an infinite space, it could never convene into one
mass, but some of it would convene into one mass, and some into another,
so as to make an infinite number of great masses, scattered, at great
distances, from one to another, throughout all that infinite space. And
thus might the sun and fixed stars be formed, supposing the matter were
of a lucid nature. But how the matter should divide itself into two
sorts, and that part of it, which is fit to compose a shining body,
should fall down into one mass, and make a sun, and the rest, which is
fit to compose an opaque body, should coalesce, not into one great body,
like the shining matter, but into many little ones; or, if the sun, at
first, were an opaque body, like the planets, or the planets lucid
bodies, like the sun, how he alone should be changed into a shining
body, whilst all they continue opaque, or all they be changed into
opaque ones, whilst he remains unchanged, I do not think more explicable
by mere natural causes, but am forced to ascribe it to the counsel and
contrivance of a voluntary agent."
The hypothesis of matter evenly disposed through infinite space, seems
to labour with such difficulties, as makes it almost a contradictory
supposition, or a supposition destructive of itself.
"Matter evenly disposed through infinite space," is either created or
eternal; if it was created, it infers a creator; if it was eternal, it
had been from eternity "evenly spread through infinite space;" or it had
been once coalesced in masses, and, afterwards, been diffused. Whatever
state was first must have been from eternity, and what had been from
eternity could not be changed, but by a cause beginning to act, as it
had never acted before, that is, by the voluntary act of some external
power. If matter, infinitely and evenly diffused, was a moment without
coalition, it could never coalesce at all by its own power. If matter
originally tended to coalesce, it could never be evenly diffused through
infinite space. Matter being supposed eternal, there never was a time,
when it could be diffused before its conglobation, or conglobated before
its diffusion.
This sir Isaac seems, by degrees, to have understood; for he says, in
his second letter: "The reason why matter, evenly scattered through a
finite space, would convene in the midst, you conceive the same with me;
but, that there should be a central particle, so accurately placed in
the middle, as to be always equally attracted on all sides, and,
thereby, continue without motion, seems to me a supposition fully as
hard as to make the sharpest needle stand upright upon its point on a
looking-glass. For, if the very mathematical centre of the central
particle be not accurately in the very mathematical centre of the
attractive power of the whole mass, the particle will not be attracted
equally on all sides. And much harder is it to suppose all the
particles, in an infinite space, should be so accurately poised, one
among another, as to stand still in a perfect equilibrium. For I reckon
this as hard as to make not one needle only, but an infinite number of
them, (so many as there are particles in an infinite space,) stand
accurately poised upon their points. Yet I grant it possible, at least,
by a divine power; and, if they were once to be placed, I agree with
you, that they would continue in that posture without motion, for ever,
unless put into new motion by the same power. When, therefore, I said,
that matter evenly spread through all space, would convene, by its
gravity, into one or more great masses, I understand it of matter not
resting in an accurate poise."
Let not it be thought irreverence to this great name, if I observe, that
by "matter evenly spread" through infinite space, he now finds it
necessary to mean "matter not evenly spread." Matter not evenly spread
will, indeed, convene, but it will convene as soon as it exists. And, in
my opinion, this puzzling question about matter, is only, how that could
be that never could have been, or what a man thinks on when he thinks on
nothing.
Turn matter on all sides, make it eternal, or of late production, finite
or infinite, there can be no regular system produced, but by a voluntary
and meaning agent. This the great Newton always asserted, and this he
asserts in the third letter; but proves, in another manner, in a manner,
perhaps, more happy and conclusive.
"The hypothesis of deriving the frame of the world, by mechanical
principles, from matter evenly spread through the heavens, being
inconsistent with my system, I had considered it very little, before
your letter put me upon it, and, therefore, trouble you with a line or
two more about it, if this comes not too late for your use.
"In my former, I represented, that the diurnal rotations of the planets
could not be derived from gravity, but required a divine arm to impress
them. And though gravity might give the planets a motion of descent
towards the sun, either directly, or with some little obliquity, yet the
transverse motions, by which they revolve in their several orbs,
required the divine arm to impress them, according to the tangents of
their orbs. I would now add, that the hypothesis of matter's being, at
first, evenly spread through the heavens, is, in my opinion,
inconsistent with the hypothesis of innate gravity, without a
supernatural power to reconcile them, and, therefore, it infers a deity.
For, if there be innate gravity, it is impossible now for the matter of
the earth, and all the planets and stars, to fly up from them, and
become evenly spread throughout all the heavens, without a supernatural
power; and, certainly, that which can never be hereafter, without a
supernatural power, could never be heretofore, without the same power."