LUN
un azen peut-être plus pur, plus saint que toute autre contrée. Ville-Marie, surtout, peut lever la tête avec une juste fierté.
“ C'est sans doute, disait dernièrement l'éminent curé de Notre-Dame, grâce à la protection de Marie et à leur foi si vive, que les Canadiens ont surmonté les épreuves et les périls. If faut donc conserver toujours notre piété et notre foi pour être dignes de notre destinée.” Pour cela rien de plus utile que de stimuler notre ardeur au spectacle des hautes vertus de nos pères. [l faut le dire, les dévouements, l'héroïsme de lillustre fondateur de notre cité ne sont pas suffisamment connus. Depuis trop longtemps le touriste descend sur nos rives sans avoir l'heureuse occasion de saluer, sur une de nos plus belles places publiques, la noble figure de Paul de Chomédy, sieur de Maisonneuve. Espérons
que pareil désappointement touche à son
DE MONSABRÉ 7l
terme. En tout cas, nous devons féliciter le séminaire de Saint Sulpice qui a si généreusement assisté notre jeunesse et favorisé les progrès de notre beau Canada, d'avoir érigé, au pays de l'histoire, un monument impérissable non moins digne d'un fils de Jean-Jacques Olier que du premier gouverneur de Ville-Marie. Echangeant sa belle patrie de France contre les forêts et les arpents de neige de l'île que nous habitons, notre héros s'était d'abord arrêté à Québec. M. de Montmagny animé sans doute d'excellentes intentions, cherche à Île dissuader de remonter plus haut le Saint- Laurent. Une assemblée est convoquée, et M. de Maisonneuve de se lever et de s'écrier :—* Je ne suis pas venu pour délibérer, mais bien pour exécuter. Tous les arbres de l'île de Montréal seraient-ils chanvés en autant d'Iroquois, il n'en est pas
moins de mon devoir et de mon honneur
Q Mk F
d'aller y établir une colonie.” Messieurs, dites et faites de même. Nous n'avons pas à délibérer, c'est-à-dire à mettre en question les principes de notre foi, il faut exécuter, mettre en pratique la foi de notre sainte Eglise, Ja foi de nos aïeux, la foi de nos mères si chrétiennes.
Entendez-vous cet acquiescement complet et généreux de la patrie ? Cet amen est tellement identifié au sol, à la famille, à la nation qu'il faut bien reconnaître que le grain de sénevé a été jeté dans cette terre canadienne par le divin père de famille. Il a poussé, 1] a grandi : et l'arbre gigantesque et majestueux qu'il forme vous abrite et vous protège.
Puissiez-vous, Messieurs du cercle Ville- Marie, toujours comprendre la noblesse de votre mission qui est d'aider les plus saintes énergies |! Recevez, au nom de cet audi-
toire distingué, les vœux que nous formons
tous pour l’'heureux développement de votre belle institution dont les succès vont tou.
Jours grandissants : c’est l'amen national.
Montréal, Cercle Ville-Marie, 3 février 18917,
The result of the cosmo-theistic method is of very great importance, and it enables us to posit intelligence of the first cause. This is important in itself, but it has also its value in relation to the arguments from oder and from æsien, As the ætio-theistic method justified the postulate of a first cause of the totality of the phenomena of the universe, so the cosmo-theistic method enables us to assert that this cause must have certain features in order to meet the demands of our rational nature as expressed by the principle of sufficient reason,
CHAPTFTER. IV.
THE EUTAXIO-THEISTIC METHOD,
This method rests on the principle of order, and is capable of extensive illustration from the phenomena of the universe, Opinions differ in regard to its precise scope and import, Some writers look upon it as the typical form of the cosmological proof of the existence of God. Others include under it some of the main factors of teleology. McCosh is an example of the former, and Flint of the latter mode of viewing the eutaxio-theistic argument, It may conduce to clearness of exposition, if we keep the various lines of theistic proof distinctly apart till we see the precise import of each, In order to this end it must be observed that the ætio-theistic method rests directly on the principle of causality, the cosmotheistic on the principle of sufficient reason, the eutaxio-theistic on the principle of order, and the teleo-theistic on the principle of end, adaptation or design.
The method before us in this chapter rests its inference directly on the order which admittedly prevails everywhere in the universe, This order is extensive and all-pervading. H. B. Smith and Flint include under its far-reaching sweep the facts of order found in the world of nature, of mind, and of morals. Many other writers confine the inference of this method to the physical or natural world, While we may admit that the facts of the moral sphere are marked
THE EUTAXIO-THEISTIC METHOD, 79
by features of order, yet is perhaps better to deal with these facts by themselves under the ethico-theistic method, inasmuch as there are elements connected with them which do not pertain to physical nature,
In marking out the scope of this method, a distinction noticed by many writers on this topic needs to be observed. This distinction is between what has been called general, and what is known as special order. General order refers to the sequences and uniformities observable throughout the whole realm of nature, Special order relates to particular cases where things seem to be adapted for each other, Though this distinction was hinted at by the older natural theologians, yet McCosh was really the first in modern times who clearly pointed it out. In his work entitled “The Typical Forms and Special Ends in Creation,” he distinguishes very distinctly between what is general and what is special in the order of the universe. The “typical form” is general order, and the “special end” is special order. The mathematical relations in a crystal, and the general motions of the heavenly bodies are examples of general order. The adaptation of the eye to the purpose of vision, and the relation of the lungs in animals to the atmosphere are cases of specia! order. Flint lays but little stress on this distinction, and scarcely does more than recogni:e that there is ground forit, It would, perhaps, have been bette: if Flint had followed McCosh more closely on this point. Flint’s discussion is certainly more confused than it would have been had he paid more attention to the difference betwcen the facts of general and of special order. Moreover, he loses much argumentative power in presenting the proof in the form he does. Diman not only marks out this distinction very fairly, but he also carries it with him in his exposition. Hicks also emphasises the difference between general and special order, though his decidedly polemical attitude towards the ordinary teleological proofs renders his discussion less useful than Diman’s. It need only bc added that we regard this distinc-
tlon to be a real and important one, General order is the proper field of the eutaxio-theistic method ; special order belongs to the teleo-theistic proof, and will come before us in next chapter. At present, therefore, we have to deal with the facts of order in the universe in general,
In setting forth the scope of this method further, another important question arises. This question has reference to the relation of the principle of causality to the inference of the eutaxiotheistic method. In regard to this question there is much diversity of opinion. Does the validity of the inference of this method depend on the principle of causality? Is its conclusion sound apart from any partic: r theory of causation? It was hinted in the discussion of the ætio-theistic method that the principle of causality, on which the inference of that method is founded, was also indirectly related to all the other methods of theistic proof. This point now requires further explanation. Hume and Reid, who differ on almost every other question in philosophy, agree in resting the argument from order on the principle of causation. Though they do not agree as to the nature of the causal relation in general, yet they regard the argument from order as merely a form of the causal proof. McCosh and many other writers on natural theology hold the same opinion. This is also substantially Flint’s position, though it is to be observed that he uses the word cause in a very wide sense. Kant’'s criticism of the cosmological argument assumes that the validity of the inference from the facts of order involves the principle of causality. It is of no small moment, there-
fore, to secure a well balanced position on this question, for it may be that holding such a position will enable us to turn the edge of Kant’s destructive criticism.
To clear up the way here will be of service not only to the method under discussion, but also for the teleo-theistic method, It will enable us to understand the relation of the argument from order, and of the design argument as well, to the principle of caus-
THE EUTAXIO-THEISTIC METHOD, 81
lity. Isthe relation the same as inthe case of the causal argument proper? We are inclined to the view that it is different. Then how is the eutaxio-theistic proof related to causation? Using causation in the sense of efficient cause, it is only the ætio-theistic method that depends absolutely upon it for the validity of its inference. If there be no efficient cause, there can be no argument for a first cause, Neither the eutaxio-theistic nor the teleo-theistic proofs depend absolutely upon the principle of causality. The dependence is only indirect, and all that we require to maintain is merely the reality of invariable sequence, in order to vindicate the inference of the argument from order. Invariable sequence will not, however, serve for the basis of the ætio-theistic inference. In the case of the causal argument proper, it is the zafure of the connection between cause and effect, as involving efficiency, that is prominent. In regard to the argument from order, it is merely the invariableness of the connection that is needed to justify the inference, Hence, objections based on a denial of efficient causation do not necessarily invalidate the arguments from order, or from design, Thus the criticisms made by Kant, and by Mill, cannot be so effective as is supposed. We do not forget, however, that, having established the reality of efficient cause in the chapter on the causal argument, it will place the discussion of this chapter on even more secure ground to carry with us that idea of cause. We conclude, therefore, that the inference of the argument from order is only indirectly related to the principle of causality, and that the eutaxiotheistic method is valid if merely invariable sequence or general order is admitted.
In unfolding this method we cannot at any length outline the facts of order with which it deals. To give a mere sketch would be to survey all the sciences, and transcribe many a page from many a treatise on natural thcology, As we look at nature we observe, amid all her changes, that there is order, system, everywhere. Scientific research is only expanding the range of our
TU
vision in the field of order, We note a few typical instances of gencral order. The law of gravitation in relation to the regular movements of the heavenly bodies, all that is implied in Newton’s laws of motion, the facts connected with chemical affinity as these may be expressed in the terms of mathematics, the wonderful geometrical relations found in crystalline substances, the phenomena of light as illustrated in the colors of the rainbow, the mysteries of sound. as revealed in the oratorio, the regular return of day and night and the constant recurrence of the seasons, the orderly successions of plants after their kind and of animals according to their species, the various types which run all through both the animal and vegetable kingdoms, and the uniformities observable in the mental operations of man, are types of ten thousand times ten thousand instances of order which might be mentioned in setting forth this method of Theism. This wonderful order has been the theme of poet and philosopher, of naturalist and theologian in all ages ; and never before has the vision reached so far, or the observing eye peered so deeply into this remarkable realm as at the present day.
In making our survey of the field of order we may notice a twofold feature running through it. There are wxifies and there are laws in the phenomena of order. Each of these supplies a distinct form of this argument. The former may be termed the #ypo-theistic phase of the method under consideration, and the latter the #010theistic. À sentence or two will mark out the subject matter of each.
Typo-theism includes the facts involved in the general types under which many facts having certain resemblances may be unified. The facts brought out in the science of comparative anatomy, and those unities in the animal and vegetable world which rencer the classification of the various species possible, are examples of this phase of order. The question here is, whence came these unities? How are these types to be accounted for?
THE EUTAXIO-THEISTIC METHOD. 83
Nomo-theism will include all the phenomena of order denoted by the so-called laws of nature. We cannot enter into a full discussion as to what these natural laws, of which so many accounts have been given, really are. They are not to be regarded as having any measure of efficiency in themselves, nor as being entities of any kind. They are merely expressions of certain sequences or uniformities in nature. They do not constitute the facts of order, nor do they control them. They are simply convenient methods of describing what we actually observe in the universe. The laws of gravitation, of motion, of chemical combination, of crystalization, of the seasons, and so on, do not produce the facts with which they are severally concerned, but they simply describe certain features : in these facts. The problem here is, whence came these laws? How are we to account for these uniformities ?
The facts of order being admitted, the question next is: What. is the proper explanation of this order? How comesit to be and to continue? There are at least three alternatives here, The first is that of chance and fate. The second is based on a certain dynamical con:-ntion in reference to the constitution of matter which has beer ziven by modern science. The third alternative is that order implies intelligence, and that we are justified in inferring mind from the facts of order. s
The first of these alternatives need not be very seriously con- . sidered. As presented in either ancient or modern times it is at best but a very unlikely hypothesis. Whether we take the doctrine of the fortuitous concourse of atoms, or the theory of the necessary endless series as proposed explanations of order, we find the de-. mands of reason far from satisfied. It is worthy of remark that modern scientific research has completely exploded the doctrines : of Democritus, Epicurus and Lucretius, in regard to the way in which the universe, with all its facts of order, came into existence. In regard to chance and fate, it is to be carefully observed that they cannot really account for anything. They are not agents but
mere process, À process can neither cause nor explain itself. Chance and fate are at most merely words used to describe the particular modes in which certain events are supposed to occur. If we regard them as agents, then we are logically led on to posit intelligence. These hypotheses are supposed to have dispensed with intelligence, yet they really involve an agency which is nothing apart from intelligence. In the case of chance we have intelligence working in an arbitrary manner, in that of fate intelligence acts necessarily. We reject this alternative as absurd and contradictory.
The second alternative brings before us some difficult questions. These questions are concerned with certain modern dynamical theories in regard to the constitution and potency of matter. These theories are presented in various ways. Matter and force are assumed. The former in some state is held to be eternal, the latter amid all its modifications is persistent. Physicus and Spencer may be taken as typical advocates of this alternative. The reasoning on this point is so profound that it is not possible to set it forth clearly in the space at our command. A purely mechanical theory of the universe is not necessarily atheistic, but the dynamical theory may give us merely an anima mundi, or land us in a materialistic pantheism. In the mechanical theory, so long as mind is not reduced to matter, but allowed its own independent existence, the theistic inference from the facts of order is possible. The dynamical theory, while in many respects it is a grander conception of the universe, is at the same time exceedingly dangerous to the argument from order. If it be assumed that matter possesses or is endowed with the germs of all that appears in the universe, then life and mind, order and adaptation, are to be explained as the natural outcome of matter. When Physicus seeks to show that mind has its origin in matter he really destroys the theistic argument, for if the human mind be denied the reality of the divine mind cannot be defended, The materialistic monism of Spencer
THE EUTAXIO-THEISTIC METHOD. 85
virtually renders the proof of the divine existence impossible ; and it at the same time makes the existence of God useless. The question still recurs, however, in all forms of the dynamical theory of matter, whence came this force which is persistent and how did matter come to be, and to be crowned with the promise and potency of all things. Spencer excludes God by the very assumptions of his theory, and yet he is compelled to leave unexplained certe'n things of which human reason urgently demands a solution, other than that which agnosticism supplies. Admitting the truth of the dynamical theory as a well attested scientific hypothesis, we may still ask for an explanation of the orderly laws or sequences obscrvable in the facts of order, which this theory or hypothesis exhibits. This altcrnative is also rejected as defective.
We adopt the third alternative, and maintain that the proper inference from the facts of order in the universe is that there is intelligence or mind related to the world of order. We sce marks of order on every hand, and posit mind as the proper explanation of it. This is the kernel of the argument of this method. That order implies intelligence, we take to be a well grounded induction from the facts of order. The analogy with things under the control of man comes in to illustrate the inference, though the reasoning is not simply analogical in its nature. Having refuted the other two possible alternatives, it is only necessary to state the form of the eutaxio-theistic method in the bricfest way. It is as follows : Order implies intelligence or mind ; the universe possesses marks of order; therefore the universe implies intelligence or mind. We infer the reality of mind holding a certain relation to the universe from the phenomena of order manifest in the universe. We do not infer an infinite mind or intelligence, but only such an intelligence as the facts of order demand in order to satisfy human reason. We do not pretend to prove a personal God as the result of this method, but we simply assert the reality of mind as a proper inference from the facts which form the basis
86 THE METHODS Of THEISM.
of this inference. Those objections which condemn this method because it does not prove an infinite personal God have therefore no place, We cannot blame the method for not doing what it ncither promises nor undertakes. This method brings us to an important stage in the vindication of our belief in the existence of God, wherein we find ourselves justified in inferring intelligence as the explanation of the order observed in the universe. The value of this conclusion is very great at the present day, when such efforts are made to banish intelligence or mind from the universe, as we find made by some of the advocates of the positive philosophy. The facts of order are universally admitted, for no one thinks that the universe is a chaos. The question is whether the order can be accounted for without intelligence. If we can justify the postulate of intelligence, as this method enables us to do, then we can pass from the material to the spiritual, from the non-mental to mind. This is an important gain in favor of Theism.
