What Is the Foundation of Moral Obligation?

My position as to this all-important question, in my New York speech, was made subject of remark in the "Presbyterian Herald," Louisville, Kentucky, to which I replied at length in the "Presbyterian Witness," Knoxville, Tennessee. No rejoinder was ever made to that reply. But, recently, an extract from the younger Edwards was submitted to me. To that I gave the following letter. The subject is of the first and the last importance, and bears directly, as set forth in my New York speech, on infidelity, and, of course, the slavery question:--

Mr. Editor:--In your paper of Tuesday, 24th ult., there is an article, under this head, giving the argument of Edwards (the son) against my views as to the foundation of moral obligation.

I thank the writer for his argument, and his courteous manner of presenting it. In my third letter to Mr. Barnes, I express my preparation to meet "all comers" on this question; and I am pleased to see this "comer". If my views cannot be refuted by Edwards, I may wait long for an "uglier customer."

A word, introductory, to your correspondent. He says, "His [Dr. Ross's] theory was advanced and argued against in a former age." By this, I understand him to express his belief that my theory has been rejected heretofore. Well. It may, nevertheless, be the true theory. The Copernican astronomy was argued against in a former age and rejected; yet it has prevailed. Newton's law of gravitation was argued against and rejected by a whole generation of philosophers on the continent of Europe; yet it has prevailed. And now all school-boys and girls would call anybody a fool who should deny it. Steam, in all its applications, was argued against and rejected; yet it has prevailed. So the electric telegraph; and, to go back a little, the theory of vaccination,--the circulation of the blood,--a thousand things; yea, Edwards's (the father) theory of virtue, although received by many, has been argued against, and by many rejected; yet it will prevail. Yea, his idea of the unity of the race in Adam was and is argued against and rejected; yet it will prevail. I feel, therefore, no fear that my theory of moral obligation will not be acknowledged because it was argued against and rejected by many in a former age, and may be now. Nay; facts to prove it are accumulating,--facts which were not developed in Edwards's day,--facts showing, irresistibly, that Edwards's theory, which is that most usually now held, is what I say it is,--the rejection of revelation, infidelity, and atheism. The evidence amounts to demonstration.

The question is in a nutshell; it is this:--Shall man submit to the revealed will of God, or to his own will? That is the naked question when the fog of confused ideas and unmeaning words is lifted and dispersed.

My position, expressed in the speech delivered in the General Assembly, New York, May, 1856, is this:--"God, in making all things, saw that, in the relations he would constitute between himself and intelligent creatures, and among themselves, NATURAL GOOD AND EVIL would come to pass. In his benevolent wisdom, he then willed LAW to control this good and evil; and he thereby made conformity to that law to be right, and non-conformity to be wrong. Why? Simply because he saw it to be good, and made it to be RIGHT; not because he saw it to be right, but because he made it to be right."

Your correspondent replies to this theory in the following words of Edwards:--"Some hold that the foundation of moral obligation is primarily in the will of God. But the will of God is either benevolent or not. If it be benevolent, and on that account the foundation of moral obligation, it is not the source of obligation merely because it is the will of God, but because it is benevolent, and is of a tendency to promote happiness; and this places the foundation of obligation in a tendency to happiness, and not primarily in the will of God. But if the will of God, and that which is the expression of it, the divine law, be allowed to be not benevolent, and are foundation of obligation, we are obliged to conform to them, whatever they be, however malevolent and opposite to holiness and goodness the requirements be. But this, I presume, none will pretend." Very fairly and strongly put; that's to say, if I understand Edwards, he supposes, if God was the devil and man what he is, then man would not be under obligation to obey the devil's will! That's it! Well, I suppose so too; and I reckon most Christians would agree to that statement, Nay, more: I presume nobody ever taught that the mere naked will, abstractly considered, if it could be, from the character of God, was the ground of moral obligation? Nay, I think nobody ever imagined that the notion of an infinite Creator presupposes or includes the idea that he is a malevolent Being! I agree, then, with Edwards, that the ultimate ground of obligation is in the fact that God is benevolent, or is a good God. I said that in my speech quoted above. I formally stated that "God, in his benevolent wisdom, willed law to control the natural good and evil," &c. What, then, is the point of disagreement between my view and Edwards's? It is in the different ways by which we GET AT the FACT of divine benevolence. I hold that the REVEALED WORD tells us who God is and what he does, and is, therefore, the ULTIMATE GROUND OF OBLIGATION. But Edwards holds that HUMAN REASON must tell us who God is and what he does, and IS, therefore, the PRIMARY GROUND OF OBEDIENCE. That is my issue with Edwards and others; and it is as broad an issue as faith in revelation, or the REJECTION OF IT. I do not charge that Edwards did, or that all who hold with him do, deny the word of God; but I do affirm that their argument does. The matter is plain. For what is revelation? It is that God has appeared in person, and told man in WORD that he is GOD; and told him first in WORD (to be expanded in studying creation and providence) that God is a Spirit, eternal, infinite in power, wisdom, goodness, holiness,--the Creator, Preserver, Benefactor. That WORD, moreover, he proved by highest evidence--namely, supernatural evidence--to be absolute, perfect TRUTH as to all FACT affirmed of him and what he does. REVELATION, as claimed in the Bible, was and is THAT THING.

Man, then, having this revelation; is under obligation ever to believe every jot and tittle of that WORD. He at first, no doubt, knew little of the meaning of some facts declared; nay, he may have comprehended nothing of the sense or scope of many facts affirmed. Nay, he may now, after thousands of years, know most imperfectly the meaning of that WORD. But he was and he is, notwithstanding, to believe with absolute faith the WORD,--that God is all he says he is, and does all he says he does,--however that WORD may go beyond his reason, or surprise his feelings, or alarm his conscience, or command his will.

This statement of what revelation is, settles the whole question as presented by Edwards. For REVELATION, as explained, does FIX forever the foundation of man's moral obligation in the benevolence of God, PRIMARILY, as it is expressed in the word of God. REVELATION does then, in that sense, FIX obligation in the MERE WILL OF GOD; for, the moment you attempt to establish the foundation somewhere else, you have abandoned the ground of revelation. You have left the WILL OF GOD in his word, and you have made your rule of right to be the WILL OF MAN in the SELF of the HEART. The proof of what I here say is so plain, even as the writing on the tables of Habakkuk's vision, that he may run that readeth it. Read, then, even as on the tables.

God says in his WORD, "I am all-powerful, all-wise, the Creator." "You may be," says Edwards, "but I want primary foundation for my faith; and I can't take your word for it. I must look first into nature to see if evidence of infinite power and wisdom is there,--to see if evidence of a Creator is there,--and if thou art he!"

Again, God says in his word, "I am benevolent, and my will in my law is expression of that benevolence." "You may tell the truth," Edwards replies, "but I want primary ground for my belief, and I must hold your word suspended until I examine into my reason, my feelings, my conscience, my will,--to see if your WORD harmonizes with my HEART,--to see if what you reveal tends to happiness IN MY NOTION OF HAPPINESS; or tends to right IN MY NOTION OF RIGHT!" That's it. That's the theory of Edwards, Barnes, and others.

And what is this but the attempt to know the divine attributes and character in some other way than through the divine WORD? And what is this but the denial of the divine WORD, except so far as it agrees with the knowledge of the attributes and character of God, obtained in THAT some other way? And what is this but to make the word of God subordinate to the teaching of the HUMAN HEART? And what is this but to make the WILL of God give place to the WILL of man? And what is this but the REJECTION OF REVELATION? Yet this is the result (though not intended by him) of the whole scheme of obligation, maintained by Edwards and by all who agree with him.

Carry it out, and what is the progress and the end of it? This. Human reason--the human heart--will be supreme. Some, I grant, will hold to a revelation of some sort. A thing more and more transcendental,--a thing more and more of fog and moonshine,--fog floating in German cellars from fumes of lager-beer, and moonshine gleaming from the imaginations of the drinkers. Some, like Socrates and Plato, will have a God supreme, personal, glorious, somewhat like the true; and with him many inferior deities,--animating the stars, the earth, mountains, valleys, plains, the sea, rivers, fountains, the air, trees, flowers, and all living things. Some will deny a personal God, and conceive, instead, the intelligent mind of the universe, without love. Some will contend for mere law,--of gravitation and attraction; and some will suggest that all is the result of a fortuitous concourse of atoms! Here, having passed through the shadows and the darkness, we have reached the blackness of infidelity,--blank atheism. No God--yea, all the way the "fools" were saying in their hearts, no God. What now is man? Alas! some, the Notts and Gliddons, tell us, man was indeed created millions of ages ago, the Lord only knows when, in swarms like bees to suit the zones of the earth,--while other some, the believers in the vestiges of creation, say man is the result of development,--from fire, dust, granite, grass, the creeping thing, bird, fish, four-footed beast, monkey. Yea, and some of these last philosophers are even now going to Africa to try to find men they have heard tell of, who still have tails and are jumping and climbing somewhere in the regions around the undiscovered sources of the Nile.

This is the progress and the result of the Edwards theory; because, deny or hesitate about revelation, and man cannot prove, absolutely, any of the things we are considering. Let us see if he can. Edwards writes, "On the supposition that the will or law of God is the primary foundation, reason, and standard of right and virtue, every attempt to prove the moral perfection or attributes of God is absurd." Here, then, Edwards believes, that, to reach the primary foundation of right and virtue, he must not take God's word as to his perfection or attributes, no matter how fully God may have proved his word: no; but he, Edwards, he, man, must first prove them in some other way. And, of course, he believes he can reach such primary foundation by such other proof. Well, let us see how he goes about it. I give him, to try his hand, the easiest attribute,--"POWER." I give him, then, all creation, and providence besides, as his black-board, on which to work his demonstration. I give him, then, the lifetime of Methuselah, in which to reach his conclusion of proof.--Well, I will now suppose we have all lived and waited that long time: what is his proof OF INFINITE POWER? Has he found the EXHIBITION of infinite power? No. He has found proof of GREAT POWER; but he has not reached the DISPLAY of infinite power. What then is his faith in infinite power after such proof? Why, just this: he INFERS only, that THE POWER, which did the things he sees, can go on, and on, and on, to give greater, and greater, and greater manifestations of itself! VERY GOOD: if so be, we can have no better proof. But that PROOF is infinitely below ABSOLUTE PROOF of infinite power. And all manifestations of power to a finite creature, even to the archangel Michael, during countless millions of ages, never gives, because it never can give to him, ABSOLUTE PROOF of infinite power. But the word of GOD gives the PROOF ABSOLUTE, and in a moment of time! "I AM THE ALMIGHTY!" The perfect proof is in THAT WORD OF GOD. I might set Edwards to work to prove the infinite wisdom, the infinite benevolence, the infinite holiness--yea, the EXISTENCE--of God. And he, finite man, in any examination of creation or providence, must fall infinitely below the PERFECT PROOF.

So then I tell Edwards, and all agreeing with him, that it is absurd to attempt to prove the moral perfection and attributes of God, if he thereby seeks to reach the HIGHEST EVIDENCE, or if he thereby means to find the PRIMARY GROUND of moral obligation.

Do I then teach that man should not seek the proof there is, of the perfection and attributes of God, in nature and providence? No. I hold that such proof unfolds the meaning of the FACTS declared in the WORD of God, and is all-important, as such expansion of meaning. But I say, by authority of the Master, that the highest proof, the absolute proof, the perfect proof, of the FACTS as to who God is, and what he does, and the PRIMARY OBLIGATION thereupon, is in the REVEALED WORD.

FRED. A. ROSS.

Huntsville, Ala., April 3, 1857.

N.B.--In notice of last Witness's extract from Erskine, I remark that Thomas Erskine was, and may yet be, a lawyer of Edinburgh. He wrote three works:--one on the Internal Evidences, the next on Faith, the last on the Freeness of the Gospel. They are all written with great ability, and contain much truth. But all have in them fundamental untruths. There is least in the Evidences; more in the essay on Faith; most in the tract on the Freeness of the Gospel,--which last has been utterly refuted, and has passed away. His Faith is, also, not republished. The Evidences is good, like good men, notwithstanding the evil.