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.