Slavery Ordained of God Part 3

2. G.o.d put it into the hearts of Northern men--especially abolitionists--to give Texas to the South. Texas, a territory so vast that a bird, as Webster said, can't fly over it in a week. Many in the South did not want Texas. But many longer-headed ones did want it. And Northern men voted and gave to the South exactly what these longer-headed Southern statesmen wanted. This, I grant, was Northern anti-slavery fatuity, utterly unaccountable but that G.o.d made them do it.

3. G.o.d put it into the hearts of Northern men--especially abolitionists--to vote for Polk, Dallas, and Texas. This gave us the Mexican War; and that immense territory, its spoil,--a territory which, although it may not be favorable for slave-labor, has increased, and will, in many ways, extend the slave-power.

4. This leads me to say that G.o.d put it into the hearts of many Northern men--especially abolitionists--to believe what Great Britain said,--namely, that _free trade_ would result in slave-emanc.i.p.ation. _But lo! the slave-holder wanted free trade_. So Northern abolitionists helped to destroy the _tariff policy_, and thus to expand the demand for, and the culture of, cotton. Now, see, the gold of California has _perpetuated free trade_ by enabling our merchants to meet the enormous demand for specie created by free trade. So California helps the slave-power. But the abolitionists gave us Polk, the Mexican War, and California.

5. G.o.d put it into the hearts of the North, and especially abolitionists, to stimulate the settlement of new free States, and to be the ardent friends of an immense foreign emigration. The result has been to send down to the South, with railroad speed and certainty, corn, wheat, flour, meal, bacon, pork, beef, and every other imaginable form of food, in quant.i.ty amazing, and so cheap that the planter can spread wider and wider the culture of cotton.

6. G.o.d has, by this growth of the Northwest, made the demand for cotton enormous in the North and Northwest. Again, he has made English and French experiments to procure cotton somewhere else than from the United States _dead failures_,--in the East Indies, Egypt, Algeria, Brazil. G.o.d has thus given to the Southern planter an absolute monopoly. A monopoly so great that he, the Southern planter, sits now upon his throne of cotton and wields the commercial sceptre of the world. Yes, it is the Southern planter who says to-day to haughty England, Go to war, if you dare; dismiss Dallas, if you dare. Yes, he who sits on the throne of the cotton-bag has triumphed at last over him who sits on the throne of the wool-sack. England is prostrate at his feet, as well as the abolitionists.

7. G.o.d has put it into the hearts of abolitionists to prevent half a million of free negroes from going to Liberia; and thereby the abolitionists have made them consumers of slave-products to the extension of the slave-power. And, by thus keeping them in America, the abolitionists have so increased their degradation as to prove all the more the utter folly of emanc.i.p.ation in the United States.

8. G.o.d has permitted the anti-slavery men in the North, in England, in France, and everywhere, so to blind themselves in hypocrisy as to give the Southern slave-holder his last perfect triumph over them; for G.o.d tells the planter to say to the North, to England, to France, to all who buy cotton, "Ye men of Boston, New York, London, Paris,--ye hypocrites,--ye brand me as a pirate, a kidnapper, a murderer, a demon, fit only for h.e.l.l, and yet ye buy my blood-stained cotton. O ye hypocrites!--ye Boston hypocrites! why don't ye throw the cotton in the sea, as your fathers did the tea? Ye Boston hypocrites! ye say, _if we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the slave-trade!_ Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves that ye are the children of them who, in fact, kidnapped and bought in blood, and sold the slave in America! for now, ye hypocrites, ye buy the blood-stained cotton in quant.i.ty so immense, that _ye_ have run up the price of slaves to be more than a thousand dollars,--the average of old and young! O ye hypocrites! ye denounce slavery; then ye bid it live, and not die,--in that ye buy sugar, rice, tobacco, and, above all, cotton! Ye hypocrites!

ye abuse the devil, and then fall down and wors.h.i.+p him!--ye hypocrites,--ye New England hypocrites,--ye Old England hypocrites,--ye French hypocrites,--ye Uncle Tom's Cabin hypocrites,--ye Beecher hypocrites,--ye Rhode Island Consociation hypocrites! Oh, your holy twaddle stinks in the nostrils of G.o.d, and he commands me to lash you with my scorn, and his scorn, so long as ye gabble about the sin of slavery, and then bow down to me, and buy and spin cotton, and thus work for me as truly as my slaves! O ye fools and blind, fill ye up the measure of your folly, and blindness, and shame! And this ye are doing. Ye have, like the French infidels, made _reason_ your G.o.ddess, and are exalting her above the Bible; and, in your unitarianism and neology and all modes of infidelity, ye are rejecting and crucifying the Son of G.o.d."

Now, my brother, this controlling slave-power is a world-wide fact. Its statistics of bales count by millions; its tonnage counts by hundreds of thousands; its manufacture is reckoned by the workshops of America and Europe; its supporters are numbered by all who must thus be clothed in the world. This tremendous power has been developed in great measure by the abolition agitation, controlled by G.o.d. I believe, then, as I have already said, that G.o.d intends one of two things. He either intends to destroy the United States by this slave-power, or he intends to bless my country and the world by the unfoldings of his wisdom in this matter. I believe he will bless the world in the working out of this slavery. I rejoice, then, in the agitation which has so resulted, and will so terminate, to reveal the Bible, and bless mankind.

Your affectionate friend,

F.A. Ross.

REV. A. BLACKBURN.

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 acc.u.mulating,--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 nutsh.e.l.l; it is this:--_Shall man submit to the revealed will of G.o.d_, 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 a.s.sembly, New York, May, 1856, is this:--"G.o.d, in making all things, saw that, in the relations he would const.i.tute between himself and intelligent creatures, and among themselves, NATURAL GOOD AND EVIL would come to pa.s.s.

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 G.o.d. But the will of G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d. But if the will of G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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 n.o.body ever taught that the mere naked _will_, abstractly considered, if it could be, from the _character_ of G.o.d, was the ground of moral obligation? Nay, I think n.o.body 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 G.o.d is benevolent, or is a good G.o.d. I said _that_ in my speech quoted above. I formally stated that "_G.o.d, 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 G.o.d is and what he does_, and is, therefore, the ULTIMATE GROUND OF OBLIGATION. But Edwards holds that HUMAN REASON _must tell us who G.o.d 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 G.o.d; but I do affirm that their argument does. The matter is plain. For what is revelation? It is that G.o.d has appeared in person, and _told_ man in WORD that he is G.o.d; and _told_ him first in WORD (to be expanded in studying _creation_ and _providence_) that G.o.d 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 t.i.ttle 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 G.o.d _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 G.o.d_, PRIMARILY, as it is _expressed_ in the word of G.o.d. REVELATION does then, in that sense, FIX _obligation in the_ MERE WILL OF G.o.d; for, the moment you attempt to establish the foundation _somewhere else_, you have abandoned the ground of revelation. You have left the WILL OF G.o.d _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_.

G.o.d _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, G.o.d _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 G.o.d, obtained in THAT _some other way?_ And what is this but to make the word of G.o.d _subordinate_ to the teaching of the HUMAN HEART? And what is this but to make the WILL _of G.o.d_ 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 moons.h.i.+ne,--fog floating in German cellars from fumes of lager-beer, and moons.h.i.+ne gleaming from the imaginations of the drinkers. Some, like Socrates and Plato, will have a G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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 pa.s.sed through the shadows and the darkness, we have reached the blackness of infidelity,--blank atheism. No G.o.d--yea, all the way the "_fools_" were saying in their hearts, no G.o.d. 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, gra.s.s, 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 G.o.d is the primary foundation, reason, and standard of right and virtue, every attempt _to prove the moral perfection or attributes of G.o.d is absurd_." Here, then, Edwards believes, that, to reach the primary foundation of right and virtue, he must not take G.o.d's word as to his perfection or attributes, no matter how fully _G.o.d_ 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 G.o.d gives the PROOF ABSOLUTE, _and in a moment of time!_ "I AM THE ALMIGHTY!"

The _perfect proof_ is in THAT WORD OF G.o.d.

I might set Edwards to work to prove the _infinite wisdom_, the _infinite benevolence_, the _infinite holiness_--yea, the EXISTENCE--of G.o.d. 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, in _nature and providence_? No. I hold that such proof unfolds the _meaning_ of the FACTS declared in the WORD of G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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 pa.s.sed away. His _Faith_ is, also, not republished. The Evidences is good, like good men, notwithstanding the evil.

Letters to Rev. A. Barnes.

Introduction.

As part of the great slavery discussion, Rev. A. Barnes, of Philadelphia, published, in October, 1856, a pamphlet, ent.i.tled, "The CHURCH and SLAVERY." In this tract he invites every man to utter his views on the subject. And, setting the example, he speaks his own with the greatest freedom and honesty.

In the same freedom of speech, I have considered his views unscriptural, false, fanatical, and infidel. Therefore, while I hold him in the highest respect, esteem, and affection, as a divine and Christian gentleman, and cherish his past relations to me, yet I have in these letters written to him, and of him, just as I would have done had he lived in France or Germany, a stranger to me, and given to the world the refined scoff of the one, or the muddy transcendentalism of the other.

My first letter is merely a glance at some things in his pamphlet, in which I show wherein I agree and disagree with him,--_i.e._ in our estimate of the results of the agitation; in our views of the Declaration of Independence; in our belief of the way men are made infidels; and in our appreciation of the testimonies of past General a.s.semblies.

The other letters I will notice in similar introductions.

These letters first appeared as original contributions to the Christian Observer, published and edited by Dr. A. Converse, Philadelphia.

I take this occasion to express my regard for him, and my sense of the ability with which he has long maintained the rights and interests of the Presbyterian body, to which we both belong; and the wise and masterly way in which he has vindicated, from the Bible, the truth on the slavery question. To him, too, the public is indebted for the first exhibition of Mr. Barnes's errors in his recent tract which has called forth my reply.