In 1749, Edwards explained his views on participation in the church. Church leaders disagreed with his views. There ensued negotiations about how to resolve the disagreement. Edwards described the events, discussing the problem of bias and prejudice from "diversity of religious sentiment."
Excerpts below.
"Narrative of Communion Controversy"
They then told me that before they came they had agreed to make me this offer, viz. that if I would consent to it, they would endeavor to bring the precinct to yield, that I should preach in defense of my opinion, either in lectures appointed for that end or on the sabbath, as I pleased, provided I would first draw out each sermon that I intended to preach at large, in a legible character, and give it to them, and give them opportunity to carry it to some minister, that he might see it and prepare an answer to it before I delivered it; and that then I might deliver it, if I would consent that he should, from the pulpit, deliver his answer immediately after it. I told them that, at present, I could not think it to be my duty to comply with this proposal unless it were also allowed that I should beforehand see the discourse of my antagonist, as he was to see mine, that I might stand on even ground with him.
.....
Now, though perhaps it may be disputed whether unity of sentiment in matters of religion has an equal tendency to prejudice the mind in favor of particular persons and their behavior with consanguinity, yet I suppose it to be a point beyond dispute that it has a powerful tendency; and that diversity of sentiment has an equally powerful tendency to prejudice the mind, not only against the doctrines which are opposite to them we embrace, but against the persons who introduced and maintain them.
In all ages and nations, diversity of religious sentiment has occasioned uncharitableness and censoriousness in mankind, one towards another; and the strongest prejudices which have appeared among men, have been owing to this cause.
Very often has this been true, when the difference has been in things not fundamental.
Such is the weakness of human nature on this point, that few men get the mastery of this temptation. Here and there, an eminently great man appears to have conquered its influence. Yet, even among great men, such instances are rare.
How evident is it that men of distinguished learning and talents, and of eminent piety, are often powerfully influenced by this prejudice, and that insensibly to themselves.
And if we examine the history of ages past, we shall find abundant evidence that even consanguinity itself does not render us more liable to powerful prejudices than this very cause.
The prejudices to which we are thus exposed are not merely against the persons of individuals, but against their conduct; especially against that part of their conduct which is immediately connected with their opinions, in avowing and maintaining them, and in endeavoring to introduce and propagate them.
How greatly have the members, and especially the ministers, of the Church of England, even those among them who are great and good men, been prejudiced against the persons and conduct of Dissenters; and how have they accused them of bigotry, blind zeal and perverseness.
And how fully has our liability to prejudices of this nature been exemplified of late in New England, in persons of opposite opinions, respecting the late extensive revivals of religion; how strong have been the prejudices occasioned thereby against the persons and conduct of many individuals.
Especially is this true, when the controversy about the opposite religious [opinions] is in the height of agitation.
Above all is the temptation great with respect to the individual who is the first and main occasion of the controversy, and appears as the head and spring of the whole debate, as moved and maintained in the given time and place: which is precisely my case in this existing controversy.
And the influence of this cause to bias the minds of men has been strikingly exemplified in this very case, in ministers of good characters, and such as in other respects have been very friendly to me.
Since this controversy has existed at Northampton, I have had occasion to converse with many gentlemen in the ministry, on both sides of the question; and I find a vast difference between those on one side and those on the other, in regard to their charity with respect to me and my conduct.
These on one side are more apt to give heed to reports which they have heard to my disadvantage, and to be inquiring with concern into such and such parts of my conduct. They receive with hesitation and difficulty the explanations which I give and the reasons which I offer, and entertain surmises and jealousies of my design and of the motives by which I am governed.
But with the ministers of the other side, I find nothing of this nature.
It is very obvious that the members of this church themselves are perfectly aware of the tendency of religious opinions to bias the minds of men in this very controversy.
When one of the brethren, at a late church meeting, spoke in my favor on one of the points now to be decided by the council, one of the influential members, an officer in the church and one of the church committee, rose and told the church that what that brother had said was the less to be regarded because he had manifested himself to be of my opinion with respect to the qualifications for communion.
And the public acts of this people show how fully sensible they are of the strong tendency which sameness or contrariety of opinion will have [to] prejudice ministers and churches.
To what other cause, but such a consciousness, shall we attribute the fact that they strive so laboriously and perseveringly to confine [me] exclusively, in the ultimate decision of this controversy, to judges who are now on their side of the question; and that they have hired able counsel to plead in their behalf for this very purpose.
If identity or diversity of religious sentiment has no tendency to bias the mind, why all this anxiety, and effort, and expense and struggling to confine me to judges who differ from me and agree with themselves?
As to the neighboring ministers, I sincerely profess a very honorable esteem of them, and desire to be thankful that I have lived in peace and friendship with them; and I doubt not that they are gentlemen of too much judgment and candor to regard it as a personal reflection when I suppose them, as well as others, liable to prejudices from this cause.
I presume none of us are unwilling to own that we are the subjects of the common infirmities of human nature, and doubtless we have found this the fact in so many instances, that we should in some cases not think it wisdom to trust our own hearts.
This then being so evidently the case, if the decisive council are generally of an opinion contrary to mine and the same with that of my opposers on the matter in dispute, they cannot be regarded as impartial; and of course I shall have no fair chance of justice from them, and shall not, in debating and determining the matter in controversy, stand on equal ground with the other party.
The point then is plain, beyond all question, that I ought not to be confined to such a council.
How tender does the wisdom and justice of all civilized nations teach them to be towards everyone who has a deeply interesting cause depending, with regard to the impartiality of his judges. When he has any objections against anyone proposed as a judge, how easily do they admit them, if there be the least appearance of any circumstance tending to bias and prejudice the mind.
How readily, for example, are such objections admitted against any who are nominated to be of a jury.
Local proximity, I fully admit, ought ordinarily to be regarded as a circumstance of weight in calling a council who are to be judges in a religious controversy; but in no measure of equal weight with the essential qualifications of the judges themselves.
And as to the qualifications of a judge, what is so essential as impartiality? What can be more essential in a balance, which is to determine the true weight of things, than that the scales be even?
No comments:
Post a Comment