PREFACE. THE following letters are portions of discussions, which have taken place during the last eight or ten years, between the author and several of her friends, some of whom are no longer in the world.. The writer wishes to secure for the work, the interest that belongs to truth, and therefore, though much has been altered and much added, in preparing it for the public, the reader is assured, that such discussions, on such topics, and between such persons as are here introduced, have actually taken place; and that no character, circumstance or fact is introduced or alluded to, which has not a foundation in reality. The writer has had opportunities of mingling, on social and familiar terms, with persons of a great variety of moral and religious sentiments. Among all denominations of Christians, who agree in the fundamental truths of Christianity, she has found persons of intelligence, learning and piety, whose friendship has been highly prized.Among Unitarians, Universalists, Swedenborgians, and Catholics, she has found amiable, conscientious, and intelligent friends. Even among Infidels, Atheists, and entire sceptics, there have been found those, whose domes tic character, fine natural endowments, and real friendship, have been appreciated and valued as they deserved. The writer has found also among her friends, the partizans of warmly contested opinions and practices. She has mingled with the temperance advocates, and the defenders of alcoholic drinks; among abolitionists, colonizationists, and the unqualified defenders of slavery. Indeed, there are few discussions which have agitated the public mind, in which she has not heard the advocates of both sides. The result of this has been, the anxious and oft repeated inquiry, "what is the best method of promoting right intellectual views of truth and duty, and that right state of heart which will lead men to practice what they know to be right"? In answering this question, there seem to be two sets of rules that may be practised upon; one set, which if followed, will produce the most good with the least evil; and another, which will produce the most evil and the least good. The first may be called, rules founded upon Christianity and the laws of the human mind, of which the following are selected as a specimen:. As the prejudices, feelings, and bad passions of men are the greatest obstacle to correct intellectual views of truth and duty, make it a point as much as possible, to avoid all that shocks the prejudices, wounds the feelings, or excites the passions of men. Let the discussion be confined to principles, avoiding all personalities, especially in a public discussion, for it is the truth and not the combatants in whichthe public has an interest. Always give credit to an opponent for sincerity, and good motives, in all points where he professes them, until you come so near omniscience as to be able to detect exactly all the combinations of motives and feelings that may blind a man's mind. And when it is certain that a man is not honest in his professions, let the knowledge of it suffice, without broaching it to him to excite his wrath, or to the world to call for their sympathy towards him, as a denounced and injured man. Never use satire, sneers, severe rebukes, or invidious epithets, toward any man or body of men, whose intellectual views you are aiming to correct; lest a sense of injury, anger and personal ill will, blind the intellect and warp the judgment. Always be fair in stating the opinions and arguments that are to be controverted, and never allow a triumphant, self-sufficient and overbearing manner, to mar the efficacy of the arguments and facts that may be opposed. If truth demands an exposure of the evils of opinions and practices, take pains to show that all which is good and desirable, in those who advocate these opinions or practices, is understood and appreciated; thus securing the influence which true fairness and candor obtains, and preventing the feeling of unjust disparagement. At the same time, if there are evils, or mistakes, or wrong feelings and conduct, visible in the advocates of the views you defend, candidly acknowledge them, offering also the proper palliations. If one of two motives must be attributed to opponents, one bad and the other good, and it is uncertain which is the true motive, always suppose it to be the good rather than the bad one, remembering that "charity thinketh no evil, and hopeth all things." Of the second set of rules for enlightening the understanding, and influencing men to do what they know to be right, the following may serve as a specimen: First, get a man into a passion. To do this most effectually, exaggerate as much as possible, all the evils of the opinions or practices he advocates, and omit entirely all that is valuable or desirable in what he esteems and defends. Then exaggerate as much as possible, all the excellencies of your own side, and never allow that there is a single thing wrong or capable of improvement, in anything you or your party say, or feel, or do. Intimate quite openly to your opponent, that the reason why he and you differ so much is, that you have more intellect, or more freedom from prejudice, or more piety than he has. If in this process you find your opponent gets angry, assure him that he is thus excited, because his conscience tells him, that he is in the wrong and you are in the right. If the discussion is a public one, use no delicacy in spreading before the public all the facts, mistakes, imaginary bad motives, such as fear of man, prejudice, love of ease, desire of selfish gratification, pride, envy, or malice, that you may fancy can instigate him to the course he takes; especially do this, if your opponent is a professed Christian, or a minister of the gospel; at the same time contrasting his conduct and motives with his profession, in the most exaggerated colors. Always assign the worst possible motive for all you think is wrong. If in this course your opponent gets so excited at to lose his self-command, and rails at you and perhaps treats you with personal abuse, instantly assume the attitude of a persecuted man, be meek and patient, and bless while he curses, and receive his blows without returning them; thus securing the sympathy of the many, who always take the side of the suffering party, whether right or wrong. Should the discussion be one which involves great interests, so that the community are thrown into a blaze, and reason and judgment are blinded by passion in both parties, if some men of candor, kindness, discretion and piety step in, and try to soothe the combatants, and refuse to take sides with either, or to defend either, till the matter can be conducted in a more Christian manner, turn upon them and denounce them as fence-men, time-servers, dough-faces, policy-men, and any other such epithets as are calculated to make them angry, and throw them into the ranks as committed partizans. These may serve as a specimen of two sorts of rules, which the bible, observation of the laws of mind, and a view of the practices of the times, have enabled the wri ter to form. How far she has succeeded in taking the best and avoiding the worst, the public will have an opportunity of judg. ing. That she has entirely escaped from just cause of blame and complaint, in meeting the opinions and prejudices of so many different classes, she can scarcely hope. But some palliations may be offered. A writer sometimes may be misinformed, and innocently make a mistake; may sometimes use expressions so as to convey a meaning not designed; may sometimes omit what is necessary to a full view of the idea which it is intended to present; and may see things incorrectly, from want of farther investigation, or of considerations which would occur to other minds. While endeavoring to present her own views of truth and duty, and to show the evil tendencies of certain principles and opinions, the writer has most anxiously striven to avoid every thing that would needlessly irritate and offend. Should the work ever come to a second edition, the writer will have an opportunity to explain what is misunderstood; to rectify what proves to be incorrect; and to make acknowledgments where she has needlessly given offence. But as she has neither the taste nor the talents for a polemical writer, the defence of her opinions, should they need defence will be left to the many able advocates, who embrace the same sentiments, and who are better qualified to defend them. |