[BY LADY COOK, NEE TENNESSEE CLAFLIN.]
Partiality is more frequently a misfortune than a vice. Men are partial by habit, by education, by their locality, and by the religious and social prejudices which they acquire from their infancy. With the majority it is a matter of extreme difficulty to divest themselves of erroneous ideas and misleading sympathies. They have been so used to regard things from a particular standpoint and to hear only one side of a question, that correct judgment and its consequent diffusion of justice are well nigh impossible. Whether right or wrong, they follow the old tracks, rely upon old customs, and seldom deviate much from the principles of their fathers. And the stubbornness with which they do all this generates bitter variances and perpetuates ancient wrongs. Hence a proselyte is almost as rare as if we were a nation of Gentoos, and any man who dares, however conscientiously, to become one in politics, religion, or principles is anathematised as a renegade, a heretic, or a turn coat.
We have seen men shudder at the suggestion of a change of opinion, just as they might shudder at impending disgrace. They were afraid to hear the other side, afraid to read certain books, afraid to have their ideas submitted to the conflict of reasoning and facts. And they considered this cowardly fear a proof of the strength of their convictions ! They boasted that nothing could alter them, that whatever might be said, there they stood, and would stick to their guns. What was this but stark madness, the folly of fools or lunatics ?
There are others who theoretically admit the unwisdom of one-sidedness and yet adhere to it. Some among them are constantly trumpeting aloud " Hear both sides," but when put to the practical test they still only want to hear one — their own. Satisfied that those who think with them are right, and all the rest of the world wrong, they deem it their duty to turn a deaf ear to the opinions of those apposed to them, no matter how moderately or how good-naturedly expressed. Nay, they go farther — for, as a rule, the weaker their arguments the ruder and the more violent is their opposition. They seem to adopt the old maxim of pleading : when you have no case abuse the other side. Surely this is the vainest egotism.
We call ourselves Christians because we have been brought up among those who call themselves by that name. Had we been born and bred Arabs in Arabia we should have been Mahometans, and if of some other breed in another part of the world, then something else. It is a little humiliating to think that our faith depends upon our blood or geographical distribution, and that the sublimest truths should be confined to our locality. In this most people resemble the ancient Jews. Their God was the only true God ; their faith the true faith ; they alone were God's people, and the little land of Canaan was his peculiar freehold, a holy land which it was sacrilege and perdition for the Gentiles to possess. But no Deity worthy of worship can be contained within the walls of a temple or the boundaries of a country. Neither is truth local, but universal, and may be found or missed wherever man exists.
No one can hear both sides properly unless he does it with an open mind. But impartiality is the rarest of gifts, and can only be possessed by a clear head, and a sound heart fired with a quenchless love of truth. Once these are attained the rest is easy. As Dr. South said in one of his sermons : " Impartiality strips the mind of prejudice and passion, keeps it tight and even from the bias of interest and desire ; and so presents it like a rasa tabula equally disposed to the reception of all truth. So that the soul lies prepared, and open to entertain it ; and prepossessed with nothing that can oppose or thrust it out."
A celebrated doctor, who must be nameless, being overwearied with his gigantic labors in Scriptural translation, said the other day, while in warm discussion with a notable jew : " I wish to heaven Moses had never been born." " And I," retorted the Jew, " wish the Virgin Mary had miscarried." Of course it is conceivable that either or both of these circumstances might have happened, and in such case it would be curious to speculate as to what would have been the course of human events. Neither Judaism nor Christianity have altered human nature, although they have greatly influenced a large section of human conduct. And whatever enthusiasts in either faith may think, it is a fair subject for consideration as to whether they have, on the whole, been of more benefit than injury to the world. The suggestion may not be approved by many, but then these are the people who never will hear both sides. I am convinced, however, from what we know of the general operations of the human mind and the history of mankind, that truth would have lived and been attainable by man just the same, even though Judaism and Christianity had never existed. For if Truth could be suppressed or destroyed by the accidental, then she would be unworthy of human pursuit. But, if self-contained, immortal, and unchangeable, as we believe her to be, no accident, actual or conceivable, is able to shake her power or stability.
The propriety of hearing both sides is not only an advantage to ourselves but to others also. In this way alone can we become enlightened and just. There are many social questions of great interest being discussed just now, questions which will have an important bearing on the welfare of future generations. But instead of considering them in a candid and fair spirit, with a generous willingness to listen calmly to opposite views, we see the partisans, for or against, intolerant of criticism, heated by passion, and often blind with polemical fury. We see them eager to suppress the facts against themselves, and to magnify those in their favor. Nor are people of the greatest pretensions to learning, goodwill and piety exempt from these weaknesses. In their eyes the sacredness or intended beneficence of their cause excuses everything. Thus we notice that the members of Oxford University — grave professors, clergymen, and Fellows, many of them — have determined by a majority to refuse academical degrees to the women students who have studied or qualified for them. We have not heard that they entered into any conference with these ladies to ascertain what they could urge on their own behalf. With some honorable exception, and notably among these was Dr. Temple, the Master of Trinity, they simply took an old-time view, the men's view, and put a sort of ban upon those courageous young women who are struggling hard in the face of unnecessary difficulties for the attainment of the higher education. Oxford had an opportunity to do honor to herself, and has missed it — so much the worse for Oxford.
Again, there is the drink question, a subject of momentous consequence, but not to be settled by intolerance, injustice, or compulsion on one side or the other. Teetotalers hold meetings and bolster each other up, and licensed victuallers and their friends do the same. But we never hear of both parties coming together to discuss their differences amicably, and to find a reasonable and common line of action. Neither of them wants to hear the other side, whether at their meetings or in their periodicals. But it is certain that until they do this the bitter struggle will continue.
Wherever we turn, it is just the same. The questions in which women are virtually interested are scoffed at and pooh-poohed by those men who have never studied them, and know nothing about them. The very term "women's rights," which should appeal to every man's sense of justice and to every chivalrous feeling, is a term of reproach. But men of the highest intelligence, who have approached them with an unbiassed mind, have become their warmest advocates. And if men generally would only hear both sides, the number of supporters which, in spite of all, is growing rapidly, would increase by leaps and bounds. We are very proud of our laws, and many persons think them as near perfection as can be. But the judges know otherwise. Only a few days ago Mr. Justice Mathew said at the Birmingham Assizes that the state of our criminal law was a hundred years behind the times. He pointed out that there is no court of Criminal Appeal, and in criminal charges only on one side is heard.
Audi alteram partem is an ancient but worthy motto, and applicable to every circumstance in which our judgment is concerned. Ah ! If we could only adopt it generally and adhere to it rigidly ! If we could obey the dictates of conscience, of reason, and of justice, and respond freely to our better impulses, how much wrong and misery would be avoided in the world, and what a nobler play would be given to the generous instincts of humanity. Then the Virgin of the heavens might return to earth again, and the golden age of the poets be renewed.
No comments:
Post a Comment