Puritan Rhetoric: The Issue of Emotion in Religion

Strategies of Argument

Now that you have read Part One and the speeches and have answered the interrogative notes, it is time to rethink-to turn to accountyour various experiences. To facilitate this end, the Inquiry section has been designed to particularize the general thrust of our entire study concerning the issue of emotion in religion, that is, to encourage you to consider the rhetorical problems confronted by each speaker, the options available to him, the choices he makes, and the wisdom of his choices. In order that you may exploit various lines of inquiry, your attention will be directed to illustrative instances in the speeches. For example, according to our reference system, if you should encounter this bracketed information, [3:lOJ, you should turn to the tenth of the interrogative notes suffixed to the third reading, Chauncy's "Enthusiasm Described," and then should refer to the appropriate passages in the text. Our following suggestive comments and inquiries are clustered under three somewhat overlapping headings: strategies of argument, strategies of style and composition, and strategies of disposition. Strategies of Argument As our method of attack, let us consider the strategies of argument according to four criteria: consistency, clarity, persuasiveness , and modernity. Concerning the consistency and clarity of argument, both Chauncy and Gay should be given satisfactory marks. In his "Enthusiasm Described," Chauncy is basically lucid and congruous in his analysiS of the psychological nature of man [3:lOJ and of man's relationship with God [3:9]. Nevertheless, he could be charged with inconsistency of a sort: he celebrates reason and denigrates emotion, but in his efforts to make the 175 INQUIRY apposition impelling he reinforccs his logical argument with emotional elements of style and composition [3:4 and 15]. Too, he sometimes seems to use ambiguous words and phrases for their emotional values. Thus, within the context of the sermon, his assertion that "the soul is the mad' may be evocative, but it is either meaningless or it signifies that emotions do not comprise a part of man [3:12]. In his "Natural Religion," Gay discusses clearly and consistently the relationship between nature, man, and God, as well as the primacy of reason [5:9J. He does not etch sharply, however, the equation of natural vs. revealed religion, nor does he specify clearly either the extent to which one may influence his chance for salvation [5:9 and 10] or how man's basic nature is an "inclination" under control of the Understanding -a view incompatible with that of Edwards (see text in 5, immediately above placement of note no. 11). Nevertheless , while remaining respectful of the prevailing currents of Calvinism, he employs-as does Chauncy-the strategy of clear and forthright argument. On the other hand, does one always know where Edwards stands? Is his argument clear, accurate, and consistent? If not, are his aberrations unintentional? Do they represent a pattern of duplicity? Are they so significant that they call into question the validity of his case? Consider the consistency and clarity of Edwards's policies toward church membership. For nearly twenty years after he nrst went to Northampton as the handpicked assistant and future successor of his grandfather, Solomon Stoddard, he had continued to accept the open admission policies which Stoddard had long before established in the Valley. About 1744, however, during the course of serious disputes with the town over his salary and over the teenager "bad book episode," Edwards apparently shifted to the position that no one should be admitted to communion without a profession of faith and experience. For the next four years no inhabitant of the shocked and resentful town applied for admission to his church. In December 1748. when he refused membership to a candidate unwilling or unable to make a public profession, the congregation began a movement to dismiss Edwards, giving as the reason for separation: Ed- Strategies of Argument 177 wards had "departed from the principles which the great Mr. Stoddard brought in and practiced, and which he himself was settled upon, and a long time practiced." The premise upon which Stoddard had based his admissions policy was that no one could tell with certainty who were elected. In Edwards's "Distinguishing Marks" of 1741, however [2:13], he contradicted this premise of Stoddard's by offering five "certain marks" of salvation , and in his sermons on religious affections, 1742-43, he spelled out the seriousness of his split with Stoddardism...