صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

fain confine the conference entirely within the limits of their own narrow knowledge and study. The errors of conversation are almost infinite.

XXXI. By a review of such irregularities as these, you may learn to avoid those follies and pieces of ill conduct which spoil good conversation, or make it less agreeable and less useful; and by degrees you will acquire that delightful and easy manner of address and behaviour in all useful correspondences, which may render your company every where desired and beloved; and at the same time among the best of your compainions you may make the highest improvement in your own intellectual acquisitions, that the discourse of mortal creatures will allow, under all our disadvantages in this sorry state of mortality. But there is a day coming when we shall be seized away from this lower class in the school of knowledge, where we labour under the many dangers and darknesses, the errors and the incumbrances of flesh and blood, and our conversation shall be with angels, and more illuminated spirits in the upper regions of the

universe.

R

CHAPTER X.

Of disputes.

I. UNDER the general head of Conversation for the improvement of the mind, we may rank the practice of disputing; that is, when two or more persons appear to maintain different sentiments, and defend their own or oppose the other's opinion in alternate discourse by some methods of argument.

II. As these disputes often arise in good earnest, where the two contenders do really believe the different propositions which they support; so sometimes they are appointed as mere trials of skill in academies or schools, by the students: sometimes they are practised, and that with appearing fervour, in courts of judicature, by lawyers, in order to gain the fees of their different clients, while both sides perhaps are really of the same sentiment with regard to the cause which is tried.

III. In common conversation, disputes are often managed without any forms of regularity or order, and they turn to good or evil purposes, chiefly according to the temper of the disputants. They may sometimes be successful to search out truth, sometimes effectual to maintain truth, and convince the mistaken, but at other times a dispute is a mere scene of battle in order to victory and vain triumph.

IV. There are some few general rules which should be observed in all debates whatsoever, if we would find out truth, by them, or convince a friend of his error, even though they be not managed according to any settled forms of disputation: and as there are almost as many opinions and judgments of things as there are persons, so when several persons happen to meet and confer together upon any subject, they are ready to declare their different sentiments and support them by such reasonings as they are capable of. This is called debating or disputing, as is above described.

V. When persons begin a debate, they should always take care that they are agreed in some general principles or propositions, which either more nearly or remotely affect the question in hand; for otherwise they have no foundation or hope of convincing each other: they must have some common ground to stand upon while they maintain the contest.

When they find they agree in some remote propositions, then let them search farther, and enquire how near they approach to each other's sentiments; and whatsoever propositions they agree in, let these lay a foundation for the mutual hope of conviction. Hereby you will be prevented from running at every turn to some original and remote propositions and axioms, which practice both entangles and prolongs a dispute. As for instance, if there was a debate proposed betwixt a Protestant and a Papist, whether there be such a place as Purgatory? Let them remember that they both agree in this point, that Christ has made satisfaction or atonement for sin, and upon this ground let them both stand,

while they search out the controverted doctrine of Purgatory by way of conference or debate.

VI. The question should be cleared from all doubtful terms, and needless additions; and all things that belong to the question should he expressed in plain, intelligible language. This is so necessary a thing, that without it men will be exposed to such sort of ridiculous contests as was found one day between two unlearned combatants, Sartor and Sutor, who assaulted and defended the doctrine of transubstantiation with much zeal and violence; but Latino happened to come into their company, and enquiring the subject of their dispute, asked each of them what he meant by that long hard word transubstantiation. Sutor readily informed him that he understood bowing at the name of Jesus: but Sartor assured him that he meant nothing but bowing at the high altar:

No wonder then," said Latino," that you cannot agree, when you neither understand one another, nor the word about which you contend." I think the whole family of the Sartors and Sutors would be wiser if they avoided such kind of debates, till they understood the terms better. But alas! even their wives carry on such conferences; the other day one was heard in the street explaining to her less learned neighbour the meaning of metaphysical science, and she assured her that as physics were medicines for the body, so metaphysics was physic for the soul upon this they went on to dispute the point how far the divine excelled the doctor.

:

Auditum admissi risum teneatis amici ?
Ridentem dicere verum quid vetat ?

HOR.

Can it be faulty to repeat

A dialogue that walk'd the street?

Or can my gravest friends forbear

A laugh, when such disputes they hear?

VII. And not only the sense and meaning of the words used in the question should be settled and adjusted between the disputants, but the precise point of enquiry should be distinctly fixed; the question in debate should be limited precisely to its special extent, or declared to be taken in its more general sense. As for instance, if two men are contending whether civil government be of divine light or not; here it must be observed, the question is not, whether monarchy in one man, or a republic in multitudes of the people, or an aristocracy in a few of the chief, is appointed of God as necessary; but whether civil government in its most general sense, or in any form whatsoever, is derived from the will and appointment of God? Again, the point of enquiry should be limited further. Thus the question is not whether government comes from the will of God by the light of revelation, for that is granted; but whether it is derived from the will of God by the light of reason too. This sort of specification or limitation of the question, hinders and prevents the disputers from wandering away from the precise point of enquiry.

It is this trifling humour or dishonest artifice of changing the question, and wandering away from the first point of debate, which gives endless length to disputes, and causes both the disputants to part without any satisfaction. And one chief occasion of it is this; when one of the combatants feels his cause run low and fail, and is just ready to be confuted and demolished, he is

« السابقةمتابعة »